Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator from Vermont will withhold briefly, I would like to go ahead and make this request. I believe we have a leadership Senator here. I would like to first ask, what is the pending question?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nominations.

Mr. LOTT. Is Senator Hatch here?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to ask for the yeas and nays en bloc on these confirmations.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know there are a number of Senators who wish to speak in morning business. After we have this en bloc vote, we will put in a time for morning business. I see Senator Specter, and Senator Stevens wants to speak, and probably Senators on the other side do. We will put in probably an hour, from 12:30 until approximately 1:30, so Senators can speak on a number of subjects.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 407, Kermit Bye to be a United States Circuit Judge, and further, that a vote occur on the nomination, immediately to be followed by a vote on Calendar No. 409, George Daniels to be a United States District Judge, and following those back-to-back votes, the President be notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we did not actually get morning business put in place. But I ask unanimous consent the clerk report the bill on education savings loans.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended until 5 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions in the following order: Senator Grassley for 20 minutes; Senator Wellstone for 20 minutes; Senator Mack for 15 minutes; Senator Domenici for 15 minutes; Senator Murkowski for 10 minutes; Senator Gorton for 5 minutes; Senator Wyden for 10 minutes; and Senator Kerrey for 20 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that following these times, the majority leader be recognized as under the provisions of the earlier agreement.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this cloture vote then will occur on Tuesday, unless we get something worked out where we could vitiate that agreement, as we did 3 weeks ago on the bankruptcy reform legislation. We had a cloture motion, we saw good faith on both sides, we got an agreement worked out, and we vitiated that vote. In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived and the cloture vote occur at 2:15 on Tuesday.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in light of the agreement, there will be no further votes today. We do have a number of Senators who have requested time during morning business, and I will have a unanimous consent on that momentarily. The Senate will be in session on Monday debating this very important issue, education, and education for our children at the 4th-grade level, the 8th-grade level, and the 10th-grade level, and the merits of being able to save a little of your own money for your own children's education. I find it hard to believe that every Democrat is going to walk down and vote against going forward on education savings accounts--I think that is going to be hard to explain--because they want to offer an unrelated, nongermane amendment. But if the Democrats are prepared to do that, then we will just have to deal with that. The next rollcall vote, however, will occur then at 2:30 on Tuesday.

Mr. LOTT. I amend my request to put it at 2:30 on Tuesday.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I hope when the Senate resumes the bill tomorrow, that all amendments will be relevant to the education savings account issue. I intend to ask that our Democratic colleagues at a later time agree to that. In the meantime, I expect vigorous discussion today about this very important education issue and how we can all have an opportunity to be helpful to our children in K through 12th grades. In light of the agreement, there will be no votes during today's session. I remind Members that a rollcall vote is scheduled to occur tomorrow at 11:30 a.m. on the Iran Nonproliferation Act. There is a likelihood that there will be more votes Thursday afternoon, perhaps on Executive Calendar items. We will notify Members of any nominations that might be considered. If votes are required, then we will notify Members on both sides of the aisle exactly what time that would occur. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. In order to keep the Senate on the subject of the education savings accounts, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be pending today for debate only.

