Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. But I do not know that we have seen the language. That is what I have to make sure of, just like you need to see----

Mr. LOTT. Of course, as far as the timing, we have Senators that are very interested in speaking on the pending matter, in addition to the ones you have mentioned. I must confess, I was a little surprised that there was a second- degree amendment offered to Abraham-Mack. I thought when we entered that earlier agreement we would have the four that were agreed to. While there was language in there that said that, I guess, relevant second degrees would be in order--or perfecting amendments--I had the impression we were kind of not going to do that. So the fact that there is now an amendment to the Abraham-Mack amendment I think puts a different spin on things. Our people need to be able to review that and speak on the second-degree amendment. In addition, I see Senator Abraham, who is the sponsor of the underlying amendment. Basically, what I am saying is, I think it is going to take more time than we had earlier thought that it might take. And then we would want to look at, are we going to have a second-degree amendment or second-degree amendments on the Murray amendment? That would certainly change the mix once again. We need to make sure we have enough time on both sides for people to speak on Lieberman and Gregg once we have seen those. Everybody is working in good faith, and it is a little complicated. We could have objections on either side about what might be offered as second-degree amendments. We have some people on both sides who are now saying they want to offer noneducation, nonrelevant amendments, and we have been trying to stay on the education issue. It has been a very healthy debate, and everybody has stayed in close touch. We would like to continue that. I have to work with some people on our side who want to offer some amendments sort of out of line. I think people not even on the committee who want to offer amendments at this point would be pushing the envelope. We ought to at least give the chairman and ranking member and people with education amendments a chance to make their pitch. So rather than take up a lot of time, I would like to talk with the Senator from Nevada about the amendments and the time that might be needed. We will try to get something worked out and come to the floor soon to get something agreed to. In the meantime, continue with the debate and we won't be losing time--valuable time, as a matter of fact.

Mr. LOTT. It may be difficult, but we can see what might be able to be done.

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If Senator Kennedy will yield under his reservation so I may respond, Senator Daschle and I have been talking about this and other issues. We do not have votes scheduled on Monday because we have some Senators who have commitments they cannot change. That is the reason we rearranged the order. Plus, we do have some Senators who want to attend the services for Cardinal O'Connor in New York City on Monday. Next week, we need to take up and consider, if possible, the Africa free trade and CBI enhancement conference report, which the House passed today by an overwhelming vote. We have to figure that into the mix during the day Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Having said that, I believe we do have some additional amendments to which we can agree. I hope Monday during the day--I assume the managers will be here--Monday afternoon we can work on those amendments, and Monday morning, if we work toward having the vote or votes, if necessary, by noon on Tuesday, then we will have the next tranche of amendments worked out. Let me say on Senator Daschle's behalf and mine, it is not easy because there are a lot of Senators on both sides who are anxious to participate, so we have to come up with some order. I got into that a little bit today with a couple of my colleagues on this side, and I know the Senator from Massachusetts was doing it on his side. We need to work with those Senators and get the next two, four--whatever we can get--agreed to and look forward to doing some of those Tuesday afternoon, and then we may have to look at moving Tuesday afternoon, perhaps, to the Africa-CBI conference report. We are going to make a good-faith effort on both sides, I am sure, to get the next tranche of amendments and look to have a vote Tuesday morning if at all possible, and I think it will be.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield? Mr. President, I assure the Senators from Nevada that we have proceeded in good faith on both sides of the aisle on this issue from day one. I have always understood how important it is and how difficult it is for the Senators from Nevada. I also understand, on the other side, how important this issue is to Senators all across America who have nuclear waste in their respective States in cooling pools or in conditions of uncertainty where something needs to be done. There will not be a surprise on this issue. If there is a decision made that we will need to reconsider, it will not be based on absentees or something of that nature. But I do think it is such an important issue and it is so close now--really 1 vote--keeping that option open for a while longer is worthwhile, but I will certainly notify Senator Reid and Senator Bryan, as I have in the past, before we proceed on it.

Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I change my vote to no, and I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which the veto message was sustained, and I send the motion to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which the veto message was sustained, and I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to express my personal disappointment that today the Senate was unable to override the President's veto of S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000. Twelve years have passed since Congress directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to take responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste created by commercial nuclear power plants and our nation's defense programs. Today, there are more than 100,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel that must be dealt with. DOE is absolutely obligated under the NWPA of 1982 to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from utility sites. Today DOE is no closer in coming up with a solution. This is unacceptable. This is in fact wrong--so say the Federal Courts. The law is clear, and DOE has not met its obligation. The President sent his message--once again he chose not to enact sound energy policy. Once again, he chose to ignore the growing energy demands of this nation. Therefore, it became Congress's duty to vote for sound science, fiscal responsibility, safety, and honoring a federal commitment to tens of millions of consumers across the nation who benefit from nuclear energy. This should be a bipartisan effort for a safe, practical and workable solution for America's spent fuel storage needs. The proper storage of spent fuel should not be a partisan issue--it is a safety issue. This bill incorporates key concepts embraced by the Congress, the Administration, and the nuclear industry. Where is the Administration? Where is DOE? Where is the solution? All of America's experience in waste management over the last 25 years of improving environmental protection has taught Congress that safe, effective waste handling practices entail using centralized, permitted, and controlled facilities to gather and manage accumulated waste. It is the goal of our nation's nuclear waste management policy to develop a specially designed disposal facility. The federal government is now 12 years behind schedule in managing nuclear waste from 140 sites in 40 states. The sites have spent fuel sitting in their ``backyard,'' and this fuel needs to be gathered and accumulated. This lack of a central storage capacity could very possibly cause the closing of several nuclear power plants. These affected plants produce nearly 20 percent of America's electricity. Closing these plants just does not make sense. This bill would permit early receipt of fuel at Yucca Mountain following issuance of a repository construction authorization by federal regulators. In the meantime, improved environmental and public safety would be provided at the site and during transportation from the states to a federal repository. The citizens, in some 100 communities where fuel is stored today, challenged the federal government to get this bill done. It is unfortunate that this goal has not yet been achieved. The nuclear industry has already committed to the federal government $16 billion exclusively for the nuclear waste management program. The nuclear industry continues to pay $700 million annually with only one- third of that amount being spent on the program. The federal government needs to honor its commitment to the American people and the power community. The federal government needs to protect those 100 communities. This bill would ensure adequate funding for the lifecycle of this program and limit the use of these funds. To ensure that the federal government meets its commitment to states and electricity consumers, it is vital that there be a mandate for completion of the nuclear waste management program--this program would give the federal government title to nuclear waste currently stored on- site at facilities across the nation, a site for permanent disposal, and a transportation infrastructure to safely move used fuel from plants to the storage facility. Mr. President, nuclear energy is a significant part of America's energy future, and must remain part of the energy mix. America needs nuclear power to maintain our secure, reliable, and affordable supplies of electricity. We have realized this year more than ever that this Administration lacks a sound energy policy. The President's veto of the Nuclear Waste Storage Act is a prime example. Mr. President, this federal foot dragging is unfortunate and unacceptable. It is in the best interest of this nation for Congress to override the President's veto. This is achievable, and I look forward to the opportunity to revisit this issue.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, Ming Chen Hsu. Last December, Ms. Hsu retired from the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), where she served as a Commissioner for nine and one-half years. Ms. Hsu was first appointed to the Commission by President George Bush and confirmed by the Senate in 1990. She was reappointed and reconfirmed in October, 1991. Many of my colleagues may not realize it, but the ocean shipping system is vital to international trade and is the underpinning for the international trade on which the vitality of our Nation's economy depends. A fair and open maritime transportation system creates business opportunities for U.S. shipping companies and provides more favorable transportation conditions for U.S. imports and exports. Ensuring a fair, open, competitive and efficient ocean transportation system is the mission of the FMC. The Commission has a number of important responsibilities under the shipping laws of the United States, including: the responsibility to ensure just and reasonable practices by the ocean common carriers, marine terminal operators, conferences, ports and ocean transportation intermediaries operating in the U.S. foreign commerce; monitor and address the laws and practices of foreign governments which could have a