Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to a motion to proceed to the education flexibility bill, S. 280, and there be 30 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone tonight with 3 hours 30 minutes under his control tomorrow and 30 minutes under the control of Senator Jeffords, or his designee, and following the conclusion or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion.

Mr. LOTT. That probably would even be helpful if the Senator could do that tonight.

Mr. LOTT. Do I need to modify, then, my unanimous consent request to that effect? I don't believe I would. I will take care to make sure we get that 10 minutes designated in the balance of our request.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I need to just clarify a couple points before we begin this time. I further ask unanimous consent that before we proceed to the time designated for Senator Wellstone that Senator Kennedy have 10 minutes to make an opening statement as the manager of the legislation.

Mr. LOTT. Therefore, in light of this consent, there will be no further votes this evening. The Senate will debate the motion to proceed to the education flexibility bill this evening. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in working out this agreement. I know the Senator from Minnesota wishes to have some extended time to talk on this matter, but we have worked it out in a way he will have his time to talk, we will get the vote, and we can go on to debate the substance of this very important, broadly bipartisan supported bill. I thank Senator Daschle for his cooperation in helping make this arrangement.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Internet has arrived, and it is worldwide. Let me share a few statistics. There are an estimated 66,000 new users a day, e-commerce is growing at about 200% a year, web sites went from 10,000 to 3.2 million in just 3 years. Congress needs the Commission's recommendations, and I look forward to reviewing them.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the last Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act. it was not an easy process, and compromises were reached. In the end, the debate resulted in a bill which made a good law. It calls for a 3-year moratorium on new taxes. This was important, Mr. President. The Internet is not only a new tool of communication and information but is fast becoming the most vibrant new marketplace as America goes into the next millennium. Having said that, I am aware of the concerns expressed by those on main street as well as mayors--from Greenwood to Belzoni to Shuqualak, Mississippi--and in towns all across America.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 3. I further ask that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then proceed to the time for debate on the motion to proceed to S. 280.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take just a moment to once again express my appreciation to the leaders on the subject matter just passed overwhelmingly. The Senator from Utah, Senator Bennett, and the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, have done outstanding work. I think they have served not only the Senate but the country well by highlighting the problems in this area with Y2K, but doing it in a way that does not cause undue alarm or panic. But it has been very helpful to Senators to hear what they have had to say, both in the closed session and also here on the floor this afternoon. I believe they have contributed mightily to the prospect of us dealing much more with the problems adherent in this area and getting some results before we face the turn of the century. So I commend them for their fine work.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before we go to the yeas and nays, let me propound my unanimous consent request. We have worked this out on both sides of the aisle with the chairman of our select committee with regard to the Y2K issue and the ranking member, Senator Dodd. This will be the schedule, then, for the balance of this week and Monday and Tuesday of next week. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Monday, March 1, for a pro forma session only. Immediately following the convening on Monday, I ask that the Senate then adjourn over until 9:30 on Tuesday, March 2, and proceed immediately to consideration of S. 314, providing for small business loans regarding the year 2000 computer programs, and that there be 1 hour of debate to be equally divided between Senators Bond and Kerry of Massachusetts, with no amendments or motions in order. I further ask that the vote occur on passage of S. 314 at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, and that paragraph 4 of rule 12 be waived. I also ask that, immediately following the passage of that bill, Senator Bennett be recognized to make a motion to recess the Senate in order to allow the Senate to hear confidential information regarding the Y2K issue in S-407 of the Capitol, and I further ask the Senate stand in recess for the weekly party caucuses between the hours of 12:30 and 2:15 on Tuesday, March 2. I further ask at 2:15 on Tuesday, the Senate immediately proceed to S. Res. 7, having discharged the resolution from the Rules Committee, and there be 3 hours of debate, being equally divided between Senators Bennett and Dodd, with no amendments or motions being in order, and a vote to occur on adoption of that resolution at the conclusion or yielding back of that time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do have a unanimous consent request to propound, and I know we would, then, be prepared to go to a recorded vote. But before we do