Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I am asking that the pending amendment be set aside to return to debate on amendment No. 4560.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the way the American people responded to the loss and suffering wrought by Hurricane Katrina was probably unprecedented and surely unforgettable. We in Mississippi, and our neighbors elsewhere along the gulf coast, will always remember the aid, the labor, the rescues, the prayers--everything our fellow citizens did to bring us through that terrible ordeal. I wish it were possible to acknowledge every individual who came to assist us when we most needed them, but that honor roll is far too long for the Congressional Record. Moreover, their names, I am sure, are inscribed in a more important book, and their lasting reward will be much greater than our praise. I do want to take note of one particular group of volunteers from the State of North Carolina. On short notice, on September 2, 2005, more than 90 health care professionals left their homes and their jobs to come to Hancock County, where Katrina had left the towns of Waveland and Bay St. Louis in ruins. Because Hancock Regional Hospital was flooded, the Carolina volunteers created a field hospital that operated for 2 months and cared for more than 7,000 patients. During that time, more than 400 doctors, nurses, paramedics, and other health care professionals rotated through the facility, caring for local residents until Hancock Regional Hospital could again admit patients. These men and women selflessly served the people of Mississippi during one of the worst disasters ever to confront our country. One of them, I should point out, is part of the Senate's extended family. Chris Ogden, an RN, is the daughter of our own Joy Ogden, manager of the Senate's Appointments Desk at the North Door of the Capitol. To Chris, and to the more than 400 like her who brought hope and comfort to Hancock County, I offer the heartfelt gratitude of all the people of Mississippi.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on Senate passage of S. 2012, the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. The chairman has worked very hard to gain the consensus necessary to pass this bill to reauthorize marine fisheries conservation and management programs. The Commerce Committee report on this bill provides a wealth of information concerning the bill's provisions. However, I would like to ask the chairman to clarify two provisions in the bill.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, section 104(a) of S. 2012 would amend section 303(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act in several places to require the collection of certain economic information from fisheries participants and require that fisheries management plans and amendments analyze the economic and social impacts of such plans' or amendments' conservation and management measures on, and possible mitigation measures for, fisheries participants and fishing communities affected by these plans or amendments. Is it the chairman's understanding that the committee intended, for the purposes of this provision, that only the economic impact of direct participants in the fishery that engage in fishing or fish processing be subject to this economic information collection and impact analysis? Does the chairman agree that attempting to consider such economic impacts on persons such as consumers of fish or suppliers of fishing sectors would add unwarranted complexity to this analysis and would detract from the proper focus on only those persons who have a direct economic stake in the fishery?

Mr. LOTT. I thank the chairman for that response. Additionally, section 105 of the bill would amend section 303(b)(2) of the Act to provide additional direction on the authority of Regional Fishery Management Councils to close areas to fishing, or restrict fishing in areas of the waters under their jurisdiction. Is it the chairman's understanding that the committee intended, for the purpose of this provision, that any restriction or closure under this authority will be of the minimum size, and include the minimum restrictions on fishing, that are necessary to achieve the intended conservation and management benefits?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, again, I thank the chairman for his clarification of these provisions of S. 2012. I also thank him for his years of work to improve the framework through which our Nation's marine fisheries are conserved and managed. I can think of no other Member of this body who more deserves to have his name included in the name of the law that governs marine fisheries conservation and management.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank again my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and Senator Craig for allowing us to go ahead and introduce this legislation and make brief statements. It is very generous, and we thank him for it. I am delighted to join my colleague, Senator Dayton, tonight in cosponsoring this legislation. He was kind enough to invite me to do so and even said: Why don't you be the lead sponsor? And I said no, but I will be glad to cosponsor it. I think this is an important statement here tonight. Honesty is the best insurance policy. It has a good ring to it. It is not going to revolutionize the world, but it could make a real difference. This is a time when once again, in many parts of the country and particularly in my home area, we are very sensitive to the threat of disasters because in only 8 days, on June 1, the next hurricane season will begin, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts four to six major hurricanes in the upcoming season. So once again people are struggling with situations of having lost their homes or having their homes badly damaged and being told: No, your insurance policy didn't cover your damage. You didn't have flood insurance because, well, you weren't in a flood plain, and oh, by the way, your house was washed away. It wasn't blown away even though we had winds of 140 miles per hour with gusts of 160 