Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Under the order today, the time between now and 12:30 will be equally divided between myself and the Democratic leader. At 12:30 today, following our remarks, the Senate will recess until 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, there will be a period of morning business to enable all Senators to make statements and introduce legislation. I anticipate that many of our colleagues will be making statements during the morning business period. Therefore, there will be no rollcall votes during today's session. It is my hope that during tomorrow's session the Senate will be able to consider the Executive nomination of Madeleine Albright to be the Secretary of State, and I anticipate a rollcall vote on Wednesday on the confirmation of that nomination. I also announce to my colleagues that all Members will be notified as soon as the schedule is finalized with regard to a memorial service on Thursday in Lowell, MA, for our former colleague, Senator Paul Tsongas. Again, I note as we come out of our policy luncheons, Senator Daschle and I will be introducing bills. I will introduce the first 10 bills on behalf of the Senate Republican majority, and Senator Daschle will introduce the next 10 bills. We will be hearing during the remainder of the day from the leading sponsors of those bills and others who will be introducing bills and want to make statements. We will go, I am sure, a while into the afternoon. It is hoped we will not begin this session by going late into the night on a Tuesday. We would like to quit at a reasonable hour, for all concerned.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The House also adopted an amendment defining and exempting ``military reserve vessels'' from coverage under the agreement. This provision is essential to ensure that military ships--such as Army, Navy, and Marine Corps surge and prepositioned sealift ships--cannot be deemed commercial ships under the agreement because of their dual-use characteristics and capability. Without this exemption, DOD may be precluded from procuring military reserve and auxiliary ships with defense features from U.S. shipbuilders without the threat of retaliatory trade countermeasures.

Mr. LOTT. In closing, it is incumbent upon each Congress to ensure that our international trade agreements are in our best national interest. Rubber stamping every international agreement, regardless of its content or impact, is not in anyone's best interest. I understand that the office of the U.S. Trade Representative has invested years of hard work in reaching the OECD Agreement. Unfortunately, it falls abysmally short of the objectives established by the very industry which sought an international agreement. After all, who better understands the shipbuilding industry than the shipbuilding industry itself? And for that matter, who in Congress better understand our national security interests that the committees with jurisdiction over national security policy? There are major disagreements in Congress on whether this agreement is good or bad for this country. Indications from the Office of the USTR are that it is unwilling to reopen the negotiations to achieve an agreement that addresses the concerns of the majority in Congress of both political parties. If this is the position of the U.S. Trade Representative, then I can only say that pursuing implementing legislation in the 105th Congress will result in the same outcome as that of the 104th Congress. I would hope that the USTR would have learned something from last year's experience and not waste its time or our with a repeat performance.

Mr. LOTT. This modest loan guarantee program has begun the revival of commercial shipbuilding in the United States. For the first time in almost 40 years, our major U.S. shipbuilders are building commercial ships for export. Environmentally safe oceangoing double-hulled oil tankers are being constructed for our domestic trades. Over a 2-year period, $1.7 billion in commercial shipbuilding orders has been generated in the United States. These commercial orders are helping to sustain our major builders of Navy ships.

Mr. LOTT. The 104th Congress was unable to reach a consensus on legislation to implement an OECD Shipbuilding Agreement. Opponents of the agreement, as negotiated, insisted that the amendments passed by the House of Representatives be incorporated into any implementing legislation. Supporters of the agreement found these amendments unacceptable. As a result, no legislation was passed to put the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement into effect. If the outcome is to be any different in the 105th Congress, I would urge the Administration and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to fully consider the amendments to H.R. 2754 passed by the House last year. Those amendments, which were sponsored by the House National Security Committee, were in response to major concerns regarding this agreement's damaging impact on our national security interests, and on the Navy's core shipbuilding industrial base. While preserving the underlying intent of the OECD agreement, the amendments adopted by the House provide some modest safeguards with respect to these national security concerns.

Mr. LOTT. As I mentioned earlier, the only government support program for U.S. shipbuilders is the Title XI Ship Loan Guarantee Program. The program was revived and amended in FY 1994 as part of the National Shipbuilding Initiative contained in the National Defense Authorization Act. The purpose of the program was to help U.S. shipbuilders attract commercial shipbuilding orders in the face of a dramatic turndown in Navy orders and foreign government commercial shipbuilding subsidies.

