Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee, as well as Senator Coverdell, for crafting such a bipartisan amendment. As always, while it may not always have the vote of the ranking member, he is always cooperative and considerate in how he deals with legislation coming out of the Finance Committee. So I really appreciate the work done by Senator Roth, Senator Moynihan, Senator Coverdell, and Senator Torricelli, in getting this bipartisan initiative to this point. The amendment includes three major Democratic initiatives that are also supported by a majority on this side of the aisle --those being the school construction section that has been aggressively pursued by Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Feinstein of California, and others. A lot of work went into that by Senator Coverdell and Senator Roth, once again. It also includes the State prepaid tuition initiative in which I believe Senator Breaux, Senator Graham, and others have been interested. I also have been supportive of that initiative in the past. I believe Senator Moynihan also has had an interest in that. Finally, it also includes the employer-paid higher education provision. This is something I believe is referred to as section 127, which Senator Moynihan talked about. I think that anything we can do to make it possible for parents, grandparents, and supporters of scholarships in education to be able to be more involved and to save for their children's education, not only higher education, but K through 12, elementary and secondary, to be able to take advantage of a prepaid tuition initiative so that that can be done to help children get into college and deal with what quite often is a pretty high tuition cost when they first go in, or deal with the costs of their graduate education and those expenses should be done. These are all good things because we need to do everything we can in America to make it possible for our children to get an education, whether that's elementary and secondary, higher education, or trade school training, vocational education, whatever it is. So we need to look at all of those across the board. I continue to be concerned about the poor test scores of our children at the elementary and secondary levels. I continue to look at the fact that our higher education is the best in the world and wonder why that is true when our elementary and secondary education levels are quite often very low. In fact, I saw one statistic recently that we are 19th in the world. Why? Why can't our children write in the fourth grade and read and understand basic science when they are in the eighth grade? I think this Coverdell A+ program will help with getting tutoring, or getting computers for children in the fourth grade or eighth grade, or make it a choice to go to a different school, and being able to save a little bit for that option. So I think all of these programs are good. I think it will be good for us to spend some time talking about education in America, thinking together about how we can improve it. I think one of the problems with education in America at the K through 12 level is that we have been thinking it has to fit in this box, it has to be done this way, without choice, without financial assistance, and without teacher testing, and without really dealing with the drug problems. We need to begin to ask ourselves, can we do it differently? Can we offer other options? Can we provide financial assistance for parents with children in the eighth grade who have special needs? I think this legislation will begin to take us in that direction. So I am proud that we are reaching the point, hopefully, where we can get into debating the substance of the legislation. I understand there are some colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle who are interested in offering amendments. That is fine. I hope they will offer amendments when we get to the substance of the bill that relates to education. I understand that some of these amendments would be nongermane, which would be in extraneous areas not related to this. We will have other opportunities--in the budget resolution and in appropriations bills--to have amendments on Social Security, and there are a lot of good thoughts going into the Social Security area now. The Senator from New York made a presentation this past week that is very interesting and thoughtful. We ought to get into that. But we should not do it on this education bill. Let's have some talk about education and how we can improve education in America. Now, I had offered, last week, the idea that the Democratic leader would perhaps want to develop a substitute, an alternative to this package, in the education area. I think he gave some thought to that. But he concluded that maybe it could not be done last week. So I called him again last night and said, ``Would you like to do a substitute and have that considered on Wednesday or Thursday, and then we would go to the substance of the bill on Friday?'' The indication was that he did not want to do the substitute. I even talked about, ``Could we do some process where we would have a limited number of amendments that relate to education?'' Again, he indicated that he didn't think he could do that. So before I file cloture today, I want to offer, once again, to do it that way, have a substitute. I have discussed that with several Democrats who are supportive of the Coverdell bill. They thought that would be a fair way to proceed, to have an alternative package, debate that and vote on it, and then go to the Coverdell A+ education savings account proposals with these additions. But I understand that can't be agreed to. I wanted to make the offer not once or twice, but three times, to have a substitute or even have some limited amendments relating to education. If I could ask the ranking member, on behalf of the leader, who is unavoidably detained at this time, is it not possible for us to get an agreement that would allow us to go to the substitute arrangement or some limited number of amendments related only to education at this time?