or 170 miles an hour, so therefore you didn't have any wind damage. I must say it has been a disappointing shock to me, the insensitivity and the decisions of certain insurance companies and the positions they have taken. Sometimes they will say: Well, wait a minute, we told you in the policy we don't cover this, we don't cover that. I represent a blue-collar community. Most people work in the paper mills and the shipyards and are fishermen in my area. They have high school educations, but they are not lawyers. They get a house insurance policy and they think: I am covered. Now, go back and take a look at your insurance policies. If you really take a look at it, you will find that this is not covered, that is not covered, this is not covered, and the next thing you know, you haven't got much coverage, but your premium still goes forward. The standard policies, for instance, don't cover earthquakes and floods, and depending on where you live, hurricanes may not even be covered. That is going to be determined in legal actions. Sometimes they say: Well, unless the policy specifically says the hurricane was covered, then it is not covered. Well, that is an ingenious argument, too. So we have found that there are lots of problems here, and it breaks my heart, what I have seen happen to thousands of my constituents and people in the neighboring States of Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama. They are being told: No, you didn't read the small print in your policy, you are not covered, or because it didn't say you were covered, then you are not covered. That is why I have joined in sponsoring this bill. Surely we should have honesty in everything, including insurance coverage. At least we should find a way to help the people understand. So this is what this bill does. It is not all that complicated. It would require that insurance companies include a noncoverage disclosure box--a noncoverage disclosure box--restating in the body of the policy, in font twice the current size of the text, all conditions, exclusions, and other limitations of coverage under that policy. In other words, make it clear. Don't hide it in legalese and gobbledegook. Make it title size, make it bold, where people can go and see what they are not getting. Some people say: Wait a minute, this may be damaging to the companies. No, I think it will help the companies. It will increase consumer confidence. It will avoid disagreements or conflicts about what is covered. You will have a clarification here, and if you have questions, then at least you can clear them up. It would be in their interests. One other criticism, and that is, what is it going to cost the Federal Government? Answer: Nothing. And very little to the companies. They have these exclusions woven in there, but they are quite often way down in the body of some long policy, incomprehensible to the minds of normal and sane men and women. So I think this is something which would be good. Frankly, I agree with the Consumer Federation of America. This small requirement could have saved many people pain and suffering and hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe even billions, after Katrina. So I think it is a good idea, and it is one I am glad to cosponsor. I hope that as we continue to look at what we do in the aftermath of recent disasters and how we do a better job compared to future disasters, this can be worked into the body of legislation. So I am delighted to join as a cosponsor. I thank Senator Dayton, and I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Cornyn for allowing us to do this.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank again my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and Senator Craig for allowing us to go ahead and introduce this legislation and make brief statements. It is very generous, and we thank him for it. I am delighted to join my colleague, Senator Dayton, tonight in cosponsoring this legislation. He was kind enough to invite me to do so and even said: Why don't you be the lead sponsor? And I said no, but I will be glad to cosponsor it. I think this is an important statement here tonight. Honesty is the best insurance policy. It has a good ring to it. It is not going to revolutionize the world, but it could make a real difference. This is a time when once again, in many parts of the country and particularly in my home area, we are very sensitive to the threat of disasters because in only 8 days, on June 1, the next hurricane season will begin, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts four to six major hurricanes in the upcoming season. So once again people are struggling with situations of having lost their homes or having their homes badly damaged and being told: No, your insurance policy didn't cover your damage. You didn't have flood insurance because, well, you weren't in a flood plain, and oh, by the way, your house was washed away. It wasn't blown away even though we had winds of 140 miles per hour with gusts of 160 or 170 miles an hour, so therefore you didn't have any wind damage. I must say it has been a disappointing shock to me, the insensitivity and the decisions of certain insurance companies and the positions they have taken. Sometimes they will say: Well, wait a minute, we told you in the policy we don't cover this, we don't cover that. I represent a blue-collar community. Most people work in the paper mills and the shipyards and are fishermen in my area. They have high school educations, but they are not lawyers. They get a house insurance policy and they think: I am covered. Now, go back and take a look at your insurance policies. If you really take a look at it, you will find that this is not covered, that is not covered, this is not covered, and the next thing you know, you haven't got much coverage, but your premium still goes forward. The standard policies, for instance, don't cover earthquakes and floods, and depending on where you live, hurricanes may not even be covered. That is going to be determined in legal actions. Sometimes they say: Well, unless the policy specifically says the hurricane