Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I was somewhat hesitant to speak at this time because I didn't in any way want to make this a partisan series of speeches, but my effort here and my intent is to make it totally nonpartisan and bipartisan. I won't say anything today about the specifics of the substance that the Senator from Connecticut addressed. I made my comments on this subject on Monday of this week at a press conference down the hall. But I listened carefully, very intently to what the Senator from Connecticut had to say. I don't think there was very much more or less in what he had to say than what I had said earlier. I think our desire and intent, and our wishes and hopes are both the same. Instead, I want to talk today about the Senator from Connecticut. I expected no less than this from him. He is truly one of the Senators in this body that is always standing for the right thing, trying to make sure that we do have a moral compass as individuals, as an institution. I knew that at some point he would rise and put it all into the proper perspective and that he would not go too far, that he would make us stop and think--not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Senators and Americans--about the seriousness and the difficulties that have been caused by this situation. So I want to thank the Senator from Connecticut for what he had to say, and what he has had to say on many other occasions on other subjects, and for the leadership he has provided on children and the violence and the filth they are being exposed to, and the leadership and pressure he has exerted to try to get us as a country and those involved directly in providing those films, those scenes, to do something about it. So I thank him. I know it was not easy. I know he has taken time to think about it and pray about it for over about 3 weeks now. I know there was probably a lot of reason not to say anything. But I also know that his conscience dictated that he had to express himself. I commend him for it and I thank him for it. I also appreciate the fact that Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and the Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, would come here and lend his support to what the Senator from Connecticut had to say. This very day, I had lunch with the Senator from New York. Maybe the American people do not realize that we are friends off this floor and that we enjoy each other's company. And we do travel together. We get to be together with our wives and sometimes even our children. But today at lunch, with Senator Mack of Florida, Senator Roth of Delaware, we were joined by the Senator from New York. We talked about the very serious situation in Russia. Every time he joins us, I immediately want to raise a part of the world and say, ``What about India and Pakistan?'' or ``What about that country or this situation?'' He is such a fountain of knowledge and has a wealth of experience and a tremendous understanding of history and people. I found it very informative, and I have been dwelling on what he had to say about Russia this afternoon. I think at times like this, when our Constitution is going to be reviewed again as to what it means and when we are going to have to make decisions about what to do when we are presented with a set of facts--which may be nothing--it is going to be so important that there are some men and women on both sides of the aisle in this body, and in the other body, that can reach across the aisle and say, ``What do we do?'' and, most important, ``What is best for our country?'' With these men, and with others in this Chamber here today such as Senator Hatch, Senator Coats, Senator Nickles, and the great Strom Thurmond, I am sure we will find a way to rise above petty politics and do the right thing, and Senator Lieberman will lead the way. I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to S. 1301, the bankruptcy bill.

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 ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 3, 1998, at 10 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony on Department of Energy low level waste disposal practices.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. In light of the objection, I now move to proceed to S. 1873 and send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn to Calendar No. 345, S. 1873, the missile defense bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I speak, I am sure, for the entire Senate in extending congratulations to Senator Thurmond, a great Senator from South Carolina, for having just cast his 15,000th vote in this Chamber. An occasion like this reminds us of the continuity and the stability which the framers of the Constitution sought to establish in the Senate. I am sure that they had Senator Strom Thurmond in mind when they sought that. In the person of Senator Thurmond their intent was most notably fulfilled. I am sure that if our distinguished President pro tempore were to ask which of those 15,000 votes he considers his most important, he would probably respond, even though I am sure he was proud of the vote he just cast, that the most important one is the next vote, for Strom always looks ahead. Today, we join him in looking ahead, not recounting the tremendous record that he sets with this vote and all the votes of the past but, rather, counting on his future votes for what is good and right for the country he has served so long. Madam President, this is a milestone. This is a magnificent gentleman who brings tremendous credit to his constituency, his State, to the U.S. Senate, and to America. I am very proud to call him a colleague and to commend him for this 15,000th vote he has just cast. