Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. LOTT. Sometimes that is hard to do.

Mr. LOTT. Thank you.

Mr. LOTT. Make her a permanent one, except when, of course, Senator Thurmond is available. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Now, to explain briefly just what we have done, and it is with the concurrence of the Democratic leader and the managers of the legislation. I do feel that we should get cloture. We should begin to move toward a defined list of amendments and try to bring this very important legislation to a conclusion. But the biggest complicating factor we have right now is that the titles from the Banking Committee and Finance Committee have not been offered and have not been adopted. I hope now that the two chairmen of those committees will be prepared, later on today or tomorrow, to have those titles included and will give the managers more time to work with Senators who still have some questions that need to be answered. So it seemed, after talking with Senator Daschle, Senator Baucus, and Senator Chafee that it was the proper thing to do at this time. But let me say, again, we need to begin to think about what are the important amendments; how do we bring this matter to a conclusion. I had indicated last week that it might be necessary, if we cannot find some way to begin to bring it to a close by Wednesday, for us to begin to think about Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday sessions. I know that a lot of Senators have conflicts and would prefer that we not do it that way. But we will need everybody's cooperation in order to avoid that. This is Monday. I have faith that we are going to make progress this afternoon and tomorrow. And we will do another assessment then about exactly when we have this cloture vote. I remind Senators that we do have a recorded vote scheduled at 5:30, after 20 minutes of debate on the Intelligence Disclosure Act. I yield the floor, Madam President. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 1 p.m. At 1 p.m., under a previous unanimous consent agreement, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1173, the so-called ISTEA legislation, which is the surface transportation bill. As a reminder to all Senators, all first-degree amendments must be filed by 1 p.m. this afternoon, and all second-degree amendments must be filed by 5 p.m. today, as under the previous order. We need to find out what amendments are pending out there, make a list, and then make some determination as to how they can be brought up and begin to move toward a conclusion of this very important legislation. It is hoped that we will be able to consider some of the numerous amendments which have been offered and filed in regard to the surface transportation bill throughout today's session. So, if Senators do have some amendments that they think perhaps can be debated briefly and maybe accepted or put in some sequence to be voted on, that will certainly help us move the bill along. Also, under a previous unanimous consent agreement, at 5:10 p.m., the Senate will set aside the ISTEA legislation and begin 20 minutes of debate on S. 1668, the intelligence disclosure bill. At 5:30 p.m., the Senate will proceed to a vote on the cloture motion on the modified substitute amendment to the ISTEA bill, to be followed by a vote on the intelligence disclosure bill. Therefore, the first vote today will occur probably in back-to-back fashion at 5:30. In addition, I hope the Senate can work out some sort of consent to deal with the transit provision and the Finance Committee provision, both of which need to be offered to the pending highway bill. So we will be working with Chairman Roth and Chairman D'Amato on those provisions as to how we can get them up and have them considered so that those concerns by Senators who will be affected by these provisions can be taken care of. I will be working with the minority leader throughout the day in an effort to resolve these two important titles and will update the Senate as to progress later on today. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Wyoming wishes to speak momentarily. But for now, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 595, which was received from the House.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I understand that amendment is being drafted, and we hope to have that offered Monday. The Senator will have a chance to take a look at it and be involved in it.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, federal bureaucrats issued thousands of new rules and regulations last year, adding billions to the regulatory costs already imposed on American businesses and the economy. Whether you realize it or not, almost every aspect of our daily existence is regulated in some way by the government. That is not to say that the government should not regulate when it's necessary to protect human health and the environment. However, we would all agree that there are reasonable limits to how much protection we really need. For instance, cars are dangerous vehicles. If not properly operated, they can cause serious injury or death. It is certainly acceptable for the government to issue regulations ensuring that a vehicle is able to withstand anticipated impacts. But should we outlaw cars simply because improper operation can lead to death? Of course not. We all can see that the benefits of being able to drive a car far outweigh any risk of death. Mr. President, how do we separate true risks from inflated risks? How do we parcel out real problems from those created by fear or misinformation? How do we rank risks so that we attend to the