Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have not spoken on this energy legislation. There is no question in my mind that we need a national energy policy. I do not think this bill, in its current form, does what we need to do. I have always believed what we need to do in America is produce more energy here at home. More supply--that is the answer--not try to do with less, try to shrink what we have in terms of energy or conserve ourselves into an energy policy. I want more. This is America. We can produce more of everything. More oil? Yes. More natural gas? Absolutely, and do a lot of innovative things with it. More coal? I am for clean coal technology. I am for changing coal to liquids. I am for doing whatever we can with coal. I am for hydro. We should have more hydroplants, but we have people who have reservations about that. It has environmental or conservation problems. And more nuclear. It is clean. It is safe. But what are we doing to get more of them on line? Nothing. This bill has turned out to be really about alternative fuels, conservation, and green policies. Now, for years, I have said I do not want any of that. I want production. By the way, in my State, we can do it. We can have more of everything: oil, gas, coal to liquid, lignite coal, ethanol. We are trying to do it all. We are going to be energy independent. In fact, we are going to wield our power to other parts of the country. So that is what I wanted, but I am over that. I want a national energy policy. I am prepared to accept alternative fuels, some renewables if they make sense, if they are justified in the market but not paid for by outrageous tax credits that don't produce anything. I am for conservation. We should encourage that. Get different light fixtures, look at the utilities we have in our houses, the appliances, are they using too much electricity; insulation, I am for all of that. So let's have the grand compromise on energy. Let's do it all. This bill doesn't do it. To my colleagues, I want to say I believe America is in great danger because of our inability to come together and do it all. I was in Russia 3 or 4 weeks ago. I had a chance to see their transmission network of gas and to look at their fields in Siberia, the oil and natural gas. I met with the leadership of Gazprom, the Russian Government-controlled energy company. It was scary. I have no doubt in my mind they intend to use gas as a weapon. They are going to be shipping natural gas that provides the power to all of Europe, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, all the way to Ireland. By the way, if they don't get what they want, they will cut it off. Here we are in America. We are dependent for our energy sources, 80 percent on foreign oil. Is that good? No, that is bad. Look at whom we are depending on: Russia, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, and then some who I guess are more stable for now: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Is that what we want? No, we don't want that. This is a dangerous situation. So we should encourage and facilitate the whole package. Flexible fuels, I am for that. We should try to see what we can do with renewables. I don't believe for a minute we are going to get 15 percent of our energy needs from wind. Come on now. Wind and solar. There are people who think we are going to heat, power, and supply all our energy needs in the future from wind and solar. For heaven's sake, get real. We have already sunk billions of dollars into some of these ideas that might work or might not. I am willing to try them. I will buy the deal, but this is not the deal. This is another tax increase: $28.6 billion. I thought it would be $15 billion. By the way, let me make it clear. There is some good stuff in here. Some of it I supported, some of it I voted for. But overall, what we have is an energy bill that came out of the Energy Committee that now doesn't amount to very much; it is all about renewables and green policy. It is not going to produce another drop of oil, 1 cubic foot of natural gas. In fact, now, we are going to discourage oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. By the way, I should be able to talk about this because this is in my neck of the woods. I have lived in the shadow of oil and gas rigs for years in the gulf. The best fishing in the gulf is around the rigs. We have oil and gas out there. Our policy in America is we don't want to drill where it is. We don't want to drill in the gulf, we don't want to drill on the west coast, we don't want to drill on the east coast, we don't want to drill in ANWR. I have a novel idea of where we ought to drill: Drill where it is, and do it safely. We can do that. Finally, after a lot of huffing and puffing and stroking and scratching last year, we finally said: Yes, we are going to have more oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It is going to be in a defined area. It is not going to be close to the shore, which I think it should be, much closer to the Florida coast, for instance--and my coast, too, for that matter--but we did it for control in a responsible, acceptable way. The States, by the way, are going to get some royalties out of it for the first time ever, or for the first time in many years. We came up with a good deal. Now, in this bill, we are going to go back, and we are going to levy a 13-percent tax on oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico that will cost $10.6 billion on the oil companies. Now, look, I am not going to cry any tears for oil companies. I have a populist streak in me. I don't like gasoline prices. But, buddy, let me tell you, this bill is not going to reduce anybody's gasoline prices. This bill is not a national energy policy. This bill will lead to less American production in the critical areas where we could do something quickly. By the way, we are going to tax them. Are we never going to learn when you tax something, you get less? If you get less, what do you think it is going to do to the price of gasoline? By the way, we are going to ride these cats--these companies--offshore. They are not going to put up with all these taxes. They are going to go get it somewhere else. They can do business internationally. The