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I know other Senators may want to speak briefly also on this subject.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the case of Rose Larker, et al. v. Kevin A. Carias-Herrera, et al., pending in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, involves claims of personal injury by the named plaintiff, a former employee of the Sergeant at Arms who worked in Environmental Services. The defendant in this case has issued a subpoena for documents to the Senate Sergeant at Arms. The enclosed resolution would authorize the Sergeant at Arms to produce such documents. It would also authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Sergeant at Arms in connection with the production of such documents.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, we do have an amendment on which we are ready to vote. After brief remarks, I believe we will be prepared to go to a vote on that amendment. We will then go to the low-level waste compact between Texas, Maine and Vermont. I believe the vote will be on that tomorrow morning. There will be some time before the vote, but I believe it is 30 minutes equally divided, or I hope that will be the time for a recorded vote. Before we vote, though, I do want to urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. First, there is no treaty to monitor, and there will not be one in the foreseeable future. Until all 44 specified nations ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it will not enter into force. So to be providing funds before we have anything to monitor seems very questionable to me. We have not acted on this treaty. And certainly something of this magnitude should be given very serious, careful and extensive thought by the committee of jurisdiction and by the full Senate. We should not provide the funding that prejudges whatever the Senate may or may not do before it takes up the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Beyond that, I have grave reservations, I admit, about whether the CTBT is in America's national interest. I am not convinced it is effectively verifiable. I am convinced it will limit our ability to maintain the safety and reliability of our vital nuclear deterrent. There are strong signs that India's decision to test nuclear weapons was, in part, a response to pressure to sign the CTBT. Ironically, the most tangible result of this treaty seems to be a nuclear arms race in Southeast Asia. So I just think this is not the time or the place to debate this treaty. Anything less than 67 votes in support of this amendment will send a strong signal that the Senate is prepared to reject this treaty. So I question even the proponents of the treaty wanting to do this at this particular time. Whatever the arguments for or against the treaty, putting millions in this organization does not make sense at this time. So I urge the defeat of this amendment. I yield the floor, Mr. President. I believe we are prepared to go to the vote. (At the request of Mr. Lott, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this is to advise the Senate that Virginia's senior Senator, John Warner, is unable to make votes today because of work he is undertaking for the Senate Armed Services Committee. As second senior member of the committee, Senator Warner has met with senior U.S. military officials and government representatives in Bosnia, Serbia, and Macedonia. Senator Warner traveled to Sarajevo, Belgrade, Skopje, and Pristina in Kosovo. His travel and briefings included field visits as well. Senator Warner is compiling a first-hand assessment for the Armed Services Committee of the military and political situation in this troubled and war-torn region of the world. He is scheduled to return later today.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield time to myself off the time for the conference report and observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, today I would like to share a few details about S. 852, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act. As you are well aware, Senator Ford and I co-authored and introduced S. 852 to protect the hundreds of thousands of American consumers who fall prey to unscrupulous auto rebuilders who conceal damage information from prospective car buyers. Equally important are the millions of us who share the roads with previously totaled automobiles and trucks sold as undamaged vehicles. This type of fraud is a national travesty that puts America's motorists and passengers in great peril. It can and must be stopped by this Congress. S. 852 is the right vehicle for Congressional action. It is a balanced consumer protection bill that has received significant support in the United States Senate. In fact, 54 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle are cosponsors of S. 852. They recognize that the only individuals who stand to lose from this legislation are the chop shop owners and other charlatans who victimize our nation's drivers by selling them what is tantamount to ``garbage on wheels.'' The time has come to eliminate the practice of vehicle title laundering, a scam that costs American consumers and the auto industry more than $4 billion each year. And, there are plenty of horror stories where individuals have been injured or killed in a wreck involving a structurally unsafe vehicle that was sold to the unsuspecting victims as undamaged. Every year more than one-half of the 2.5 million totaled vehicles are rebuilt and placed back on our nation's roads and