Mr. LOTT. As we discussed earlier and agreed to, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to Calendar No. 124, S. 1134, the education savings account bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in support this morning of S. 2087, the Military Health Care Improvement Act of 2000. This is bipartisan legislation. It will begin to fulfill a promise of lifetime health care for our military men and women who sacrifice so much for our freedom. This bill begins a multiyear process to identify and correct the broken promise of lifetime health care to our military retirees and veterans. I want to emphasize that this is a reasonable and a prudent first step. It is not the end by any means. It is only the beginning of an effort to rejuvenate our defense health care system. I met an hour or so ago with the Commandant of the Marine Corps. He confirmed that this is an important part of the triad of things that we must do to reinstate the morale and recruitment and retention that we need for our military. Last year, with S. 4, we addressed two components of that triad: Pay and pension benefits. But this year defense health care is critical. The chiefs have stepped up to this issue and included in the budget what was submitted by the President significant improvements, particularly for health care for our active-duty personnel. But more needs to be done, both for the active-duty personnel, but especially for our retired military personnel. I am pleased that the Commandant and the chiefs are trying to help us in this effort, and it is going to be one of the most important things we can do this year for the military. It helps the men and women currently serving in the Armed Forces while also keeping promises to the heroes of America's storied yesterdays without which our prosperous and promising future would have never been possible. Last year, I was proud to see our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol join in significantly improving two-thirds of the triad that I referred to. I was honored to join my distinguished colleagues on the defense authorization committee in passing the largest pay hike for our uniformed military personnel since 1981. I remember very well in 1981 when President Reagan came in and said it is unconscionable that we are not paying our military personnel enough to live on. We had that period where they were having to go on food stamps and become qualified for welfare. The significant pay increase they received affected morale and helped us get our military into the position of great strength throughout the rest of the 1980s. But we have lost ground since then. With the 4.8-percent raise for our men and women in uniform last year, we narrowed the pay differential between military and the private sector, making our All Voluntary Force more attractive to America's best young people and a more viable option for quality men and women who wish to remain in uniform. Occasionally, I run across people who say, well, how is our All Volunteer Force working? Are they really able to do the jobs? We are getting the best? Sometimes I wonder. And then I have an occasion to go to a military installation to see men and women on Air Force bases--the Little Rock Air Force Base or Keesler Air Force Base, or Meridian Naval Air Station, or other military installations from South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and all across this country--to California. I am invariably impressed with the caliber of young men and women I see, the knowledge they have, the sophistication of what they have to deal with in aircraft, ships, and in weapons systems. We are doing well, but morale has suffered because of the pay and retention problem, and now health care needs that they depend on for their families. They have this additional problem now of long assignments in areas such as Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, South Korea, and around the world. They are away from their families. We run the risk of seeing our military begin to erode internally by losing these young men and women because of family needs and because of health care needs. We run the risk of not being able to retain our pilots and keep our chiefs, master sergeants, and the sergeant majors. Yes, these generals are fantastic, but who runs the Marine Corps? The sergeant major is the guy who does the work, or the woman who does the work that allows the Marines to do what they need to do. This legislation is so important. It would substantially improve the health care benefits of our service personnel. The military medical and dental care systems still do not provide benefits to all that have earned them. And it is possibly the single most important remaining item that addresses and affects the quality of life of our service members, their families, and our retirees. Today there are the same number of potential beneficiaries, approximately 8 million, as when we began the downsizing almost 10 years ago. However, the resources allocated to military health care have decreased dramatically. We can no longer squeeze blood from this stone. It is empty. Our service men and women, their families, and our retirees deserve better. The Military Health Care Improvement Act will complete the pay, benefits, and medical triad. The bill is composed of five primary components: First, it extends existing demonstration programs for the over-65 retirees until the year 2005, including programs such as the Medicare Subvention and Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. It also expands the Defense Department's national mail order pharmacy program to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, with $150 deductible. It requires the expansion of the TriCare Remote program in the continental United States for active-duty family members in the Prime Remote program and eliminates copays for TriCare Prime for active-duty family members. It also improves the business practices used in administering the TriCare program. Fourth, it expands the Department of Defense and Veterans' Administration cooperative programs, directing DOD and the VA to develop a common set of patient safety indicators for centralized