Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think this has been a very good debate. There have been significant amendments offered and now voted upon. I see from the list we have before us as many as six or eight additional amendments still pending, several of which we have not been able to work out a time agreement on. I thank all Senators for being cooperative. We have had opponents and proponents who have been cooperative. I encourage that to continue. I believe maybe a Senator or two indicated that they didn't know we were going to try to finish this bill this week. I think I have said all along that we should have a focused, unobstructed debate, but the intent was to complete it Wednesday or Thursday. Here we are on Thursday at almost 4 o'clock. I talked to Senator Daschle, and we are agreed that we are going to finish NATO enlargement either at a reasonable hour this afternoon, or a late hour tonight, or tomorrow, or Saturday, but we are not going to leave this week until we finish NATO enlargement and the supplemental appropriations bill. Now, we can do both of those in a very responsible way with still some good debate remaining. We need cooperation and time agreements. We need cooperation on the supplemental appropriations. We agree that these two issues must be completed this week so that next week we can move to IRS reform, or the Workplace Development Partnership Act, and perhaps even crop insurance and agriculture insurance. So we don't have the luxury of rolling this over until next week. Our first vote will not occur until Tuesday at 5 o'clock. Please work with us, and we can complete this bill and have a vote by 6:30 or 7 o'clock if everybody will agree to a reasonable time limit. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, we have a unanimous consent we would like to enter, and it would give the Senator a minute to see if they can get an agreement on this point.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a civil case pending in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona. Prior to the litigation, some of the defendants sought assistance from Senator McCain's and Senator Kyl's offices in connection with a child custody dispute. The plaintiffs in the ensuing litigation have alleged, among other things, that the defendants defamed them in connection with the custody dispute. The plaintiffs have now subpoenaed correspondence from the files of the offices of Senator McCain and Senator Kyl. Senators McCain and Kyl are willing to provide the requested correspondence to the parties in this case. Accordingly, this resolution would authorize Senator McCain's and Senator Kyl's offices to produce and authenticate documents in this case, except where a privilege or objection should be asserted. The resolution also would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator McCain's and Senator Kyl's offices, to protect the Senate's privileges in connection with this matter.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 218 Whereas, in the case of Buroojy, et al. v. Walsh, et al., Civil Case No. 97-91407, pending in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, documents have been subpoened from the offices of Senator John McCain and Senator Jon Kyl; Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent Members, officers, or employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for evidence relating to their official responsibilities; Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That employees of the offices of Senator McCain and Senator Kyl are authorized to testify and produce documents in the case of Buroojy, et al. v. Walsh, et al., except concerning matters for which a privilege or objection should be asserted. Sec. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Senator McCain and Senator Kyl and their employees in connection with the testimony and document production authorized in section one of this resolution.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on the legislation we are fixing to take up, the State Department reorganization bill, this is the result of literally years of work, give and take, by Senator Helms, the chairman of the committee, and by the administration. I think credit has to go to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. She worked with Senator Helms on this State Department reorganization, which is so long overdue, which would allow us to do a better job in our foreign policy apparatus. Senator Biden has been a good partner, I believe, with Senator Helms, as the ranking member on that committee that reported this legislation, in developing this State Department reorganization. So this is very important legislation which has been a long time coming. The second part of that bill does provide for the U.N. arrearages, something over $900 million, I believe. You can still argue about how much really the United States owes to the United Nations. You can still argue that the United Nations doesn't always make the right decision. You can argue back and forth. But it is an agreed-to compromise which will allow the United States to fulfill its commitment in a way that a majority of those directly involved, Republican and Democrat, conservative, moderate, and liberal, feel is a fair way to get this job done. So that is an important part of this package, not only the reorganization of the State Department, which will be of tremendous benefit, I believe, in the next few months and years of this administration and of future administrations, but then you add to that that we are finally addressing this question of U.N. arrearage. That is very important. There is also included in this bill language that maybe nobody is totally happy with but language dealing with the so-called