Mr. LOTT. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has maintained throughout the debate on this agreement that the Jones Act, which requires ships transporting cargo between two U.S. ports to be U.S.- built, -owned, and -operated, is exempt from the agreement. This is only partially true. Although the agreement does not repeal the law, it establishes a framework and procedure for foreign governments to take retaliatory actions against U.S. shipbuilders and U.S. exporters for ships constructed for the domestic trades of the United States. These countermeasures include bid restrictions and bid tariffs against U.S. builders seeking international orders if they also benefit from Jones Act orders. The agreement also provides that GATT-related tariff concessions may be withdrawn against other U.S. products to offset the benefit of Jones Act ship construction contracts to U.S. builders. Moreover, the agreement states that the Jones Act is a derogation of the agreement--and I quote--``could undermine the balance of rights and obligations of the Parties under the Agreement and is unacceptable to the other Parties.''

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following bills or resolutions that were introduced today be printed in the Congressional Record: Senate Joint Resolution 1, S. 1 through S. 20, Senate Resolution 15, S. 26, and S. 71.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today, it is my pleasure to introduce the Merchant Mariners Fairness Act. My bill would grant veterans status to American merchant mariners who have been denied this status. In 1988, the Secretary of the Air Force decided, for the purposes of granting veterans benefits to merchant seamen, that the cut-off date for service would be August 15, 1945, V-J Day, rather than December 31, 1946, when hostilities were declared officially ended. My bill would correct the 1988 decision and extend veterans benefits to merchant mariners who served from August 15, 1945 to December 31, 1946. It would extend eligibility for burial benefits and related veterans benefits for certain members of the U.S. Merchant Marine during World War II. I urge my distinguished colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know of no Senator having indicated that he or she desires to make a statement at this time. No request being given to the Cloakroom, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess under the previous order until 2:15.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would be glad to yield the remainder of that time to Senator Nickles if he would like to go ahead and begin his comments.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think we have the opportunity here today to get off to a good start, a fast start. It is one about which we have communicated with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We have increased the number of bills that we officially introduce at the start of the session from what has in the past been only 5 to 10, and therefore the Republicans will today introduce our first numbered 10 bills as well as Senate Joint Resolution 1, which will be the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. And then the Democratic leader, on behalf of the Democrats, will introduce their first 10 bills, and then others can come in and offer bills as they see fit. The principal sponsors will come to the floor this afternoon in the hour we have designated to offer the bills and to make comments. Frankly, I see some overlap between our list of 10 bills and the Democrats' list of 10 bills. I think that is positive. So we want to go ahead and get started with this. We are going to move forward aggressively wherever we can to handle the President's nominations to his Cabinet. We hope to confirm within the next 2 days his first two nominees, to be Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. We hope in the 2 weeks after that to move right along with other nominees. So we are trying hard to work with the administration and set up an atmosphere that will allow us this year to pass some good legislation for the best interests of the American people, but the President, we think, deserves his Cabinet in place so that he can have people there to work with us. One of the glories of the Senate is that it runs as much by tradition and custom as it does by written rules, and so one of those customs we are carrying out today is introducing these first few bills that will lay out our agenda for the rest of the year. So it is my honor to present to the Senate and to the Nation 11 major pieces of legislation, 10 bills and 1 resolution, that we will offer today. Each of them can stand on its own as an important initiative dealing with matters that touch the lives of most Americans. Together, however, they form a blueprint for the visionary changes our country needs. I might even call them the user's manual for a better, safer and more prosperous America. These bills represent the consensus of the 55 Republican Members of the Senate. We did have a unique opportunity to sit together for 12 hours the week before last to talk through what we want to do in this session of Congress and what specific bills we wanted to take up. It does not mean that every Republican Senator subscribes to every part of this package. To the contrary, it is likely that every Republican Senator, this one included, will disagree with some provision or another in one bill or another. But as befits the party of the open door, we have had quite a lot of give-and-take in putting this package together, and, as always, our individual Members make their own decisions about what they will endorse. But each of these bills commands overwhelming support on the Republican side of the aisle, and I want to commend not just the lead sponsors of these bills but all the Senators and staff who worked together over the past few weeks to reach the agreement and get these bills actually drafted and ready for presentation. I am going to leave it to the primary sponsors and others who have worked on the various pieces of legislation to give the details. So I am going to summarize in this time that I have today what is in this platform. Pride of place goes to Senate Joint Resolution 