Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. We are trying to get final clearance on the antinepotism bill. We think there is a probability that we would not have to have a recorded vote. But that is what we are trying to do right now; we are trying to make sure everybody is satisfied with that. If we could get that cleared, move it on a voice vote, then we would have no further recorded votes tonight. We are not able to announce it at this moment, but we believe within the next 5 or 10 minutes we will be able to make that clear. I see the Senator from Vermont just came on the floor. He was one of the ones we were wanting to get some information from about the antinepotism bill, being able to take it up, and whether or not a recorded vote was going to be necessary on that.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, who has the floor? The Senator from Arizona?

Mr. LOTT. That is my intent, and, as the Senator knows, I had made a commitment earlier we were going to do that. I will keep that commitment. It is my intent to have that vote tomorrow, or the next day at the latest. We will have a vote on that nomination. I thank Senator Kyl also for his effort. I say to all Members, if they will bear with us just another 5 or 10 minutes, we will be able to make it official that we won't have a recorded vote. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, may proceed to Calendar No. 381, S. 1892, which is the antinepotism language with regard to judicial appointments, under the following limitations: No amendments in order to the bill, and debate limited on the bill to 15 minutes under the control of Senator Kyl and 30 minutes under the control of Senator Leahy or his designee. I further ask unanimous consent that following the expiration or yielding back of any debate time, the bill be read the third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LOTT

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business until 4:15 p.m. today, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader shall, no later than the close of business Thursday, October 8, proceed to executive session for the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 619, the nomination of William Fletcher. I further ask consent there be 90 minutes equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the nomination. I further ask consent that following that debate time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination and, immediately following that vote, Executive Calendar Nos. 803, 804, and 808--that is, H. Dean Buttram, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama; Inge Johnson, also to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama; and Robert Bruce King, to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit of West Virginia--and that they be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a civil action commenced in United States District Court for the District of Hawaii in July 1998. The action sought to appeal a 1993 court order in another case. The complaint named Senator Inouye as one of two defendants, apparently because of the plaintiff's dissatisfaction with Senator Inouye's casework assistance regarding certain state law violations that Hawaii harbors officials charged against the plaintiff. Shortly after the complaint was filed, and before either Senator Inouye or the other defendant had been served with the complaint, the district court dismissed the action sua sponte. The plaintiff has now appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit. This resolution would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator Inouye in this matter to move the Ninth Circuit to affirm the judgment of the district court.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today, I want to talk to my colleagues about used cars. No, I don't want to sell one, I want to talk about how my colleagues have worked to protect every American who purchases a used car. Mr. President, the Title Branding Bill that I co-authored with Senator Ford passed this chamber by unanimous consent. This significant consumer protection legislation is long overdue. It will protect you and other consumers from unknowingly buying a severely damaged auto from dishonest rebuilders. Our bill will help eliminate the growing fraud of selling rebuilt vehicles that have been ``totaled'' and then sold to consumers who are never informed of the vehicle's damage history. This deceptive practice costs Americans nearly $4 billion annually. Today, Congress has helped solve this $4 billion problem. Mr. President, here is another statistic that scares me, and should also scare our colleagues. It is estimated that each year, one million cars are totaled, rebuilt, and put back on the roads. As you go home tonight try to imagine which car around you is one of the million put back this year. Clearly Senator Ford and I have addressed an issue that affects everyone--those who buy and drive used cars and those who share the roads with them. Remember, that's one million totaled cars per year that are structurally unsafe to drive. These previously totaled cars and trucks are put back on our roads here in DC, in my home state of Mississippi, and all across the nation. Mr. President, I am pleased that some states require disclosure on a vehicle's title to indicate its damage history, however, these requirements vary from state to state. As a result, unscrupulous re- builders can take advantage of the inconsistencies in state titling procedures to obtain what are known as ``clean or washed'' titles. Adopting a uniform federal standard will eliminate this problem by closing the loopholes. In 1992, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to establish a taskforce to study the problems related to motor vehicle titling, and more importantly, the specific problems that have contributed to this serious consumer