Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand that Senator McCain is offering an amendment to the farm bill which would strike a key provision of the fiscal year 2002 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. Earlier this year, the House and Senate sent to the President an Agriculture Appropriations report which contained language banning the commercial and legal use of the word ``catfish'' by importers and restaurants for the Vietnamese basafish. I rise to support our earlier conference agreement, and I voice my opposition to the McCain amendment to the farm bill. As many of you know, the domestic catfish industry is very important to my home State of Mississippi. Commercially-raised North American catfish farms and processing facilities bring jobs and benefits to many people living in the communities of the Mississippi Delta, one of the poorest regions in America. I fear that the McCain amendment will undo much of the hard work by private companies and government officials to bring economic development to this region. I have heard from catfish producers and processors in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana regarding the unfair marketing of the Vietnamese basafish as a ``catfish'' in stores and markets across the entire country. I agree with their arguments that by permitting this Vietnamese fish to be imported and marketed as a ``catfish'' the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, is allowing customers to be misinformed and defrauded. Domestic catfish industry officials rightfully fear they will lose revenue and that their businesses and workers' livelihoods will be endangered. The scientific fact is that the basafish is not closely related to the North American channel catfish and thus should be commercially and legally identified as a separate variety of fish so that American consumers are fully informed as to what they are buying. The Vietnamese basafish and the North American channel catfish are as genetically-related to one another as a cow and a pig. All we want is for the FDA to provide the same scientifically-based commercial distinction between these two items as they give between beef and pork. We want sound science to define what is a catfish and what is not. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the attached taxonomic chart be printed in the Record following my statement to reinforce the above argument. Now, some will argue that the fiscal year 2002 Agriculture Appropriations report discourages free trade. I disagree with such an assessment. It is not our intention to ban the importation of the Vietnamese basafish into the United States through this legislation. The fiscal year 2002 Agriculture Appropriations report will only require the FDA to recognize what science does, that this fish is not a ``catfish.'' I believe that the Agriculture Appropriations report actually encourages fair trade between America and emerging markets like Vietnam. Throughout this past year, my constituent catfish producers and processors have expressed their willingness and ability to compete head-to-head with consumers against the Vietnamese basafish for the frozen filet market demand, provided that Federal and State regulators direct importers and restaurants to honestly and correctly market the Vietnamese basafish as a Vietnamese basafish and not as a ``catfish''. Under a regulatory system based on sound science my constituents are confident that the North American channel catfish will easily outsell the Vietnamese basafish in the United States. I encourage my colleagues to vote for fair trade, sound science, and informed consumers by opposing the McCain amendment.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, soon we will vote on passing H.R. 1--the Better Education for Students and Teachers, BEST, Act. As everyone knows, President Bush campaigned last year with a promise to do all that he could in the realm of education so that we as a nation would ``Leave No Child Behind.'' The Republican majorities in the Senate and the House responded to the President's focus on comprehensive education reform by putting it at the top of the agenda in both chambers. The first bills introduced in both the Senate and the House--S. 1 and H.R. 1--were both named the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. It is the conference report to that legislation that we are about to vote on, pass, and send to the President for him to sign into law as he promised. President Bush recognizes that with almost 70 percent of our fourth graders who are unable to read at even a basic level, our children were and are at risk of being unable to compete in an increasingly complex job market. We all recognize that the ability to read the English language with fluency and comprehension is essential if individuals, old and young, are to reach their full potential in any field of endeavor. As the saying goes: Reading Is Fundamental. And again, as President Bush has said, none of our children should be left behind because they can't read. In reforming education, Republicans have always sought to maximize local control and flexibility over both education policy and federal funding while requiring schools to be accountable for the ultimate performance of their students. School accountability means schools must respect the rights of parents to know about their child's performance as well as the quality of a child's instructors and learning environment. That is why the most significant change under the new law is that parents are empowered with new options. For the first time, parents whose children are trapped in failing public schools will be able to demand that a local school district give them a portion of the money available for their child under the Title I Disadvantaged Children program--approximately $500 to $1,000--so the parents can use it to get their child outside private tutorial support. Such tutorial support can come from public institutions, private providers or faith-based educators. Groups such as the Sylvan Learning Center, Catholic schools, the Boys & Girls Club, and a variety of other agencies will be able to help these children come up to speed in the areas of math and English. This provision has the potential to fundamentally impact the way low- income children are educated in America. Not only will parents have the right to demand money