Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to withhold until the Senator from Pennsylvania makes his brief remarks.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, may I get some time under the agreement?

Mr. LOTT. Probably 5 or 6 minutes. How much would you have left then? I don't want to eat up all your time.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say at the beginning, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Vermont and his comments on our effort here; also, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, whom I have discussed this issue with several times over the past year. Let me begin at the beginning of this effort. I thank my colleagues for this bipartisan effort. It shows what we can do when we work together. Now, we have a long road to go, but this is being introduced as a bipartisan measure with leaders from both sides and leaders of the Judiciary Committee joining in cosponsoring this legislation. How did I get interested in this area? Well, it is like so many things in my life that go back only until August 29, 2005, when Hurricane Katrina devastated my hometown and the area of my State that I love so much, Mississippi and the gulf coast area. I had been active in years gone by actually in the insurance area. I had done some law practice in that area. I had done some defense work. But I never had become steeped in the laws that apply to the industry because most of the time I was dealing with an automobile accident case or something of that nature. Well, after Hurricane Katrina we learned a lot of lessons, and we found a lot of new concerns in areas where we had to take action. One of the commitments I have made to the people--and to the Senate because the Senate has been so good in helping us in our recovery effort, in changing the laws where applicable, the Stafford Act, in providing funds. But one of the commitments I made as a result of that is to make sure we take a look at what happened to us. What did we learn from Katrina? What can we do to have more laws and the right things in place after the next natural disaster--and there will be one--or any kind of catastrophic disaster? We learned that the laws were not what they should be. They needed to be changed. We have changed them some and we need to change them some more. We learned the Federal agencies weren't necessarily set up properly to do what needed to be done in the aftermath of a disaster. We had questions about homeland security and the Federal Emergency Management Administration and how the military, the Coast Guard, and everybody interplayed together. So we have been trying to make those corrections. We need to ask ourselves: Do we need to give some additional thought to how we deal on a national level with the coverage of people or how we help them recover? Do we need a national catastrophic insurance program? I don't know that I am satisfied I know the answer yet, but I think we need to ask that question in advance. I also found, to my absolute horror, something I should have known, which is that the insurance industry is not covered by antitrust laws. They have a waiver. I said: How could that be? I remember hearing discussion over the years about the McCarran-Ferguson Act, but I never focused on it. When I realized that ratesetting and actually policy actions by the industry were not covered by antitrust laws, I was stunned. I understand you need a lot of information to decide on rates, but that information can be used back and forth to in effect set rates as an industry without making sure that it is not done in an anticompetitive way. Do you mean that under this exemption, that companies could collude on what actions they take or, even worse, what actions they don't take, which is what we got into after Hurricane Katrina? We had companies basically saying: Oh, no, no, you are covered by Federal flood insurance. We don't have to pay under the household policies for wind damage. So as I got into it, I found that this happened back in 1944. At that point, there was regulation of the insurance industry, but there was a case styled the United States v. South Eastern Underwriters Association which caused a change in how insurers were regulated. Then the Congress immediately acted and said: Oh, no, we are going to say that federal antitrust laws do not apply to this industry. Soon the courts got into this issue and took a look at what happened. They looked at the record. There were no hearings in the Senate. It was passed quickly on a voice vote, and it went quickly through the House. The conference report was debated for 2 days by the Senate, and most of the debate, as I have looked at it, looks as though everybody thought this was going to be a temporary moratorium. However, that is not the way the courts have interpreted the laws. Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, insurers are exempt from antitrust scrutiny, so long as they are regulated by State law. Then you get into a patchwork of State laws: Do the States actively regulate them? Is there a process for antitrust activities to be considered? Over the years, many have advocated the repeal of this antitrust exemption. The Judiciary Committee had hearings on this last summer. The American Bar Association's antitrust section noted that the organization for nearly 20 years has supported repeal of this exemption. Look, there is a unique role for States to deal with insurance questions and needs in those States, but my question beyond that is: Should the Federal Government have the right to make sure there are not anticompetitive activities, to make sure there is no colluding? I think we need to take a serious look at that. This legislation would do that. It would take away that exemption. It would make the insurance industry subject to the same coverage of almost every other corporation in America: antitrust legislation. I know my time has expired. I thank the Chair for his leniency. I thank Senator Leahy for doing this. I look forward to having the hearings and testifying. This is wrong, Mr. President, and the Senate in a bipartisan way should, and I believe will, correct it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to withhold until the Senator from Pennsylvania makes his brief remarks.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, may I get some time under the agreement?