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family Farm Credit Opportunity Act of 1997, a bill that will correct an inequity in the Farm Service Agency's (FSA) Guaranteed Loan Program. Currently, this program has upper limits on the amounts that can be guaranteed by the FSA. Specifically, the two types of loans administered under this program--farm ownership loans and operating loans--have caps of $300,000 and $400,000, respectively. The farm ownership loan cap was adjusted to its current level in 1978, while the operating loan cap was last raised in 1984. That is 20 years ago for one and 14 years ago for the other. A great deal has changed. Prices have gone up and inflation has eroded the value of the caps. Back then, farm ownership and operating costs could be adequately financed within both of these cap limits. Not anymore. It is time for a cap correction. Given today's larger and more capital-intensive farming operations, the limits must be raised in order to realistically meet the needs of those seeking financing through the Guaranteed Loan Program. For example, in my home state of Mississippi, poultry is a growing industry. In the early 1980's a typical poultry house cost approximately $65,000. Today the same poultry house can cost up to $125,000. However, most banks will not finance a beginning poultry farm with less than four poultry houses. That makes the initial costs $500,000. It is easy to see that a minimum of four poultry houses at a cost of $125,000 per house exceeds the farm ownership cap level of $300,000 in the Guaranteed Loan Program. This is just one example of how the upper limits on loans can eliminate qualified applicants. This type of problem exists throughout the entire agricultural community, not just the poultry industry. To address this problem, I am introducing the Family Farm Credit Opportunity Act of 1998 which would raise the cap limits on both the farm ownership loan and the operating loan to $600,000. Mr. President, this is the companion bill to the one introduced by Representative Chip Pickering from Mississippi. He saw a problem and he has proposed a responsible fix. The poultry example displays how much agriculture has changed since the caps were last amended twenty years ago. In fact, while the increase in the cap limits may seem substantial at first, neither increase reflects the increase just caused by inflation. We should at least keep up with inflation for a program that has served as a vehicle of opportunity for the small family farmer. In today's budget-minded era, I believe we must find solutions that will not only correct problems that have been developing over the years, but find solutions at a relatively low cost to the taxpayer. That is why my bill increases the cap limits to specific amounts ($600,000) for the coming year, but also includes a provision to index both caps for inflation beginning in year two. This last provision will allow the caps to automatically adjust for inflation, which will provide a long-term fix to assure that the family farm does not again outgrow the upper limits of the farm ownership loan or the operating loan over time. I would like to point out that my bill will not guarantee acceptance of applications submitted to the FSA. Farmers would still have to go through the vigorous application process, but if the individual is eligible and accepted he or she would have the opportunity to receive adequate financing through a farm ownership or operating loan. Mr. President, we must preserve the family farm and continue America's tradition of promoting family farmers. Congress must provide a mechanism which enables family farmers to receive the necessary funds for ownership and operation of a farming business. Congress appropriates money for the FSA Guarantee Loan Program each year. Congress should put this money to its best and most efficient use. We should take a step back and take a good look at what a family farmer in 1997 really is? It is not the 1978 farmer with 1978 costs. Of course these programs should be run as efficiently as possible. Mr. President, as for the ``family farmer,'' they still exist and are successful, but they aren't the same as they were 20 years ago. Why? Well, let's look at some of the changes that have occurred over this period. First of all, markets have become global. Not only do our farmers have to compete with each other, but also with farmers around the world--farmers in China, Japan, Russia, Canada, Mexico just to name a few. Technology and research have both been overwhelmingly successful in allowing America to increase its production with less land. We are now able to idle environmentally sensitive land that is less productive and therefore ensure that we never revert back to the ``Dust Bowl'' days of the 1930's. Today farmers live in a capital intensive world. In fact, we cannot talk about agriculture today without mentioning how the industry has drastically shifted from a labor-intensive industry to an industry dominated by capital. Twenty years ago, who could have imagined that farmers would be using satellites to level their