was covered, then it is not covered. Well, that is an ingenious argument, too. So we have found that there are lots of problems here, and it breaks my heart, what I have seen happen to thousands of my constituents and people in the neighboring States of Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama. They are being told: No, you didn't read the small print in your policy, you are not covered, or because it didn't say you were covered, then you are not covered. That is why I have joined in sponsoring this bill. Surely we should have honesty in everything, including insurance coverage. At least we should find a way to help the people understand. So this is what this bill does. It is not all that complicated. It would require that insurance companies include a noncoverage disclosure box--a noncoverage disclosure box--restating in the body of the policy, in font twice the current size of the text, all conditions, exclusions, and other limitations of coverage under that policy. In other words, make it clear. Don't hide it in legalese and gobbledegook. Make it title size, make it bold, where people can go and see what they are not getting. Some people say: Wait a minute, this may be damaging to the companies. No, I think it will help the companies. It will increase consumer confidence. It will avoid disagreements or conflicts about what is covered. You will have a clarification here, and if you have questions, then at least you can clear them up. It would be in their interests. One other criticism, and that is, what is it going to cost the Federal Government? Answer: Nothing. And very little to the companies. They have these exclusions woven in there, but they are quite often way down in the body of some long policy, incomprehensible to the minds of normal and sane men and women. So I think this is something which would be good. Frankly, I agree with the Consumer Federation of America. This small requirement could have saved many people pain and suffering and hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe even billions, after Katrina. So I think it is a good idea, and it is one I am glad to cosponsor. I hope that as we continue to look at what we do in the aftermath of recent disasters and how we do a better job compared to future disasters, this can be worked into the body of legislation. So I am delighted to join as a cosponsor. I thank Senator Dayton, and I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Cornyn for allowing us to do this.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, Program Reform Act of 2006. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Pryor, who serves on the Commerce Committee with me. Since being introduced in the 1970s, CAFE standards have been controversial. The effectiveness of these standards is often debated as is their effect on safety, consumer choice, and the automobile industry. CAFE became so controversial that it essentially was frozen for many years. The stand-off over CAFE finally eased a little bit when a Congressionally commissioned National Academy of Sciences review of the CAFE program was released in 2002. Although that study found that CAFE had in fact reduced energy consumption, the Academy was critical of how the program was structured and found that there was a negative impact on safety. Just this spring, the Department of Transportation issued new reformed CAFE rules for pickup trucks, vans, and SUVs. This rule is a radical departure from prior CAFE rules in that it applies different standards to different sized vehicles rather than a uniform standard across the whole fleet. The Department's approach addresses many of the criticisms in the academy's study. The recent rule did not, however, include new standards for cars. Those standards have been the same since 1984 and there is considerable legal ambiguity about the secretary's ability to increase the existing standards. It is clear, however, that the law does not allow the secretary to ``reform'' CAFE standards for cars, since that part of the statute is written differently than for light trucks. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine, I held a hearing on reforming CAFE standards last week. We heard from Secretary Mineta, as well as the automobile industry, safety advocates, and fuel economy experts. After listening to what our witnesses had to say, I am convinced that ``reform'' is a necessary approach. After that hearing, Secretary Mineta transmitted legislation to Congress asking for the authority to reform CAFE standards. The bill we are introducing today is very straightforward. The main feature of the legislation is that it gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to reform the CAFE program in a manner similar to the rule that he issued for light trucks. The bill puts the responsibility of setting CAFE standards where it belongs--and that is with the scientists and technical experts at the Department of Transportation. The reformed CAFE program authorized by this legislation will address many of the past criticisms. For example, the legislation specifies that the Secretary must take motor vehicle safety into consideration when developing new CAFE standards. The legislation also allows the trading of CAFE credits between a manufacturer's passenger car and light truck fleets. This gives manufacturers the flexibility to increase CAFE where it is most cost effective to do so. Let me briefly address one issue that is potentially controversial. That is the issue of what is being called ``backsliding.'' The concern is that under a reformed CAFE program, manufacturers could simply stop manufacturing some of their smaller cars since these cars are no longer needed to ``average out'' the larger, less fuel efficient models. The manufacturer's overall fuel economy average could then end up being below where it is presently. Although this is very unlikely to happen and that isn't the intent of a ``reformed'' CAFE system, I understand the concern. Senator Pryor and I have included a provision in our legislation to address that problem. I know that there are many opinions on how to deal with this backsliding issue, and some people may not feel that our approach is strong enough. On the other hand, if the provision is too strict then the benefits of reform are potentially wiped out. In the past, many in Congress have played politics with CAFE-- offering bills that try to set unrealistically high or arbitrary CAFE standards. On the other side are those that have simply opposed doing anything. This has resulted in a stalemate and lots of finger pointing. I hope this doesn't happen again, because we really do need to get tougher standards in place as soon as we can. Senator Pryor and I are committed to improving the fuel economy of our vehicles without reducing safety and reliability or losing jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, Program Reform Act of 2006. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Pryor, who serves on the Commerce Committee with me. Since being introduced in the 1970s, CAFE standards have been controversial. The effectiveness of these standards is often debated as is their effect on safety, consumer choice, and the automobile industry. CAFE became so controversial that it essentially was frozen for many years. The stand-off over CAFE finally eased a little bit when a Congressionally commissioned National Academy of Sciences review of the CAFE program was released in 2002. Although that study found that CAFE had in fact reduced energy consumption, the Academy was critical of how the program was structured and found that there was a negative impact on safety. Just this spring, the Department of Transportation issued new reformed CAFE rules for pickup trucks, vans, and SUVs. This rule is a radical departure from prior CAFE rules in that it applies different standards to different sized vehicles rather than a uniform standard across the whole fleet. The Department's approach addresses many of the criticisms in the academy's study. The recent rule did not, however, include new standards for cars. Those standards have been the same since 1984 and there is considerable legal ambiguity about the secretary's ability to increase the existing standards. It is clear, however, that the law does not allow the secretary to ``reform'' CAFE standards for cars, since that part of the statute is written differently than for light trucks. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine, I held a hearing on reforming CAFE standards last week. We heard from Secretary Mineta, as well as the automobile industry, safety advocates, and fuel economy experts. After listening to what our witnesses had to say, I am convinced that ``reform'' is a necessary approach. After that hearing, Secretary Mineta transmitted legislation to Congress asking for the authority to reform CAFE standards. The bill we are introducing today is very straightforward. The main feature of the legislation is that it gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to reform the CAFE program in a manner similar to the rule that he issued for light trucks. The bill puts the responsibility of setting CAFE standards where it belongs--and that is with the scientists and technical experts at the Department of Transportation. The reformed CAFE program authorized by this legislation will address many of the past criticisms. For example, the legislation specifies that the Secretary must take motor vehicle safety into consideration when developing new CAFE standards. The legislation also allows the trading of CAFE credits between a manufacturer's passenger car and light truck fleets. This gives manufacturers the flexibility to increase CAFE where it is most cost effective to do so. Let me briefly address one issue that is potentially controversial. That is the issue of what is being called ``backsliding.'' The concern is that under a reformed CAFE program, manufacturers could simply stop manufacturing some of their smaller cars since these cars are no longer needed to ``average out'' the larger, less fuel efficient models. The manufacturer's overall fuel economy average could then end up being below where it is presently. Although this is very unlikely to happen and that isn't the intent of a ``reformed'' CAFE system, I understand the concern. Senator Pryor and I have included a provision in our legislation to address that problem. I know that there are many opinions on how to deal with this backsliding issue, and some people may not feel that our approach is strong enough. On the other hand, if the provision is too strict then the benefits of reform are potentially wiped out. In the past, many in Congress have played politics with CAFE-- offering bills that try to set unrealistically high or arbitrary CAFE standards. On the other side are those that have simply opposed doing anything. This has resulted in a stalemate and lots of finger pointing. I hope this doesn't happen again, because we really do need to get tougher standards in place as soon as we can. Senator Pryor and I are committed to improving the fuel economy of our vehicles without reducing safety and reliability or losing jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the baseball field has been the setting for some of the most meaningful moments in American history. It was on a baseball field that the great slugger Lou Gehrig, shortly after learning he was suffering from a fatal disease, delivered his poignantly stirring farewell speech, in which he declared himself to be ``the luckiest man on the face of the earth.'' It was on a baseball field that Jackie Robinson broke the color line that had prevented African Americans from competing in the Major Leagues, thus triggering not only integration in professional baseball but the removal of racial barriers throughout American society as well. And it was on a baseball field 30 years ago that another significant moment took place, one that continues to resonate in the minds of millions of Americans. On April 25, 1976, the Chicago Cubs were playing the Los Angeles Dodgers in an afternoon game at Dodger Stadium. It was early in the season; thus, not much was riding on the game's outcome. Both teams were under .500 at the time. So