1, as I already pointed out, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution which will be introduced today by Senator Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and by Senator Craig of Idaho. This one, obviously, needs no explaining. There may be still, somewhere in the hinterlands of America, a citizen who does not understand why a balanced budget amendment is desperately needed, but I doubt it. The American people keenly realize the problems caused by excessive Federal spending, and everywhere I have gone, every poll that I have seen indicates the American people support this initiative overwhelmingly. I have tried to understand the arguments against a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, but to no avail, quite frankly. We have not had a balanced budget in the Federal Government in 28 years, and it will probably be at least 4 more years before we get one, if then. I have watched good men and women, including Presidents, make commitments and actually have plans to get to a balanced budget, but it has not worked. This year, I think we have an opportunity to work with the President to come to a balanced budget agreement. We will see his budget plan February 6. I hope he will show leadership and courage and will address some of the issues that need to be addressed that, frankly, he was not willing to deal with last year. But it was an election year, and, hopefully, he will approach it differently this time. But even if we come together on a plan to get a balanced budget by 2002, I still have my doubts about whether it will actually happen if we do not have the leverage guarantee of a constitutional amendment. Remember, when we pass this constitutional amendment, it then does not go to the President for his signature, it goes to the State legislatures, to the people for their ratification. Recent news accounts seem to indicate the administration will fight this amendment and will do it aggressively. I understand they may have some questions or objections. I expect them to make those, and we will listen to them. But this fight is not about politics, it is about the future of our children and grandchildren. It is about the burden of debt we are leaving them with, which is a cruel legacy. It is about right and wrong, and this time around, I am betting that right is going to prevail. Because of the importance we attach to education, one of the first bills we will introduce today will deal with this area. Just like the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget is important to us because of what we think it means to our children's future in holding down inflation and holding down interest rates and stopping the continuous increase in the interest we pay on the national debt that will lead to making it more difficult for our children and grandchildren to have home mortgages and student loans and car loans, we think that education, also, is a very high priority and also an investment in the future of our country. If we have a strong educational system, if we deal with the illiteracy problems, if we deal with the needs of children with special needs, it will contribute to a better America, better educated children, will lead to more production, better jobs, more jobs, more trade, more development in technology. So Republicans are placing a high priority this year on education with S. 1. The first numbered bill will be the Safe and Affordable Schools Act. It will be introduced by Senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia, and it is a comprehensive agenda for dramatic change. It will help not only parents--and that is where it begins, in the home with the parents--but also the States and the local communities to give their children a better education. It focuses, especially, on children attending unsafe schools, to give their families consumer rights and choice in education. In this regard, it builds on the good work that was done in the 104th Congress by the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, who is now presiding in the Chamber. He has done a lot of great work in behalf of youngsters, and that work is confirmed in this piece of legislation. In higher education, S. 1 establishes what we call the Bob Dole Investment Accounts to help parents set aside the resources on their own needed for their children's tuition. Toward the same goal, it makes the interest on student loans tax deductible, and it gives favorable tax treatment to State prepaid tuition plans, to education aid provided by an employer to encourage more employers to provide that assistance to their workers which would benefit their children, and to student work-study awards. S. 1 will fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Act, IDEA, as it is quite often referred to, by authorizing an additional $10 billion over the next 7 years. This is not something easily done, but it is something we promised children with these special needs and we promised the States we would do, and we have not done it. In this legislation, we are making that commitment to fulfill that obligation. That will come as good news not only to the families with special-needs children, it will also mean a lot to the Governors and State legislatures which have been shouldering this Federal mandate without the funds to back it up. I want to mention especially the good work that has been done by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire and Senator Frist of Tennessee on this difficult but very important matter. Finally, S. 1 sets up a block grant for States to promote adult education and combat illiteracy. This has been long a priority with Senator Jeffords, our chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and I am especially pleased it will be included in this package. As I said earlier today at a press conference, we have been talking about trying to deal with adult education and illiteracy problems for 10 years, but we have done very little about it. This is the place where the Federal Government can be helpful in helping to fill a void that maybe the States cannot do on their own. The next bill we will introduce today is S. 2, which will be introduced by Senator Roth. It is the Family Tax Relief Act. It contains