that, I want to take a moment to commend the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for the work he has done and the fact that he has been joined by the Senator from Minnesota in addressing this very important issue. I know they have been joined by a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle. This is not something new with the Senator from Arkansas. Senator Hutchinson has been trying to emphasize his concerns about the terrible human rights policies in the People's Republic of China ever since he has been in the Senate. I know he worked on it last year. He has been trying to make the point this is a serious problem, and I think the justification for this serious expression is the fact that it is still not what it should be. He has been talking about it for quite some time, as have others, and there continue to be terrible human rights violations. So I think it is appropriate that the Senate, in its second legislative action of this year, would express its very strong concern regarding this human rights situation in the People's Republic of China. I have read the resolution. I think it is well stated. And the timeliness is also very important. As we now are about to have the annual meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland, for the Senate to go on record taking a stand for this human rights position, I think, is very commendable. I am glad I have been able to work with Senator Daschle and both sides of the aisle to make it possible for us to consider this separately, to highlight the fact that we are not just sticking this on as a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in a bill, this is a Senate resolution that states clearly our concern and our position. I am very pleased to be supportive of my colleague's efforts. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in light of that order, the Senate will not be in session on Friday and will be in pro forma session only on Monday. The Senate will debate the Y2K loan program bill on Tuesday morning, with a rollcall vote on passage at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday. Therefore, the next rollcall vote will be at 10:30 on Tuesday. Following that vote, the Senate will proceed to the briefing in S-407. I want to encourage Senators to attend this briefing because it does involve very important, classified information with regard to the Y2K issue. At 2:15, the Senate will proceed to the funding resolution for the special committee on the year 2000 technology and related issues, for up to 3 hours. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation and, again, I commend those who have been involved in S. Res. 45. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The GI bill--went to college, got an education and went out and built America. That is a great investment. Any time you encourage people, young people, or military retirees to go get an education, you get your money back manyfold over. This bill requires an annual report on the impact of these programs on recruitment and retention. We don't want to just do it for the sake of doing it. We have a purpose here. We want to help these military men and women. We want to keep them in the military. I wrote a letter last summer expressing my great concern about the situation and how dangerous I thought the military readiness was becoming. I wrote that letter to the President. And yet we have continued to have increased deployments with undermanned units, spare parts shortages, recruiting shortfalls, rising accident rates, and a mass exodus of pilots in particular. So, I was expressing that concern, and hopefully it looks like it has had some impact. Because, while it really does not amount to very much, the administration has indicated they are willing to go along with some improvements, and I hope and believe the President will sign this bill when it gets to his desk. Also, a hearing that was held last fall, on September 29, before the Armed Services Committee. The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond at that time, had those hearings. The Chiefs came in and they acknowledged it. They gave the stories that really exist. They talked about the readiness shortfalls, about us having to beg and borrow for spare parts, and recruitment problems. So they signaled clearly that we had to do something. I am not going to give the statistics about what is happening for the Army. They are not meeting their recruiting goals. In my own State we have one of the proudest National Guard activities anywhere in the country, I am sure, yet now the Mississippi National Guard is having to advertise in order to get the recruits into the Mississippi National Guard. We have pilot shortages. We have ships steaming out--I believe it was the George Washington that steamed out to the Persian Gulf last May almost 1,000 sailors short of the 6,000 crew and air group personnel that are normally on board. We cannot allow these types of situations to continue. In a letter to Senator Thurmond, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I also expressed these concerns. A series of hearings on military readiness were undertaken and quickly uncovered the range of problems that the military struggled to contain in an environment of austere budgets. On September 29, we witnessed an unprecedented baring of the collective defense soul, in which every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff detailed alarming anecdotes about readiness shortfalls, about having to take from readiness and modernization accounts to fund an expanding operational role, the difficulties of recruiting in the present environment, and about the disillusionment