for the fans in attendance, there was little reason to believe at the outset that the game ultimately would be anything more than pleasantly forgettable. That all changed during the bottom of the game's fourth inning. The Dodgers were at bat when two protestors ran out onto the outfield grass carrying an American flag. These two proceeded to spread the flag on the ground, douse it with lighter fluid, and pull out some matches. Playing centerfield for the Cubs that day was Rick Monday. As soon as he recognized that these individuals were about to burn the American flag, Monday charged towards them. As Monday--a former Marine Corps reservist--would later describe, ``I was mad. What they were trying to do was wrong. It was wrong in 1976, and I still think it's wrong today. . . . That flag represents all the rights and freedoms that we have in this country. If you desecrate the flag, you desecrate the efforts of all the people who fought and died to protect those rights and freedoms.'' Just as one of the protestors was about to put a lit match to the American flag, Monday--while running at full speed--grabbed the flag away. The legendary Hall of Fame broadcaster Vin Scully did the radio play- by-play for the Dodgers that day. His real-time description of the incident was as follows: There's two of them. I'm not sure what he's doing out there. It looks like he's going to burn a flag. And Rick Monday runs and takes it away from him!. . . . I think a guy was going to set fire to an American flag, can you imagine that? Monday, when he realized what [the protestor] was going to do, raced over and took the flag away from him. . . . This guy was going to try and perform the indignity of setting fire to the American flag. . . . It looked like a piece of cloth but you couldn't really tell from here what it was. But Monday, from his angle, took one look and realized it was a flag. And the fellow evidently was all set to set fire to it when Monday realized it. And Rick will get an ovation and properly so. So Rick Monday--his alertness and quick thinking--gets a round of applause in center field. And on the message board, it just says, ``Rick Monday--You Made a Great Play.'' And Monday is getting another ovation, and well he should. And now a lot of the folks are standing, and now the whole ballpark. And he's going to get a standing ovation. Rick Monday's courageous and patriotic act of saving the American flag from public desecration then inspired the crowd at Dodger Stadium to spontaneously begin singing ``God Bless America.'' As Monday remembers it, ``It moved the entire crowd. I don't remember if we won or lost the game, but I'll never forget the people singing.'' Rick Monday soon began receiving thousands of letters from people all across the country thanking him for rescuing the flag. His heroic act was especially inspiring to those men and women who were serving in the military or were war veterans. For instance, Monday received a letter from a Vietnam veteran who, as Monday described: wrote that there were two things that he had with him in two tours of Vietnam. These two things kept him in check with reality. One was a small picture of his wife. The other was a small American flag that was neatly folded. The picture was folded inside the flag and in the left breast pocket of his uniform. He would be in mud for weeks and months at a time. Those two things were what he looked at to connect him with reality, other than his buddies, and some of them were lost in battle. He wrote in the letter, ``Thanks for protecting what those of us who were in Vietnam held onto dearly.'' More recently, Monday was visiting the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial in Hawaii when a survivor of Pearl Harbor walked up to him. When Monday went to shake his hand, the veteran--with tears in his eyes--raised his arm and saluted Monday. He then told Monday, ``What you did reaffirmed everything we did as members of the Armed Services.'' To fully appreciate what Rick Monday did 30 years ago, one must remember what the country was going through at that time. The Vietnam War and Watergate had left our country bitterly divided, and America was struggling to regain its confidence in the tumultuous aftermath. In saving the American flag from those who sought to desecrate it, Monday conveyed through his actions that the country the flag represents, as well as the liberty and justice the flag symbolizes, are precious and worth defending. Monday's rescue of the flag thus helped rejuvenate American patriotism throughout the country. For this reason, the Baseball Hall of Fame recognizes the actions taken by Monday when he saved the American Flag as one of the 100 Classic Moments in the history of baseball. Because of the courage and patriotism demonstrated on a baseball field by Rick Monday 30 years ago, I am pleased to introduce a resolution commemorating the 30th anniversary of the date that Rick Monday heroically rescued the American flag from being desecrated. It is a fitting way to honor a historic act performed by a man who not only was a great ballplayer but who is a great American as well.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have been pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Martinez and Senator Landrieu, in introducing bipartisan legislation that will take a very significant step forward in restoring and protecting the Gulf of Mexico. I want to highlight how important the Gulf of Mexico is to our country. The Gulf of Mexico is the ninth largest body of water in the world, and the Gulf region covers approximately 600,000 square miles. The Gulf of Mexico contains 7 of this Nation's top 10 ports in terms of tonnage or cargo value, 4 of the top 7 fishing ports in the Nation, yields more finfish, shrimp, and shellfish annually than the south and mid-Atlantic, Chesapeake, and New England areas combined, and supports a $20 billion annual tourism industry. Sadly, over many years, the resource productivity and water quality of the Gulf of Mexico and its watershed have been diminished by nonpoint source pollution largely resulting from