discriminatory or adverse impact on shipping conditions in the U.S. trades; and enforce special regulatory requirements applicable to carriers owned or controlled by foreign governments. Mr. President, for almost a decade, Ms. Hsu played an active and important role in the life and decisions of the Commission. The Commission and the Nation have been fortunate in her service. During her tenure, Ms. Hsu's experience and judgment helped guide the Commission through a number of challenges and actions which will continue to shape the work of the Commission long after her retirement. In 1998, the Congress passed and the President signed the Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA), which amended the Shipping Act of 1984, the primary shipping statute administered by the FMC. As I have said before, the OSRA signaled a paradigm shift in the conduct of the ocean liner business and its regulation by the FMC. Where ocean carrier pricing and service options were diluted by the conference system and ``me too'' requirements, an unprecedented degree of flexibility and choice will result. Where agency oversight once focused on using rigid systems of tariff and contract filing to scrutinize individual transactions, the ``big picture'' of ensuring the existence of competitive liner service by a healthy ocean carrier industry to facilitate fair and open commerce among our trading partners will become the oversight priority. This week marks the one-year anniversary of the implementation of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. It is most fitting that we take the time to remember the career of Ming Chen Hsu this week. Mr. President, Ms. Hsu clearly recognized the important change in the business and regulation by the FMC of ocean shipping brought about by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. During the Commission's consideration of regulations to implement OSRA, Ms. Hsu played a critical role in working with the other Commissioners and FMC staff to ensure that the regulations embodied the spirit of the new law. As she told a large gathering of shippers and industry representatives, ``This has been not only a long journey, but a long needed journey * * * With the passage of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act and the FMC's new regulations, I believe the maritime industry will be far less shackled by burdensome and needless regulations * * * I believe we can now look forward to an environment which gives you the freedom and flexibility to develop innovative solutions to your ever-changing ocean transportation needs.'' Ms. Hsu's wisdom and experience was also instrumental in helping the Commission navigate one the Commission's most difficult and highly- publicized actions in recent years. In 1998, the Commission took action against a series of restrictive port conditions in Japan. As a result of these conditions, both U.S. carriers and U.S. trade were burdened with unreasonably high costs and inefficiencies. Because of the Commission's action, steps were taken by Japan to initiate improvements to its port system. If ultimately realized, these improvements will substantially facilitate and benefit the ocean trade of both nations. Mr. President, during her career at the Commission, Ms. Hsu led a number of Commission initiatives. Among others, in 1992 Ms. Hsu served at the request of then FMC Chairman Christopher Koch as Investigative Officer for the Commission's Fact Finding 20. Under her leadership, the Fact Finding held numerous hearings across the United States in an effort to examine and understand the experience of shippers associations and transportation intermediaries under the Shipping Act of 1984. Fact Finding 20 ultimately led to Commission efforts to ensure that shippers associations and transportation intermediaries received all of the benefits intended by Congress in enacting the 1984 Act. Commissioner Hsu's service at the Federal Maritime Commission is just the most recent milestone in a remarkable life and career. A naturalized U.S. citizen, Ming Chen Hsu came as a student to the United States from her native Beijing, China. Prior to coming to the Commission, Ms. Hsu has had an extensive career in international trade and commerce in both the public and private sectors. She was a Vice President for International Trade for the RCA Corporation in New York, where she held a variety of executive positions in the areas of international marketing and planning. She played a pivotal role in gaining market access for RCA in China in the 1970's. She was appointed by former Governor Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey as Special Trade Representative and as Director of the State's Division of International Trade, a position she held from 1982 to 1990. In her positions with RCA and the state of New Jersey, Ms. Hsu led over thirty trade missions to countries throughout the world. Mr. President, Ms. Hsu has served on several U.S. Federal advisory committees, having been appointed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative. She is a recipient of numerous awards including the Medal of Freedom and the Eisenhower Award for Meritorious Service. She is listed in Who's Who of America. Ms. Hsu is a founding member and director of the Committee of 100, an organization of prominent Chinese Americans and is a member of the National Committee on United States-China Relations. She also serves on the National Advisory Forum to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial. Ms. Hsu is a Summa Cum Laude graduate of George Washington University and member of Phi Beta Kappa. At New York University, she was a Penfield Fellow for International Law. Ms. Hsu was the recipient of the George Washington Alumni Achievement Award in 1983 and holds several honorary degrees. Mr. President, I congratulate Ming Chen Hsu on her exemplary career at the Federal Maritime Commission and salute her contributions to the ocean transportation industry. I add my voice to those who say ``thank you'' for her service to the Nation. And finally, I wish her smooth sailing in her future endeavors.