for tutorial assistance for their children, but whenever their children are trapped in failing public schools they will also be able to demand that their child be able to attend another public school which is not failing--and to have their child's transportation costs to the new school paid for by the local school district. This ensures parents are able to access better performing schools for their children. So, while the bill does not allow parents to access private schools as some have proposed, it does allow a parent to get their child out of a failing public school and move them to a public school where they can get adequate education. The effect of this strong public school choice provision will be to put pressure on those public schools within a major school system that are failing to improve or find itself without any students. But fundamentally, this provision gives parents a viable option for giving their child a chance to succeed not just in school, but in life. Groups of concerned parents and educators will also have enhanced rights under the BEST Act. The bill creates a major new expansion of self-governing Charter Schools. Charter Schools enable parents, educators, and interested community leaders to create schools outside the normal bureaucratic structure of moribund educational establishments and much of the red tape contained in local, state, and federal regulations. This legislation will significantly expand the opportunity for parents, foundations, and other groups to create Charter Schools and help them succeed without interference from education bureaucrats and politicians who are hostile to Charter Schools. One of our primary goals in this bill as Republicans was to give states and local communities significantly more flexibility over the management of Federal dollars they receive, and to pared down the amount of red tape that comes with the Federal dollars. While not as strong as we would have liked, there are a series of initiatives in this bill that offer significant help in this regard. State and local governments, and local school districts, will be able to move up to 50 percent of their non-title I funds from one account to another without Federal approval. This means funding for teacher quality, technology innovation programs, safe and drug-free schools, and other programs would all be open to movement of Federal funds from account to account depending on where a State or local community, and not Washington, DC, feels that it can get the most benefit from the dollars. In addition, 150 school districts--at least three per State--would be able to apply for waivers from virtually all Federal education rules and requirements associated with a variety of ESEA programs, in exchange for agreeing to obtain higher than required levels of achievement for their low-income students. This provision gives local communities dramatic new flexibility in running their schools. Seven whole States, if they volunteer, may participate in a demonstration program which would allow Federal funds--other than title I funds--to be used by the State for any educational activity authorized by H.R. 1. Therefore, States would have greater control over such funds as the innovative block grant program, State administration component of title I, State administration/State activities components of title I, Part B and other Federal funds. Another significant accomplishment of this bill is the streamlining and consolidation of the number of Federal education programs, which often led to confusion and duplication of efforts. Under current law there are 55 Federal education programs for elementary and secondary schools. This bill makes a down payment on further consolidation by reducing the total number of programs to 45, despite creating several new programs in the bill. This consolidation, although not as dramatic as one would like, is a significant improvement. The bill also includes reforms to improve teacher quality and training. It includes the Teacher Empowerment Act which takes numerous existing professional development programs for Teachers and the current Class Size Program and merges them into one flexible program which allows local districts to use the funds as they see best for the purposes of hiring teachers, improving teacher professional development, or providing merit pay or other innovative ways to reward and retain high quality teachers. The bill continues the initiative in current law called the Troops to Teachers program that encourages retired members of the Armed Services to become teachers. The bill also directs that 95 percent of the Federal funds targeted for teacher quality go directly to local school districts. And while the bill provides funds to be used for the recruitment of hiring qualified teachers, it explicitly prohibits funds from being used to plan, develop, implement or administer any mandatory national teacher or professional test or certification. In other words, Federal funds cannot be used to create a national teacher certification system. Teachers are also given legal protection under the Teacher Liability Act contained within the bill which will shield teachers, principals and other school professionals from frivolous lawsuits. It is a major piece of lawsuit reform that will help ensure that teachers and other school professionals have the ability to maintain discipline, order, and a proper learning environment in the classroom without having to fear losing their home or their life savings. H.R. 1, the BEST Act, also reorganizes bilingual education initiatives so that the emphasis is now on teaching English rather than separating children who do not speak English and putting them into an atmosphere where they never actually learn English. It also gives the parents of bilingual children the right to demand information about the classes and instructional programs their children are placed in. Most importantly, they are given the right to object to their children's placement or classes to ensure that their children do not end up being locked in a limited-English situation. This is one of the bill's most significant achievements as it involves much needed reforms to a program critical to the success of students with limited English proficiency. It provides accountability to a program which has been misdirected for too long. The final major accomplishment of H.R. 1 is that it