fraud. The taskforce included all stakeholders representing a wide array of interests. This diverse group provided specific recommendations that became the foundation upon which Senator Ford and I built S. 852, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act. Mr. President, our goal is simple and direct-- to protect Americans on our roads with a uniform disclosure standard. Mr. President, contrary to what some people believe, our bill is not a federal mandate on the states. The bill does not restrict the ability of states to adopt higher ``damage disclosure'' requirements. Rather this bill provides the basic minimum federal standard while giving states the necessary flexibility to adopt more regulations if they so choose. As a result of our bipartisan effort, we have a bill that I firmly believe will benefit individuals, state motor vehicle administrators, automobile dealers, insurance companies and policy holders, consumer groups, salvage yards and many others involved in used car commerce. Our bill requires that if a salvage vehicle is rebuilt, it must have a theft inspection, as well as any required state safety inspection, and a branded title must be obtained before the vehicle is considered road-worthy. In addition, all rebuilt salvage vehicles must have a decal permanently affixed to the driver's door jamb, and its window, indicating that the vehicle has been rebuilt and specifying whether the vehicle has passed an approved safety inspection. In the future, a vehicle's title will disclose the damage history with a uniform minimum standard. A brand from one state will be carried forward to any new state in which the vehicle is registered. And, irreparably damaged vehicles' Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) will be tracked to help address automobile theft. I would also like to point out that while civil damages may be recovered by those who are victims of these fraudulent schemes, this bill will not prohibit currently permitted private rights of action. Mr. President, this legislation is a major step toward reducing motor vehicle titling fraud, improving consumer protection and disclosing valuable information to every American, their families and friends about a vehicle's damage history. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, this bill has been crafted in a bipartisan fashion. I want to thank my Commerce Committee colleague from Kentucky, the Minority Whip, Senator Ford, for co-authoring this legislation with me. This bill is a fitting tribute to protect consumers as my friend retires from the Senate this year. I also greatly appreciate the support and cosponsorship of 57 of my colleagues in the Senate, including the distinguished Minority Leader, Senator Daschle. I also appreciate the efforts of Senator McCain for his stewardship as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. Additionally, I want to thank Senator Hollings for his input and contributions to this legislative approach. I also want to commend my friend and colleague from Washington State, Senator Gorton, for his diligent work over the past several months to improve this bill. Senators Levin and Feinstein also deserve recognition for their efforts to provide states with maximum flexibility. Mr. President, I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate all of my colleagues for passing this important nonpartisan measure by unanimous consent. It is another example of how this Congress can put aside partisan differences and deliver significant legislation for the American people. In this particular case, it demonstrates that my colleagues are serious about protecting American consumers from fraud. By promoting the use of a uniform disclosure standard, Congress will help put dishonest rebuilders out of business, save consumers and automobile dealers as much as $4 billion annually, and keep 1 million totaled vehicles from being put back on the road each year. I would like to take a moment and recognize a few people who made this legislative effort successful. The first is Mr. Al East of East Ford in Jackson, Mississippi. Mr. East, a past president of the Mississippi National Automobile Dealers Association, identified the problem facing consumers and dealers in my home state and across the country As an automobile dealer himself, Mr. East knows first hand the tremendous cost that title washing has on the used car industry. Al East's dedication to his clients, his community and to American automobile industry, and his work on the Board of Directors for the National Automobile Dealers Association has positively effected this much needed legislation. I also want to recognize Ruddy Dossett, of Dossett Big Four in Tupelo, Mississippi for his testimony before the Commerce Committee. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge the Congressional staff who labored on the details. They include Clay Williams and Steven Apicella from my office, Lance Bultena, Jim Drewery and Moses Boyd from the Commerce Committee, David Regan from Senator Ford's office, and Jeanne Bumpus, from Senator Gorton's office. Each made a significant and tangible contribution to the bill. Each had the used car consumer in mind as they dotted the i's and the t's. As you are aware Mr. President, the House of Representatives took up a different companion bill last year that passed by an overwhelming majority. I call upon the House to complete the legislative process by working with the Senate's conferees and by ultimately passing this important automobile titling legislation. Mr. President, I am very proud that members from both sides of the aisle are continuing to fulfill the peoples' business. By passing this title branding bill today, the Senate has taken an important step toward removing structurally unsafe cars and trucks that would otherwise share the roads with our friends, neighbors, and loved ones. On behalf of all American motorists, I thank all my colleagues for voting in favor of this important pro-consumer, anti-fraud, anti- criminal legislation.