Mexico City issue, which is language that would have some restraints on lobbying other governments and organizations with taxpayers' dollars to promote the changing of laws to provide for abortions or to deal with the abortion issue. It is an issue that we have been tangled with for years. I am not diminishing it by putting it that way, but it is just something that we have been trying to find a fix to. There is no easy answer. You have passionate people on both sides of the issue. And I have clearly been on one side of the issue forever. I don't think that taxpayers' dollars should be used to promote abortion. Does anybody want to question Jesse Helms on this issue? Anybody? No. Now, the others who are on the other side of the issue, such as Senator Biden, they argue very strongly. They have been consistent on the other side. This is a compromise. This is a part of the package. This is a way to deal with three very important issues in this package. It has been agreed to reluctantly, but now I think with understanding and vigor, by the Senators who are involved directly with this legislation. So I urge my colleagues to think about it, recognize that you may not like one piece of the three or maybe two of the three, but what is the alternative? Are we never going to reorganize the State Department? Are we never going to deal with the U.N. arrearage issue? Is the abortion issue going to be involved with U.N. arrearage, State Department reorganization, IMF, appropriations bills? How long will this go on this year? This is the solution. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I caution the administration and urge them to stop lobbying against this legislation, their bill. I have expressed this to the Secretary of State, in which I said, ``Madam Secretary, this is the last train out of Dodge on the U.N. arrearage.'' Now, I don't believe it will happen-- if this bill doesn't pass the Senate and if this bill is not signed by the President, then the U.N. issue is probably dead for the year. Am I advocating that? Am I defending it? No. I am just stating a fact. I don't see how you do it. Senator Helms and Senator Biden have reluctantly agreed to this process, but it is the only process, I believe, that will allow us to deal with these three difficult, complicated, but important issues. So I hope the Senate will have a good debate today and will think about it. I don't think anybody is going to be surprised by what is in here. We do not need a lot of pontificating on either side of the aisle. You are for or against State Department reauthorization. You are for or against the U.N. arrearage issue. And you may be for or against the abortion issue. But this is a reasonable solution, and I hope it will pass when we vote on it Tuesday at 2:25. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President. (Mr. Smith of Oregon assumed the chair.)

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly on a couple of issues. I will not take long. But I want to again express my appreciation to a number of Senators and to the Senate as a whole for the passage of the education bill on Thursday night by a bipartisan vote of 56 to 43 with one Senator being absent. I think you have to acknowledge that Senator Coverdell of Georgia was persistent. He was fair. This issue really has been considered in one form or another for over a month. But he stuck with it. There was a lot of give and take. I appreciate the involvement of Senator Torricelli of New Jersey and his support of the bill. But more important than that, I appreciated the tone of the debate. There are fundamental disagreements on how we begin to improve the quality of education in America, deal with violence in the schools, and drugs in the schools. That is understandable. But we don't have to be nasty in our disagreements. We weren't. I thought the debate was of a high quality. While the disagreements are passionate, we covered a lot of subjects over the last week, a lot of amendments. We probably voted on 10 or 12 amendments on this bill. Others were accepted or agreed to in one way or another or set aside by agreements. It took cooperation to get it done even after most of the week was spent on that. I think we came up with a good bill. Education is important. This is the best debate I have seen on education in many years. Having been in Congress for 25 years, the debate on education over those 25 years has always been the same: more decisions from Washington, more programs from Washington, more strings from Washington, more money from Washington. And the test scores and the violence--the test scores have been going down and the violence and drugs have been going up. What we have been doing is not working. We need to try some different things. This bill does that: More choice in elementary and secondary education, No. 1. I emphasized in my remarks that in my own State, higher education in America is the best in the world. People want to come from all over the world and go to schools, from Stanford to Harvard to Ole Miss, to get degrees in science and engineering, business, or whatever. But our elementary and secondary education has been deteriorating, and we are way down on most lists. Why is that? What is the difference between higher education and elementary and secondary education? One difference is choice. When you finish high school you can go to a trade school, you can go to a community college, you can go to a denominational college, or you can go to a university. You have a choice. The second big difference is you have financial assistance to be able to do it. For 2 years I worked in the placement and financial aid office at the University of Mississippi. I know the importance of grants, loans, scholarships, and work-study programs