pollutant transport along the nearly 2,300-mile-long Mississippi River. I believe many Americans would be surprised to know that the Environmental Protection Agency's Gulf of Mexico Program, the only Federal program solely focused on protecting the health and productivity of the Gulf of Mexico, is neither authorized nor adequately funded to perform critical program functions vital to protecting and restoring one of this country's greatest natural resources. The Gulf of Mexico Restoration and Protection Act will authorize the Environmental Protection Agency's Gulf of Mexico Program to undertake specific nonregulatory functions, and authorize annual appropriations to support activities designed to improve Gulf of Mexico water quality and marine resource productivity. With an 18-year track record of success, the Gulf of Mexico Program proves that it is not only possible but also practical to manage our natural resources through collaborative, nonregulatory approaches that leverage support, resources, and capabilities from Federal, State, nonprofit, and private sector partners. Unfortunately, the Gulf of Mexico Program is struggling with a very limited budget and a staff comprised largely of people ``on loan'' from other Federal agencies. The historic storm season of 2005 gravely worsened the situation by placing increased demand on the program's technical services, and I expect this pressure will continue to rise as the gulf coast rebuilds. I commend the EPA Gulf of Mexico Program and its Federal, State, nonprofit, and private sector partners for doing so much with so little for so long. However, it is impractical to expect this to continue in perpetuity. Now is the time to take actions to ensure the Gulf of Mexico is protected for continued economic productivity, recreation, and to make certain this great water body remains a place of beauty and enjoyment for current and future generations.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we had an order lined up. Senator Enzi cannot be here at this time so we have agreed to go with Senator Boxer, who is here. She is ready to proceed at this time. We have some other speakers who will be here momentarily and we will get this lined up. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. We locked in 5 minutes.

Mr. LOTT. I ask consent the Senator from California will be allowed to speak for 8 minutes.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as acting manager, let me get some agreement on time so Senators can plan accordingly. I ask unanimous consent the following Senators be able to speak in this order: Senator Gregg for 15 minutes; Senator Feinstein to follow Senator Gregg for 15 minutes; Senator Thomas is next, for 15 minutes; and Senator Reed for 15 minutes.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I apologize for not having my microphone on earlier. We are trying to lock in the next three speakers. Senator Gregg will have the next 15 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from California for 15 minutes.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, we had speakers lined up under the unanimous consent agreement, but they have not been able to reach the floor yet. If Senator Thomas shows up or Senator Reed of Rhode Island, I will yield. I understand that perhaps Senator Akaka is on the way. While we are waiting, I found the remarks of the Senator from California very interesting, as they always are. I found her chart particularly interesting. When you talk about the situation of the Federal budget and the deficits, I think the chart showed where the problem is. I appreciate being able to refer to it. The problem is that entitlement spending will go from 53 percent to 63 percent of the entire Federal budget over the next 10 years. Entitlements are going to eat the entire Federal budget, yes. We are getting squeezed in the nondefense discretionary area, but it is because of the entitlements. We all say that these are untouchable. Are they? We need reform in these programs--in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security--so we can control the spiraling costs they are putting on the Federal budget. There are those who say let's just raise taxes and we will have more money for all of these programs. No. I think that is going the wrong way. Certainly, we don't want to raise taxes on middle-class Americans. This bill would give relief, through the alternative minimum tax changes, of $38 billion to people in that middle-income area. Don't we want to help them? Small business expensing. We want to help small businesses. We heard the Senator from New Hampshire talk about the growth in jobs creation. So we want to encourage that. That is why this bill would provide some additional tax relief, or at least prevent tax increases on small business men and women. That is why we want the alternative minimum tax to be dealt with because so many people are going to be hit with AMT, when nobody wanted that or anticipated that. If we don't pass this bill, then middle-income America is going to be hit with this very unfair alternative minimum tax. We can deal with entitlements, but we have not been able to get the political courage to do so. Then, of course, the idea I have heard two or three times today is that President Clinton had a balanced budget during the latter part of his administration. Well, I was there. I remember what happened on the balanced budget. I remember the very difficult negotiations. I remember that we did have reform which he eventually signed. He didn't want to. We had welfare reform and he signed it. We had tax cuts to encourage growth in the economy, coupled with a reduction in Federal budget spending. He signed it. The Congress had a lot to do with that. I think he deserves credit. He was on the seat and he signed the bills. But I remember it was the Congress that drove that debate, and I am very proud of that period because I was in the leadership at that time and for 4 years, we had balanced budgets and a surplus, proving that it can be done. But you have to have both. You have to control spending, reform entitlements, and you