and exodus of servicemembers after years of perceived nonsupport. In an all-volunteer force, if people don't want the job, you have a problem. This country cannot attract, and retain, the people we need to man our military today. Specifically: The Army reduced fiscal last year's recruiting goal by 12,000, and was still short of its new goal continuing an under manning condition that has existed since 1993. Not only is quantity suffering, but quality also--the Army is well below its 84 percent High School graduate benchmark. As I said, the Navy was thousands short of its recruiting target, and the aircraft carrier George Washington deployed to the Persian Gulf last May was ``almost 1,000 sailors short of the nearly 6,000 crew and air group personnel that it normally has.'' Retention problems also are occurring in our Officer corps. The Air Force is suffering what some call a ``hemorrhaging'' of its pilot corps. Air Force pilot shortages will grow to 2341 by fiscal year 2002. Army pilot inventory is approximately 15 percent short of total requirements. Navy Surface Warfare Officer Department Head tours have been extended from 36 to 44 months due to retention shortfalls. While many would attribute the current manning problems to the robust economy, I believe the situation is much more complex. We have had 3 different reviews of our national security strategy since the end of the cold war, and the end result of all these reviews has been to reduce the size of the force to where it is now--at its lowest level since before the Korean war. These reductions have not been carried out with a similar reduction in the number of missions and deployments. All of the missions performed during the cold war, be they the stationing of forces in Europe or Asia, or routine deployments at sea, are still being performed while we have had a significant growth in contingency operations. While personnel tempo has increased significantly the pay and benefits to our men and women in uniform have decreased. The pay differential between the private sector and our military has continued to grow--now at 13.5 percent; there are three different retirement systems currently in place with each one providing less than the previous one; and the medical system does not provide medical benefits to all that have earned them. Mr. President, the U.S. military is out of balance. We need to get the missions, manning, equipping, pay and benefits synchronized to enable us to continue with a quality force into the 21st century. Today we have a very bright, talented all-volunteer force, yet we cannot attract the number of individuals required to adequately support our Armed Forces. Why? We are out of balance. Too few people are being asked to do more, and spend longer periods of time away from their families. We also are mortgaging our future modernization efforts to keep readiness up. For example: ten years ago we talked about a 600-ship Navy. Today we are building only 6 to 7 ships per year or enough to keep 150 ships alive. Flying hours, steaming hours, maintenance, and spare parts are all under continued stress because of continued deployments. It all boils down to the fact that both the personnel and equipment are in a downward spiral. Our quality people are leaving and they are not being replaced. Similarly, the un-replaced worn out equipment is just becoming more worn out. The longer this spiral continues, the worse it becomes. The problem can be fixed, but the solutions will not be easy and without pain. First, it requires more discipline on part of the administration and the Congress--this country cannot continue sending our military men and women around the world on every humanitarian/peacekeeping mission--just because someone in the administration thinks it is a good idea. We have to change our approach to using the military as the world's police force. This is a philosophical problem. Remember, the reason we have a military is to defend our interests around the world--by force of arms, if necessary. Right now, we are sending our military to the four corners of the globe for noble--but wrong--reasons. Passing out food and blankets is fine and good. But what if it costs us the ability to fight and defend our interests in places where it really counts? In addition to being more disciplined, we need to add money to the defense top line for pay, training, operations, and equipment. In other words, we need a better balance between the missions, the manpower, the equipment and the defense budget than what we have today. Congress has done--and continues to do--what we can to help solve the problem. The United States is the leader of the world--freedom-wise, economically, and militarily. Our military underwrites all the rest. My concern is that we are underestimating the need for our Armed Forces in today's world and that we are not preparing to deter in tomorrow's world. The answer: increase defense spending, balance short-term needs with long-term investment, and tune today's spending to the needs of the deploying forces. It is essential that we maintain our preeminent military, however, I see it threatened by the current downward spiral in morale, personnel, and equipment that I have described. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, their highest priority was the federal government's role in maintaining a strong national defense. They did not put a price tag on America's national security. They knew there was no way to predict future threats and national trends to our country's security. If you look back at the history of our country, we have drastically reduced the size and strength of our military following a conflict. Each time we cut our defense, another trouble spot emerged and we had to build up to meet the challenge. Unfortunately, we are repeating the past, but this time it is happening on our watch. So today, I am asking my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, and the administration, to join me in passing S. 4 quickly. Lets joint together and send our men and women in uniform a message that we care about them. Lets joint together and have S. 4 ready for the President's signature on Memorial Day. This bill represents substantive efforts to increase military benefits to help the recruitment, retention, and ultimately readiness problems faced by the military. I commend Senator Warner, the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for holding his first hearing on this very important subject. The ongoing efforts by Senators Roberts and McCain reflect much of the foundation of this bill. And Senator Allard, the newly named chairman of the Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, has shown his commitment to our uniformed servicemembers through his strong support. Senator Cleland of Georgia also has provided substantive changes to this bill to make it better. I've said it earlier and the Joint Chiefs have said it at the Readiness hearings--People form the backbone of the military. We must take care of them first. The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999 is the first step that the 106th Congress can take to achieving this goal. So, I just wanted to come to the floor and take advantage of this opportunity to express my concern, to express my support for this legislation. I think this is the right way to begin this year as we look to the issues we want to address, to start off by making sure we are going to have adequate pay for our military men and women, and an adequate pension system, and begin to reduce the readiness shortfall. I think this is the proper thing to do. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have not spoken on the bill pending before us, so if I need to have time yielded, I would like to speak on this issue. Mr. President, S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999 is a much needed first step in fixing the problems of a military that I fear has been in a death spiral, quite frankly, after continued years of underfunding by the two previous administrations, both this one and the previous one. It started some 10 years ago, slowly, in the aftermath of the wall coming down and the Soviet Union being broken apart. But it has been a continuing slow process that has really started having a profound impact. Now, I must say we finally got the title correct--Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights, because I referred to it early on as the Soldiers' Bill of Rights, and I quickly heard from the marines and the airmen and the others that it is for all of our military personnel. I think this is a very important bill. It addresses key areas that really have negative effects on our military and on retention. And so right up front I congratulate the chairman of the committee, Senator Warner, from the great Commonwealth of Virginia, for his leadership. This is a perfect example of one bill that, while we were involved in the impeachment process, we had committees at work having hearings, developing legislation and, yes, in fact reporting bills. This bill was actually reported, I think, about 3 weeks ago, and a lot of thought has been given to it. I know it has bipartisan support. I know that there are Senators, such as the Senator from Georgia, who have had input in this legislation. Senator Allard, the chairman of the subcommittee has been involved; Senator Roberts has been very supportive of this concept, so I want to commend them all.

Mr. LOTT. Senator McCain obviously has been involved, and Senator Thurmond. All of the Armed Services Committee members, and members that are not on the Armed Services Committee, have been following this very closely. I know there are some who say, well, maybe we should have had more hearings or perhaps in some areas it goes too far. I just have to say I don't agree with that. Budget considerations are important, always important. Finally, we have gotten to a balanced budget, perhaps to the point where we will have some surplus, and we want to keep it that way. We want to keep moving in that direction. We want to have enough of a surplus that we can return some of the overtax back to the people who earned that money, but we must keep our military strong. If we do not raise the pay for our military men and women, they will not come to the military. They will not volunteer. If we don't fix their pension problems, they will not stay; they will leave. The pilots will leave, but even more dangerously the chiefs will leave and the sergeant majors and the master sergeants, the people who really make the military do its job, not to diminish the administration and the generals or the newly enlisted. But those people who have been in there 10, 15 years, they are going to look at this pension system as it now stands, and they are going to say, It is not worth it; I can't do it to my family, and they will get on out. This needs to be done. In my opinion, it is overdue. And at a time when we are asking more and more of our military men and women with less and less to do the job, it would be folly--in fact, it would be insanity--for us not to do this bill and do it now. We can work on some of the budget problems as we go along, but there is one thing that takes even a higher priority, in my opinion, than budgets, and that is the defense of our country. If we don't have good military men and women, good