for any student in America. Any student in America can go to college. He or she has a choice. Not so in elementary and secondary. If you are poor, if you come from a blue- collar working family like I did, son of a shipyard worker and a mother that taught school to help make ends meet, they couldn't afford to send me to a different school. They couldn't afford today's market. They wouldn't have been able to afford tutors or computers. They just couldn't have done it. We don't have financial assistance. There needs to be some. How can you get it? No. 1, allow the parents to keep more of their money and make choices about how to spend their money in helping their children. This is not an attack on public schools. I am a product of public schools. My wife is a product of public schools. Both of my children went to public schools from the first grade through college. Now, a lot of people who are pontificating as great defenders of public education went to private schools and send their children to private schools. It makes it difficult to believe that you are as sincere as I am. I want to help public education, but I want to give parents a choice. When I give this sort of speech to some of the traditional education groups, they say, ``But the bad schools, the bad public schools may not make it.'' Right. That is the idea. It is called competition. It is called quality. Get right, improve the quality of your teachers, improve the quality of the administration, or go out of business; let somebody else do it that can do a better job. This bill also included merit pay for teachers, teacher testing. I still don't understand why it is OK to test and test and test the students but, oh, you can't test the teachers. That is one of the problems we have all over this country. We don't always have good- quality teachers. Should we encourage it? Should we pay them better? Yes. Should they be paid by the Federal Government? No. That is a local decision, State decision. Senator Gorton came up with a block grant approach, but it was an interesting approach. Again, it is a choice. He took programs, consolidated them into something over $10 billion, and he said, Well, now, States, if you want to continue with the traditional strings- attached, Washington-knows-best controls from the bureaucracy, you can do that. If Massachusetts wants its money to come through the Federal multiplicity of programs with directions of how it must be spent, Massachusetts can choose that. But if Texas wants to bring it through their State government and then to the local schools, they can choose that. Or in my State of Mississippi, I hope we would choose to let it go direct to the schools. Why does it have to stop in Atlanta or Jackson and trickle down and trickle down and trickle down, with everybody taking a bite for administrative costs--5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent? Why not let it go from Washington directly to the schools and let the administrators, the parents, the teachers, and the children decide where that $10 billion portion that they get would be spent? Hopefully, they would spend it for STAR teachers, merit pay for better teachers, teachers who work hard, do the extra thing. Maybe they would decide to spend it on construction. That is OK if they make the decision at the local level. That is their choice. I think they are crying wolf. Those who want the status quo, those who want Washington to make the decisions, those who want controls and directions of how the money is going to be spent from Washington, they didn't like what we did this week and what we voted on last night. Those who say the status quo is not good enough when it comes to education should feel good about our effort last night. Now, they say, Well, the President is going to veto it. I don't know that he will. It is like laws; they are not unconstitutional until some court or the Supreme Court says they are unconstitutional. A bill is not vetoed until a President vetoes it. It will have to go through conference. Perhaps changes will be made. Perhaps the President will have a conversion and decide this is good legislation. But if he does veto it, the parents will know who has faith in them and the local education apparatus and those who believe Washington is the only place that can decide what is best for education in America. So I slept better last night knowing that at least we were trying to make sure that my prospective grandson will have more opportunity and greater choices in education.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will begin consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1757, the State Department reorganization bill, under a 6-hour time agreement. Under the previous order, the vote on the conference report will occur on Tuesday, April 28 at 2:25 p.m. On Monday, following morning business, the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the NATO expansion treaty. It is hoped that Members who wish to offer amendments to the treaty will come to the floor on Monday to offer and debate those amendments. We have had some discussion already on this NATO enlargement. I remember very well an outstanding speech given on the floor by the distinguished Senator from Oregon a month or so ago, a beautiful speech laced with history. It made an indelible impression upon my mind. Senators have claimed that we have not enough time on NATO enlargement, or that the issue has been unfocused. But one of the problems has been that Senators have not been willing to come to the floor and offer their amendments. Beginning Monday, the debate will be focused and uninterrupted on this very important issue of the NATO treaty alliance. We will spend all day on Monday and all day on Tuesday with the only interruption