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I withhold.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 10, the financial services modernization bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge today's passage of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. This action sets America's maritime industry on the right course. It increases competition for U.S. exporters by allowing America's exporters to compete on a level playing field with foreign entities. It has been fourteen years since Congress tackled comprehensive ocean shipping reform for the commercial sector. Since most of the world's commerce travels by sea, and the industry has changed so much during that period, additional reform is long since overdue. This legislation will update, revise, and improve upon the Shipping Act of 1984. It ensures fairness for U.S. carriers and shippers by modernizing America's ocean shipping regulatory system. The Ocean Shipping Reform Act represents true compromise. This legislative effort brought together many divergent interests--parties who often do not agree with one another. As my colleagues can attest to, achieving mutually beneficial reform was not an easy task. The process was difficult and sometimes arduous. It was, however, a necessary and important legislative journey for our nation's ocean shipping industry. In the end, all affected parties rolled-up their sleeves and worked hard to develop an equitable solution. The result is a consensus bill that received the solid backing of all industry segments including U.S. shippers, American and foreign ocean carriers, ports nation-wide, and U.S. labor. The 105th Congress' passage of this compromise measure represents a milestone in maritime policy. Everyone involved can be proud of this significant accomplishment. I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the many individuals from industry and labor who participated in this endeavor. I also want to congratulate the many Senators and staff who worked on this bill. I particularly want to express my gratitude to Senator McCain, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Senator Gorton who worked diligently to deliver to the U.S. shipping industry and to all Americans real maritime reform. I also want to recognize the efforts of Chairman Shuster of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who spearheaded this reform effort in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 focuses on the needs of America's small, medium, and large shippers, carriers, U.S. ports, and on our nation's dock workers. It will ensure that the collective power of some industry elements will not be allowed to abuse other industry segments. The bill provides protection for small ports and small shippers through increased competition among shipping lines for export and import cargoes. It allows shipping lines and their customers to negotiate volume discount arrangements through the signing of confidential service contracts for transportation services without first obtaining the blessing of the shipping line conferences. This legislation gives shippers greater ability to shop around for the best rates and service from the carriers of their choice. Additionally, the bill continues current filing requirements for service contracts to provide continued FMC oversight of common carrier activities. This legislation will retain common carrier tariff publication and enforcement while eliminating the requirement to file tariffs with the government. Common carriers would be able to take advantage of available modern technology by using a World Wide Web home page or an electronic bulletin board to satisfy the tariff publication requirement. This just makes common sense. It reduces the cost of doing business while maintaining protections for small shippers. The wide availability of competitive price and service information will make for a better informed shipping consumer. The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 does much to ensure that America's presence in the shipping industry is not subjected to unfair foreign rules or discriminatory practices. The FMC's enforcement actions taken against unfair port practices in Japan illustrates the essential and unique mission that this agency performs. Even more recently, issues concerning Brazil and China have come on their radar screen. This is a function that will continue, a mission that I wholeheartedly support. This legislation will significantly change the regulatory framework governing ocean transportation. It increases shipper and carrier flexibility and competitive options, ensures tariff accuracy and fairness, produces government efficiencies and provides genuine reform to protect American interests. These changes will strengthen the ability of common carriers to market their services and makes America's shippers more competitive. The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 makes sense for American businesses and consumers alike. It will help sustain a strong and vibrant American maritime industry--fostering economic growth and enhancing our national security for years to come.