equipment, if they can't train properly, they are not going to be able to fulfill these missions that we have sent them off on around the world--the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and then, of course, we may be faced with difficult situations involving Iran and North Korea, Kosovo. Who knows. And so this bill will begin doing some of the things that should be done. It authorizes a 4.8-percent military pay raise. That seems to me to be the minimum we should do for them. It starts closing the 13.5- percent gap between military pay and the private sector wages. It reforms the military pay tables effective July 1, 2000, by targeting midcareer commissioned and noncommissioned officers, skilled specialists considering a move from the military ranks and civilian life after years of training and investment by this country into the military. Very importantly, I think it revises the military retirement system providing the option upon reaching 15 years of service of reverting to the pre-1986 plan which provided a 50-percent base multiplier and no cost-of-living allowance, COLA caps, or receiving a one-time $30,000 bonus and remaining under the REDUX plan. Perhaps you think a 50-percent base multiplier is too high. I don't. I don't. What is our own retirement percentage here in the Congress? And so I think this is a solution that will be very important and will be welcomed by our military men and women. It authorizes active duty military personnel to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan. Once again, we do. Why shouldn't they be able to do that? It encourages savings so that when they do get out, if they don't have enough from their pension, at least they will have this little Thrift Savings that they have benefited from. It has a special subsistence allowance for service members of the grade E-5, the ones I was referring to a while ago, and below who demonstrate the need for food stamps to support their families. People in America don't believe this. When I go around and I talk to constituents in my own State and tell them that once again we have the situation where we have E-5s and below in the military who are now having to go to food stamps, they don't believe it. They don't want to believe it. They want us to do something about that. This allowance would provide $180 a month and remove thousands of enlisted families from the food stamp rolls. It revises benefits under the G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery GI bill, eliminating the $1,200 contribution required of members who participate in this program, and other benefits. And we will have to look carefully at the cost and how that is going to be handled. But I think the GI bill, when we got it back in place, meant an awful lot to our military men and women. And when we look at the past half century in this country, talk to the people who really turned this country into the strength or the power that it is, it was so many of those World War II veterans who came out, such as the distinguished Senator here from the Commonwealth of Virginia----

Mr. LOTT. That is good news. I might conclude by saying I had a good discussion late yesterday afternoon with the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and he joined me in expressing the feeling this is going to have very broad bipartisan support. I am glad to hear that and I hope we can get it quickly through the other body and to the President for his signature. Thank you for your leadership, Senator Warner, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. I thank the chairman very much.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request to propound. It has been cleared with the Democratic side of the aisle, and so I would ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m. on Thursday the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 45 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration under the following limitations: 1 hour of debate equally divided between Senators Hutchinson and Wellstone, no amendment in order to the resolution or preamble; and I further ask unanimous consent that following the conclusion of the debate the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of the resolution with no intervening action or debate. I might say this is expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the human rights situation in the People's Republic of China.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, currently the House Commerce Committee is examining whether legislation is necessary to minimize the threat that a national, searchable electronic database of thousands of industrial ``worst-case accident scenarios'' will be posted on the Internet, available for searching from anywhere in the world. This information would be, as House Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley put it, a blueprint for destruction. The FBI and other public safety agencies believe that allowing this information to be posted in a national electronic database would pave the way for terrorists seeking to attack buildings in American cities. EPA has agreed not to post this data on the Internet and that private parties should not post the data, either. The issue is not whether this information is public: it is, and the FBI has suggested way to provide Americans with the information while minimizing the terrorist threat. The issue is selecting an information distribution system that does not create a targeting tool that terrorists can use to disastrous and tragic ends. However, environmental groups have threatened to use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the publicize the national database. Congress may have to act swiftly in order to address this issue before EPA receives the worst-case scenarios by the June 21 filing date. Mr. President, this is not a environmental or right-to-know issue. This is an issue of national safety, and we must treat it as just that. Congress cannot be responsible for facilitating terrorist attacks on American cities. The safety of the American people should always be Congress' top priority.