being the vote at 2:25 when we come back in from our policy luncheons. We will spend whatever time is necessary on Tuesday and Wednesday. I hope that we can complete it Wednesday after a thoughtful debate. Every Senator will have an opportunity to make a statement, if he or she wishes, or to offer amendments. But we must begin the process, and it includes having amendments in fact offered so we can bring it to a conclusion. I remind our colleagues that we still have a lot of very important issues that we need to take up. Unfortunately, earlier in the year several committees had not acted. But committees are acting profusely, and good bills are beginning to line up now. I would like to begin to move bills. In fact, we probably are going to have a high-tech period where we take up as many as 10 bills from a variety of committees that are important to the high-tech area, all the way from antislamming in the telephone area to gambling on the Internet, and a lot of things in between and beyond those. We have other good bills that we want to try to consider. In order to be able to do that and get to the IRS reform package the week after next, we are just going to have to have more cooperation. If Members continue to delay, then there will be more nights like last night where we were here at 8 or 8:30 or 9. I don't think our work is as good when we are working late into the night. As a reminder to all Members, there will be a rollcall vote on Monday at 6 p.m. on an Executive Calendar matter to be determined today by the majority leader after consultation and with information, of course, being provided to the minority. As previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes during today's session since we have 6 hours reserved for debate on the State Department reorganization. The next vote will then occur at 6 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Modification to Amendment No. 2299

Mr. LOTT. In the interest of making sure we utilize all time that is available, we have here and ready to speak Senators who are interested in the resolution with regard to Ireland.

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just so all Members will be aware of what we are talking about at this point--and I do not have a unanimous consent request ready at this moment, but I will have one momentarily for Senator Daschle to review--we will be having additional votes tonight. We try to accommodate Senators' schedules, but we believe we can get an agreement for final debate on the education bill and then have a recorded vote. That I presume would occur sometime around 7 o'clock, or earlier if some time is yielded back. That will be followed, if we can enter the agreement, by a debate of approximately 30 minutes on the resolution dealing with Northern Ireland and a vote after that. I assume we will have then two additional votes tonight, and then we will have a further announcement about the schedule on Friday, but with no recorded votes on Friday, and Monday with likely recorded votes, at least a vote at 5:30 on Monday. But we will have that for each leader to review momentarily, and we will be asking for consent to that effect. I yield the floor. Is any Senator seeking recognition? I observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coverdell A+ education bill be advanced to third reading and that there be 3 hours 40 minutes of remaining debate time, to be equally divided in the usual form; and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the Coverdell A+ bill. I am hoping that Senators have had an opportunity to say what they need to say on this. Those who want to make closing remarks will be free to do so under this agreement, but it would be all right with the majority leader and the Senate if we did not have to use the full 3 hours 40 minutes. At that time, we will have a recorded vote, if this agreement is entered into, on the education bill, followed by a vote on the Irish resolution. I further ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. on Friday, the Senate begin consideration of the conference report to accompany the State Department reorganization bill under the consent agreement of March 31, and that the vote occur on adoption of the conference report at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 27, with 10 minutes of debate remaining for closing remarks to be equally divided just prior to the vote. I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes on Monday, April 27, following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the NATO enlargement treaty.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we will have two votes back to back around, I presume, 7:30, hopefully. Then we will have the State Department reorganization debate on Friday, with no recorded votes. The next recorded vote after tonight will be at 5:30 p.m. on Monday. We will have no other subject debated on Monday other than NATO enlargement. We will stay on NATO enlargement until Senators feel they are prepared to vote. Hopefully, by having that debate Monday and votes on amendments perhaps on Tuesday and Wednesday, we can come to a conclusion on Wednesday, but we will not hurry this most important issue and deliberation of the Senate with regard to the NATO enlargement treaty. Therefore, that will be the schedule for the remainder of this week and through some part of Wednesday of next week. I yield the floor, and we can now begin the debate.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, for those Senators who would like to have their statements on this resolution inserted, that they be inserted at this point in the Record. I know Senator Mack, who had gotten away before we made these arrangements, would like his remarks included at this point.