land or to tell them exactly where chemical applications are needed? Who could have imagined that biotechnology would yield such complex seed developments? Who could have imagined that farmers would have the technology to so closely monitor the growth of animals or that farmers would have the ability to specifically and scientifically regulate diets in order to achieve faster growth with less fat? Mr. President my point is that agriculture has changed and so has the family farmer. The Guaranteed Loan Program was designed to help the family farmer. Let's make sure it is big enough to do just that. In order to continue this goal, we must address the needs of today, not of 1978 by providing the capital necessary to compete and be successful in 1998. The family farmer is a larger operator relative to 1978 standards. We need new cap limits that reflect this change. Mr. President, I want to truly help the family farmer. Mr. President, Mr. Pickering, my colleague in the House wants to truly help the family farmer. Let's fix a program that has been successful in the past in helping this critical sector of our country. Let us not stop the progress of our family farmers. Congress should not deny any eligible person in our nation the opportunity to own and operate a family farm in order to pursue their idea of the American dream. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of a resolution which I now send to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to read just some portions of this resolution and then comment briefly on why we are doing it today: Whereas, John McCain's A-4E Skyhawk was shot down over Hanoi, North Vietnam, on October 26, 1967, and he remained in captivity until March 14, 1973; Whereas, John McCain's aircraft was shorn of its right wing by a Surface to Air Missile and he plunged toward the ground at about 400 knots prior to ejecting; Whereas, upon ejection, John McCain's right knee and both arms were broken; Whereas, John McCain was surrounded by an angry mob who kicked him and spit on him, stabbed him with bayonets and smashed his shoulder with a rifle. . .; Whereas, historians of the Vietnam war have recorded that ``no American reached the prison camp of Hoa Lo in worse condition than John McCain.'' Whereas, his North Vietnamese captors recognized John McCain came from a distinguished military family-- I might add, a family from my great State of Mississippi-- and caused him to suffer special beatings, special interrogations, and the cruel offer of a possible early release; Whereas, John McCain sat in prison in Hanoi for over 5 years, risking life from disease and medical complications resulting from his injuries, steadfastly refusing to cooperate with his enemy captors because his sense of honor and duty would not permit him to even consider an early release on special advantage; Whereas, knowing his refusal to leave early may well result [or might have resulted] in his own death from his injuries, John McCain told another prisoner, ``I don't think that's the right thing to do. . ..They'll have to drag me out of here.'' Whereas, following the Peace Accords [in Paris] in January 1973, 591 United States prisoners of war were released from captivity by North Vietnam. . .; Whereas, Senator John McCain of Arizona has continued to honor the Nation with devoted service; and Whereas, the Nation owes a debt of gratitude to John McCain and all of these patriots for their courage and exemplary service: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) expresses its gratitude for, and calls upon all Americans to reflect upon and show their gratitude for, the courage and sacrifice of John McCain and the brave men who were held as prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict, particularly on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Operation Homecoming, and the return to the United States of Senator John McCain. Mr. President, in our daily duties, we quite often pass by men and women who have made a tremendous sacrifice in their lives or maybe have just done small things for individuals along the way. We begin to take them for granted. We begin to forget to say, ``Thank you for what you have done for me or for your fellow man or woman or for your country.'' Today at our policy luncheon, one of our members stood up and reminded us that it was 25 years ago today that John McCain came home. There was a spontaneous applause and standing ovation, and it extended for a long period of time and extended a real warmth. While in the Senate sometimes we get after each other in debate and we don't approve of this or that, I really felt extremely emotional when I thought about the sacrifice that this man had made for his country and for his fellow men and women in the military and for his fellow prisoners of war. I realized that we had not said thank you to him, and that when we say thank you on behalf of a grateful country to John McCain, we are saying thank you also to all the men and women who served our country in uniform, who have been prisoners of war and, yes, those who are still missing in action to this very day. So, I think it is appropriate that we in the Senate today adopt this resolution in recognition of the 25th anniversary of John McCain, but also as an extended expression of our appreciation for all of those who served our country in such a magnanimous way. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 20 minutes for debate on the resolution equally divided in the usual form and that, at the expiration of that time, the resolution be agreed to and the preamble be agreed to.