imposes stringent accountability standards on schools and their performance with the goal of assuring that low income students are learning at a level that is equal to their peers. In accomplishing this goal, the bill specifically prohibits federally sponsored national testing or Federal control over curriculum. It sets up a series of tests to ensure that any national test, such as NAEP, which is used for evaluation purposes is fair and objective, and does not test or evaluate a child's views, opinions, or beliefs. The bill also includes a trigger mechanism so that State based testing requirements are paid for by the Federal Government, not states or local school districts, thus avoiding an unfunded mandate. Finally, the bill contains several provisions which are important to ensure that Federal funds are used appropriately and objectively without bias. The bill denies Federal funds to any school district that prevents or otherwise denies participation in constitutionally- protected voluntary school prayer. Funding is also denied any public school or educational agency that discriminates against or denies equal access to any group affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America. It requires that the Nation's Armed Forces recruiters have the same access to high school students as college recruiters and job recruiters have. Schools will also be required to transfer student disciplinary records from local school districts to a student's new private or public school so discipline and safety issues are fully appreciated and anticipated by administrators, teachers, parents, and, of course, new classmates at their new school. President Bush's agenda for education reform as embodied in this bill serves as a framework for common action, encouraging all of us, Democrat, Republican, and Independent, to work in concert to strengthen our elementary and secondary schools to, as the President says, ``build the mind and character of every child, from every background, in every part of America.'' Madam President, I do want to say, since we are about to begin the vote, how much I appreciate the outstanding leadership and work that has been done by Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy. Without their indomitable spirit, it would not have happened. We are indebted to them. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to one of my departing staff who has been working in my personal office for almost 4 years. Marie Moore has served as my Deputy Press Secretary since May 1998, and has distinguished herself in many ways. She has handled her duties with grace and professionalism, and quite frankly has set the standard for those who will follow her in this very demanding position. Marie has served with me during some of our Nation's most historic and sometimes very difficult and dramatic events. On occasion these events have demanded very much of her, as they did all Senate staff members but particularly those who are required to deal one on one with a sometimes skeptical or hostile media. She certainly leaves Washington with some memories and experiences which will benefit her professional career and her personal life for many years to come. Marie's tenacious work ethic and organizational skills have benefited our office's operation greatly. Both are exemplary. Maybe she learned these attributes at Ole Miss, where she graduated with a journalism degree just before coming to Washington. However, I suspect the best of Marie Moore is a product of her wonderful family and upbringing back in Holly Springs, MS. Only a few short days after joining my staff, Marie began reorganizing the press shop, adding new filing cabinets, rearranging furniture, finding more space for this or that, all for the better. She has demonstrated a tremendous capacity for leadership. She knows how to take charge and really get things done with presented with virtually any challenge. For instance, in addition to working on my staff, Marie has been an active member of the Mississippi Society of Washington, helping to organize events and recruit new members. She has also selflessly assisted me and my staff in a number of other duties, not necessarily in her job description, but tasks which must be done and require an exceptional degree of patience, understanding, and skill. She is excellent with my constituents who come to Washington. Marie has always provided a friendly face and warm welcome for the many visitors I receive each day, and she is always quick to entertain them with refreshments or conversation if the have to wait. Additionally, she has done a wonderful job in handling the many photographs which are required of a U.S. Senator. Marie always makes sure those seeking a photo with me have that opportunity, and that these many photos get back to those with whom I have met. Marie has proven to be press savvy, something we all value here in Washington. She has a keen mind for what may or may not be a news item, and in their regard shows experience well beyond her years. Marie knows how to meet deadlines, how to prioritize and most importantly how to get information to the public in an effective, comprehensive and timely manner. We all know people who are somehow just prone to being successful in anything they undertake. Marie is one of those people. I have no doubt, that whatever career path is are in Marie Moore's future, she will succeed. May I add, for those Americans who sometimes make negative generalization about America's younger people, Marie Moore is just the opposite in every way. She is an example of the best in America's future. She is an asset to our country and to this institution. I will miss her very much, and so will many other people in the U.S. Senate who work with Marie on a daily basis. Marie made it a point to know names, remember faces throughout the Capitol and Senate Office Buildings, just as she did with our visitors. I know the folks down in the Senate recording studio, the photo studio, the service department and a host of other Senate offices share my sentiments about Marie, and our loss. But, we wish Marie the very best in her new endeavor, and I certainly hope she will stop by and visit when back in Washington.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Is the majority leader propounding that unanimous consent request at this time or are you going to wait until after this?