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, this bill has a time agreement of no more than 6 hours. I have had indications that it could be maybe done in 3 hours or less. I understand there is only one amendment in order that may require a vote along with the passage. Therefore, additional votes are expected during today. We will try to work around scheduling conflicts. But I would expect a vote or two on this, and then for us to go to the Internet tax bill, hopefully, with votes on that. And we will also be voting, I presume, on the Internet tax bill tomorrow. And we cannot say right now, but I expect we will go beyond the normal hour of 9:30 or 10. We will work toward 12. And if we have to go beyond that, I would hope we would get cooperation because there is a meeting going on right now on the Internet tax matter with interested Senators from both sides of the aisle. We could complete that bill. And we should be prepared to stay as late as it takes to get that done. I urge the Senators that are involved in this, Senator Murkowski, Senator Feinstein, and others, if you can do it in less than 3 hours, there would be a lot of appreciation. If you can do it in an hour, hour and a half, we would appreciate it because we have a lot of work to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Under the previous provisions of the consent agreement of June 25, 1998, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate S. 1092, the Cold Bay and King Cove bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I now withdraw the motion to proceed.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this cloture vote, then, will occur on Monday. All Members will be notified as to the exact time of the vote when it becomes available. I want to say at this point, I certainly understand the concerns of the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Alabama. I have talked to them several times, and I know that they still have concerns about what is in this bill. I am assuming they will be working with the chairman of the committee and other Senators that have concerns to work something out. I believe we are at a historic point with regard to financial services. That can be completed if everybody will work together in this week that we have left. I had delayed filing cloture earlier, including Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, because there were objections on both sides of the aisle about various and sundry things, but also I wanted to give everybody time to work through their problems. I really felt like that until we pushed this forward and had the cloture on a motion to proceed, the remaining problems were not going to be worked out. I, again, call upon Senators on both sides of the aisle and the chairman and the ranking member to work with the Senators that have concerns from both parties so that we can get this completed. This is the first time we will have had major financial services reform and modernization since 1932. We need to get it done. So I hope that can be accomplished. And I urge the Senators to keep working and keep me posted on the progress that is being made. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. LOTT. In light of the objection, I now move to proceed to H.R. 10, and send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, yesterday the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, along with Senators Warner, Smith, and Kyl entered into a colloquy on the tritium provision in the pending National Defense Authorization Act Conference Committee Report. While I was not available to participate in that colloquy, I would like to make a few comments on this subject. First and foremost, the restoration of tritium production is absolutely critical. Without tritium, our entire nuclear deterrent would be left inoperable. Our nuclear warheads cannot function without replacement tritium. And time is wasting. For those who do not know, tritium is a radioactive gas that is an essential component of modern nuclear weapons. It decays at a rate of five-and-a-half percent per year, so it has to be continually replaced. We have not produced tritium in this country since 1988, when the reactors at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina were shut down. Since that time the Department of Energy has examined countless options and technologies, but has not yet selected a new source. We cannot afford to delay this program. The potential costs of delay are too great. The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, had a difficult Defense Authorization conference with the House this year. Chairman Thurmond and the other members of the Committee negotiated over 570 legislative provisions and more than 1,000 funding differences with the House. The final result was a strong bipartisan bill. In fact, for the first time in many years, all the members of the conference, both Democrats and Republicans, signed the final conference report. Tritium was one of the most difficult issues that had to be addressed. The House and Senate bills had wildly differing provisions on this topic. In addition, there was a Presidential veto threat on one of the House tritium provisions. Chairman Thurmond, as always, put all other interests aside and delivered a compromise that put the national security interests of the U.S. ahead of all other interests. I am confident that his provision will keep the tritium program moving forward. However, there remain some disagreements as to the best method to produce tritium. It's not my place to comment on that today. I will say that under this conference agreement, Energy Secretary Richardson will be required to select his preferred technology in December of this year. I expect him to meet that requirement. I might also say to Secretary Richardson that the conference report requires him to submit along with the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request, a plan to implement whichever technology he selects in December. I expect him to identify the funding requirements, schedule, and legislation necessary to restore tritium production in time to meet Defense Department requirements. In order to be credible, his implementation plan must include adequate funding in fiscal year 2000 and beyond. This matter is too important to the national security of the United States to be undermined by deficient budget requests or lack of attention on the part of DOE. Furthermore, I put my colleagues on notice that I intend to be fully engaged in the debate when this matter comes before the Senate next year. Let me assure all interested parties that I intend to ensure that only one interest will dictate the outcome of that debate--the national security interests of the United States. The safety and security of the American people require all of us to ensure that there are no further unnecessary delays--for any reason.