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe the pending business is the Educational Opportunities Act.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as we get ready to resume general debate on this bill, let me say again how important this issue obviously is in America. People across this country in every State put the highest priority on the need to improve the quality of our education to have safe and drug-free schools, to have accountability, to have rewards for good teachers, and have a way of making sure our education system is based on learning and that it is child centered. This legislation does that. I listened yesterday and participated in the debate. I thought there was excellent debate. A number of Senators came to the floor and made statements. I do not know how many, but probably 12 to 15 Senators spoke yesterday. There are a number of Senators on both sides who wish to speak further today. There are some legitimate disagreements about how to proceed on improving the quality of education in America and the accessibility of education. There are those who say the current system is working fine and we ought to keep it the way it is. I do not agree with that. There are people who say the Federal Government must have control and dictate or the right things will not be done by the States, the local school districts, the administrators, and the teachers. I do not agree with that. It is legitimate to have debate because we have spent billions of dollars since 1965 trying to improve the quality of education in America, and the test scores show we are, at best, holding our own and slipping in a number of critical areas. We need to think outside the box. We need to think of different and innovative ways to provide learning opportunities for our children in America. I think it calls for flexibility as to how the funds are used at the local level. I think it calls for rewards for good teachers, but accountability for all teachers and for students. I think we need some evidence, with the flexibility, that our children are actually making progress. So this is an important debate as we go forward. I am glad we are having it. We have spent a lot of our time on education this year in the Senate. We passed the education savings account bill earlier this year to allow parents to be able to save for their children's needs, with their own money, for their children K through 12. Now we are going to have this continued debate and amendments of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Later on this year, when we get to the Labor-HHS and education appropriations bill, I am sure we are going to have some good discussion about the funding level for higher education--loans, grants, the work-study program. We need the whole package to improve education and to make our children capable of competing in the world market, to be trained to do the job they need to make a good living for their families. So this is an important debate. I am glad we got an agreement to stay on general debate today. We are hoping to go forward tomorrow with the first four amendments on education, two on each side, so that we can have some legitimate debate about how to best help education in America and help learning for our children in America. But I am worried about a lot of what I am hearing. I am hearing there may be amendments to the education bill on everything from agriculture, to NCAA gambling, to campaign finance reform, to minimum wage, to guns. Where is the limit on all the subjects that could be raised on an issue that is No. 1 in the minds of the American people--education? We are not starting off by saying we are not going to do this or not going to do that. We are starting. We are going forward. We are starting in kindergarten. We are going to go to the first grade. We are going to have general debate and education amendments and take stock of where we are. If there is a center ground that must and should be found in America on any subject, it is education. What we have--the status quo--is not working well enough. The Federal Government has a role. We need for it to be a more positive role and a results-oriented role. So let's have the debate. Let's have amendments on education. I hope my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--will not make this important legislation a piece of flypaper to attract every amendment that is flying around in this Chamber. It would be a terrible discredit to a vital issue in the minds and hearts of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have asked the chairman and the ranking member to allow me to go forward briefly as we get started on this very important legislation. They have been gracious enough to allow me to do so. I first emphasize a point I think everybody understands: Elementary and secondary education is very important in America. People all over this country, in every State nationwide, believe education is the area where we must concentrate; we have to show better results; we have to have accountability; we have to have some results that show our children are actually learning. First, I will emphasize my personal background in this area. My mother was a schoolteacher for 19 years. As many schoolteachers, unfortunately, she reached a point where she needed to have more income. She wound up going into bookkeeping and radio broadcasting. I remember quite well her many years as a teacher in elementary schools in my own State. I had the opportunity, in three different positions, to work for the University of Mississippi. I worked with placement and financial aid programs; I worked as a recruiter; I worked with a work-study program; and I worked with the alumni association. I know the importance of these programs. I have always been supportive of financial aid programs from the Federal level so our children will have access to good work-study programs, to grants, to loans, so every American child has an opportunity to further their education, whether it is at a training school, community college, or a university. We have done good work in that area. I think we can truly tell students when they finish high school there will be an opportunity to get additional