Mr. LOTT. If you would be willing to do it now, we would get on to this issue quicker.

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LOTT. Just to clarify what was said, Senator Harkin said that there will be more votes tonight. That is not what Senator Daschle said. He said this does not preclude that. We have our normal rights for full debate, and we have to work out agreements to when we would vote, ordinarily. So I am not saying there will not be votes, but I just do not want to leave the wrong impression.

Mr. LOTT. I don't want to make any more profound statement on this subject than Senator Daschle did. I would want to consult with him. No final decision or announcement has been made on that.

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

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me just say that I will not object. I think this is a reasonable arrangement. I want to explain, though, why we are doing this. We were scheduled to have a vote at 4 o'clock on the cloture motion. We had at least a couple Senators who were unavoidably delayed, and we would want to accommodate that under these conditions. This allows us to move forward on the Defense authorization bill, which we need to do, and that we would have the vote on the cloture motion that was scheduled for 4 o'clock at 5:30, as I understand it, followed by the vote on the defense authorization conference report, followed by a vote on a judge--stacked votes. For those of you who are worried about agriculture, as I understand it, don't worry, because everything will be at this point when we, if and when, come back to it. But this is to accommodate as many Senators as possible while getting a vote on the very important defense authorization bill and a vote on the cloture motion on the agriculture bill.

Mr. LOTT. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if Senator Daschle would yield before he propounds the request, I don't intend to object. I want to make the record clear, if he would yield.

Mr. LOTT. So Senators understand what has happened here and that we have had a consultation, I have discussed this schedule with Senator Lugar, the ranking member on Agriculture, and Senators Cochran and Roberts and others, to make sure there is agreement that we could and should go ahead and go forward with this vote on cloture at 4 o'clock. We could object and insist that it occur on Friday. We don't believe anything positive would be achieved by that. This would make it possible for us to go forward and deal with other issues, hopefully the defense authorization and intelligence authorization, and then next Monday do the education conference report. That is very important. There is a time agreement included here about how we would get to a vote on that conference report with a vote scheduled at 11.

Mr. LOTT. We are obviously still very concerned about this bill. We want to have the opportunity to offer additional amendments and substitutes. We saw no reason not to have the cloture vote at this time. I wanted to get that in the Record before the UC was propounded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, if I could, just for one clarification, if Senator Daschle would clarify, will we have the vote on the judge that had been scheduled in this back-to-back vote?