highways. As a result of titling loopholes, crooks and con artists are able to sell many of these vehicles without disclosing the vehicles' damage histories. In some states, as many as seventy percent of all totaled vehicles are sold to unsuspecting buyers with ``clean titles.'' Clearly, the status quo is not working. There are 2.5 million reasons why S. 852 is needed now. While most states do require some type of disclosure on a vehicle's title to indicate its history, the fact remains that titling requirements vary from state to state. The existing hodgepodge of state laws allows unscrupulous rebuilders to profit from inconsistent state titling procedures. Even when a vehicle has been totaled, swindlers are able to ``wash'' the titles so they bear no indication of the vehicle's structural damage. This is achieved by simply retitling a severely damaged vehicle in another state so the car or truck's damage history will not appear on the vehicle's new title. S. 852 would help eliminate this type of fraud by requiring accurate information about a vehicle's damage history to be branded on a title, and subsequent titles, for the life of the vehicle. Let me say it clearly. S. 852 is an anti-fraud, anti-criminal, pro- consumer piece of legislation. I would also like to point out that while S. 852 establishes a much needed uniform standard to protect America's motorists, it does not create a federal mandate. Instead, the bill establishes a uniform baseline. States are free, as they should be, to adopt more stringent disclosure requirements or to choose not to participate at all. Even so, I believe the minimum disclosure requirements contained in S. 852 will go a long way toward protecting used car buyers, automobile dealers, insurance companies and policy holders, consumer advocacy groups, salvage dealers, and everyone who travels on our nation's roads. This legislation applies to seven model years of vehicles. Those vehicles with a pre-accident value of more than $7,500, regardless of their age, would also be subjected to the bill's branding requirements. I am also pleased to report that Senator Gorton and I recently reached an agreement with state attorneys general, after extensive discussion and negotiation, which authorizes states to cover any vehicle, regardless of age. Consequently, concerns raised about certain vehicles being excluded have been adequately addressed. The bill contains a number of provisions designed to better inform consumers of a vehicle's damage history. Cars and trucks classified as ``totaled'' by insurance companies would be identified as ``salvage'' by state motor vehicle departments. Since totaled cars and trucks are the primary source of vehicles that rebuilders use in their operations, S. 852 provides assurance that virtually all of these vehicles titles will be ``branded'' with this important information. Participating states are also required to ``carry forward'' any brands carried on the title from other states. This approach will dramatically limit the ability of deceitful rebuilders to ``wash'' titles and defraud consumers. Vehicles not covered by S. 852 are those that are repaired under the bill's seventy-five percent damage threshold that are returned to their owners. And, of course, if a state desires, it may provide disclosure for buyers of these vehicles or for vehicles with that have sustained damage of less than seventy-five percent of its pre-accident damage. Thus a state like Minnesota, which requires disclosure when a vehicle has sustained damage to the extent of seventy percent of its pre-accident value, is free to adopt the uniform definitions and procedures in S. 852 and still maintain its seventy percent disclosure requirement. Again, this bill is about ensuring disclosure to consumers. It is not about limiting state actions. S. 852 also ensures that if a salvage vehicle is rebuilt, it will undergo a theft inspection, as well as any state required safety inspection. A branded ``rebuilt salvage vehicle'' title must be obtained before the vehicle can be driven on the road and state inspector must affix a permanent sticker on the vehicle's door jamb, as well as a window sticker, specifying that it has been rebuilt, and whether it passed a safety inspection. Since state law, not federal law, traditionally provides for causes of action and consumer remedies, S. 852 specifically provides that the bill would in no way affect actions or remedies available under state law. It has never been asserted that consumer remedies in any state are inadequate to protect their citizens. Instead, as a supplement to state law remedies, a provision was recently added to the bill that allows state attorneys general to sue on behalf of citizens who are victimized by rebuilt salvage fraud and to recover monetary judgments for damages they may have suffered. It is important to reiterate that S. 852 will not force states to weaken or otherwise cut back on their disclosure standards. Instead, the adoption of a minimum threshold will significantly enhance consumer protections and lead to safer roads and highways everywhere. Under S. 852, state legislatures are given the freedom to decide whether they want to change their laws in any way or maintain their current program. If a state decides to adopt the bill's uniform definitions and procedures, but also wants to disclose additional information about a vehicle's damage history to its residents, S. 852 gives the state ample flexibility to do so. Congress started down this road six years ago with the passage of the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992. The Act directed the Secretary of