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, we are encouraging all Senators to return to the floor at 5 p.m. this afternoon for the introduction of a resolution. We do have a briefing at this time in S-407 with Mr. Butler, who is the head of the UNSCOM group. As soon as that is completed at 5, we have a resolution that we think all Senators would be interested in supporting and commenting on. We will introduce that resolution at that time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. today the Senate proceed to executive session to begin consideration of the NATO treaty, for opening statements only, and the time between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. be equally divided between Senators Helms or Biden or their designees. I further ask that at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday the Senate proceed to H.R. 2646 and that Senator Roth be immediately recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each until 4 p.m. today, when we will go to the opening discussion on the NATO enlargement issue. I yield the floor. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

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 rise today to introduce the Family Farm Credit Opportunity Act of 1997, a bill that will correct an inequity in the Farm Service Agency's (FSA) Guaranteed Loan Program. Currently, this program has upper limits on the amounts that can be guaranteed by the FSA. Specifically, the two types of loans administered under this program--farm ownership loans and operating loans--have caps of $300,000 and $400,000, respectively. The farm ownership loan cap was adjusted to its current level in 1978, while the operating loan cap was last raised in 1984. That is 20 years ago for one and 14 years ago for the other. A great deal has changed. Prices have gone up and inflation has eroded the value of the caps. Back then, farm ownership and operating costs could be adequately financed within both of these cap limits. Not anymore. It is time for a cap correction. Given today's larger and more capital-intensive farming operations, the limits must be raised in order to realistically meet the needs of those seeking financing through the Guaranteed Loan Program. For example, in my home state of Mississippi, poultry is a growing industry. In the early 1980's a typical poultry house cost approximately $65,000. Today the same poultry house can cost up to $125,000. However, most banks will not finance a beginning poultry farm with less than four poultry houses. That makes the initial costs $500,000. It is easy to see that a minimum of four poultry houses at a cost of $125,000 per house exceeds the farm ownership cap level of $300,000 in the Guaranteed Loan Program. This is just one example of how the upper limits on loans can eliminate qualified applicants. This type of problem exists throughout the entire agricultural community, not just the poultry industry. To address this problem, I am introducing the Family Farm Credit Opportunity Act of 1998 which would raise the cap limits on both the farm ownership loan and the operating loan to $600,000. Mr. President, this is the companion bill to the one introduced by Representative Chip Pickering from Mississippi. He saw a problem and he has proposed a responsible fix. The poultry example displays how much agriculture has changed since the caps were last amended twenty years ago. In fact, while the increase in the cap limits may seem substantial at first, neither increase reflects the increase just caused by inflation. We should at least keep up with inflation for a program that has served as a vehicle of opportunity for the small family farmer. In today's budget-minded era, I believe we must find solutions that will not only correct problems that have been developing over the years, but find solutions at a relatively low cost to the taxpayer. That is why my bill increases the cap limits to specific amounts ($600,000) for the coming year, but also includes a provision to index both caps for inflation beginning in year two. This last provision will allow the caps to automatically adjust for inflation, which will provide a long-term fix to assure that the family farm does not again outgrow the upper limits of the farm ownership loan or the operating loan over time. I would like to point out that my bill will not guarantee acceptance of applications submitted to the FSA. Farmers would still have to go through the vigorous application process, but if the individual is eligible and accepted he or she would have the opportunity to receive adequate financing through a farm ownership or operating loan. Mr. President, we must preserve the family farm and continue America's tradition of promoting family farmers. Congress must provide a mechanism which enables family farmers to receive the necessary funds for ownership and operation of a farming business. Congress appropriates money for the FSA Guarantee Loan Program each year. Congress should put this money to its best and most efficient use. We should take a step back and take a good look at what a family farmer in 1997 really is? It is not the 1978 farmer with 1978 costs. Of course these programs should be run as efficiently as possible. Mr. President, as for the ``family farmer,'' they still exist and are successful, but they aren't the same as they were 20 years ago. Why? Well, let's look at some of the changes that have occurred over this period. First of all, markets have become global. Not only do our farmers have to compete with each other, but also with farmers around the world--farmers in China, Japan, Russia, Canada, Mexico just to name a few. Technology and research have both been overwhelmingly successful in allowing America to increase its production with less land. We are now able to idle environmentally sensitive land that is less productive and therefore ensure that we never revert back to the ``Dust