have to cut taxes in a way that will create jobs. I still have a novel idea. I think that people who should get tax cuts are the people who pay taxes, and to have some percentage that reflects that makes a big difference. Some people say, well, we won't give but $100 to somebody who makes $30,000 or $40,000 a year. It is not nearly as important to somebody who makes $200,000 who gets a $1,000 tax cut. But the fact is that you get tax cuts proportionate to what you pay. The people at the lower levels will get a tax cut; it won't be as big dollarwise as somebody who makes more because percentagewise, of what they do in terms of creating jobs, there is no comparison. It is part of the old class warfare that we always go through here. If you tax the people who are producing jobs and paying the bulk of the taxes, they will change their behavior and they will quit creating jobs and paying taxes, and we will have less revenue. We are trying to encourage continued growth in the economy. With that, I see Senator Reed from Rhode Island has arrived. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here and be able to respond to some of the comments we heard from the Senator from New York. I do agree with him--up to a point. I agree that this bill shows the stark differences between the two parties. One is for tax increases, that is the Democrats, and one is for preventing tax increases and supporting tax relief for all Americans--working Americans, middle-class Americans, and seniors who depend on dividends and capital gains to be able to support themselves in their retirement. My colleagues on the other side often say: Oh, yes, we are for middle-class tax cuts. But, in fact, when they get a chance to vote on them, they almost always vote against them, or at least the majority of them. Yes, this is a good example of the difference in the two parties. As a matter of fact, the Senator from New York knows quite well that we are going to have a follow-on tax bill that is very close to being completed, and it has already been announced by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee that it will include the relief for college students paying tuition. We are going to have that. It is almost as if he thinks that because it is not in this reconciliation tax increase prevention bill, it is gone, it will not happen. I will tell you right here and now, it will happen. It will happen soon. I have the press release from Senator Grassley, announcing that has already been agreed to. I do find it interesting, too, that Senator Schumer, while he talks about how wonderful this tuition tax deduction is, when it was first passed in the bipartisan 2001 tax bill, he voted no. He voted no on the bill that had it in there. Now it is the most wonderful thing he has ever seen. You know, there is a little positioning going on, on both sides. I understand that. But I think we need to look at the substance of what we are dealing with and what the impact is going to be. I do want to emphasize this point again, too. Our senior citizens are very dependent on the income they get from capital gains and also from dividends. If we allow the tax on that to go way up, back to where it was, they will feel it as much or more than anybody. So we need to be sure that we know what the true impact is going to be if we do not stop these tax increases from occurring. With regard to the oil provisions, no final decision has been made on that. That will be considered and will be a part of the next bill, frankly. I think some of those provisions that were in the earlier bill should stay in there, personally, but we are going to work through that. But I want to go over some questions and some details of what is in the bill. I wonder, do the Democrats oppose the centerpiece of the bill, which is a $34 billion provision to ensure that the alternative minimum tax does not hit more than 15 million middle-income families this year? I thought this was something they felt passionately about. You know, we have to take action to stop the unintended consequences of the alternative minimum tax, AMT--$34 billion. This is only a $70 billion bill, and about half of it would go, clearly, to these middle- income people. Do they oppose exempting Americans with incomes up to $62,550 from the onerous AMT? Do they oppose quadrupling small business expensing, which allows small businesses to write off up to $100,000 a year in the cost of new equipment? There are two provisions there that, combined, take over half the bill, that clearly help middle-income taxpayers avoid the AMT and help small businesses that keep creating the jobs and moving the economy. It prevents a tax increase for small businesses of over $7 billion from being foisted on this very important part of our economy. What do they oppose? Do they oppose the progrowth policy of taxing capital gains and dividends at 15 percent? Or at 5 percent--get this now--5 percent for individuals in the 10- or 15-percent tax brackets? If we don't stop these tax increases, you are going to see a significant tax increase for individuals in the 10- and 15-percent tax brackets. Do they oppose that? Contrary to the Democratic mantra, these tax cuts affect individuals at every income level. If anybody accuses my State, after being devastated by Hurricane Katrina, of being a wealthy State--we are trying to join the Union and move up in our economic status. Yet, in my home State, over 150,000 taxpayers will see a tax increase if we don't extend the 15-percent tax rate on dividends. Nearly 120,000 taxpayers will face a tax increase if we don't extend the rate on capital gains. That is IRS data. That is not something I put together with a pencil and a piece of paper. The average tax increase will be nearly $200 per person per year. That is significant. I was explaining to my own daughter this very morning about how this bill is important to her. She doesn't have a lot of capital gains. She has some dividends--not much but she is in that category which is significantly impacted by the AMT if we don't pass this bill. I understand. I guess it is a political season and taking