Transportation to establish a task force to study problems associated with motor vehicle titling, and more importantly, the specific problems that have contributed to this serious and costly titling fraud. The statute required ``an examination of the extent to which the absence of uniformity and integration of state laws regulating vehicle titling and registration and salvage of used vehicles allows enterprising criminals to find the weakest link to `wash' the stolen character of the vehicles.'' This was an important charge entrusted to a very qualified group of individuals with significant knowledge and experience in motor vehicle titling procedures. The task force included representatives from a wide range of backgrounds including federal transportation officials; federal, state, and local law enforcement officials; state motor vehicle officials; motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, and recyclers; salvage yard operators and scrap processors; insurers; and others. After approximately eight months of deliberation, the task force concluded that the lack of uniformity in state laws is the primary reason that unscrupulous rebuilders are able to ``wash'' vehicle titles with relative ease. What's more, the task force recommended a seventy- five percent damage threshold before a vehicle would be branded as ``salvage.'' By including the seventy-five percent threshold in our latest draft of the bill, Senator Ford and I simply followed the task force's recommendations, which were based on careful and thorough consideration of this issue for all affected parties. While the vast majority of people in the auto salvage business are honest, hard-working individuals, a group of dishonest rebuilders are continuing to tarnish the salvage vehicle industry. It is this latter group that Congress must put out of business. Far too many people are falling victim to the scam of passing off rebuilt totaled vehicles as undamaged. The loopholes that allow this deceptive practice to continue must be closed now. Only cheats and crooks that prey on the innocent will benefit from any lack of action during this Congress. While not a perfect solution, S. 852 is a significant step in the right direction. It represents a fair balance between the need to establish uniform procedures for disclosing information to consumers about a vehicle's damage history and the need to preserve states' right to determine what is in the best interest of their citizens. S. 852 will stem the tide of motor vehicle titling fraud, protect consumers and automobile dealers, and reduce the number of injuries and fatalities on America's roads and highways. I urge my colleagues to give S. 852 their full support.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is good to see you again, looking in good form. I welcome back all our Members and staff. I hope everyone had a peaceful and restful August recess. Now we will begin the final stretch of the legislative session of the 105th Congress, as we work to complete action on appropriations bills and a number of other important pieces of legislation. I think our goal should continue to be to keep our commitment to the budget agreement of last year, stick to the caps we agreed to, preserve the surplus, and see what we can do to return taxes to the people who have worked and earned those taxes. We have a number of other issues, obviously, that are very important--agriculture issues, education, bankruptcy reform. So we have a lot of work to do--missile defense, the defense of our country. I am very concerned, as I have said in writing to the President and my communications to the Pentagon. I am very worried that we are seeing a deterioration of the morale and the readiness of our military. Of course, there are many foreign policy issues that we will need to address--and all of this in only about 5 weeks or so. As a part of that, of course, this week we will take up the foreign operations appropriations bill. We expect to be on that issue Tuesday and Wednesday. We would like to finish it up Wednesday night if at all possible. We will have to count on the Members to work with us in trying to get identification of amendments that will be offered. I hope Senators will reduce the number of amendments that they are offering on these appropriations bills. In July, it seemed as if every appropriations bill had 100 amendments. It was difficult, on both sides of the aisle, to work through all those amendments. I hope we will have a limited number of amendments and can complete that work. For today, we will be in a period of morning business until 1 p.m. Following that, we will turn to the consideration of any legislative or Executive Calendar items that can be cleared for action. As a reminder to Members, there will be no rollcall votes today, but throughout the August recess I continued to hear from Senators, saying, ``How about it, are we really going to work that first week in September?'' The answer is absolutely yes. We are going to be working seriously Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. We will begin by having our first vote at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, on the adoption of the conference report to accompany the military construction appropriations bill. We expect Tuesday afternoon or Tuesday night, perhaps Wednesday morning, to have a vote on the low level waste disposal issue. And we expect votes on amendments with regard to the foreign operations appropriations bill. We could have votes on cloture or clotures before the week is over, and we could, of course, have votes if they are called for with regard to Executive