training or education. In one area we are still falling behind. That is in the elementary and secondary levels, K through 12. The statistics show that in world competition we do quite well in higher education, but in K through 12 we are way behind international standards in reading, and particularly in math and science. We must do more in that area. I feel strongly about that. I went to public schools all my life. My wife went to public schools. Both of our children went to public schools, from the first grade all the way through college. I want to make sure we have good, quality education in America. We have to do something about the reports such as the ones I have been reviewing this morning. According to the National Assessment of Educational Programs, 77 percent of children in high-poverty urban schools are reading below basic levels. Test scores of 12th graders in math, reading, and writing have remained stagnant or declined over the last 30 years, and our 12th graders scored near dead last in international comparisons. At the same time, we have spent billions of dollars--I think this statistic is $120 billion or more--over those past 30 years of Federal funds, not to mention what has been spent at the local and State level. Yet the scores are stagnant or have declined in critical areas including math, reading, and writing. Fourth-grade students in high- poverty schools remain two grade levels behind peers in low-poverty schools in math. In reading, they are three or four grade levels behind. Contrary to original projections, the ESEA was designed to address the achievement gap that actually is widening. There are other unacceptable statistics if we are going to have our children in a position to have learned enough to be able to compete in the world economy or whether they can even be trained to be able to get a good- paying job. A couple of years ago, I had a request from the leaders of the Silicon Valley high-tech companies to meet with me. They didn't specify what the subject matter was going to be. Of course, I thought we would talk computers, talk Internet, what do we do about taxes on the Internet, what to do about their inability to get more workers to fill the jobs they had available--basically, just a computer or high-tech discussion. Twelve of them sat around the table in my conference room. They didn't want to talk about any other subject but education. They said: We cannot get high school graduates who have the basics so we can train them in this critical high-tech industry. That applies, of course, to Silicon Valley in California and to the high-tech jobs we have in Northern Virginia as well as all over the country. In my home area of Jackson, MS, we have such companies as SkyTel, Bell South, MCI WorldCom. These companies have created a lot of jobs and great opportunities for our young people. If they don't have the basics to be trained to fill the jobs, the jobs will go unfilled or we will have to go with an H-1B program to bring in people from other countries to fill these jobs until we can improve our system of education. This is very important legislation. I hope we can debate it seriously and have amendments in the education area. Let's talk education. We may have differences, and we will have differences, about how to improve the system, but let's have that debate, let's have votes, and let's not get distracted by other irrelevant, extraneous matter. I believe Americans want that. Whether it is in my State or nationwide, polls show that American people rate their concern about the quality of education No. 1. This is a $15 billion reauthorization bill. Good work has been done by the committee. I commend Chairman Jeffords, who is on the floor, ready to proceed, and the ranking member, Senator Kennedy. They had many amendments, many of which were voted down, and some of them were adopted. Now we have the bill ready for action. Many Members have done excellent work, and we will hear from a number of them later on. I have always said that education is about learning. We need to remember that. Some people think it is about teaching, others think it is about freedom of expression, but in the end the question must be, Does the child learn? Is he or she getting what they need to do better on tests and be able to get and hold a job? In order to learn, there are basic necessities in a schoolroom. First, you have to have discipline. That has become a problem in schools all across America. If kids are squirming around or if there is disruption in class, if they are talking, if they are not behaving, if there is not a system of discipline, there is a problem with the children being able to learn. It does require good teachers. There are a lot of great teachers, a lot of teachers who should be rewarded for their good work. There are some teachers who have deficiencies, but we should not condemn them or complain about them. We should find a way to give them the opportunity to get the training they need to do a better job. In my own State, the private sector has given computers to a lot of our schools and libraries. Many of the computers are sitting in the back of classrooms or in halls in the crates they came in because the teachers have not had a training program to teach the students how to use the computers. So we need to do something about that and we are beginning to get programs developed that specifically train the teachers in what they need to know in order to make use of these computers. That is the kind of program on which we need to focus locally and in the private sector. We have one individual and his wife, natives of my State, who gave $100 million of their own personal money to, improve reading at the fourth grade level--not as a part of a Federal program, not as a part of a State program. In fact, they specifically said they didn't want to be tied to some sort of match. They wanted this money, every nickel of it, to be used for innovative efforts to train children in the fourth grade to be able to read. Certainly that is commendable. We need more of that sort of thing. We need to make sure our schools are safe. It is hard for me to believe the