Mr. LOTT. Probably 5 or 6 minutes. How much would you have left then? I don't want to eat up all your time.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say at the beginning, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Vermont and his comments on our effort here; also, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, whom I have discussed this issue with several times over the past year. Let me begin at the beginning of this effort. I thank my colleagues for this bipartisan effort. It shows what we can do when we work together. Now, we have a long road to go, but this is being introduced as a bipartisan measure with leaders from both sides and leaders of the Judiciary Committee joining in cosponsoring this legislation. How did I get interested in this area? Well, it is like so many things in my life that go back only until August 29, 2005, when Hurricane Katrina devastated my hometown and the area of my State that I love so much, Mississippi and the gulf coast area. I had been active in years gone by actually in the insurance area. I had done some law practice in that area. I had done some defense work. But I never had become steeped in the laws that apply to the industry because most of the time I was dealing with an automobile accident case or something of that nature. Well, after Hurricane Katrina we learned a lot of lessons, and we found a lot of new concerns in areas where we had to take action. One of the commitments I have made to the people--and to the Senate because the Senate has been so good in helping us in our recovery effort, in changing the laws where applicable, the Stafford Act, in providing funds. But one of the commitments I made as a result of that is to make sure we take a look at what happened to us. What did we learn from Katrina? What can we do to have more laws and the right things in place after the next natural disaster--and there will be one--or any kind of catastrophic disaster? We learned that the laws were not what they should be. They needed to be changed. We have changed them some and we need to change them some more. We learned the Federal agencies weren't necessarily set up properly to do what needed to be done in the aftermath of a disaster. We had questions about homeland security and the Federal Emergency Management Administration and how the military, the Coast Guard, and everybody interplayed together. So we have been trying to make those corrections. We need to ask ourselves: Do we need to give some additional thought to how we deal on a national level with the coverage of people or how we help them recover? Do we need a national catastrophic insurance program? I don't know that I am satisfied I know the answer yet, but I think we need to ask that question in advance. I also found, to my absolute horror, something I should have known, which is that the insurance industry is not covered by antitrust laws. They have a waiver. I said: How could that be? I remember hearing discussion over the years about the McCarran-Ferguson Act, but I never focused on it. When I realized that ratesetting and actually policy actions by the industry were not covered by antitrust laws, I was stunned. I understand you need a lot of information to decide on rates, but that information can be used back and forth to in effect set rates as an industry without making sure that it is not done in an anticompetitive way. Do you mean that under this exemption, that companies could collude on what actions they take or, even worse, what actions they don't take, which is what we got into after Hurricane Katrina? We had companies basically saying: Oh, no, no, you are covered by Federal flood insurance. We don't have to pay under the household policies for wind damage. So as I got into it, I found that this happened back in 1944. At that point, there was regulation of the insurance industry, but there was a case styled the United States v. South Eastern Underwriters Association which caused a change in how insurers were regulated. Then the Congress immediately acted and said: Oh, no, we are going to say that federal antitrust laws do not apply to this industry. Soon the courts got into this issue and took a look at what happened. They looked at the record. There were no hearings in the Senate. It was passed quickly on a voice vote, and it went quickly through the House. The conference report was debated for 2 days by the Senate, and most of the debate, as I have looked at it, looks as though everybody thought this was going to be a temporary moratorium. However, that is not the way the courts have interpreted the laws. Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, insurers are exempt from antitrust scrutiny, so long as they are regulated by State law. Then you get into a patchwork of State laws: Do the States actively regulate them? Is there a process for antitrust activities to be considered? Over the years, many have advocated the repeal of this antitrust exemption. The Judiciary Committee had hearings on this last summer. The American Bar Association's antitrust section noted that the organization for nearly 20 years has supported repeal of this exemption. Look, there is a unique role for States to deal with insurance questions and needs in those States, but my question beyond that is: Should the Federal Government have the right to make sure there are not anticompetitive activities, to make sure there is no colluding? I think we need to take a serious look at that. This legislation would do that. It would take away that exemption. It would make the insurance industry subject to the same coverage of almost every other corporation in America: antitrust legislation. I know my time has expired. I thank the Chair for his leniency. I thank Senator Leahy for doing this. I look forward to having the hearings and testifying. This is wrong, Mr. President, and the Senate in a bipartisan way should, and I believe will, correct it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent. The Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for allowing me to go next in line so I can speak briefly about my colleague from the State of Mississippi. I thank Senator McConnell for his remarks, and Senator Reid. They did a magnificent job summing up the character of this great Senator from Mississippi. Senator Cochran and I have been in the Congress together now for-- this is our 35th year. We came together in the House of Representatives in 1973. He moved over to the Senate in 1978. He was elected, and came here in 1979, and eventually I tagged along with him again. Senator Cochran and I go back to the 1960s. We were both students at the same university, the University of Mississippi. His wife Rose and I were in the same class, and we worked together in student activities. I always felt I had a special friendship with Senator Cochran because of my friendship also with his wife Rose. Our parents were schoolteachers--both his mother and father and my mother. We both started out as Baptists, and I think we still are, in a way. Just right down the line, we have a lot in common. In fact, some people wonder how I get as many votes as I do in Mississippi. It is because I think some people get confused between Thad and Trent, and I am known in some areas as Thad Lott, but it seems to work. I benefit by standing in the reflection of his great stature in our State of Mississippi. I am very proud of my colleague from our State. We have had some great Senators from our State, but Senator Cochran is rising to the level of the stature of the best of those. So I am very proud of the record he has achieved here, the number of votes he has cast, and I am hoping that he will cast 10,000 more before he decides to leave this great institution. But I must say on a very personal note, I have never been more proud of my colleague from Mississippi than I was in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and 2006. His quiet, steady, methodical, rational effort to help us get what we needed to recover from that major disaster was an incredible thing to watch. The respect he has in this institution on both sides of the aisle helped him to lead the way in getting the help we needed for our State. I was belated in doing it, but I will never quit doing it, when last fall I thanked the Senate--the Congress--for what they did do for us after that hurricane. Everything Senator Cochran and I and others from our State asked the Congress to do, they did it, and we will always be in debt. On the 1-year anniversary of that cataclysmic event in our State, he and I were sitting on the same platform as the Sun came up in Biloxi, MS, on August 29, 2006--a hot morning. A year earlier, the water had been about--probably 25 feet from where we were sitting. The surge was that high, or more. There were many of us on that platform: mayors, supervisors, Congressmen, the Governor. We were all taking deep bows for all the money we had brought to the people of this devastated area. Finally, I had about all I could stand, including taking my own bows, and I finally rose and said: It is fine to share the credit, and there are many of us here who have done our best. But most of us could not be taking credit for what has happened if it were not for the man sitting right behind me on this platform, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi. It is an incredible thing we have experienced in terms of pain and suffering but also in honor and in glory and in appreciation for what has happened since then. So I hope there are many other high-water marks in his great career, but none will ever be appreciated so much as the service he gave to our State and to our country in the aftermath of that hurricane. Thank you, my colleague. It is a pleasure serving with you.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if I may inquire about the situation, are we now considering the continuing resolution, the appropriations bill?