tracking, and it will improve pharmaceutical safety. Finally, it will initiate two studies to access the feasibility and desirability of financing the military health care program for retirees on an accrual basis. This bill is only a start, but it is a very sure start. As with last year's efforts to improve the pay and retirement part of the quality of life triad for our military personnel, I am pleased this measure has such a broad bipartisan base of support in the Senate, particularly from my distinguished colleagues on the Senate's defense committees. Unlike several other bills that are being touted on the Hill, this bill will be fully funded in the Senate's budget resolution of fiscal year 2001. Every year, thousands of bills that would spend millions, even billions, of dollars are introduced in the Congress--and for good purpose, I am sure, almost all of them. However, at the end of the year, few of the new massive programs are passed in view of all the other needs for defense, Medicare, Social Security, education, and transportation. The key to success is ensuring that funding is included in the budget for the desired program. That is how the pay and retirement provisions of S. 4 were ultimately signed into law. That is how I hope to have the provisions of this bill signed into law. When S. 4 came up at the beginning of last year, some said: This costs too much; we will never get it done. But it was not a massive jump, it was achievable. Moving S. 4 aggressively with the authorization early in the year led to it ultimately being funded. While I support the ultimate goal of the other bills, I don't know what their final cost may be. We have had estimate ranges of $8 billion to $20 billion per year. I believe our Nation should keep its promise of lifetime health care for our military personnel. But I also believe we owe it to all America's taxpayers to ensure we know how we can best meet this commitment, and if we can. As I said earlier, this process will take a year or two or more. Many in Congress are committed to finding a way to fulfill our Nation's promise to our military members, their families, our military retirees, and veterans. What our military community doesn't need is more empty promises and unrealistic expectations; we need results. That is what this bill, S. 2087, is designed to do. It will give tangible and measurable results. The broken promise of lifetime health care for our veterans has been a haunting specter in the Halls of Congress for a number of years, and rightly so. I have been hearing concerns about this throughout my career in Congress, both the House and Senate. Of course, the problem goes back to the 1950s when changes were made that led to the problem we have now. It is time we keep that promise. This calls for concrete, bipartisan legislation that takes a discernible step forward. Our Nation's veterans deserve nothing less. They deserve health care, especially as so many World War II, Korea, and Vietnam era veterans depend on the promise of the Government of the people that they fought so hard to protect. I urge my colleagues to take a look at this legislation. I thank Senator Warner for the work he and his staff have done on this bill, as well as my staff who have worked on the Military Health Care Improvement Act of 2000. I am thankful we have a bipartisan group of Senators who have cosponsored it. I think this is achievable legislation this year. It is the beginning of keeping our promise. I commend this legislation to my colleagues. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I inform our colleagues that the managers on this legislation, the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member, Senator Moynihan, will be available at 2 o'clock and we will begin the process to consider the education savings account bill. I certainly support this legislation. It has broad support across the country. We did pass it a couple of years ago. It was vetoed by the President. But it is a bill whose time has come. People should be able to save for the education of their children, for their needs in education--whether kindergarten, 4th grade, 10th grade, or 12th grade. We need to allow parents who can and want to, to save for their needs, whether it is a computer for their child, whether tutoring, remedial assistance in reading, or whatever it may be. It is unconscionable that we can do that for a child's higher education but not for their education needs in the fourth grade. Some say it will benefit middle-income people and upper-income people who can afford to save for their children's needs. That is fine. The important thing is to help our children, all of our children, at the lowest economic level, but also to encourage savings across the board for education in general. I am glad we will have this full debate. I commend Senator Coverdell for his pertinacious support for this legislation. He is dogged. He will not quit. I predict this bill will become law. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me inquire of the parliamentary situation. Are we in a period of morning business?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, since the next order of business is the education savings account bill and those Members are currently involved in a very important Finance Committee hearing with regard to China trade, I ask that the morning business period be extended until 2 p.m. today under the same terms as previously ordered.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, I think it is important the Senate take note of the fact that for the first time in 20 years reformers may have been making some gains and that maybe internally and the way they deal with the rest of the world things may change in Iran. We hope that is the case. I ask that you join me in talking to Senator Daschle to see if we can craft some legislation that would express the resolution's views on this. Hopefully, we can also take that up, if not today, maybe later this week. I yield the floor. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. I agree. That understanding is consistent with the intent of the House, which defined ``credible information'' as such in its report.