Bowl'' days of the 1930's. Today farmers live in a capital intensive world. In fact, we cannot talk about agriculture today without mentioning how the industry has drastically shifted from a labor-intensive industry to an industry dominated by capital. Twenty years ago, who could have imagined that farmers would be using satellites to level their land or to tell them exactly where chemical applications are needed? Who could have imagined that biotechnology would yield such complex seed developments? Who could have imagined that farmers would have the technology to so closely monitor the growth of animals or that farmers would have the ability to specifically and scientifically regulate diets in order to achieve faster growth with less fat? Mr. President my point is that agriculture has changed and so has the family farmer. The Guaranteed Loan Program was designed to help the family farmer. Let's make sure it is big enough to do just that. In order to continue this goal, we must address the needs of today, not of 1978 by providing the capital necessary to compete and be successful in 1998. The family farmer is a larger operator relative to 1978 standards. We need new cap limits that reflect this change. Mr. President, I want to truly help the family farmer. Mr. President, Mr. Pickering, my colleague in the House wants to truly help the family farmer. Let's fix a program that has been successful in the past in helping this critical sector of our country. Let us not stop the progress of our family farmers. Congress should not deny any eligible person in our nation the opportunity to own and operate a family farm in order to pursue their idea of the American dream. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, back to the withdrawal of the nomination of Frederica Massiah-Jackson, I note that this is at her request in writing, and the President has, therefore, officially withdrawn her nomination. I think it is the right decision on the part of the nominee, and I think certainly it is the right decision for the President to accept that withdrawal and notify the Senate. This nominee had been given a considerable amount of time to clarify the record with regard to the objections that have been heard by the district attorney in the Philadelphia region in which this judge would have resided, and also from the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. Clearly, this nomination was in jeopardy. It probably would have been defeated. I think that would have been the right vote. All concerned have been spared further problems by this withdrawal. So, I am pleased that the nomination has been withdrawn.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 12 noon. At noon, the Senate will proceed to executive session to begin up to 6 hours of debate on the nomination of Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson to be a district judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with a vote occurring on or in relation to that nomination on Tuesday at approximately 2:15. As was announced on Friday, we do expect to have at least one rollcall vote today beginning at approximately 5:30. We will be voting on an Executive Calendar nomination or on a Kosovo resolution if language can be worked out. I understand the assistant majority leader, Senator Nickles, is working on that with the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd. We hope they will get the language worked out so that we can have discussion and, hopefully, a vote on that important resolution. I think it is timely. As always, we will alert Members as to precisely when that vote is scheduled for and what it will be on. Today, with regard to the Massiah-Jackson nomination, there are up to 6 hours of debate and 3 hours and 15 minutes on Tuesday. Following that debate, at 12:15, the Senate will proceed to a vote on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2646, the Coverdell A+ education bill. Therefore, Senators can expect at least one vote today at approximately 5:30, as well as a vote on Tuesday, at 12:15 on cloture on the motion to proceed to Coverdell, and then the vote on the Massiah-Jackson nomination. We are still hoping to clear for passage the Texas low-level waste legislation and the international shipping bill. Senators can therefore expect that to come up. Once we can get an agreement worked out, I think, on the low-level waste issue, hopefully the vote will not be a rollcall vote and it can be worked out and we can have a voice vote. Also, the shipping bill has been through a long process over the last 2 years. Senators on both sides of the aisle have worked on that important issue. Senator Gorton has indicated he would have just one amendment and he would agree to a 1-hour time agreement. But that bill is being held up now by, I believe, the Senator from Illinois because of some judicial nominations. Perhaps that can be worked out some way this week. When you consider the nominations that will be voted on this week, the possibility of the low-level waste legislation and international shipping, as well as the Coverdell A+ education bill, we are going to have a busy week. If we can finish the Coverdell A+ issue without filibusters on the motion to proceed, as well as going to the substance of the bill, instead of just being able to get started on it Thursday, then we can go to NATO enlargement. If we don't get some cooperation on the education bill, which is very important for families and children in America and their education needs, then that will push off the NATO enlargement bill until sometime next week. Now, the Appropriations Committee is scheduled to mark up the two supplemental appropriations bills beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday. So we will have one or both of those available as soon as the House acts, although that could still be a couple of weeks, as I understand it. We will be ready to go in the Senate. The Budget Committee is marking up the first concurrent budget resolution on Tuesday as well. So we can expect those two issues also to come up within the next 2 weeks, or certainly before we go out for the Easter recess. Mr. President, I am looking forward to cooperation this week and a very productive week on behalf of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for the transaction of morning business be extended under the same terms as previously ordered.