Mr. LOTT. I have a few remarks I would like to make on this.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senators Kennedy and Dodd for their comments. I thought it appropriate today, without another day going by, that the U.S. Senate express itself on this very important issue on behalf of the American people. That is why we made sure that we brought it up and had these few minutes to discuss this resolution, and that we put on the Record our salutations to those who have been involved in these negotiations. We offer our congratulations to all the participants in the negotiations. I think they deserve recognition for their willingness to make honorable compromises in order to reach this agreement. I think particular credit goes to our former colleague, Senator George Mitchell, for his persistence and his doggedness. Frankly, I wasn't sure that it could be pulled off, but he stayed with it. I think we owe him a debt of gratitude for his work. Also, of course, I commend Prime Minister Tony Blair and Taoiseach Bertie Ahearn for their involvement and leadership. I believe the American people are proud of the contributions the United States and our President have made to this effort. We hope it will lead to approval in the May 22 referendums. Most of all, we hope it will lead to a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. That is the desire and that is the prayer of the people in Northern Ireland, in America and, hopefully, throughout the world. I endorse this resolution. I have no further request for time. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the current resolution regarding Ireland; that there be 30 minutes for debate only, equally divided between the majority and minority leaders or their designees; that no motions or amendments be in order, and at the conclusion of yielding back of time, we have the vote on the resolution on Ireland immediately following the education vote. So it would be stacked, those two--first the education vote and then the vote on the Ireland resolution.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Daschle and I have been communicating. We do have an agreement we think is a fair way to conclude the debate on the education bill and also an agreement with regard to how the State Department reorganization conference report will be considered.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2296

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today is a great day for America's maritime community; for those who sailed the high seas during the final days of World War II; for those who sail the seas today in the international container industry; and for those who will go to sea in the future. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will permit me to take a long view of the maritime issues being addressed by the Senate during the 105th Congress. I am a product of the maritime industry. I grew up in a maritime community where my father built ships. The maritime world was the source of my first job as a lawyer. I still live in Pascagoula, Mississippi where the proud maritime tradition continues with Navy contracts to build DDG-51 Destroyers. As I grew up on Mississippi's coast, an important lesson was learned. Our nation was founded as a maritime nation and remains one today. We are a nation that must continue to invest in this vital industry. As you know, this is the International Year of the Ocean and tomorrow is Earth Day. As we celebrate the 28th Earth Day, we recognize the importance of the world's 4 oceans and 54 seas. Oceans cover more than 75% of our globe. Oceans provide us all with vast sources of food, medicine, and minerals. They provide a means for recreation, transportation, and commerce. Teaming with life and resources, oceans are where America's merchant maritime industry must be present. Oceans are where our government must make a conscious decision to maintain America's presence. Many of our colleagues understand the importance of a strong, healthy maritime industry. This including ports, vessel owners, vessel operators, shipbuilders and the workers to run the ports, sail the high seas or build the latest ship. In a world of increasing international trade by sea, a strong maritime industry is essential to our national security and our economic strength. This is a simple but true equation. To provide a context for today's action, I want to reflect on our work in the 104th Congress changed our maritime public policy. In the last Congress, the Maritime Security Act of 1996 was enacted into public law. It received overwhelming and bipartisan support. It was the first maritime policy change in over a decade. It was a profound change and has successfully reformed how our maritime industry supports our nation's defense. This program now effectively ensures that efficient commercial ocean transportation services are available to the Department of Defense for national security purposes. The use of modern U.S.