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I will take advantage of the 10 minutes, then, to talk about the pending continuing resolution or, as others refer to it, the Omnibus appropriations bill. I have watched bills of this nature come and go over the years. Obviously, it is not the best way to do the job. On occasion--I remember back in 1996 and two or three times since I have been in the Senate--we actually completed all of our appropriations by the end of the fiscal year, and that is the way it ought to be done. In order to get that done, we have to start working on it in May, not June, not July, and not in the fall. Regular order is the way it should be done, and I am pleased to hear our two leaders say that is the way they intend to proceed this year. But for a variety of reasons, sometimes in spite of our best efforts, we don't often complete our work by the end of the fiscal year because it is quite difficult to get agreement as to what the figures will be in providing funds for the people's business in the Federal Government. And so we pass these continuing resolutions. They always bother me because they pull in a huge number of agencies, bureaus, departments, and money into one big pile, and it is very hard to know all that is going to go on as a result of that kind of procedure. That is where we find ourselves. This is a $463 billion bill, as I am sure others have pointed out, and it funds most all of the discretionary programs of the Federal Government, from transportation and education to housing. The only thing it doesn't include is defense and homeland security. And so here we are trying to finish up that process for this year's funds, this fiscal year. We can certainly exchange criticisms of how we got here, and I think there is some legitimate criticism that is due. But the way we handled things the last time we had a similar situation, in 2003, we did go through an amendment process. According to Senator McConnell, I think we had close to probably 100 amendments. We voted about 30 times, but we got through it in a reasonable period of time, and we can do that here, too. I understand the leadership would like to go ahead and move through this as quickly as possible and get on to the regular business in the calendar year, so I can't be too critical about that. But I am very concerned about how we deal with some of the substantive issues in this legislation. I have no doubt Democrats and Republicans have issues they think should have been funded that are not going to be funded by this bill, and others believe some of the things that are funded shouldn't be. One should never believe that there are not earmarks on an appropriations bill. I have tried to deal with earmarks. I have tried to out-wrestle appropriators ever since I have been in Congress, going back to when I was in the House. You always lose because they know where all the numbers are buried. So don't be fooled. There are some earmarks in here. Maybe they are justified. There are what we call anomalies, which are those situations where if we do not increase the funding it will create some problems. The perfect example is the Federal Aviation Administration. We don't want the FAA furloughing air traffic controllers, so we have to add enough funds to make sure they have their straight-line funding or whatever is necessary to make sure they can continue their operations. There are, however, two or three areas that specifically bother me. I am not a fan of the base closure procedure. I have voted against it every time it has come up while I have been in Congress. I did it in the House, and I have done so in the Senate. I have always opposed BRAC. I think it is an abrogation of responsibility of those serving in the Congress. We shouldn't hand off to some commission the decision as to whether we leave a base open or close it, or what troops are moved in and moved out. Rightly or wrongly, we did it. As part of that package, we told our different communities that we were going to clean up the base facilities that were going to be closed and that we were going to have remediation so that when the community got it back they had something that was usable and not environmentally dangerous. We told communities in Kansas and in Georgia that we were going to move huge new numbers into their bases to take the place of bases that we were closing in Europe and other bases around the country. We said we were going to provide additional funds to provide training facilities and living facilities to improve the quality of life for our troops and their families, so that when they do come back by the thousands--and 12,000 are being added to at least one of the bases in the country--we will have the facilities to provide for proper housing and training. This bill, however, cuts out $3.1 billion that was to go for that purpose, and it redistributes that money around social welfare spending. We can debate the value of those other programs, but my question is: Is that a wise thing to do right now when we are trying to bring some of our troops home from Europe? Who are they defending the Europeans against? The Soviet Union? It is gone. Eastern Europe is part of Europe now. So I really am concerned. I do think we should have it paid for, and a .8-percent, across-the- board cut will take care of the funds so that it is revenue neutral. I just think it sends a terrible message, once again, to our troops, troops whom we have been fighting to bring home from these remote assignments, that when they get here there is going to be a problem. They are going to be living in World War II barracks in Fort Leavenworth, KS. I am sure Senator Roberts talked about that. And that is an issue we need to address. Some people have said we will add the $3.1 billion back with the appropriations supplemental bill, but that means it will be added to the deficit. I think we should provide the funds and make sure they are paid for. There are a number of other areas to which others have referred. Education is one area. We can argue over our priorities, but