Mr. LOTT. As a reminder to all Members, passage of this bill either by rollcall vote or voice vote is to occur in the 4 p.m. timeframe. We are trying to accommodate Senators who have a number of other meetings they need to attend, but it will be either at 4 or 4:30 at the very latest. Members will be notified, via hotline, as soon as the exact time has been determined. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this very important legislation, H.R. 1883, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 1999. Let me say at the beginning, this legislation has always had strong bipartisan support. It passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives last year by a vote of 419-0, and it has always had strong support in the Senate from Senators Lieberman, Feinstein, and Helms--a very broad, bipartisan group. I also have to acknowledge the cooperation of Senator Levin, who has been working with me on the managers' amendment. I think it is important, we now go forward with this legislation. I am pleased I have been joined in this effort by Senator Lieberman, who he is on the floor to participate in the discussion of this legislation. Senator Lieberman is a long-time expert in nonproliferation and Middle East matters, and he certainly deserves a lot of the credit for making this legislation possible. The purpose of the bill is to express once again our deep concern regarding the transfer to Iran of dangerous technology, principally from Russia, China, and North Korea, as well as from other foreign entities, and to recommend additional steps to halt this deadly trade. Again, let me go into a little history. This legislation passed the House and the Senate in 1998. The President vetoed it, but, at the request of the administration, efforts were ongoing to work with Russia. That veto was not overridden. We did not vote on it. But the hope that progress would be made has not paid off; we have not achieved the results we hoped for. You can say it was because they had changes in the leadership positions in Russia. They are trying to make progress, but the fact is, they are not making progress and this dangerous transfer of the technology that could lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons continues. This bill requires the President to report to Congress when credible information exists of a transfer of dangerous technology to Iran. The President must also inform Congress whether he has imposed certain penalties on foreign persons as a result of such transfers. If such penalties are not imposed, the President must report the reasons why he decided against taking this step. The bill will also create new incentives for the Russian aviation and space agency to cooperate with the United States in efforts to stem the proliferation of weapons technology to Iran by precluding certain payments to that agency if entities under its jurisdiction and control engage in such transfers. Think about that. The United States is assisting the Russian aviation and space agency at a time when entities under its jurisdiction may, as a matter of fact, be involved in transferring this dangerous technology to Iran. It is absurd, and the American people would rightly be horrified to find that is the case. As I noted, this bill passed the House last September by a unanimous vote, and that vote occurred despite an explicit veto threat by the President. The overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House and the strong bipartisan support the bill enjoys in the Senate underscores the seriousness with which the Congress views Iran's continued quest for long-range missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction. I can think of few international developments that would be as damaging to U.S. national security and to stability and security in the Middle East as the acquisition by Iran of long-range, nuclear-tipped missiles. We know already Iran has been the most notorious state sponsor of terrorism, including attacks on Americans, and we know Iran remains a steadfast opponent of peace between Israel and her neighbors, and Iran supports those whose violence is aimed at undermining prospects for a genuine lasting peace. Some of our colleagues might observe that they had elections in Iran last week, and I believe those elections continue now. It appears reformers have been making some gains. That may be the situation in Iran, and the relations with Iran will change as a result of that. Let me assure my colleagues that the danger is still there. Those who are in charge of this nuclear proliferation in Iran have a very strong grip on what is being done, and there is very little likelihood they are going to let go of it anytime soon, in spite of what appears to be encouraging election returns. In fact, one can argue that to continue to send a strong signal against Iran's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction actually bolsters the reformers in their efforts to change the approach of Iran, both internally and externally. While we are pleased to see what appears to be encouraging results-- and I think the Senate should express itself on that, and I will suggest to the Democratic leadership we perhaps have a resolution acknowledging what has happened there and are hopeful about what that may mean--I do not think by any stretch of the imagination that should lead us to think everything is going to change immediately and we should not go forward with this very important legislation. If my colleagues think about it, it is quite scary: Iran's leaders, now and in the future, will be in possession of nuclear-tipped ICBMs capable of reaching Washington or Los Angeles or New York. America's security and that of our friends and allies in the region will be unalterably affected by such a horrific development. Yet that day of reckoning is