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding work of the Honorable Sandra K. Stuart as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. After nearly five years in this position, Ms. Stuart is leaving government service to pursue other opportunities in the private sector. She definitely will be be missed by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I have enjoyed working with Ms. Stuart on a wide range of matters affecting the Department of Defense. I always found her to be extremely knowledgeable and very effective in representing the Department's views. Despite the sometimes contentious nature of national security matters, Ms. Stuart always maintained a friendly and constructive approach to her work which served our Nation very well. Ms. Stuart had the difficult tasks of coordinating the Department of Defense's legislative agenda. She has deftly balanced a wide range of Defense-related issues, including Bosnia, missile defense, health care, readiness, acquisition reform, and modernization. Because Ms. Stuart earned the trust and confidence of those with whom she worked, she was able to promote the Department's views very effectively in Congress. Ms. Stuart's experience with the Congress predated her current position as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. Before joining the Department of Defense in 1993, Ms. Stuart served as Chief of Staff to Representative Vic Fazio of California who recently retired from Congress. In addition to managing his Congressional staff, Ms. Stuart handled appropriations matters before the House Committee on Appropriations. Ms. Stuart's legislative experience also includes work as an Associate Staff Member of the House Budget Committee and as the Chief Legislative Assistant to Representative Bob Matsui of California. Ms. Stuart is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and attended the Monterey College of Law. She is the mother of two sons, Jay Stuart, Jr. and Timothy Scott Stuart. She is married to D. Michael Murray. Ms. Stuart earned the respect of every Member of Congress and their staffs through hard work and her straightforward nature. As she now departs to share her experience and expertise in the civilian sector, I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize her outstanding and dedicated public service and wish her all the very best in her new challenges.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is another year older and another year stronger. As Congress recognizes the third anniversary this month, it now becomes appropriate to reflect on some of the Act's goals and on some of its accomplishments. First, let me remind my colleagues that the Telecommunications Act was 10 years in the making. It took time for Congress to understand exactly what was needed to reach consensus and balance among all sectors of the industry and to update America's telecommunications public policy. Congress took a deliberate path to make sure that, at the end of the day, consumers would have new and real choices. Time is still needed before passing final judgment, but clearly the Act has produced positive, tangible results. I am proud to say that I worked closely with Senator Pressler, then the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Stevens, Senator Hollings, and others on the act. It took time, it took patience, it took compromise. But in the end, the act boldly embodied Congress' vision for competition and for choice. More choices and better choices in a new age of communication. When the act was drafted, a number of delicate balances were struck to transform our monopolistic market into many competitive ones. The bottom line for Congress was based on a simple principle: consumers benefit from competition. As simple as this sounds, creating competition in the local telephone market is a fairly complicated process. Competitive carriers require things like collocation, dialing parity and unbundled network elements. Congress knew it would not be easy. That is why the act was structured to provide a centerpiece, a set of instructions on ways for opening the local markets to force competition. Mr. President, the act is working. Americans are beginning to see the fruits of the seeds sown three years ago. Many critics point to the lack of local competition or the absence of incumbent local carriers in long distance as the only way to measure or grade the bill. This is wrong. Consumer choices, new choices, and new technologies are the true tests of success. As far as local competition goes, several state public utility commissions are working closely and collaboratively with incumbents and new entrants. A multitude of competitors have gained authority to provide local telephone service. This choice is a reality for businesses nationwide, and it will be a reality for residents too--not just for basic dial tone but for advanced services such as broadband access to the Internet. It takes significant capital and commitment to build the necessary infrastructure, but numerous companies and Wall Street are answering the challenge by investing billions of dollars to build this foundation for competition. This level of resource deployment does not happen overnight, but it is happening, and in