-flag commercial vessels saves DOD hundreds of millions of dollars that would otherwise be required to procure additional sealift capacity. As we enter the appropriation cycle, I hope my colleagues will support full funding of the Maritime Security Program. Today, the Senate completed action on S. 414, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. This bill will increase competition in the ocean liner shipping industry and help U.S. exporters compete in the world's market. S. 414 was a bipartisan compromise. It was supported by all segments of the industry. Even U.S. businesses that use ocean liner services supported this legislative approach. The bill is a true compromise where the many diverse and competing interests benefited equally. My good friend, Senator Slade Gorton, wanted to get a little bit more for one of these segments, but in so doing jeopardized the Senate's ability to pass this important legislation during this Congress by taking the delicate compromise out of balance. This is why the amendment was defeated. Just for the record, non-vessel-operating common carriers are not real common carriers. However, they can successfully compete with vessel operators. Also small shippers will continue to have equal access to the transportation systems. Mr. President, S. 414, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 is a major step forward in the 105th Congress' maritime reform agenda. This year's maritime bill focuses on one part of the commercial segment while last year's bill dealt with the defense segment. As with the maritime bill in the last Congress, competition is its hallmark. It will permit competition for the ocean liner shipping industry. This means that U.S. exporters will also enhance their competitiveness in the world's market. The majority of international trade is carried on ships and that is why S. 414 is so important. The United States will now have an ocean liner shipping system that enables America to compete with other countries on a level playing field. S. 414 is that level playing field. This effort started back in the 104th Congress. It has taken the Senate a long time to develop a workable solution because the shipping industry includes so many different competing segments. Balancing their interests has been difficult and everyone made compromises. S. 414 is solidly backed by U.S. shippers; U.S. and foreign ocean carriers; U.S. ports; and U.S. labor. Achieving such strong support from such a diverse group demonstrates that the entire maritime industry wants and needs this meaningful reform. I call upon the House of Representatives to complete the legislative process and promptly adopt S. 414 this year. The nation's consumers, businesses, and maritime industry deserve to reap the benefits of a reformed ocean liner shipping system. This bill is fair. This bill is needed. S. 414 also contains a provision concerning World War II merchant mariner burial benefits, which was introduced separately as S. 61. Mr. President, today the Senate also celebrates the passage of S. 61 another very important piece of maritime legislation which recognizes the sacrifices made by a group of merchant mariners. This provision clarifies, once and for all, that those American merchant mariners who served our country in World War II between August 16, 1945 and December 31, 1946 are in fact eligible for veteran's funeral and burial benefits. Just like all other World War II merchant mariners. This legislation, originally introduced last year as the Merchant Marine Fairness Act, has 71 cosponsors. I want to thank each cosponsor for their bipartisan support for mariners who ask to be recognized upon their deaths for service to our nation. Mr. President, the overwhelming majority of World War II merchant mariners have already been awarded veteran status. However, through this 16-month extension, the Senate recognizes in a limited, yet meaningful, fashion those who stood, in harm's way, through the war's final day when on December 31, 1946 President Truman officially declared an end to hostilities. Although Japan officially surrendered in August of 1945, the job was not complete for our nation's merchant mariners. In fact, more dangerous work awaited them, and their allies. Harbors in Japan, Germany, Italy, France, and other parts of the world's maritime trade lanes were still filled with mines. This created many hazards as merchant mariners transported Allied troops home, or transported them to occupational duties. Axis stragglers also needed to be transported. When the men of the U.S. merchant marine were called to serve, they were ready and willing. Their duties were vital to consolidating the battlefield victory that our combat forces had just won. Let me be clear. The services performed by these merchant mariners were extremely dangerous. Twenty-two U.S.-government-owned vessels-- carrying military cargoes--were damaged or sunk by mines after V-J Day. At least four U.S. merchant mariners were killed and 28 injured aboard these vessels. Those American merchant mariners who served during this time did so with pride, professionalism and a dedication to their country. They deserve this simple, proper recognition. I hope the House of Representatives will act swiftly on this legislation, too. Bills similar to S. 61 have passed in the House of Representatives three times in recent years. Already, H.R. 1126, the companion bill to S. 61, has more than 150 cosponsors. Mr. President, our nation values the sacrifices of our veterans and so should Congress. The service's of these merchant mariners to America deserves recognition for a job well done. The passage of the Merchant Mariner's Fairness Act confers the title of veteran to a small group of elderly, surviving mariners--an acknowledgment they richly deserve. Mr. President, I remember