coming and much sooner than we prefer, unless something is done to stop the transfer of this technology and other forms of assistance to Iran by Russia, in particular, but also by China and North Korea. My colleagues will recall we have been working on this for 3 or 4 years. We have tried mightily to be of help to the administration in trying to put pressure on Russia in particular, but that strategy has failed to slow the flow of this dangerous technology. Let me point out what CIA Director George Tenet said recently in a report to Congress on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction over the previous 6-month period. In that report, Director Tenet wrote: Entities in Russia and China continued to supply a considerable amount and a wide variety of ballistic missile- related goods and technology to Iran. The report also stated: Iran's earlier success in gaining technology and materials from Russian companies accelerated Iranian [missile] development. Director Tenet also noted: Russian entities continued to interact with Iranian research centers on various [nuclear] activities. These projects will help Iran augment its nuclear technology infrastructure, which in turn would be useful in supporting nuclear weapons research and development. The report also highlighted China's development in their programs. For example, the report stated: Firms in China provided missile-related items, raw materials, and/or assistance to . . . Iran. I had occasion to meet personally with Director Tenet recently because I wanted to hear what information he had that he could provide to me and other Senators who wished to have a private briefing about what is going on in this area, and also to discuss the recent U.S. counterterrorism activities. Director Tenet reaffirmed that the flow of dangerous technology to Iran from Russia and China is, in fact, continuing and on a significant scale. It has not dropped. If anything, it has become worse. I urge those Senators who have not had a chance to review this classified record to go up to room S-407 to get this briefing. It is a sobering reminder that despite the end of the cold war, serious threats to U.S. security and our critical allies around the world remain. I commend Director Tenet and the entire U.S. intelligence community for their heroic efforts to uncover the truth about these dangerous transfers. What makes the intelligence community's successes so much more astounding is that they come in spite of significant denial and deception by Russia, China, and others. Director Tenet's report underscores the administration's current strategy for dealing with this growing problem. I know they worked at it. I discussed this with National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. They have tried. They acknowledged it has been difficult. They have had to deal with changing people and the laws in Russia, of while their intentions, as they provide them to us verbally, appear to be in the right direction, the results are just not there. The administration had hoped that by engaging Russia, China, and North Korea in a dialog, they could persuade those nations to cease and desist from their provocative behavior. The administration, I understand, did get the Russian Government to take some steps, such as adoption of export control law and regulations, but despite this fact, not a single Russian has been successfully prosecuted for transferring weapons of mass destruction or missile technology to Iran. Not one. I repeat, the intelligence we get is it is probably growing worse. So action against an individual, action against companies or academicians and professors, if there is anything in that nature going on, we do not see any results. Thus, it appears the Russian Government either supports this clandestine transfer of dangerous technology to Iran or is unwilling to take strong necessary steps to halt it. The same can be said for the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea; therefore, I join with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in believing that it is time to send a strong signal to the administration but, more importantly, to Russia, China, and North Korea, and to other countries that may be contemplating the transfer of this dangerous technology to Iran, or to Iraq, for that matter. The message is simple: The Congress and the American people are not content with the status quo. We are not content with the dialog that produces even more promises on the one hand and scant or no real reduction in the flow of technology on the other. Some might say this bill is not strong enough, and I would be hard pressed to disagree with that. I would prefer it to be even stronger. After all, the bill provides the President with the authority to impose sanctions, but it does not require them. We may want to look at doing that if we do not see some changes. If we do not see some actions by the administration, if we do not see some actions being taken to impose sanctions, then we may want to go that next step. I believe bolder action is going to be needed, that this will not be enough. It is a signal that is worth providing at this time. Because of its strong bipartisan support and because I believe it will become law, I am willing to go forward with it in this fashion at this time. The bill before us now reflects a continuing commitment in both parties to take a tough stand in the fight against nuclear proliferation. With this in mind, I urge the President not to veto this bipartisan bill but instead to sign it into law as soon as it lands on his desk. Again, I thank Senator Lieberman, Senator Helms, and the many other Senators who are involved in the process of crafting this important legislation. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1883, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.