dangers that now go along with going to school. The juvenile justice bill had provisions that would allow assistance in dealing with alcohol abuse among our children, and drug programs. It would have authorized the use of funds to put metal detectors at schools where that might be needed. We have to make sure our schools are safe and drug free. It is still horrifying to me to think that is a problem in many schools, not just at the high school level or the middle school level but even in elementary school. What have we come to in our society that our children in the sixth grade, fifth grade, fourth grade, are tempted or involved in using drugs? We have to make sure we have programs that are aimed at stopping that. My colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, has been active in the area of trying to promote and provide assistance for drug-free schools. We must have accountability. It is not good enough any longer to put more money into programs and hope for the best. We have to see the results. There has to be a connection between the money, the teaching, what is happening in the school, and how the children are doing. It is just not acceptable any longer that our children are not getting what they need in our educational system in America. So it has to be results oriented. There has to be some way to determine if the children are getting what they need in the third or fourth grade or in the tenth grade. There must be a system of identifying what is being achieved in our educational process. There are several provisions in this particular bill on which I think we should focus and we should make sure are included in the final version. We should encourage our States to take full advantage of these. One is the so-called Teacher Empowerment Act. This gives flexibility to the States and to the local schools to use over $2 billion annually to develop high-quality professional programs to reduce class size or to fund innovative teacher programs such as teacher testing, merit-based teacher performance systems, or alternative routes to certification. In different States you have different needs. In different areas within States you have different needs. In my own State, along the gulf coast, what is needed perhaps is a greater reward for excellent teachers, or more programs for the gifted and talented. In another part of the State better reading programs might be needed. In another part there might be a need to repair the roofs. That kind of flexibility is needed, though, where the administrators, the teachers, the parents, and the children can make those decisions without some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Washington, or Senators, saying it must be used the way they say it should be used. Give them some modicum of flexibility. That is what this teacher empowerment provision of the bill would do. We have started moving in that area. A year ago, on a bipartisan basis, we passed the first Flexibility in Education Act. Now it has been expanded. I think it is showing good results. I think this bill would expand it to 15 States, and I would like that to very soon be applicable to every State. But under the Teacher Empowerment Act, States and school districts can choose to spend their money to increase the number of high-quality teachers. That seems to be such a good way to go. It is one of the provisions in this bill that I like the most. Also, we have what is known as the Straight A's provision. This has been developed by a number of Senators, but Senator Slade Gorton has worked in particular on it. Under this Straight A's provision, States or interested school districts have to establish a 5-year performance agreement with the Secretary of Education. This gets to the results- oriented and child-centered point I was making earlier. There has to be some way to say we are going to give flexibility, we are going to give additional money to use in different ways, but there have to be results. You have to show it has an impact on the children. So I think that is a very good part of this bill. The child-centered funding allows interested States and schools to use their title I dollars to establish per-pupil amounts for supplemental services for each eligible child. After all, that gets back to what I said at the beginning-- education is about learning. If that is your goal, it has to be aimed at finding ways to help the child. Maybe the traditional way we have used title I funds is not the best way for it to be used nationwide. As I said earlier, test scores would indicate that. In spite of all this money, the scores are stagnant or declining in critical areas. So that is a very important provision. Then, public school choice. Well over 5,000 title I schools have been identified as failing schools for over 2 years; over 1,000 for over 4 years, and over 100 for 10 years. What if a school is just not doing the job--it is getting the local money, getting the State money, and getting the Federal money, but it continues to fail. The child must have some choice. That is what public school choice is all about. Why should a child have to attend a school that doesn't meet his or her needs and there is a better public school right down the street in the same town? Why shouldn't parents and children be able to make that choice? I think the money should go with the child; that is who we are really trying to help. It should not be aimed at the school. If a family, for good reason, decides they want to choose a school that produces results rather than a failing school in the public school system, clearly they should have that choice. So these are just a few of the critical provisions in this legislation that I know will be discussed. There will be amendments offered. Hopefully, we will improve this bill. I understand--in fact I know--there is a bipartisan effort to try to come up with a bill that will have Republican and Democrat support. I will be very interested in developing a bipartisan bill. That is how we got the education flexibility legislation done last year. That is how we got the education savings account bill done this year. This is part of our continuing