one of these extraordinary mariners telling me why it was so important to receive this official recognition and why this delay has been so frustrating. What that merchant mariner said, quite simply, was that he wants to tell his grandchildren that he too is a World War II veteran. Mr. President, this particular merchant mariner and many other merchant mariners deserve our nation's profound gratitude for their WWII service. Mr. President, there is yet another important maritime bill that the Senate must enact this year. S. 1216. This legislation will ratify and implement the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement. It will eliminate foreign shipbuilding subsidies and provide a level playing field for our shipbuilding industry. S. 1216 was approved by both the Finance Committee and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. It is ready to move to the Senate floor. The amendments added through separate committee actions address head on and completely the concerns identified by segments of the maritime community. I am disappointed that a few maritime associations continue to oppose this bill despite its many changes. I am disturbed by their unfortunate misrepresentations. Let me set the record straight on this bill. S. 1216 and the OECD Agreement do not threaten the Jones Act or the construction of Jones Act vessels. Period. S. 1216 clearly excludes America's defense requirements and maritime features while ensuring that no country may illegally subsidize its commercial shipbuilding industry. S. 1216 first equaled, then exceeded, the amendment offered by Representative Bateman in the 104th Congress to extend the current Title XI program's terms and conditions. The Senate bill provides an additional year. However, these associations moved the goalposts by demanding even more exemptions. S. 1216 implements OECD. It does not speak to every individual argument that came up during its negotiations. That is water under the bridge. Rather, the bill recognizes that the United States cannot out- subsidize other countries' shipbuilding industries and should not try. It forces these other countries to give up their subsidies. On a different legislative tract, but a related issue, the Senate showed that it will take steps to address shipyard subsidies. Through the International Monetary Fund bill, the Senate ensured that South Korean shipyards are not entitled to a bail out from American taxpayers. S. 1216 is about ratifying this international agreement this year; however, it is clear these associations' aim is to scuttle OECD. I believe they want to shift funds from shipyards where only commercial vessels are built to those yards where naval vessel construction occurs because the level of military construction is decreasing. This is folly because America needs both types of shipyards for a healthy maritime community. The U.S. must preserve its commercial shipbuilding base and that means ratifying the OECD agreement. That means adopting the implementing language in S. 1216 this year. One last point--the Jones Act and other related cabotage related legislation. There is no secret that I am an ardent supporter of the Jones Act. I acknowledge that there are some members of Congress who do not see the wisdom of protecting our domestic water-borne maritime trade--just like every other coastal nation. I take it as my challenge to spread the wisdom and value of the Jones Act to my colleagues. I also realize that the current system is not meeting the needs of every domestic shipper and that is why I encourage the Jones Act maritime industry and the Administration to work closely with these shippers to solve their transportation needs. Still, I remain a firm believer that these needs can be served by U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, U.S.-flagged, and U.S.-crewed ships. In summary, Mr. President, the Senate has made much progress in our maritime public policy agenda this year, and I hope there will be more before the 105th Congress adjourns. Maritime issues are bipartisan and important to our economy and our national security. Mr. President, thank you. I want to also thank all mariners who go to sea to face the elements and work. I also want to thank all who work on shore, at the dock and in the shipyard, to enable our nation's maritime transportation system to go to sea safely and profitably. It is a fitting tribute to pass the Ocean Shipping Act of 1998 during the International Year of the Ocean.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I can just say a few brief words about S. 1133, the Parent-Student Savings Account Plus Act, which is commonly referred to now as the A+ Act. Everywhere I went during the recess period in my State of Mississippi--and I did a number of events throughout the State in a variety of forums in towns and cities-- education was at the top of every list. I spoke to the Mississippi Economic Council, which is an organization really affiliated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but it represents a variety of businessmen and women, professionals, people who really want to make sure that we have what we need to create jobs and move forward economically and have opportunities for all our citizens. An important part of their plans for this year did include, of course, continued emphasis on education. So I am really excited that a good portion