key provisions from the tax relief legislation of the last Congress that was vetoed by President Clinton. Senator Roth has long worked in this area. He is the chairman of the Finance Committee. He knows his subject backward and forward, and he knows we need a fairer Tax Code. He also knows we need to give some incentives for growth in the economy, to create more jobs, to have a stronger economy. I still maintain that when the economy is only growing at 2 percent or 2.3 percent, that is a very weak growth, and we should have it more in the range of 3 to 3.5. We think this bill will help do that. It will offset the President's 1993 tax increases by reducing taxes over the next 5 years. Fully 80 percent of that relief, some $130 billion of it, or more, will go to working families, and those are the ones to whom we think the help really should go, and most of it will go to middle-income people. In keeping with our Republican commitment to strengthen families, the bill does create a $500-per-child tax credit for children under the age of 18. The President would like to lower that age, I understand, maybe even to 13, but if you are really trying to help families with children where they have the greatest needs, I really think it is in that bracket--14, 15. So that is how we would start it off. It would apply to some 44 million youngsters. The bill would raise the contribution limit for the spousal IRA from its current $250 to $2,000, and it would allow for tax and penalty-free withdrawal from an IRA for the cost of higher education, for small business startups and for long-term unemployment. What better way to encourage people to look after themselves and address the needs of education and startups of businesses and unemployment than to encourage them to have an IRA with the tax benefits that go with it? S. 2 would also lower the antifamily inheritance tax--I call it the death tax--which is now at confiscatory levels. When you have an estate tax that is 44 percent, or even as high as 55 percent, obviously, that is unfair. Once again, it is hurting small businesses and farmers, as well as individuals, who work all their lives to build up a little nest egg for their children, and now many of them are selling those businesses, because they know if they don't, when they do pass on, they will have over half of what they worked for all their lives taken from their children. Finally, this bill aims to boost savings, investments and job creation by allowing a 50-percent deduction for investment earnings on assets held more than 3 years and would let people who sell their homes at a loss deduct that as a capital loss. The next bill is S. 3, the Omnibus Crime Control Act, again being introduced by Senator Hatch. He has done work on this for a long time, including this last year. It is a comprehensive package of tough-minded steps to fight illegal drugs, terrorism and child pornography. It continues the Republican effort to reform our prison system, to end abuses therein, both by felons and by Federal judges. In so many instances now, felons in prisons are tying up the courts with petty, very trivial allegations that take up time and cost a lot of money. We want to try to reform that area and to save some of that lost time and effort. We aim to restore public confidence in our courts by a series of reforms that will, at last, tilt the scales of justice in favor of innocent victims of crime. This bill reauthorizes major components of the Violence Against Women Act. The next bill is S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, to be introduced by Senator Ashcroft would extend to all workers the same options for flextime and comp time that employees of the Federal Government have enjoyed for decades. These opportunities would be 100 percent voluntary and a matter of choice for the men and women of today's work force. Most of those workers have to juggle the demands of their jobs and the pressures of family life. Virtually all of them, especially those with small children, want more time with their families. S. 4 will help them arrange it while keeping a full paycheck. A landmark of bipartisanship in the last Congress was built to reform the Nation's antiquated laws concerning liability. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of Senator Gorton and Senator Rockefeller and others in forging a compromise, that product liability reform legislation again fell victim to the President's veto pen. We owe it to the American people to try again. We need legal reform. The American people want it. They expect it. They want broad legal reform. But at a very minimum, we should do it in this product liability area where so much good work has already been done. This bill, S. 5, will also be introduced by Senator Ashcroft, who is now chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction. It gives us another chance to overhaul an unfair and inefficient liability system for the benefit of American consumers and workers. We will, in the bill S. 6, again reintroduce the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. This, too, was vetoed by President Clinton last year. But the times have changed, and as the old song says, ``If times are changing, then maybe the results can be different.'' After the election of 1996, the Senate has changed, too. We are hopeful this time around we will do away with this practice that I think has shamed the conscience of the Nation. I commend Senator Santorum, the bill's lead sponsor, and Senator Smith for their dedication to this cause. We will schedule this bill on the floor of the Senate for an early vote. I am sure the House will follow suit. We will send it again to the President. Hopefully, this time he will sign it. S. 7 is the National Missile Defense Act. I am pleased to be introducing this legislation. Building on the work that has been done by Senator Dole, Senator Kyl, Senator Thurmond, and others in the last Congress, it represents our commitment to the American people to secure for them, for their homes, their neighborhoods and, in fact, the country, the maximum possible protection against missile attack. In the aftermath of the high-tech gulf war of 1990, many, perhaps most, Americans think that the Nation