I have every reason to believe that there are some areas in education where we need to be able to adjust the numbers a little bit. So I wanted to talk about the substance, first of all. I think Republicans and Democrats should be able to have a reasonable number of amendments. I am not for an unlimited number. I don't think we should use it to be dilatory. But there has never been a bill written that was perfect, and neither is this one. We need to have a few opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to offer some relevant amendments. I don't think we ought to get off and relitigate budget issues or budget process issues or issues with regard to Iraq but not directly related here, but I do think we should allow a few amendments. I would urge our leaders to come to that agreement. I would urge Senator Reid to be amenable to that. The majority is never going to be able to force their way in the Senate. It doesn't make a difference how big the majority is or how much power they have. It doesn't work that way. How do I know? I found out the hard way, more than once. I don't think we should have a permission slip in the Senate. We can't have a deal where in order to offer an amendment we have to have permission. No. This is the Senate. Senators are going to offer their amendments. Sooner or later, they are going to do it. I even filled up the tree. I am tied for the record of filling up the tree. Senator George Mitchell and I are the champs. I filled up the tree nine times, and I blocked amendments. What happened? They were all back on the next bill. If I out-maneuvered them and pushed them off from that bill, they were back on the next bill. In fact, it seemed as though the same 100 amendments appeared on every bill. Sooner or later in the Senate the majority has to ante up and kick in. We have to just let out a little steam, just a little pressure, turn the spigot a tad. If you don't, it is going to blow up in your face. We are all adjusting to our new roles. We are learning how, once again, to be in the minority. It is not the preferred role, but it is one where we can have an effect, and it can be fun. There is a new majority in town. Lots of power. They are going to run this thing. No. This is a consensus body. We will adjust. We will learn our new role, the loyal opposition within the Senate, as will the majority. The one thing I like about our leaders now in the Senate, these are experienced hands. These are not new kids on the block. They know what they are doing. They are naturally going to have to test each other out a bit, but I believe with time we are going to see the Senate make a little more progress. I wish we could begin that on this bill. We are not going to agree to a deal where the majority leader says: OK, I give you a permission slip to offer an amendment, and by the way, I am also going to tell you what that amendment is. No. No. That is not going to happen. It might happen here, or it might happen there, but the majority cannot ultimately dictate things like this, especially when we are talking about things such as abandoning assistance for AIDS babies. There are some things we can do with babies who have AIDS. There are drugs that can keep them from being born with AIDS, or to address their problems and they live a happy, normal life. So we don't want to eliminate that funding. That is just one example of where we need to have an amendment in order, and I hope that we will find a way to do that. Madam President, $460 billion is a lot of money, and most of it is for very good purposes, but this is the Senate, and I hope we can find order and a way to do this. We could probably get three or four amendments on each side, have some debate on those amendments, and be out of here by next Wednesday and feel as though we did the best we could. I think that would be a good idea. I think it would be good for the country. I am committed to being here and helping in any way I can. There is nobody here who has ever been in leadership who has clean hands, but I think we ought to learn from the past, learn from the recent past and find a better way to get the job done. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I was pleased to hear just a moment ago the suggestion that maybe we go to the Omnibus appropriations bill in such a way that would allow some amendments to be offered on both sides. That is good. That is the way it ought to be. That is why I have been surprised and, frankly, disappointed that we have not been able to come to some sort of agreement about how to proceed to these resolutions dealing with the President's plan to take action in Iraq and have a full debate on the substance. Of the plan and the resolutions, I don't think there is any excuse for the fact that we have come to the point where we are throwing up our hands and saying: I can't have it my way, you can't have it your way, therefore, we will have it no way. If this were the Super Bowl, whether you were Grossman or Manning, you would call a time out and say, wait a minute here, there has got to be a way we can get a plan to go forward. I know how difficult it is to do this because our leaders on both sides of the aisle get pressured from all sides. They are pulled. Don't agree to that, you have to agree to that. In the end, the leaders have to decide how we go