Calendar items. I want to assure Senators, not only will we be having votes; I am going to make sure we have votes, probably more than normal, just to bring the point home clearly that Senator Daschle and I have kept our word to Senators this year. We told Senators in January this is when we will be in, having votes, and this is when we will be out. So far we have kept our word to the day on every one of those, both when we would be in and when we would be out. So this is going to be a busy week. I know it takes a little time to get up and running again after you have been gone for a few days or a few weeks, but it is important that we make progress this week. Of course, next week we will not be in session on Monday because that is Labor Day. I believe that is all I would have to say at this time, Mr. President. I look forward to meeting with leadership on both sides of the aisle this afternoon or tomorrow, and I will be talking to Senators about the need to be here and debate amendments and to have legislation prepared to be brought up for them. I do want to say that I expect to file a cloture motion on missile defense sometime soon, and I do expect to file a cloture motion, probably on Friday, with regard to bankruptcy reform. So those are two issues that will at least begin to be considered this week, even though we may not be able to complete them until next week. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I object to further consideration of the bill at this time.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk awaiting a second reading.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and commend the Members and staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee for their tireless work towards producing a targeted RCRA reform bill this Congress. Mr. President, what the Committee has undertaken is no easy task. Although the bill we are crafting only deals with a narrow part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the drafting process has been a difficult and long road. RCRA is the most complex and technical environmental statute in existence, and to fix a piece of it, one must understand the whole. The Committee has spend many months educating themselves--and this determined effort is paying off. The majority and minority committee staff have been exchanging language and ideas in intense negotiations over the last several weeks. They are not debating principles, Mr. President, they are getting down to brass tacks. They are refining the language so that it reflects a consensus position on the issues. After all, we all agree--the Administration, the EPA, Republicans, Democrats and stakeholders--that RCRA needs to be fixed. The challenge now is putting the agreed-upon remediation waste reforms into legislative language. Mr. President, Congressional Republicans and Democrats are working with the Administration and the agencies as a team. Our team is closer than ever to producing a bill that is fiscally and environmentally responsible. Our team is on the brink on introducing a bill that will be embraced by Congress and the Administration. Our team is within striking distance of a win for everyone. The biggest winners, Mr. President, will be those affected by our bill. Industry, the states and the environmental community support our efforts towards reform because they know our goal is to speed up site cleanup and reduce agency bureaucracy. When setting out to craft a targeted RCRA remediation waste bill in 1996, this same team focused on three primary goals. Today, my goals and that of the team are still the same. First, I want to make RCRA work. I want it to work faster. I want it to work more cheaply. A RCRA reform bill is worthless if it does not clear these basic hurdles. Second, I want to remove regulations that are counterproductive to cleanup and streamline decision-making. This will give EPA the flexibility it needs to get the job done. Current law keeps the EPA from removing some of the largest obstacles to clean-up, and the only way to fix the problem is by fixing current law. Third, I want to give the states more authority over the management of these cleanup programs. States not only have the ability to do the job right, they have the resources and talent. These officials know how best to deal with the communities and counties impacted by the site and its cleanup. Mr. President, I believe we are on the way to a final product that keeps faith with these goals. I must take a moment now to commend the good work being done by the House Commerce Committee. Certainly the Senate could not have come so far so fast were it not for the efforts in the House. Our colleagues on the other side of the Capital have done a remarkable job, through stakeholder meetings and dialogs, to educate us all as to the potential implications of our actions. I know Senators Chafee, Smith, Baucas, and Lautenberg join me in commending the efforts of Chairmen Bliley and Oxley and their staff on this issue. Mr. President, environmental cleanup programs only work if sites are truly being cleaned up. With over 5,000 RCRA sites nationwide, our work is cut out for us. I look forward to returning to the Senate floor in September to join my Senate colleagues in introducing our RCRA remediation waste reform legislation--a first step towards an effective and responsible RCRA program. Thank you.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we thank our Chaplain for his always meaningful prayers, and we will certainly think of him and all of our colleagues who work with us during this August recess period when we go back to our respective States.