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 10, the financial services modernization bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the end of the Cold War served to greatly reduce the threat of global instability, but the world is far from being a safe place today. Challenges to continued world peace--from increased terrorist activities to display of nuclear weapon capabilities by new countries--seem to occur weekly. To date, we have not had to face the dreaded combination of terrorists with nuclear arms, but that possibility must be considered as we evaluate new terrorist threats. Designs for crude nuclear weapons, potentially more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, are readily available today. The only hurdle for terrorists to overcome is acquisition of the plutonium or highly enriched uranium needed to build the weapon. Senator Pete Domenici, my colleague from New Mexico, has grappled with these issues for many years. He led the Senate's efforts through the U.S./Russian Agreement on Highly Enriched Uranium to secure 500 tons of this material from Russia, enough for perhaps 20,000 bombs. More recently, Senator Domenici has focused his attention on 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium that Russia has declared to be surplus; that's enough material for almost 10,000 nuclear weapons. He has led efforts to ensure that this surplus plutonium won't present us with a future threat. His trips to Russia, first last July with Senator Thompson and Senator Grams, and then more recently to the Moscow Summit, focus on this issue. Through those trips, Senator Domenici is well known to the leadership of the Russian weapon programs. His proposals for rapid progress on this surplus plutonium have been thoroughly studied throughout the world, from Japan to France. Senator Domenici discussed his proposals with President Clinton in late July and encouraged that plutonium disposition be a focus of this past Summit. The protocol on plutonium disposition at the Moscow Summit is an important first step, but it is only the first step. We have to go far beyond just signing the protocol to secure the benefits that it can provide--to ensure that the material is never rebuilt into weapons or found in the hands of terrorists or rogue states. Furthermore, the Senate needs to advise the Administration on the detailed agreements that will enable real progress. Today, I'm appointing a Senate Task Force on Plutonium Disposition to provide this input from the Senate to the Administration. I'm pleased that Senator Domenici has agreed to chair this task force, to continue his leadership on this vital topic. Also serving on the task force will be Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Senator Patty Murray of Washington. Each of these Members brings knowledge and concern that will be valuable in guiding the Senate on this issue. As agreements are finalized, the Senate may be called upon to approve programs or provide resources; we will depend on this task force to provide information for informed debates on these subjects. Disposition of the current 50 tons of Russian excess weapons-grade plutonium is an important national goal. We have a golden window of opportunity to rid the world of materials for thousands of nuclear weapons. We must seize this moment.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation allowing the President to provide direct and overt military assistance to the Iraqi opposition. This is a bipartisan initiative. I am joined by Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator McCain of Arizona, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator Helms of North Carolina, Senator Shelby of Alabama, Senator Brownback of Kansas, and Senator Kyl of Arizona. Today is the 55th day without weapons inspections in Iraq. For months, I have urged the Administration to fundamentally change its policy on Iraq. Monitoring the concealment of weapons of mass destruction is not enough. Our goal should be to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein from power. We should have no illusions. This will not be easy and it will not happen quickly. But it can happen. the U.S. has worked with Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein in the past. We can and should do so in the future. I have been working with a bipartisan group of Senators throughout much of the year to support a change in U.S. policy toward Iraq. In State Department Authorization Conference Report, $38 million is authorized for political and humanitarian support for the Iraqi opposition. In P.L. 105-174, Congress appropriated $5 million to support the political opposition and $5 million to establish Radio Free Iraq. In the Senate passed version of the Fiscal Year 1999 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, there is an additional $10 million for political support to the Iraq opposition. These steps have been important. But they are not enough. It is time to move beyond political support to direct military assistance. It is time to openly state our policy goal is the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, Iraq will pose a threat to stability in the Persian Gulf. As long as he remains in power, Iraq will pursue weapons of mass destruction programs. His record speaks for itself. The answer is not just ``containment'' or a US-led invasion. There are Iraqis willing to fight and die for the freedom of their country. There are significant portions of Iraq today which are not