of this week will be spent on debate concerning the education savings account and the other portions that we have added to this education bill in the Finance Committee and other amendments that will be offered on the floor of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. Some people have said, ``Well, it could be messy debating education with as many as a dozen or more amendments being in order and with second degrees being in order.'' I think there are very few issues that we could be debating in the Senate this year in America more important than education. Of course, there are differences as to how to proceed on this education issue. I feel very strongly that we should encourage parents to save more for their children's education, not only for college but also for elementary and secondary education. We should make it possible for parents and grandparents and scholarship groups to set aside money in savings, in an education IRA, and that money then could be used for a variety of needs for children, whether it is tuition, books, supplies, computers, transportation, even uniforms. In my hometown, I was surprised to learn that the school board had voted that the students will begin wearing a certain form of uniform because they think it will help cut down on some of the violence associated with the clothes that are worn to school. I think there are a whole variety of options now that could be available. There are those who oppose the savings account for education for elementary and secondary students, but I ask why--we just last year, and the President signed into law, increased the opportunity for education savings accounts for higher education, and we raised the limit of those savings that could be set aside up to $2,000 a year-- why shouldn't it be available for elementary and secondary education? There are some other components of this legislation that have the guarantee that it would be bipartisan. In addition to the bipartisan support for the education savings account, other components in the bill include the expansion of the exclusion of employer-provided educational benefits to graduate education, which is a policy strongly advocated by the Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan. We should encourage employers to provide education benefits as a part of the package that they get in the agreement between employer and employee. This bill does that. While I was home, I spoke with the treasurer of our State of Mississippi. He made a particular point of coming over and asking me, did the bill still include the State prepaid tuition programs? I assured him that it did. We should encourage parents and students to save for their tuition. In this bill they will be able to exclude from income payments from State prepaid tuition programs. Also, this bill does provide for some opportunity for bonds for school construction. I personally do not think the Federal Government should begin paying for school construction at the local level. I think that is a decision that should be made by the States, by the local governments. Some people say, ``Well, they can't afford it.'' I represent the poorest State in the Nation--or what was the poorest State; thank goodness we are making progress now and getting off the bottom of many lists--but one of the ways we have done that is we have been putting more money into education, more money into building new high schools and new elementary schools. The education level in the State has generally been rising. The credit goes to the parents, the administrators, and the teachers at the local level. But to provide some process where there would be this bonding opportunity for school construction is one that I think we should consider. And it is in the legislation. There will be a number of other amendments that will be offered from both sides of the aisle. I will agree with some of them, and I will disagree violently with some of the others. But I think this is a debate worth having. I commend Senator Coverdell for his dogged work in support of education in this bill and the cooperation he has had from and with the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli. So this will be a great opportunity this week to do some things that will help education. One of the amendments that will be offered could be to consolidate some of the many, many Federal education programs into block grants and then allow that money to go back through the States with the direction that 95 percent of the money go to the school districts. Only 5 percent of it can be eaten up by administrative costs; 95 percent of it will go to the school districts without strings attached. Let the schools decide. Let the local school officials decide if that money will be used for STAR teachers or for construction, if you will. It would be their choice. That is the fundamental difference between what some others will be trying to do, which would mean more decisions, more money, more direction and more strings from Washington. That is not the answer. I think in many cases that is the problem. So, it will be an interesting debate. I commend the Senators for working with me to try to get an agreement as to how this process will go forward. We will spend today and all of tomorrow and possibly or probably even part of Wednesday completing this legislation, but it is time well spent. Mr. President, I yield the floor.