most pressing ones first? I believe that the solution is to strengthen the risk assessment portion of the current federal law. It is about time that federal agencies focused on finding solutions to problems that present real risks, risks that are based on sound science. For too long, agencies have been allowed to use scant science and political windsocks to determine what should be considered a risk to human health or the environment. From an overblown analysis of risk comes irrational and ineffective solutions--some even more harmful than the basic problem. That is why I am introducing the Risk Assessment Improvement Act. Before an agency can issue a rule or carry out a cost/benefit analysis, it must determine that there is indeed a risk. Since risk assessment is the first threshold for issuing regulations, I believe that a targeted bill like this one would address the most important part of regulatory reform. Simply put, Mr. President, this bill ensures that there is no ambiguity about whether or not there is a risk. By requiring rulemaking agencies to follow a prescribed and stringent set of evaluations, the bill strengthens the current method of evaluating risk. In addition, the Risk Assessment Improvement Act states that risks must be reviewed in light of other risks. In other words, it would require agencies to rank risks from least to most severe, guaranteeing that the most serious ones are addressed first. This is not only smart regulatory and health policy, it is smart fiscal policy. We will be better able to allocate federal resources if we know ahead of time which risks are most pressing. I know that Senator Thompson has done his best to assemble a comprehensive regulatory reform package, and I certainly commend his efforts. But a comprehensive approach offers many complexities, both substantively and procedurally. That is why I am introducing a bill to deal with just one element of the regulatory process--risk. If you take a look at the language of my bill, you will find that it is identical to that in the risk assessment title of the original Levin-Thompson bill. The reason for this is simple: their language is both strong and well written. And it gets the job done. I hope that I can count on Senators Thompson and Levin's support in moving the bill through the Government Affairs Committee. In closing, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in taking an incremental and doable step towards real regulatory reform by supporting the Risk Assessment Improvement Act. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 5 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning I am very pleased to join Senator Frist of Tennessee, who is an outstanding Senator, and also a doctor, who has been very helpful to me, and a lot of Senators, since he joined this body, in introducing legislation entitled ``The Women's Health Research and Prevention Act.'' The bill authorizes and reauthorizes a collection of first-class research and prevention programs in the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Breast cancer is the leading cause of death in women between the ages of 40 and 55. About one out of every eight women in the United States will, unfortunately, develop breast cancer during their lifetime. And so the Frist-Lott bill reauthorizes breast and ovarian cancer research and education programs at NIH. Osteoporosis is a disease in which bones become fragile and more likely to break. My wife is beginning to confront this particular problem. As women age, they lose bone mass and are at risk of debilitating accidents such as fractures. This bill extends osteoporosis research and education programs at NIH. Women's health, though, means more than just health issues specific to women. Heart disease, for instance, the No. 1 killer in the U.S. of women, of course, also affects men in great numbers. Hypertension, a leading cause of heart disease, is two to three times more common in women than in men. In addition to these three key research areas, our bill continues programs in the Centers for Disease Control, including the National Program of Cancer Registries and the National Early Detection Program for breast and cervical cancer. Senator Frist, the Senate's only doctor, and an outstanding heart surgeon himself, provided the details of the bill. Senator Frist is chairman of the Senate Public Health Subcommittee of the Senate Labor Committee, and is one of the Senate's key leaders on all of our health issues. I am pleased that he is also serving on our Medicare commission that had its first meeting yesterday, including a meeting with the President. I have often turned to him for advice and guidance on health matters, and will continue to do so in the future. I believe that just this morning Senator Frist attended a meeting regarding Medicare, and that will be helpful in this effort. I know it will be a bipartisan effort. I encourage colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this important legislation. This morning I was made aware that Senator Mack is a cosponsor, and Senator D'Amato. We are inviting all Members to join us in this very serious and very important issue that we need to act on in order to reauthorize some of these programs and authorize new ones. I thank Senator Frist for his leadership in this area, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, federal bureaucrats issued thousands of new rules and regulations last year, adding billions to the regulatory costs already imposed on American businesses and the economy. Whether you realize it or not, almost every aspect of our daily existence is regulated in some way by