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I join several of our colleagues in cosponsoring a bipartisan bill which will strengthen the manufactured housing industry. This legislation will benefit the fastest growing segment of the housing industry, while establishing a balanced process for the development, revision, and interpretation of Federal construction and safety standards. This legislation also focuses on the consumer. In addition to announcing my cosponsorship, I want to pay tribute to Jerold Kennedy, a native Mississippian, entrepreneur, a business owner, and advocate for manufactured housing. Jerold championed reforms of the regulations controlling this segment of the marketplace. He worked for many years to advance legislation that would modernize the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Act of 1974. Today, I honor Jerold's efforts. S.2145 reflects those efforts, and Mr. Kennedy would be proud of S.2145. This segment of the industry, to which Jerold dedicated his life, plays a vital role in making affordable, unsubsidized housing available for a wide range of Americans. First time home buyers, single parents, and senior citizens are just a few groups who greatly benefit from manufactured housing. This industry is responsible for one out of every three single-family homes sold last year. One-third! For less than $40,000, millions of Americans can realize their dream of owning a home. This is an appealing alternative compared to the 5.3 million Americans who pay more than 50 percent of their income in rent. In order for this industry to sustain such phenomenal growth and make affordable housing available, it is necessary to update the laws which regulate this industry. The Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA) will do just that, creating a process for keeping construction standards current, and enforcing the federal authority on those standards. S.2145 will be the first step in fixing the inadequacies which confront the manufactured housing industry today. This bill will also create a private consensus committee made up of all interested parties. They will submit recommendations to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Recommendations which will serve as a valuable tool in revising the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards in a timely manner. Additionally, this legislation will authorize HUD to use industry labeling fees to pay for any additional staff needed to do the new work. This user fee mechanism will remove a need for additional federal funding. This legislation pays tribute to Jerold Kennedy, who passed on before S.2145 was introduced. I want Mrs. Kennedy, and their three children, to know that Jerold's legacy lives within this bill. Jerold Kennedy founded Belmont Homes, Inc., and dedicated 28 years of his life to the manufactured housing industry. Congress owes a great deal to Jerold Kennedy. His common sense approach to update the standards which regulate the industry are the foundation of S.2145. I hope this Congress can make his dream a reality. This legislation pays tribute to a man of integrity. His honesty, trustworthiness, and professionalism helped both the profession of which he was a part and the efforts to reform its public policy. Mr. President, this legislation will address the recognized and acknowledged problems in HUD's manufactured housing program. S.2145 will provide real-world, viable solutions enabling the manufactured home industry to prosper, while providing consumers with even more benefits and protection.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we will have a period for morning business today. Following that, the Senate will turn to the consideration of any legislative or Executive Calendar items cleared for action. We are hopeful that some bills can be cleared by unanimous consent. I believe that last night we were able to move around some 20 nominations, plus military nominations, plus at least two or three bills. The Work Force Development Conference Report was one of those. I am glad we were able to move it quickly by unanimous consent. It is almost a shame to do it just in wrap-up because that is such a monumental achievement. We have been working on that legislation now for at least 3 years. We have had difficulty getting it through each body and through conference. But I believe the conferees did a fine job. I commend Senators Jeffords, DeWine, and all the Senators on both sides of the aisle that were involved in that. That consolidation of jobs training programs will allow us to get better use of the money we have, and a better program for workplace development is an important cog in our effort to improve our overall education opportunities, which should include job training. As we continue to move toward more and more people going off of welfare and into meaningful jobs, it means we have to continue to work and improve elementary and secondary education, higher education, as well as vocational education and job training. I believe that conference report will do that. I wanted to point out once again this morning what did occur last night. We will continue to try to move other agreed-to bills and conference reports of that nature. We do expect that we will move a number of nominations throughout the day. We may even have to wait a little while to get those agreements worked out or to see if there are others that may be coming out that could be cleared today. When the Senate returns from the August break, there will be two back-to-back rollcall votes at a time to be determined by the two leaders. Obviously, as we announced last