under the control of Saddam Hussein. Our goal should be to support Iraqi freedom fighters and expand the area under their control. I have discussed this approach with senior Administration officials. I have consulted with distinguished outside experts. I have raised this approach with heads of states and government officials from the region. I believe this approach can work. S. 2525, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, has four major components. First, it calls for a policy to seek the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime. Second, it authorizes the President to provide $2 million for broadcasting and $97 million in military aid to Iraqi opposition forces. The President is given the discretion to designate the recipients of this assistance. The military aid authority is similar to that used to support anti-narcotics operations in South America and to train and equip the Bosnian army. Third, it renews Congressional calls for an international tribunal to try Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials for war crimes. This will be a crucial step in delegitimizing his reign of terror. Finally, the bill looks toward post-Saddam Iraq and calls for a comprehensive response to the challenges of rebuilding the country devastated by decades of Saddam Hussein' rule. Similar legislation has already been introduced in the House. We will make every effort to work with the Administration to see if we can enact this legislation before we leave. We need bipartisanship now more than ever in foreign policy. This is a bipartisan approach to U.S. policy toward Iraq. We are interested in looking to the future. We are interested in protecting American interests and ensuring that Saddam Hussein can never again threaten his neighbors with military force or weapons of mass destruction. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation allowing the President to provide direct and overt military assistance to the Iraqi opposition. This is a bipartisan initiative. I am joined by Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator McCain of Arizona, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator Helms of North Carolina, Senator Shelby of Alabama, Senator Brownback of Kansas, and Senator Kyl of Arizona. Today is the 55th day without weapons inspections in Iraq. For months, I have urged the Administration to fundamentally change its policy on Iraq. Monitoring the concealment of weapons of mass destruction is not enough. Our goal should be to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein from power. We should have no illusions. This will not be easy and it will not happen quickly. But it can happen. the U.S. has worked with Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein in the past. We can and should do so in the future. I have been working with a bipartisan group of Senators throughout much of the year to support a change in U.S. policy toward Iraq. In State Department Authorization Conference Report, $38 million is authorized for political and humanitarian support for the Iraqi opposition. In P.L. 105-174, Congress appropriated $5 million to support the political opposition and $5 million to establish Radio Free Iraq. In the Senate passed version of the Fiscal Year 1999 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, there is an additional $10 million for political support to the Iraq opposition. These steps have been important. But they are not enough. It is time to move beyond political support to direct military assistance. It is time to openly state our policy goal is the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, Iraq will pose a threat to stability in the Persian Gulf. As long as he remains in power, Iraq will pursue weapons of mass destruction programs. His record speaks for itself. The answer is not just ``containment'' or a US-led invasion. There are Iraqis willing to fight and die for the freedom of their country. There are significant portions of Iraq today which are not under the control of Saddam Hussein. Our goal should be to support Iraqi freedom fighters and expand the area under their control. I have discussed this approach with senior Administration officials. I have consulted with distinguished outside experts. I have raised this approach with heads of states and government officials from the region. I believe this approach can work. S. 2525, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, has four major components. First, it calls for a policy to seek the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime. Second, it authorizes the President to provide $2 million for broadcasting and $97 million in military aid to Iraqi opposition forces. The President is given the discretion to designate the recipients of this assistance. The military aid authority is similar to that used to support anti-narcotics operations in South America and to train and equip the Bosnian army. Third, it renews Congressional calls for an international tribunal to try Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials for war crimes. This will be a crucial step in delegitimizing his reign of terror. Finally, the bill looks toward post-Saddam Iraq and calls for a comprehensive response to the challenges of rebuilding the country devastated by decades of Saddam Hussein' rule. Similar legislation has already been introduced in the House. We will make every effort to work with the Administration to see if we can enact this legislation before we leave. We need bipartisanship now more than ever in foreign policy. This is a bipartisan approach to U.S. policy toward Iraq. We are interested in looking to the future. We are interested in protecting American interests and ensuring that Saddam Hussein can never again threaten his neighbors with military force or weapons of mass destruction. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.