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time to ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination, and I therefore ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:20 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to executive session, with 10 minutes of time to be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and an immediate vote then occur after that time on the confirmation of the nomination of Executive Calendar No. 530, which is Susan Graber, of Oregon, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit. I further ask unanimous consent that following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, I would like to officially notify the Presiding Officer on a change in the status of the nomination that was to have been debated today, that being the nomination of Frederica Massiah-Jackson. The nominee has written the President of the United States asking her nomination be withdrawn. It is my understanding the President has withdrawn her nomination and, therefore, the Senate will not be conducting a rollcall vote relative to her nomination tomorrow at 2:15 p.m. Again, it is my hope the Senate can consider today the resolution relative to human rights in Kosovo and conduct a vote regarding that resolution at 5:30 p.m. I understand there may be some objection to bringing up that resolution, but I cannot understand why any Senator would object to a timely consideration of the human rights considerations with regard to what has been happening in Kosovo. At the appropriate time, when we can get an agreement on the wording of the resolution, it will be my intent to bring it to the floor. If some Senator objects, he or she will have to appear and do so. If not, the Senate should be prepared to consider the nomination of Susan Graber to be a circuit judge, with that vote occurring at 5:30 p.m. today. Susan Graber is a nominee from the State of Oregon to be on the circuit court in that region.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to Calendar No. 227, H.R. 2646, the education individual retirement accounts bill, and it be considered under the following agreement. Before I make this request, I do want to say again how much I appreciate all the cooperation we had on the ISTEA, bill. I think it is an example of what we can do when we work together on important legislation in a bipartisan way, and also across the aisle, the bipartisan support we had on the China human rights resolution, and on the resolution naming Saddam Hussein as a war criminal. This has been a very productive week. I hope we can find a way to do the same thing again next week. I would like for us to find a way to consider in the fairest possible procedure this very important education bill, the Coverdell A+ bill which does include, in addition to the Coverdell A+ provisions with regard to saving for your children's education, a special provision for a prepaid tuition deduction, and for a deduction of graduate education expenses. Those last two items were requested by a bipartisan group. We have other important matters that I believe will be bipartisan, including dealing with NATO enlargement. So I hope we can find a way to come to an agreement on how to proceed on these bills. So I would like to now go through the agreement that I have been seeking. I understand that Senator Durbin will have some reaction once I get to the end of this. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the reporting of the bill by the clerk, the chairman of the Finance Committee be recognized to send an amendment to the desk reflecting the Finance Committee action on the Coverdell bill. I further ask unanimous consent that following the ascertaining of this consent, Senator Daschle be recognized to offer his alternative amendment--I understand he had been working on a substitute; and I thought it was a good way to start off the debate to have the minority offer their alternative amendment--and that no other amendments be in order prior to a vote on or in relation to the Daschle amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to send a cloture motion to the desk to the Finance Committee amendment and that the cloture vote occur on the committee amendment at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after notification and consultation with the minority leader, but not before the vote in relation to the Daschle amendment. So the cloture motion would not even be filed under this request until after the Daschle substitute had been considered and dealt with by a vote. I further ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived and that first-degree amendments be filed 1 hour after the cloture vote, with second-degree amendments to be filed within 24 hours of the cloture vote. Before the Chair puts the question to the Senate, let me summarize this consent, which I believe is fair and provides for an orderly consideration of the education A+ bill. The agreement, if agreed to, is that the Senate would now begin consideration of this bill. The chairman of the Finance Committee would immediately be recognized to offer the Finance Committee action. Then Senator Daschle would offer his substitute, whatever version that he would like to have, of the legislation. We would have an agreed-to period of debate. And then we would have a vote, without any encumbrance, on that amendment. Then following that vote, we would have a cloture vote, and then the time for that would be determined by mutual agreement. If cloture should be invoked, the remainder of the consideration of the bill would be governed under the provisions of Rule XXII. If cloture is not invoked, the bill would be open to further amendments, with no limitation as to time or subject matter. If this agreement is agreed to by the Senate, I would, of course, give Members ample notification as to when the two votes would occur, those being a vote with respect to the Daschle amendment and the cloture vote. So I will now yield the floor for the Chair to put the question on this. I urge all my colleagues to agree to this.