biggest company in the world, ExxonMobil--they are not the biggest company in terms of oil or gasoline in America, no; there are other companies that fit that role--much of their business is overseas. So there is about $21 billion more on the oil companies, and I think it is being done in the wrong way. But we can't come out and talk about how we are going to make such great changes and that we are going to do something about energy prices and the price of gasoline, when the reverse is true. This bill would say that--exactly, it would effectively strike all the tax increases unless and until such time as the Energy Secretary can certify they will not result in increased gas prices or increased dependence on foreign sources of energy. You are right, you know, they would not be able to certify that. This would not be good for the country. Yes, again, I wish to say the Wyden amendment is in there. I support it. I voted against the amendment awhile ago that Senator Kyl had. I am not pure either. I am over trying to be pure. But I do expect us to not do the wrong things on energy policy--don't do the bad things, even if we can't do the right things. I am extremely upset about what we have come up with out of the Finance Committee and on the energy package as a whole. This is not going to do the job. It is not going to become law. So here again, the Senate is spinning its wheels. Yes, well, we are making a statement. Maybe we will feel better. But in terms of addressing an energy policy, this will not do it. I yield the floor. Thank you for the extra time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Okalohoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to honor Thomas F. Houston for his 37 years of public service. For the past 9 years, Tom has served as the Senior Policy Advisor to the Director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. After almost four decades of service, he will retire this month after a career in which he served the United States in numerous capacities, including almost 20 years as a congressional staff member. He left Mississippi in 1973 to join me on the staff of Congressman William Colmer. Tom served as Congressman Colmer's press assistant and later helped with my first campaign to replace our former boss. Tom's skill and hard work earned him a stint as deputy press secretary for the Ford-Dole Presidential campaign in 1976, and when that came to a close, Tom joined the staff of the House Committee on Government Operations, serving there until June 1989. During his 12-year tenure on the committee, Tom had a major hand in writing a number of historical pieces of legislation, including the Inspector General Act of 1978 that first established Inspector General Offices inside Cabinet-level agencies to independently monitor their work. In 1989, Tom left the Hill to join the George H.W. Bush administration at the Department of Defense. During the Persian Gulf buildup and war, he was the Director of the Desert Shield/Desert Storm Public Affairs Cell. That operation set the precedent for the military's public affairs policy during the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The impact of his tenure at the Pentagon is reflected in the fact that during just a 4-year period in office, Tom was twice honored by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney with the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service. In 1992, Tom left the administration and returned to the Hill to serve as the communications director for the first Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission. He met with potentially-affected communities and their congressional delegations to negotiate the best path forward for the transformation of the U.S. military. When the first commission began wrapping up its work, he was named Staff Director to oversee the transition to the next round. In 1995, Tom signed on as chief of staff to Congressman Jim Saxton of New Jersey as the second BRAC round began. Congressman Saxton's district stood to be hit hard by the BRAC process, and Tom devoted himself to helping see the Congressman and his constituents through the duration of the second round of the process. When it came to a close in 1996, Tom accepted an offer to serve as the chief of staff to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, a key member of the Senate Armed Services Committee at the time and later a member of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. Tom's seemingly endless devotion to his country was only surpassed by his commitment to his family. Tom decided in 1998 to step away from the Hill in order to spend more time with his children. In a move he later called ``the best decision I've ever made,'' Tom took a job at the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, NCIS. He was recruited by NCIS Director David Brant, who charged him with overhauling the way the agency conducted its public affairs. Tom proceeded to do just that, working as head of communications for NCIS and Senior Policy Adviser to the Director to help bring about this revitalization that resulted in NCIS receiving the international recognition it enjoys today. Tom worked tirelessly to make lasting improvements in the way NCIS approached public affairs during his tenure. Recruiting a top-notch media and congressional affairs team, he undertook an unprecedented public outreach campaign to make NCIS and its mission more widely known and better understood. I am confident that his enormous efforts will continue to bear fruit for years to come. Perhaps the most well-known outcome of his efforts, though, has been in garnering NCIS international attention through the hit TV show ``NCIS,'' which Tom was instrumental in bringing about. The show has earned NCIS and its employees the kind of public acclaim few in Federal Government enjoy, and through constant collaboration with the show's producers, Tom has worked to ensure the show continues to be a credit to the hard-working men and women that make up the agency. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate, honor, and thank Tom and his wife Ginger for their friendship and contributions to our country.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do I have?