is already sheltered by sophisticated weapons systems like the one that protected Israel against the Iraqi scud missiles. Don't we wish. But sadly, and potentially tragically, the truth is that in an era of international terrorism, the United States remains vulnerable to missile blackmail. So S. 7 will put our Nation back on the path toward security and toward lasting peace through unquestioned strength. We have concerns about the environment. One of the bills that we will bring up again this year that we worked on--and we got it through the Senate after a filibuster, but it wound up getting 63 votes--was a bill that would bring to a conclusion the decision about where to have a nuclear waste site in America. We will move on that quickly. But S. 8 is the Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act. It offers a more efficient, commonsense approach to solving some of the Nation's worst environmental problems involving toxic waste. We have sites all over the country, hundreds of them. And yet almost--well, I will not say almost none, but very few have actually been cleaned up, I think maybe as few as 37. Yet, we have spent millions, probably a billion or more dollars. We are not getting our money's worth. This legislation is directed at doing that. Senator Smith and Senator Chafee will introduce this legislation. It would end the costly litigation that has paralyzed the cleanup effort. That is what has happened. There has been nothing but a lot of litigation and no real cleaning up where we needed it. And that has diverted basically all the resources of the program. S. 8 returns to the original vision of the Superfund program--the protection of human health and the environment through realistic cleanup standards; economic redevelopment of affected sites; and fair treatment of individuals, small business and municipalities. S. 9 is the Paycheck Protection Act, introduced by the assistant majority leader, Senator Nickles, who is here. He will introduce this legislation later on. It forbids corporations and labor unions to take money from their stockholders and employees or members for political purposes without that person's expressed consent. You will note it is applicable to the corporations, to management and to the workers, so that there is protection against this type of intimidation and, in fact, the practice of taking money from dues-paying members and using it for purely political purposes. I think it is a matter of simple justice. No one should be compelled by any organization to pay for someone else's campaigning or lobbying. Right here this is where true campaign reform starts. Finally, S. 10, the Violent Juvenile Offenders Act is a companion bill to Senator Hatch's S. 3 and is the result of not only his efforts but those of Senator Domenici, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Thompson. It rests on the principle that violent juveniles must be held personally accountable for their actions. There has been a rising increase in juvenile crime in America. We all know the stories of very young people with automatic weapons going down the street, shooting innocent people sitting on their porches. We know that many of them wind up not being tried as criminals because of their age. It is a delicate balance. But we cannot ignore the problem, and we must be, I think, stronger in how we deal with these juvenile offenders. This bill would assure that violence and repeat juvenile offenders are treated as adults. It targets violent youth gangs, toughens penalties for violent and drug crimes, and fosters the kind of crime prevention and juvenile rehabilitation that have proven records of success. I heard on the radio this very morning, when I was getting ready to come to the Senate, that local officials of the District of Columbia are calling out for help in dealing with gangs in this city, because just last week a young man, young boy, on his way home from school, maybe 16 years old, was accosted by a couple gang members. They wound up dragging him into the woods where they shot him, killed him. He was not involved in the dispute, but he wound up losing his life. This person on the radio was saying, do whatever is necessary. Bring in the National Guard if you have to, but we have to break up these gangs in our Nation's Capital. Mr. President, these 10 bills, along with the balanced budget constitutional amendment, form a very ambitious agenda. It will take time to accomplish. I do not think we should put a time limit on them and say we must do them by the end of February or the end of March in each instance. We should do them as soon as we can, but we should make sure everybody has a chance to review them, make their case for or against them. Let us have full debate, but let us get it done and let us do it right. There will be adjustments and accommodations along the way, but we are trying to get started in a very positive way and offer bills we think are important for the quality of life and the future of our country. The goal of the Senate Republicans is very clear, I think, and unchanging in this effort. It is to free the energy and genius of the American people so that they can achieve a better quality of life. The legislation we are introducing today we believe will allow them to do that--for themselves, their families and their communities--in a society that will be more secure, more prosperous and more caring. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be divided as follows: The first 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader, the second 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader, with the next hour under the control of the majority leader or his designee, to be followed by 1 hour under control of the Democratic leader or his nominee. I do not believe there is a problem with this. We have cleared it with the other side of the aisle.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk making majority party committee assignments for the 105th Congress and ask that the resolution be reported by number, the resolution be adopted, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess on Tuesday, January 21, from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conferences to meet.