positions. I don't believe Democrats oppose anything in this bill. In fact, the Senator from New York said: Well, yes, many people I guess in New York are concerned about the impact of a tax increase on capital gains and dividends. It is just that he doesn't like this one. If not this, what? If not now, when? This needs to be done. What has been the impact of these tax cuts? The economy has continued to grow astronomically in spite of all the major cataclysmic events we have been dealing with; creating jobs; the American dream at the highest it has ever been; and the number of American people who own their homes. Almost 70 percent of Americans own their homes. Yet we clearly show from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that we have had a greatly higher unanticipated increase in the revenue from capital gains than we would have had otherwise. Do we want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg? I don't understand why the American people are still not aware that there are so many goods things happening in the economy. Unemployment is at 4.7 percent, which is caused by 5 million new jobs being created since 2003. The gross domestic product is 4.8 percent--I was astounded by that growth--in the last quarter. Overall, household wealth is at an all-time high, reaching $51.1 trillion. Income is rising, and inflation remains in check. Lastly, but perhaps most critically, Federal revenues grew by 14 percent in 2005, reaching a record $2.15 trillion. The problem with the deficit is not insufficient revenue. It is coming in. It is coming in because Presidents and Members of Congress-- Presidents such as Kennedy and Reagan--knew that if you cut taxes in the right way, you get important revenue. There are those who still want to deny that, but history and the statistics speak for themselves. I think this is a good bill. It is a relatively narrow bill in terms of portions included in it. We only have about five major things, and a few little smaller points included in this bill. We are not finished. We are going to have the follow-on bill. I want to keep the economy growing. I want to do the right thing. This is the right thing to do. I am delighted to be here to speak in behalf of this legislation and to explain what is in it and to question some of the allegations that are being made about what is in it or what is not in it. This is good for the American people because it will be good for the American economy. I don't understand this class warfare stuff that is always going on. If you cut taxes for people who actually pay taxes, you automatically get less. When are we ever going to grow up and get over that? I think it is good legislation. I am pleased to be here and support it. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. It will pass, and we will go to the follow-on bill which will have a number of other very important provisions, and perhaps it will be part of what we do with regard to guaranteeing people's security and their pensions for the future, also. I do not know if I have any time remaining. If I don't, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to get an agreement for the lineup of speakers over the next several minutes. It has been cleared by both managers here in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the next speakers come up in this order: Since Senator DeMint has finished, next would be 5 minutes for Senator Hutchison, to be followed by 15 minutes for Senator Schumer, to be followed by 10 minutes for myself, followed by 15 minutes for Senator Wyden after I finish speaking, and then Senator Enzi would come next, to be followed by Senator Boxer for 5 minutes.

Mr. LOTT. We did not indicate a time amount for Senator Enzi. We were not able to confirm exactly how much time he would need. I think part of it would depend on how the rest of the time goes. Mr. President, on behalf of hard-working American people, I am pleased to rise today in support of picking up this very important Tax Increase Prevention Act. I have been looking forward to this for almost a year now, and finally we have reached the magic moment. I believe we are waiting for Senator Hutchison to arrive. While she is on her way, let me just put in the Record at this point the timeline of what has transpired. First of all, the tax reconciliation legislation passed the Senate Finance Committee on November 15, 2005. The Senate then passed the tax reconciliation bill 64 to 33, a very strong bipartisan vote. On December 8, 2005, the House passed the bill 234 to 197. Along the way, there were many hurdles thrown up, delays, and obstruction. In fact, instead of going to conference, because of the fact that the Senate had acted first, we actually had to bring it back to the floor of the Senate and go through the process again. On February 2 of this year, 2006, the Senate repassed the tax reconciliation bill by a vote of 66 to 31, again bipartisan, actually an increased number. Then on February 14, the Senate completed action on the debate, 10 hours of motions to instruct conferees with a mini vote-arama. But we completed our work, and conferees were appointed on February 18. Now here we are with a conference report and a bill that clearly is needed to prevent a tax increase on working Americans. I just wanted to get the timeline in the Record, and then I will have some further comments, following the next two speakers, about the substance. At this time, I believe we are lined up for Senator Hutchison for 5 minutes.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2006 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a full committee hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. in SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the United States Department of Agriculture National Response Plan to detect and control the potential spread of avian influenza into the United States.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 11, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a closed briefing on Iran's Nuclear Program and the Impact of Potential Sanctions: An Intelligence Community Assessment.