forward in a fair and an open way, and the rest of us have to support that decision. The majority has strong power in the House of Representatives, and a good bit in the Senate. But I think the most difficult job in the city is the job of being majority leader, the job that Senator Reid has right now because he doesn't have a Rules Committee. He is not the President. He can't give an order and have the bureaucracy move, not that the bureaucracy ever moves. He has to work with the minority. He has to find a way to move things forward. Some people say: Oh, that is the process. Look, the process is substance because if you can't figure out how to get it done, you never get to the substance. This is not an autocracy. No one person possesses unlimited power. You have got to give to get a little. You can't have a deal where you say: No, no, you can't offer but one amendment; and, by the way, it has to be this. If we were going to do anything, we should have gone with more, not less. So I don't get it. If this is the big, important, serious issue we all say it is, surely we could have worked out a way to proceed. Well, I guess the one thing we could say is, we will get back to this. We are going to get back to it in many different ways. But at least in the future, when we get to the debate, it is going to be a serious debate about something that is real. We were talking about taking up resolutions that had no binding effect. It was a feel-good deal. Yeah, we are going to take a pop at the President. Yeah, we support the troops, but no, we don't support the troops. Oh, yes, thank you very much, General Petraeus, 81 to nothing, you are confirmed. Go over to Iraq. Oh, and by the way, we don't agree with what you are going to try to do. We don't support the plan. How did we get into that? At least at some point, men and women of strong principle and beliefs are going to offer up amendments that are going to say: Support the troops, stick with the plan or pull out. High tail it out. Get out of there now. And then we will have a real debate and we will have real votes. That is what, under our Constitution, we should be doing, actually. I think the proposal that Senator Gregg had, made eminent good sense. Let's show we support the troops. Gee whiz, why is that a bad idea? The American people don't want to send our troops into harm's way around the world or even in Baghdad without knowing we are behind them. So what is the problem? The problem is that it was able to get 80, I don't know, or 90 votes. We can't have that vote because later on we may want to actually cut off the funds to the troops. There are some little, bitty twists of language, too, such as we support funding for the troops in the field. What does that mean, ``in the field''? What if you are on the way? What if you are in a brigade that is pulling out of Texas now or pulling out of Kentucky or that has landed in Kuwait? We don't support them. There are too many nuances. Let me get away from process and talk about substance. We have a problem in Iraq. A lot of people now have shifted their position and are saying: Well, I voted for it earlier, but I am against it now. Yeah, it has gotten tough, so I don't like it. Everybody says change the status quo. I had a chance to talk to some world leaders recently in Switzerland and they were saying: My goodness, you can't do that, can't do this, can't do something else. I said: Here is the choice: Stay, leave or do what? They said: No, you can't leave. You have to stay. Well, what do you propose? Deafening silence. The President understood we had to change the status quo. Action had to be taken. A plan had to be developed. He proposed a plan. He met with us. He came to the Congress. He spoke at the State of the Union: Here is what I propose to do. Give this plan a chance. Give the plan a chance. And General Petraeus, maybe the General Grant of this war, or the General Washington of a previous war--this is the man of the hour, and I hope and pray the good Lord will guide him in the right way because he has a serious challenge before him. But this is not just about a surge, although that is a part of the plan. This is a plan with at least three other key components. But ask yourself, we say to the Iraqis: You have to get a political solution. Everybody is saying: No, we will never get a military solution without a political and economic solution. Well, yeah. But how do you get a political solution in chaos? How can you get a political solution when your capital is being blown up every day by insurgents of all stripes? You have got to get a grip on security. It is similar to here in our Nation's Capital. We couldn't have orderly Government if we didn't have order. So we are going to try to send in the best we have, under the best general we have, and get some control of the violence and the chaos in Baghdad and then give the Iraqis a chance to deal with the politics. Am I convinced all of this is going to work? I don't know. I am not the best expert in the world. I have been on the Armed Services Committee, I have been on Intelligence. I have been around awhile. But I am not going to impose my military judgment on a man such as General Petraeus. But let's see if the politics will not work. There is a lot of pressure. They know, they know. I met with the Vice President of Iraq