night, there will be no recorded votes today. I know all the Senators already knew that, but I just wanted to confirm it again. As it stands now, we will have two votes when we return, either on August 31, or the 1st of September. The first one will be on the adoption of the Texas low-level waste conference report. There will be 4 hours of debate on that, equally divided, and then a vote. Then we will have a vote on the conference report to accompany the military construction appropriations bill, which will be broadly supported, probably 99-0 or 100-0. As is usually the case, if we don't vote on an appropriations bill when it goes through the Senate the first time, we do usually want to have a vote on the final conference report. Again, I thank all our colleagues for their cooperation over the last couple of weeks. I think we made some really good progress. We have cleared eight appropriations bills, and the ninth, Treasury-Postal Service is probably within 30 minutes or an hour of completion. I hope we will be able to do that the first week we are back. We do expect to take up other appropriations bills when we return. I don't know the exact order now, but we have the foreign operations appropriations bill, the Interior appropriations bill, the District of Columbia appropriations bill, and the Labor-HHS, Education appropriations bill. We expect, also, to take up the bankruptcy legislation that came out of the Judiciary Committee. And we do have the trade package from the Finance Committee. I will need to talk with all interested Senators about exactly when and how to schedule that. I wish all my colleagues a very restful and productive August break. We will look forward to seeing our colleagues then.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, once again, I want to acknowledge that our thoughts this morning are with the family, friends and colleagues of Officer J.J. Chestnut. He will pass before the Capitol one last time today and be laid to rest. Our hearts continue to be heavy with sorrow for the loss of this fine man. We certainly have his family in our prayers today.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the continuing efforts of Americans for Computer Privacy (ACP), a broad-based advocacy coalition, to energize the discussion now taking place in Washington on encryption. ACP has a role since they represent industry, private citizens and interest groups from all sides of the political spectrum. The computer industry believes, as do many members in both the House and Senate, that it is time to reform America's outdated encryption regime. Last week, an important step was taken when a multimedia campaign was launched to raise Congressional and public awareness on the encryption issue. This campaign includes television commercials, print media, and an online banner component with such statements as, ``would you give the government the keys to your safety deposit box or home.'' In the past few days, television commercials highlighting the need for encryption reform have appeared during Good Morning America, the Today show, Hardball, and Cross Fire. Mr. President, ACP has an impressive membership which includes such organizations as the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the Louisiana Sheriff's Association, American Small Business Alliance, Americans for Tax Reform, Electronic Commerce Forum, Information Technology Industry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and over sixty technology companies. It's bipartisan advisory panel includes several intelligence and law enforcement experts such as former National Security Advisor Richard Allen, former NSA Deputy Director William Crowell, former CIA Director John Deutch, former FBI Director William Webster, and former San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara. This array adds credibility to their message. As you are well aware, encryption plays a significant role in our daily lives. This technology scrambles and unscrambles computer text to keep private communications from being read by unauthorized individuals such as hackers, thieves, and other criminals. Encryption protects private citizens credit card numbers when they buy something over the Internet, ensures that only authorized medical personnel can read a patients' medical records stored on a hospital database, shields tax information that we send to the IRS, and safeguards personal letters that we E-mail to loved ones. Encryption means that American companies can protect confidential employee information, such as salary and performance data; valuable trade secrets and competitive bidding information; and critical target market data. Encryption also benefits America's security by protecting our nation's critical infrastructures, like the power grid, telecommunications infrastructure, financial networks, air traffic control operations, and emergency response systems. Strong encryption thwarts infiltration attempts by computer hackers and terrorists who have destructive, life threatening intent. Yes, this is an issue that truly affects all Americans. By allowing a public policy that limits encryption to continue, we risk sending more potential U.S. business overseas. This approach only serves to harm America's economic and national security interest by encouraging criminals to purchase foreign made products now widely available with unlimited encryption strength. By contrast, the broad development and use of American encryption products should be advantageous to our law enforcement and intelligence communities. I must say that I am deeply troubled by the comments made by Commerce Under