Mr. LOTT. I have 9\1/2\ minutes?

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Madam President. I had some passing remarks to make last week about believing we should find a way to move forward the immigration reform effort--to improve it, to change it, but to try to get it done--because it is an issue we should not just push aside. We ran into some difficulties, and there is no use in trying to recount how that happened. I think the important thing is we try to find a way to resurrect it, get it properly considered, amended, voted on, and concluded, if at all possible. But that goes to the heart of what I want to say today. Is this what the business of the Senate is really all about, a nonbinding, irrelevant resolution? Proving what? Nothing. If this should go forward, we would have hours, days--who knows, a week-- debating on whether to express our confidence or lack thereof in the Attorney General--to no effect. Now, I have been in Congress 35 years. I have been in the Senate since 1989. I do not recall anything of this nature having been proposed before. Maybe we should be considering a vote of no confidence in the Senate or in the Congress for malfunction, for an inability to produce anything. Yet this resolution would bring up this issue and have us spend time debating it. This is not the British Parliament, and I hope it never will become the British Parliament. Are we going to bring the President here and have a questioning period like the Prime Minister has in Great Britain? So I am very much concerned about this. A vote of no confidence of any Cabinet official would have no effect. The President makes that decision. And I suspect the ability of a Cabinet official to perform or not perform is in the eye of the beholder. But the main point is, that is not our job. We do not have authority to make that determination. So what are we going to accomplish today? This is all about partisan politics. Nobody is fooled by this. This is about trying to get a vote to try to put some people on the hot spot. That is what it is really all about. Now, by the way, you have not seen me running around making a big scene of expressing my confidence one way or the other in this Attorney General, or any other Attorney General, or the Justice Department, for that matter, regardless of who is the President of the United States. We are supposed to be here to pass laws, to get things done. When was the last time we did something like that? Not this year. Frankly, not over the last 3 years because of gymnastics like this--exercising to no effect. No. What should we be doing for the American people? We should be trying to find a way to have strong immigration reform for illegal and legal immigrants. We made a 2-week effort. Some people said: Oh, that is long enough. I can remember us spending weeks on a bill--I think 6 weeks on No Child Left Behind. I remember one time we spent a month on a tobacco bill, which we eventually had to pull down and move on. To spend in the Senate weeks on a very important issue, so Senators can express their views and offer amendments, and they can be voted on, is quite normal. But, no, we are not doing immigration reform. We hope to be able to get to Defense authorization. Oh, and by the way, what happened to the appropriations bills? The majority leaders do know, I think, that if you do not begin the appropriations process in late May or early June, you are not going to make it. The majority leader has, appropriately, said we are going to pass all the appropriations bills in regular order. How does he intend to do that? We are not going to do a single one in June, and we will be lucky if we do four in July. It is not going to happen. We are going to wind up with a train wreck at the end of the fiscal year. We are going to have all these appropriations bills, once again. I cannot just blame Democrats. We have done the same thing: an omnibus appropriations bill with all kinds of shenanigans being involved in that, trying to lump all these bills together--put the Defense appropriations bill in there and irrelevant language and say: Here. Take the whole wad, Mr. President. Oh, yes, we did it to Clinton, and we have done it to President Bush, but it is not the way to do business. Can we do something about health care? Can we get this Energy bill done? Remember now, if you start these different cloture votes, being able to find a way to get an Energy bill done--not to mention other things we would like to do after that--they are going to be delayed or derailed completely. So this is a very disappointing spectacle here today. Now, the sponsor of the resolution--the fact is, he is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He is in that position, and then he is taking these attack positions. So I do not think anybody has to be drawn a further picture to understand what is going on with this effort. So I urge my colleagues: Look, he has made his point, made his speech. We are going to have a vote in a few minutes. We ought to summarily punt this out into the end zone where it belongs. This is beneath the dignity of the Senate. How low will the Senate go? If we get into this for hours or days, pity how much it is going to debase this institution even further. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed, and let's move on to the business of the Senate and the business of the American people. The American people may not have particular confidence one way or the other in this Attorney General, but this is not an election of the Attorney General. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the motion to proceed and let's get on with the business of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first, let me yield to the Senator from South Carolina, who has a unanimous consent request to make. I yield for that purpose.