recently and he was talking about: Well, what is your strategic plan? I said: No, sir. Excuse me. With all due respect, it is not about what is our plan. What is your plan? It is your country, your Government. When are you going to ante up and kick in, in a way that brings leadership and order out of all of this? So the second part of the President's plan is for different rules of engagement. It is for a requirement that some political achievements be reached. That is why I like the McCain-Lieberman-Graham proposal. I like benchmarks. So the question is: It is one thing to lay down benchmarks, but what if they don't meet them? Then, you decide. If we conclude it would not work, that they can't govern themselves, then we have to go with the next plan. Somebody said: Well, this is the last plan. It is never the last plan. There is always another plan. But the politics, I think, we can be successful. We certainly have to try. I do think that regional solutions--getting particular provinces under control or particular sectors under control, getting generals in for different sectors--makes good sense. But also the economy. Look at America where you have people who are not working. Their life is insecure. They get into trouble. I understand that 40 percent of the young men in Baghdad don't have a job. There has to be a better job done of getting the money--the oil money--fairly distributed and done in an economic way that will create jobs so that these young men and women will not be bored and looking for ways to kill themselves. Mr. President, we should have found a way to go forward with this debate. I don't quite understand what is going on. Maybe we are all having to learn a little different roles of who is in the majority and who is in the minority and how it works. I know for sure that in some respects it is easier to be in the minority than to in the majority. The majority leader has to be--he has to be tough. He has to eat a little crow every now and then. He has to be prepared to say to the Republicans: We will find a way to work this out. You have to keep poking at it. Somehow or another, we didn't want to do it this time. I don't know. Maybe everybody is going to leave the field and say we won. This is not about winning or losing. This shouldn't be about the political winner or who won the PR battle. We are playing with lives. America's finest. I think we should support them, as Senator Gregg proposes. We need to give the plan the President has developed a chance because nobody else has come up with a better plan, other than pull back at the borders. What good is that? Which way are we going to shoot? To me, that is the worst of all worlds. We can make this work, but the President, General Petraeus, our troops, the American people need our support and our confidence in what we are attempting. We can go on and have the debate today about these nominees--two good men. We can turn to the omnibus appropriations and find a way to get it done with order. Nobody wants to play games. Nobody should be trying to say: Oh, if you don't do it this way, or my way, you are trying to shut down the Government. Nobody should be saying we are going to filibuster if we don't get everything we want. This is the Senate. You have got to give everybody their chances. You have to have some order out of the chaos. This is sort of similar to Baghdad. Sometimes we get divided up into provinces. I appreciate the efforts that have been made, but the important thing is not the process in the Senate. The important thing is what our men and women are going to be trying to do in Iraq. Let's give this plan a chance. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Rear Admiral Charles ``Charlie'' S. Hamilton, upon the completion of his current tour of duty as the Program Executive Officer, Ships, PEO Ships. Since assuming the position nearly 4 years ago, Rear Admiral Hamilton has worked with Congress on numerous issues of vital importance to our Navy and our Nation. His successes and accomplishments have been significant and many. Rear Admiral Hamilton has earned my deep respect and that of my colleagues through his exceptional competence, integrity, and innate ability to cut through bureaucracy in order to get the job done. Today, it is my pleasure to recognize some of Rear Admiral Hamilton's many accomplishments, and commend his service to the Navy, the Congress, and our grateful Nation. Rear Admiral Hamilton was born in Amityville, NY. He entered military service in 1974 as an ensign after receiving a bachelor of science degree in Zoology from Duke University where he was a member of the Navy ROTC program. He continued his education at the Naval Post Graduate School, where he earned a master of arts degree in national security affairs, and at the National War College, where he earned a master of science degree in national security strategy. He is also a graduate of the Defense Systems Management College, and a designated surface warfare officer and joint specialty officer. Rear Admiral Hamilton served in a variety of assignments at sea, where he consistently excelled as a leader of the highest caliber. His positions included combat information center officer aboard USS Hawkins, DD 873, mission fire control officer aboard USS Coontz, DDG 40, and operations officer aboard USS Callaghan, DDG 