the government. That is not to say that the government should not regulate when it's necessary to protect human health and the environment. However, we would all agree that there are reasonable limits to how much protection we really need. For instance, cars are dangerous vehicles. If not properly operated, they can cause serious injury or death. It is certainly acceptable for the government to issue regulations ensuring that a vehicle is able to withstand anticipated impacts. But should we outlaw cars simply because improper operation can lead to death? Of course not. We all can see that the benefits of being able to drive a car far outweigh any risk of death. Mr. President, how do we separate true risks from inflated risks? How do we parcel out real problems from those created by fear or misinformation? How do we rank risks so that we attend to the most pressing ones first? I believe that the solution is to strengthen the risk assessment portion of the current federal law. It is about time that federal agencies focused on finding solutions to problems that present real risks, risks that are based on sound science. For too long, agencies have been allowed to use scant science and political windsocks to determine what should be considered a risk to human health or the environment. From an overblown analysis of risk comes irrational and ineffective solutions--some even more harmful than the basic problem. That is why I am introducing the Risk Assessment Improvement Act. Before an agency can issue a rule or carry out a cost/benefit analysis, it must determine that there is indeed a risk. Since risk assessment is the first threshold for issuing regulations, I believe that a targeted bill like this one would address the most important part of regulatory reform. Simply put, Mr. President, this bill ensures that there is no ambiguity about whether or not there is a risk. By requiring rulemaking agencies to follow a prescribed and stringent set of evaluations, the bill strengthens the current method of evaluating risk. In addition, the Risk Assessment Improvement Act states that risks must be reviewed in light of other risks. In other words, it would require agencies to rank risks from least to most severe, guaranteeing that the most serious ones are addressed first. This is not only smart regulatory and health policy, it is smart fiscal policy. We will be better able to allocate federal resources if we know ahead of time which risks are most pressing. I know that Senator Thompson has done his best to assemble a comprehensive regulatory reform package, and I certainly commend his efforts. But a comprehensive approach offers many complexities, both substantively and procedurally. That is why I am introducing a bill to deal with just one element of the regulatory process--risk. If you take a look at the language of my bill, you will find that it is identical to that in the risk assessment title of the original Levin-Thompson bill. The reason for this is simple: their language is both strong and well written. And it gets the job done. I hope that I can count on Senators Thompson and Levin's support in moving the bill through the Government Affairs Committee. In closing, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in taking an incremental and doable step towards real regulatory reform by supporting the Risk Assessment Improvement Act. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3116, which was received from the House.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time, and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, may proceed to the consideration of S. 1668, relating to disclosure of certain classified information. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 20 minutes for debate on the bill, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member. I ask unanimous consent that no amendments or motions be in order to the bill and, at the conclusion or yielding back of debate time, the bill be read the third time and set aside. I finally ask unanimous consent that a vote on passage of S. 1668 occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 347) to designate the Federal building located at 100 Alabama Street NW, in Atlanta, Georgia, as the ``Sam Nunn Federal Center.'' The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 347) entitled ``An Act to designate the Federal building located at 100 Alabama Street NW, in Atlanta, Georgia, as the ``Sam Nunn Federal Center'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. LOTT. I move that the Senate concur in the amendments of the House.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of the nomination of George McGovern to be U.S. Representative to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture. I further ask consent that the Senate proceed to its consideration, the nomination of Robert Grey, Jr., Executive Calendar No. 527, and nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Foreign Service. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations appear at this point in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, March 9, and immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate begin a period for the transaction of morning business, with the time equally divided between the two leaders. I also ask consent that at the hour of 1 p.m. on Monday, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1173, the so-called ISTEA legislation.

Mr. LOTT. I further ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 5:10 p.m. on Monday, the Senate proceed to consideration of S. 1668, the intelligence disclosure bill, as under the previous order.