Secretary William Reinsch, head of the Bureau of Export Administration, in response to ACP's efforts. Apparently, Under Secretary Reinsch doubts that this initiative will work--that industry and privacy advocates are wasting their money. I disagree. This media campaign is rightfully educating the public about the importance of encryption in our every day lives. These advertisements make clear that encryption technology preserves our First Amendment right to freedom of speech and our Fourth Amendment freedom against unreasonable search and seizure. They illustrate that we need strong security to keep all Americans safe from infrastructure attack. And they explain that Americans and computer users everywhere must feel confident in the knowledge that their private information will remain private. Clearly, the development and use and strong encryption is critical if Internet commerce is going to grow to its full potential and sustain the economic engine that is driving this country into the 21st century. I believe this advertising campaign is yet another indication of industry's willingness and desire to find a reasonable solution to the encryption issue. Industry and privacy groups, for example, have been working in earnest with Administration officials for several months. In May, a proposed interim solution to the encryption issue was offered. The Administration responded that it would take five to six months to review the proposal. This reaction in conjunction with Under Secretary Reinsch's recent comments, lead many in Congress, from both sides of the aisle, to conclude that the Administration, despite what it has been saying publicly, does not want to see a balanced resolution before this Congress adjourns. Mr. President, I think it is also important to reiterate that the Administration's restrictions against U.S. encryption exports and its proposals to control domestic use just cannot work. Innovation in the high tech industry is relentless and ubiquitous. The government cannot stop it. It is for this reason that industry is trying to persuade the Administration that innovation is the solution to this issue, not the enemy. Two weeks ago, a coalition of thirteen companies proposed ``private doorbells'', a technology solution that would provide law enforcement with court approved access to computer messages. Clearly, industry leaders want to help officials capture criminals and terrorists. I believe the ideas they have put forward are reasonable and responsible. On the other hand, I do not believe the Administration's response has been forthcoming. Encryption policy can be modernized with the stroke of a pen, but the Administration has shown little willingness. Thus, industry takes appropriate action by implementing a media campaign. While encryption is a complex and divisive information technology issue, this media initiative reinforces the need for legislation to bring America's encryption policy into the 21st century. The national security and law enforcement communities have legitimate concerns that must be considered. I believe that the best way to deal with these concerns is to pass during this Congress legislation that strikes a balance on encryption. Legislation that would help keep private and corporate communications away from hackers, terrorists and other criminals, provide a level playing field for U.S. encryption manufacturers, and ensure Constitutional protections for all Americans. A number of my colleagues have been pushing for this type of reform for years and several competing encryption bills have been offered in both the House and Senate during this session. Mr. President, as you may recall, I engaged in a colloquy with my colleagues last week which reinforced the need for Congress to act during this session to break the impasse. This is a difficult issue, not easily explained or understood, but it is a crucial one. Momentum has been built in both the House and Senate toward finding a workable solution. Congress must seize upon these efforts and pass a consensus encryption bill now or risk starting all over during the next session. Congress has come too far on this issue to go back to the beginning. Americans need a sound and reasonable encryption policy that protects public safety, reinforces security, promotes digital privacy, and encourages online commerce and economic growth. Without the development and use of powerful encryption, we may bear the consequences of the next hacker's attack on the Pentagon's information network, a terrorist attack on the city's power supply, or a thief's attack on the international financial markets. With over $60 billion and over 200,000 jobs at stake by the year 2000, the House and Senate cannot continue to hope that the Administration will reach an amicable solution that satisfies the needs of all parties. I strongly encourage my colleagues to report out a balanced encryption bill that Congress can act on before the end of this session. Before it is too late.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this comes as no surprise to Senators interested in agriculture on either side of the aisle. In fact, I did bring this subject up to Senator Daschle earlier today, standing right there. By the way, I have been working on amendments and Executive Calendar items while we have been having these last few votes. I have been talking to Senators on both sides of the aisle about nominations. I talked to Senator Dorgan who I know confers with Senator Daschle all the time about this particular unanimous consent request within the hour. I don't believe there is anybody on either side of the aisle surprised by this.