994. In September 1986, he became the executive officer aboard USS Fox, CG 33, where his leadership played a key role in the success of Operation Earnest Will, ensuring the safe passage of tankers and merchant vessels during the fiercest days of the Iran-Iraq conflict. In February 1991, he assumed command of USS O'Brien, DD 975, where he was hailed by his subordinates and superiors for his extraordinary leadership. Rear Admiral Hamilton has also excelled in a variety of key staff positions, where he helped define and execute key elements of our national security strategy. These assignments included serving as the arsenal ship program manager; head of the Fleet Introduction and Lifetime Support Directorate, program executive officer for Theater Surface Combatants; two tours with the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations as Anti-Submarine Warfare Program analyst, OP-91, and Head of the AEGIS Destroyer Section, OP-355. He also served in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology as military staff specialist for naval warfare. On May 15, 2003, Rear Admiral Hamilton assumed command of PEO Ships, then a newly established organization responsible for acquisition and support of the Navy's entire nonnuclear surface fleet, including boats and craft, special mission ships, and foreign military sales. In this capacity, he skillfully planned and executed current and future shipbuilding programs that will carry our surface Navy well into the 21st century. During his tenure, 16 major surface ships were delivered to the U.S. Navy and 300 boats and craft were delivered to U.S. and foreign navies. To place that in perspective, it is my understanding that Rear Admiral Hamilton successfully shepherded the design and construction of more types of new ships than has ever been accomplished under a single flag officer since the passage of the Naval Act of 1794. These new classes of surface ships included San Antonio, LPD 17, Lewis and Clark, T-AKE 1, Makin Island LHD 8; Freedom, LCS 1, and Zumwalt, DDG 1000, classes of ships. In addition, he tirelessly strove to facilitate the realistic consideration of next-generation architectures as well as ship concepts such as maritime prepositioning force future, MPFF, Mobile Landing Platform, MLP, and joint high speed vessel, JHSV. Rear Admiral Hamilton's extraordinary legacy of service will be clearly reflected not only in the improved warfighting capability of this Nation, but also in the safety, readiness, and quality of life of our sailors and marines. On the eve of Rear Admiral Hamilton's change of command ceremony, I offer my congratulations to him, his wife Debbie and his children Chip, Mike, and Christina. Rear Admiral Hamilton will be greatly missed, and I know I speak for all my colleagues in expressing our heartfelt appreciation to him. He is a man of extraordinary honor, courage, and commitment, who always shot straight regardless of risk or possible peril. He is a credit to both the Navy and the United States of America. We wish our friend the best of luck in future endeavors, and congratulate him on the successful completion of an unprecedented tour of duty.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I believe if Senator Durbin and Senator Byrd speak before we get into the rest of the lineup, I would like to have an opportunity to have at least 5 minutes to speak after Durbin and Byrd but then go forward with the unanimous consent request of Senator Warner for himself and others.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I don't believe there is any order in place that Senator Byrd would go next even though there was, I believe, an order that he have an hour as if in morning business; is that correct?

Mr. LOTT. My only reservation, not wanting in any way to cut off any Senator, is that there be some flow of back-and-forth after the distinguished whip has his time, along with Senator Schumer; that some of us be able to comment in response, perhaps; and that Senator Byrd, certainly, get his time, but Senator Warner would also have an opportunity to get engaged in this lineup, and Senator Collins.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 10 minutes that has been allocated for Senator Durbin as he would see fit to use his time, that I have 10 minutes, to be followed by the time Senator Byrd has, to be followed by Senator Warner, an equal amount of time as he would see fit.

Mr. LOTT. I believe Senator Durbin would have 10 minutes as yielded by you, Senator Byrd, then I would have 10 minutes, to be followed by your time that you have requested, to be followed by Senator Warner and others as they would want to divide up that time. So we all would basically have an equal amount of time to go forward, but after an estimated 20 minutes, you would have your time to go forward.

Mr. LOTT. That is the request.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, after Senator Durbin and perhaps Senator Schumer speak, my request was propounded on the basis that we try to go back and forth between the two parties and that I be allowed to have an equal amount of time in response to the remarks of Senator Durbin and then go forward with an order that would put Senator Byrd next in order, to be followed by Senator Warner. I am just trying to establish some fair flow back and forth.