Mr. LOTT. I reclaim my time. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for doing that and assure him and Senator Grassley that we are going to protect Senator Grassley's interests and that he will be part of the discussion. Let me just talk about where we are. You know, when you have the legislative process in full bloom in the Senate, it sometimes is bumpy. Of course, last night we proved once again the absolute rule that if the Senate is in voting, you know, at midnight or 1 o'clock, we are going to mess up. It happens every time, and yet leaders continue to do it. I used to do it. It is one of the dumbest things we do around here. But, look, this is a part of the process. This is a worthwhile effort. If anybody in America likes where we are with illegal immigration, and legal immigration, if they think what we have now is good or tolerable, fair or responsible, then, fine, let's try to kill this bill--kill it with amendments, kill it with debate, vote it down. I don't think that is responsible. This is one of the biggest issues facing this country, and the question is, Do we have the courage, tenacity, and the ability to get anything done anymore? If we cannot do this, we ought to vote to dissolve the Congress and go home and wait for the next election. Can we do anything anymore? I don't like a lot of these amendments. I don't like a lot that is in the bill. I was in and out of the meetings, but I was not one of the people who worked in the so-called ``grand bargain.'' Some people are acting now as if it was a sinister operation. I don't believe so. Everybody knew there was an effort under way. Republicans were involved, Democrats were involved, the administration was involved, conservatives, liberals, agriculture--everybody. Now we are going to pick it to death. I just don't think this is responsible. I am getting calls. But I would say to my constituents: Do you have no faith in me after 35 years that I am just going to buy a pig in a poke here or be for something that is bad? Last year, I voted against what we came up with because I did not think it got better; it got worse. But we have an obligation to try, and we should not get all in a twit because we made one mistake or we don't get the one we wanted. Look, I voted for amendments that passed and amendments that failed. Get over all of that. This is a big issue. This is the U.S. Senate, the great deliberative body. Are we going to belie that description or are we going to step up to this challenge and try to get it done right? We should vote down cloture now. Cloture should not have been filed. You can't ram the Senate. You can't ram the minority around here. It just will not work. All it does is make people get madder, and it takes longer. So we are going to have a vote on cloture, and we are going to defeat cloture because more amendments are legitimately pending. But I am serving notice that I am going to be a part of trying to help to find a way to get to a conclusion, to a vote. Vote it up. Vote it down. But to try to kill it with all of those amendments that are being thrown up here for the purpose of killing it, to me, is not an appropriate way to proceed. Our leaders work through difficult times. They are being pulled and pushed by members on both sides. This is the time where we are going to see whether we are a Senate anymore. Are we men or mice? Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let's legislate. Let's vote. I think the majority leader has a right to expect that at some point we end it, try to cover as many objections and as many amendments as we can. But at some point we have to get this done. Unfortunately, the idea that then we are going to go to a debate on a nonbinding, irrelevant amendment by Senator Schumer, if we defeat this legislation, if we fall off into that kind of character debate on a nonbinding resolution--we are fixing to drop off into a basement we haven't been in in a long time. I urge my colleagues, let's step back from the precipice. Let's legislate. Let's find a way to take up things. Do we need to take up energy? Yes. We need an energy policy. We need it now. But can we do it? I want to be a part of a process that gets results for the American people. I don't know why else you would want to serve in this institution. I appreciate the legislative leadership Senator Kennedy has been providing. I know it is not easy. His own colleagues and those of us over here have been beating him up. He is a nice poster child, and I thank him very much for what he does. One thing I have learned the hard way: when it comes to legislating, when you are dealing with Senator Kennedy, you better bring your lunch because you are going to get educated. You are going to learn a lot, and you are going to get a result. Hopefully, it is going to be a good one. Good luck.

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).