effort to focus on ways to improve education. We have to do it. In my State that has a lot of very poor schools, we have to do more. We have to do more locally, and our State legislature and our Governor just signed major education legislation making a 5-year commitment to education and to raising the salaries of our teachers to the Southeastern regional average. That is a major commitment of funds and a major commitment to education that has been expressed by my own State. I know that story is being replicated in States all across the Nation, whether it is Minnesota or Arizona, Massachusetts or Vermont, Alabama or Maine. That is as it should be. But we cannot do it with the status quo. That is what many Democrats are saying: Look, we have this program. This is the way it has been done. We have been putting billions of dollars into it, but what we need is more billions of dollars to do the same thing. I do not accept that. Education is about innovation. Technology is changing the face of the world, the face of business in America, and it will change the face of education if we will allow it to do so. So the status quo? Let's just go forward. The way it always has been in education is not the way to go. We should make genuine changes. We should give flexibility and innovation a chance in education. I believe in education we can improve our quality, and it will show results soon. We need it. We need it so more students will be able to get good-paying jobs, will be able to go into the high-tech area, or manufacturing, or the professional schools. This bill is going to be the third major step in that direction: education flexibility last year, education savings accounts earlier this year, and now basic, child-centered programs in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I hope we will have a good debate. I hope we will stay focused on education. I look forward to hearing the opening remarks of the chairman of the committee and the ranking member. Mr. President, I thank them for allowing me to go forward at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Judge Dan M. Russell, Jr., U.S. Senior District Court Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, on the occasion of national Law Day and Judge Dan M. Russell Day in Hancock County, Mississippi. I wish I could be with Judge Russell and his family, colleagues and friends today as they gather to dedicate a portrait of him which will hang in the Hancock County Courthouse in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. I want to commend Judge Russell for his many years of service on the bench and praise him for his willingness to continue to serve the Gulf Coast community, the state, and the nation as a judge. I can think of no better way to mark Law Day than by recognizing Judge Russell's distinguished service in the law, and by commemorating this service with the dedication of a portrait of him. I have the deepest admiration for Judge Russell, and this commemoration indicates the high esteem that his colleagues in the Bar have for him as well.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a subpoena in a lawsuit brought by a resident of Connecticut who has sued the Postal Service alleging discrimination in the termination of his employment with the Postal Service. The plaintiff seeks to subpoena from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman's deputy state director for constitutent services copies of casework files concerning another constitutent of the Senator's who is not a party to this lawsuit. Senator Lieberman's deputy state director for constitutent services informed the plaintiff that, out of concern for protecting the confidentiality of communications with the Senator's constituents, the Senator's policy does not permit sharing constituent files with third parties without the constituents' consent, which has not been given in this case. The plaintiff has also been advised that a search of the Senator's achieved constituent files turned up no file like that sought. Nevertheless, the plaintiff has moved to compel the production of the document he is seeking. This resolution would permit the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Senator's deputy state director for constituent services to oppose the motion to compel, and permit the submission of an affidavit describing the Senator's constituent confidentiality policy and the search for records in this case.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and the ranking member, Senator Lautenberg, for their work on the budget resolution, and for the way they have handled it throughout the process.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this cloture vote occur immediately following the vote scheduled at 12:15 on Tuesday, April 25, and the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the vote will occur at approximately 2:25 p.m., or after the 2:15 vote. On Tuesday, it is my hope that Members will allow me to vitiate the cloture vote and enter into a reasonable agreement that would allow swifter passage of the bill. Of course, I would like to continue to see if we can get agreement on alternatives or relevant amendments. On yesterday, part of our problem in getting an agreement worked out was we didn't get the chance to even look at the amendments before the end of the day. But I am still hopeful we are going to be able to come up with something that would allow us to get an agreement and vitiate this cloture vote.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this cloture vote will occur on the motion to proceed on Tuesday, April 25. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 2:15 p.m. and that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived, and I withdraw the motion to proceed.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to S.J. Res. 3, regarding the rights of crime victims.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The marriage tax penalty bill was considered by the Finance Committee, and we had amendments, including an alternative that was offered and seriously considered. The Moynihan alternative amendment has a lot of credibility to it.