Mr. LOTT. I further ask that at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, January 21, there be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. As a reminder to all Senators, immediately following the joint session today, the Senate will adjourn over until Tuesday, January 21, under a previous agreement. Senators will be allowed to introduce legislation on the 21st, beginning at 2:15 p.m. Therefore, I expect many Members will be prepared to submit legislation and make statements during the morning business period on that Tuesday. I wish everyone a restful upcoming week and look forward to the 21st when we will begin the work of the 105th Congress. We will look forward to hearing the President's State of the Union Address and receiving his budget submission, I believe, on February 6. In the meantime, we will be having hearings on nominations and are hopeful we can have a couple of confirmation votes in the first week we are in session beginning the 21st. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, in just a few minutes the Democratic leader and I will be sending to the desk resolutions which make majority and minority party committee seat assignments for the 105th Congress. I want to again thank publicly, for the cooperation that we have received on this matter, both my colleagues within the conference and also Senator Daschle and his colleagues. I think it is not the usual situation that we can file these committee assignments this early in the session. I think it is going to help us facilitate our work early. Following the adoption of these resolutions, the Senate will be proceeding to the House of Representatives in order to attend a joint session of Congress for the counting of the electoral college votes. Immediately following the conclusion of that joint session, the Senate will adjourn over until Tuesday, January 21. On January 21, the Senate will stand in recess between the hours of 12:30 and 2:15 in order to allow for the weekly party conferences to meet. At 2:15, Tuesday, January 21, Senators may begin to introduce legislation for the 105th Congress. However, no votes are expected to occur during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 21, 1997. Mr. President, did the Democratic leader have a comment he wanted to make at this point on the committee assignments, or should we proceed with the resolutions? Mr. DASCHLE 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 send a resolution to the desk relating to changes in certain committee ratios for the 105th Congress, and I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be reported by number, the resolution be adopted, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I announce to my colleagues that one of the resolutions just adopted relates to necessary committee ratio changes for the 105th Congress. I note this allows for an increase of one seat on the Intelligence Committee from both sides of the aisle. The Democratic leader and I are allowing for this increase in the size of the Intelligence Committee for this Congress only due to the great interest in serving on this important committee from Members on both sides of the aisle and also because of the seriousness of some of the matters they will be considering and wanting to make sure that we are complying with the statute. One of the things we have been trying to do as we started this year is to take a look at what the rules are and what the statutes require and try to comply with that. The statute is clear about wanting to have at least two from the Armed Services Committee, two from the Judiciary Committee, and two from Foreign Relations. I think it is particularly important that we have Members from the Armed Services Committee on Intelligence because so much of what they do has an Armed Services Committee relationship. In fact, the hearings on the funding for that committee, I believe, always have to report to the Armed Services Committee. This change in the numbers will be only for this Congress, and then we will work in the next Congress back toward the statutory number of 8-7. We may want to come down maybe two steps, 9-8, but we should try to be in compliance with the statutes on the numbers as well as the committee jurisdiction and representation on that committee. Again, I state that following this Congress it would be our intention to reduce the size, but we will do that only in working with the Democratic leader. This is the only committee, also, that only has a one-seat difference, and the statute requires that. All the others have two. I wonder if the Democratic leader would like to comment on that?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to thank the Democratic leader for the attention he has joined me in giving to the Intelligence Committee. It is a very important committee, and I am not sure we have always given it the consideration that it should have, but we have done it this time. I am very pleased with what the result has been.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk making majority party assignments for the 105th Congress. I ask that the resolution be reported by number, the resolution be adopted, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now send a second resolution to the desk that would make additional majority party committee assignments for the 105th Congress, and I ask that the resolution be reported by number, the resolution be adopted, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.