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I regret the objection. I think this agreement is immensely fair and provides for an orderly process, again, for this very important legislation. American people care about education in this country. When I go around this country and back to my own State, other than being worried about crime and being safe in their schools, having safety in their neighborhood, safety in the schools and education are right at the top. People are saying, Why is elementary and secondary education not working in America? We are spending more and more money, and the grades are going down. Why is higher education in America the best in the world and elementary and secondary ranks something like 19th in the world? They want better quality education, they want more choice in education, they want safer schools, and they want zero tolerance for drugs in schools. This is the first opportunity this year where we have a chance to really begin to move toward that by allowing people--parents, and grandparents, and people that want to provide for scholarships to deserving children--to give an opportunity to choose a different school or get a computer for an eighth grader or tutoring for a fourth grader. I know it will have bipartisan support. I have to admit that Senator Torricelli has been very helpful to the Senator from Georgia in moving this legislation forward. So as a result of the objection, then, I have no option but to go ahead and move toward the calling of the bill and then filing a cloture motion. I want the American people to know that the objection is to the motion to proceed, not even on the bill, to even proceed with this very, very important education legislation. I am not sure, really, that I understand why there is this objection. I do think it is unfortunate. But at this point we will start the process, and I will file the cloture motion at this time. I must also note, though, that it does tend to delay legislation. There are those that are going to say, Why doesn't the Congress do more? Well, this is exhibit A, because it has gotten to where in the Senate we have to file cloture to stop a filibuster on almost every bill. This month, we need to complete this education bill, take up the NATO enlargement legislation, take up a budget resolution so we can get it done before April 15--which is what the law requires, I might add--deal with the supplemental appropriations request for natural disasters in this country, the cost for our defense, and for Bosnia and Iraq, how do we deal with IMF; we have to have, under the law, a vote on the Mexican decertification issue, again with relation to drugs; and we want to get IRS reform done before we leave to go home for the Easter recess. Every time something happens that delays another day, it shoves all of this down the line. I must add, I am being asked by Senators like Moynihan of New York and Smith of New Hampshire to delay the NATO enlargement until at least after the Easter recess or maybe even until June. Any time a Senator of either party makes that kind of request to the majority leader, you have to think about it, you have to take their request in consideration--have they had enough time? Will more time be helpful in the discourse? I personally think we should go forward with the debate. I will give the details why I think that later on, but this delay affects everything else down the line.

Mr. LOTT. I do want to say to the Senator from Illinois, I am very much aware of these two judicial nominations. As I promised I would do yesterday, I did talk to Senators from our side of the aisle that have some objections. It goes back to last year. The Senator knows all the details. I appreciate the fact that he did not object to judges that the administration sent here from Texas earlier this week, and I hope that we can continue to work to see if some agreement can be worked out as to how and when they might be considered. And I know that the Senator, perhaps, has some objection to us proceeding with the ocean shipping legislation; we have worked out an agreement on how to proceed on that. This is a bill we have been working on for a couple of years, in a bipartisan way, again. Senator Breaux from Louisiana has been involved; Senator Slade Gorton of Washington, who has some objections and has an amendment on it; and also, of course, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is the chairman of the subcommittee. You have a bill that you have a hold on. Am I clear that you are objecting to proceeding with this agreement because of the hold on the two Illinois judges? Or are you objecting on behalf of the minority leader or the minority? I don't think you want to leave the impression that you are objecting to this bill because of a couple of judicial nominations that have not yet been moved. Is that accurate?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor for Members to begin the debate on a motion to proceed. I thank Senator Glenn for allowing me to complete that action. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that this cloture vote occur at 12:15 on Tuesday, March 17, and the mandatory quorum under Rule XII be waived.

Mr. LOTT. I now move to proceed to H.R. 2646, the Coverdell education bill, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.