Mr. LOTT. I withdraw.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I observe Senator Thurmond's microphone was not on at that moment. I do want to observe also on this very happy 99th birthday, he is looking rather dapper today. He asked if perhaps the tie was a little too bright, and I said, no, it was befitting of him on this special occasion. We all extend our birthday wishes and very best wishes for the future to Senator Thurmond. He has been an example and an inspiration to all of us. He has been a tremendous servant for the people of South Carolina. I have known very few people in my life more dedicated to their job and to the people they represent. We are just so very proud of Senator Thurmond and extend him our very best wishes. Thank you, sir. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I believe there are 5 minutes reserved for the Republican leadership and then there are 5 minutes reserved for Senator Daschle and the Democratic leadership, and then we will be ready for a vote; is that correct?

Mr. LOTT. I am not asking for additional time. I am trying to clarify how much time I have and the approximate time we will have a vote. I presume we will try to vote by 5:15 p.m.; is that correct?

Mr. LOTT. I will use a portion of the time I have reserved. Mr. President, it is unfortunate we are on the underlying bill at this point, the railroad retirement bill. While obviously there can be some arguments made for it and with some amendments it probably could pass by an overwhelming vote because the concept does have a large number of supporters on both sides of the aisle, I wish the Finance Committee had been able to bring this up in regular order, have hearings, have a markup, and report a bill. I believe the problems with the bill could have been addressed. There have been other issues, obviously, that have distracted our attention this year, but I still regret it has come up in this particular way. Energy Policy As to the pending issues, I believe there are fewer issues more important facing our Nation today than the fact we do not have a national energy policy. We need to do it now, not later this month, not next month, and not February or March. It needs to be done as soon as possible, and it needs to be broad based. It needs to provide for additional production. It needs to provide for alternative fuels and conservation. We need incentives for more production. We need to look at the transmission systems. We need to look at nuclear power. All of it should be done. For that reason, I offered this amendment to the substitute that would allow us to have a full debate and hopefully a direct vote on this issue of a national energy policy. Cloning In addition, of course, we have coupled with this amendment the 6- month moratorium on the issue of cloning. We have heard from Senator Murkowski and Senator Brownback about the importance of both of these issues. Whether one thinks we should have some sort of research in this area of cloning, there is no question there is a lot of uncertainty about what this really means and how it would affect this whole question of human cloning. So Senator Brownback--responsibly, I believe, in view of recent developments--has proposed a 6-month moratorium to give us time to sort this out, to talk among ourselves, and to hear from experts, and in the meantime not to have this steady march toward this question of human cloning. That is why these two issues are before us. I recommend and urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the energy bill and the cloning issue because we should not cut off debate. We should have full debate. We should have amendments to these issues. I believe with proper debate and with some amendments being offered, we could come up with an energy bill that would pass this Senate overwhelmingly, probably nearly unanimously. Would it be exactly the way I would write it or any Senator on either side of the aisle would write it? Probably not. Would it be a major step forward? Yes, it would. Should we get a direct vote on the cloning issue? We should, in my opinion. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture, continue this debate, and then vote no on the substitute, because if my colleagues vote yes on the substitute, invoke cloture, then they wipe this issue off the table and they will not have an opportunity to have a full debate and direct votes on the amendments. Regardless of what happens, at some point we are going to get to the underlying substance. The energy and cloning language does not replace the railroad bill. It is on top of that. We are going to get to the substance, and there are going to be substantial amendments that will be offered to correct some of the concerns or at least address some of the concerns in this legislation. With some participation on both sides, I believe we could reach an agreement to pass this bill, with the energy and cloning parts added, by the middle or the latter part of this week. The other side of it is, these issues are not going to go away. These are very important issues. In the case of energy, national security is involved. The economy of our country is involved. Supply is involved for the energy needs and for the economy of our country. In the case of the cloning issue, this is certainly a very important, very emotional issue. Both issues need to be addressed, and they will be addressed repeatedly on other bills when the opportunity presents itself if we do not do it. Let us do it on this bill. I believe we could facilitate getting an early completion of these issues and complete our work for the year. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending substitute amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I now ask for the yeas and nays on the pending substitute amendment.