ways Congress intended--with cable television companies revamping their networks to provide two-way telephone service and with utilities and fixed wireless companies getting into the business. In fact, I would say this shifting of assets in under three years is a fitting testament to the act's ability to move America's telecommunications policy forward--a true commitment and investment by Wall Street. Mr. President, I firmly believe the act's goals of local competition and consumer choices will be fulfilled, and America will be better off. The best way to ensure that investment continues is to keep the law in full force. When the act passed in 1996, Congress also knew that it would take a while to sort out the rules to produce local competition. More importantly, Congress knew that whatever rules the FCC adopted would be challenged in court. Congress was correct on both counts. This does not mean the law is flawed. To the contrary, this reflects the complexity of the issues and the intensity of the competition. Remember, it took a decade to write the law, and it will take time to implement it. I believe, though, that the majority of Members who worked on the act understand its success cannot be measured over a one or two year period. Courtroom battles did cloud the course toward local competition. This litigation did slow the pace for customer choice, but I am pleased to report that just 2 weeks ago the Supreme Court upheld most of the FCC's local telephone interconnection rules and affirmed that the local phone companies must open their markets in a meaningful way. It is my hope that opportunities for competition will now move forward swiftly and be afforded a proper chance to flourish in the marketplace. Mr. President, Americans today are witnessing a convergence of technologies that was but a dream in 1996. Cable lines will provide American households with local telephone service and high speed Internet access. This is good. Traditional telephone companies will offer cable video service. This is good. More Americans are using wireless phones for personal and professional convenience. This is good. More Americans have personal computers with an ever-growing range of capabilities. This is good. The Internet is exploding as a means of commerce, research, or for just saying hello to a far-away friend. This is good. Television viewing will become an interactive experience with digital transmission, enabling consumers to personalize their own video programming or to go directly to a web site. This is good. Mr. President, all of these significant and solid activities tells me something--Congress got it right 3 years ago. Patience will lead to other applications in the future that I, and some of my other colleagues, cannot even imagine right now. Mr. President, this is the kind of communications marketplace Americans deserve. During this continued period of transition, it will be important for Congress to make sure that the Federal Communications Commission is properly structured. That it has the right tools to foster and further the ongoing evolution. Chairman Kennard's analogy--old regulatory models are a thing of the past, much like the old, black rotary phones--rings true. The FCC indeed must change, and Congress should start empowering the FCC rather than criticizing its individual decisions. Mr. President, the Telecommunications Act is beginning to deliver the benefits of competition to the American consumer. The process of achieving the act's central goals is well on its way. I do not believe any of us want to turn back the clock to 1996 and take away all the new technologies, new companies, and new choices that have emerged and are now coming our way. Let's not put stumbling blocks on this path to progress. Let's keep America moving forward.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is rare for both Houses of Congress to reach a unanimous agreement--fully bipartisan legislation. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in this manner in 1996. This new law eliminated the famed Delaney Clause for residues in raw and processed foods--replacing it with a scientific, rational standard of ``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' Food and agricultural interest, as well as the pesticide industry, saw the passage of FQPA as an opportunity to assure that sound science is paramount in EPA's determinations on use of crop protection chemicals. It is worth saying it again--a scientific, rational, sound and reasonable standard. Mr. President, sound science is what the authors intended and expected. This is what Congress wanted--sound science as the rule's foundation. Further, the new law provided an additional safety factor to protect infants and children, and new ways of assessing pesticide benefits and risks. This is something Congress fully supported. Despite a unanimous Congressional vote, implementing the law at the regulatory level has been a very difficult and unnecessarily complex process. In fact, only a few months after the law was passed, the entire FQPA implementation process broke down. Members of Congress voiced their concern. The problems were so great and concerns from America's agriculture industry so substantial that Vice President Gore sent a Memorandum to both the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency on April 8, 1998. This memorandum laid out the White House's plan for getting FQPA's implementation back on track. The White House's plan for FQPA implementation contained four basic principles. It included sound science in protecting public health, regulatory transparency, reasonable transition for agriculture, and consultation with the public and other agencies. The Vice President's approach was supported by America's agriculture community. Everyone's hopes were high. Mr. President, today, almost a year after the White House got directly involved in FQPA's implementation process, it is still off track. It is becoming clear to me that Congress may again have to revisit FQPA. Mr. President, Congress wanted a law to eliminate the scientifically inadequate and outdated Delaney Clause. What Congress and the Nation got was much worse. In fact, the EPA has failed to provide scientifically sound guidance to the regulated community. The EPA approach follows a path toward great economic harm for both agricultural producers and urban users of these products--an EPA approach which is without scientific foundation. Farmers, the food industry, pest control interests, and many others are understandably concerned. Americans want and deserve a fair, workable implementation of this bipartisan law. Americans want and deserve rules that are based on real information and sound science. Americans want and deserve rules that follow the Vice President's memo. Americans want and deserve rules which fit FQPA's requirements. In order for these rules to be achieved EPA must: Allow development of the best scientific methodology and data; Base its decisions on actual pesticide uses rather than model assumptions; and Operate in an open, transparent manner to establish uniform, scientific and practical policies. Mr. President, this is simple and straightforward, and makes scientific common sense. This request is consistent with the intent of the unanimously passed law. This request is also consistent with the Vice President's memo of nearly a year ago. The requirements of the law are achievable. I have confidence that EPA can do this right--EPA just needs to take the time, invest the effort with the proper focus. EPA must recognize the problems that will be created if FQPA is improperly implemented. It is estimated that the economic impact for agricultural producers is tremendous. For just one class of chemicals being analyzed by EPA, estimates have shown a 55% yield loss in my state for corn if these products were eliminated. For cotton in Mississippi, the yield loss has been estimated at 8 percent. Crops across the United States would also be negatively impacted. However, Mr. President, FQPA is not just about farming. Poor implementation of FQPA could also have consequences in the public health area. FQPA's passage was not just about reassessing old products, it was more about getting new, safer crop protection products on the market. FQPA's passage was bipartisan & unanimous because Congress also wanted new products and a rational scientific process. One such new product intended for use on cotton is currently under review by EPA. This new cotton insecticide, PIRATE, is extremely important to Mississippi cotton producers and we need full registration of this product before the growing season this year. Mr. President, EPA must implement FQPA properly. EPA should not make any final decisions on important pesticide products until they have completely developed a clear and transparent process for implementing the law and have evaluated the impacts of product loss. With that done--FQPA will meet the expectations of Congress.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding work of the Honorable Sandra K. Stuart as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. After nearly five years in this position, Ms. Stuart is leaving government service to pursue other opportunities in the private sector. She definitely will be missed by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I have enjoyed working with Ms. Stuart on a wide range of matters affecting the Department of Defense. I always found her to be extremely knowledgeable and very effective in representing the Department's views. Despite the sometimes contentious nature of national security matters, Ms. Stuart always maintained a friendly and constructive approach to her work which served our Nation very well. Ms. Stuart had the difficult tasks of coordinating the Department of Defense's legislative agenda. She has deftly balanced a wide range of Defense-related issues, including Bosnia, missile defense, health care, readiness, acquisition reform, and modernization. Because Ms. Stuart earned the trust and confidence of those with whom she worked, she was able to promote the Department's views very effectively in Congress. Ms. Stuart's experience with the Congress predated her current position as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. Before joining the Department of Defense in 1993, Ms. Stuart served as Chief of Staff to Representative Vic Fazio of California who recently retired from Congress. In addition to managing his Congressional staff, Ms. Stuart handled appropriations matters before the House Committee on Appropriations. Ms. Stuart's legislative experience also includes work as an Associate Staff Member of the House Budget Committee and as the Chief Legislative Assistant to Representative Bob Matsui of California. Ms. Stuart is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and attended the Monterey College of Law. She is the mother of two sons, Jay Stuart, Jr. and Timothy Scott Stuart. She is married to D. Michael Murray. Ms. Stuart earned the respect of every Member of Congress and their staffs through hard work and her straightforward nature. As she now departs to share her experience and expertise in the civilian sector, I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize her outstanding and dedicated public service and wish her all the very best in her new challenges.