Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry: While there is an order that Senator Byrd have an hour, it was not put in place at a particular time or to follow in any particular order; is that correct?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. President, all I am trying to do is get a chance to have a discussion on both sides of the aisle on the differing points of view on what is occurring. I do not wish to cut off or delay Senator Byrd. But my point is, if he does, in fact, use the next 50 minutes or an hour, we then will be out of morning business into the regular debate at 4 o'clock, without us ever having a chance to respond to the comments made by Senator Durbin or Senator Schumer. So I ask the Senator from West Virginia--and I address this question through the Chair--if he will allow me to proceed for 5 minutes so I could respond to some of the comments that were made by my two colleagues, Senator Durbin and Senator Schumer, and then go forward with the time that was left.

Mr. LOTT. I would ask, Mr. President, the Senator to yield for that purpose.

Mr. LOTT. Has the unanimous consent request the Senator propounded been confirmed?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. He has proven once again his knowledge of how things proceed. But he also is fair in how he proceeds. I thank Senator Byrd for upholding the tradition that he feels so strongly about.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me get right to the point. This is all show and tell. We know the Senate is ready to have a full debate on the question of how we proceed in Iraq. There are a number of resolutions that have been suggested that are pending. We know our leaders are going to find a way to work this out. So why are we here taking all this time to accuse each other of unfairness and trying to block and delay? We don't want to do that. There is a way we can work this out where resolutions of different points of view can be offered. I don't know what the magic number is. The leaders are going to work that out. But to come to the floor and suggest that we don't want a full debate-- this is the Senate. We are going to have a full debate on this approach and a lot of others as we go forward----

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President. I rise to mark the retirement from Federal service, of a loyal friend and Mississippian, and a fine public servant, George Omas. Word has reached me that George will soon be leaving the Postal Rate Commission, where he has been serving as Chairman since November 2001. His leadership at the helm of that agency, which oversees the revenues and expenses of the U.S. Postal Service and recommends the appropriate postage rates, has done much to restore financial confidence in the Postal Service. September 11 and the accompanying anthrax attacks rocked our U.S. Postal Service with unplanned for expenses to such a degree that an increase in rates were badly needed to offset those expenses without reducing services to the American people. When the Postal Service made their request to the commission on September 24, 2001, George made history by thinking truly ``outside the box'' and proposed something never done before but was highly needed at the time: a ``settlement agreement'' of a major rate case. No small task as it required the Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commission and almost 100 interested parties and representatives of the mailing industry to agree to forgo lengthy litigation of the pending case and meet and work out differences together. He was told it was ``impossible'' there was too much money at stake for parties to waive a good portion of their due process rights to achieve such an agreement. But, he felt strongly that September 11 was an extraordinary event and it called for extraordinary thinking on everyone's part, so on the first day of the hearings in that case after he had read his opening statement, he added these remarks: I have often heard it said that there could never be a settlement in an omnibus rate case. There are too many conflicting interests, and too much money is at stake. But it seems to me that if there was ever a time when `business as usual' was not an attractive course of action, and when cooperative efforts to promptly resolve issues through settlement might be the right course of action, that time is now. To everyone's surprise, even their own, the parties responded. In approximately two and a half months the many diverse interests that frequently bitterly contest multiple issues in postal rate cases were able to negotiate, revise, and submit a stipulation and agreement as a proposed settlement. Instead of the normal 10 months, the entire case was initiated, negotiated and agreed to within 6 months. In the 2002 Annual Report of the Postal Service, the Postmaster General and the Chairman of the Board of Governors explained the effect of those momentous remarks: And, following a suggestion by the chairman of the Postal Rate Commission, we approached our major stakeholders and took a bold step that enabled us to implement new postage rates in June, 2002, rather than in the fall. This gained us an additional $1 billion in revenue. As a result, and despite the impacts of the recession and the terror attacks, we were able to close the year with a loss that was almost $700 million below original projections and half of last year's. None of the $762 million the Administration and Congress generously appropriated to the Postal Service to protect the security of the mail was used for operations. George took the success of that effort and encouraged the Postal Service to look beyond the historical friction existing at their two agencies and focus on new ways to help the Postal Service continue to be successful. The Postal Service initiated a number of so-called negotiated service agreements and the commission and interested parties processed such agreements that brought in new volumes of mail and additional revenues to the Postal Service thus, extending the time needed between rate increases. George has been a very successful chairman at the commission and I want to note his departure. I hope the legacy he leaves behind in the postal community and indeed, throughout government, is one of innovative thinking and the knowledge that working together can solve seemingly insurmountable problems. So now that I have told you about George and the good things he has done, as a good Senator, I want to take credit for his good work by saying that I have known George since our days together at The University of Mississippi and that he served on my staff at various times in my career, including my time on the former House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. When President Clinton nominated George as Postal Rate Commissioner in 1997, I was very pleased to introduce him at his confirmation hearings and give him my support. Needless to say, I was even more pleased when President Bush designated George as chairman of the commission in 2001. George comes from good folks; his sister and her husband Bernadine and Ralph Marchitto, his niece Debra Lynn Wren, her husband John and George's grand niece Rebecca Elizabeth Wren still reside in the Biloxi area. Almost everyone who lived in Biloxi in the 1950s to the 1980s knew his parents, Violet and Pete Omas. I will add that while George may be leaving the Postal Rate Commission, I don't believe he will going far, he has too much left to offer and I look forward to continuing to follow his future successes.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order to recess be extended by 2 minutes so I may respond to some of the questions that have been raised.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me point out that was an important vote we had. It was overwhelming. The Senate voted for cloture 87 to 10. So there is not going to be any prolonged, dilatory action here. Republicans and Democrats want to get this bill to conclusion. People on both sides of the aisle want to make sure that we don't act on this legislation in such a way that we wind up costing people jobs or costing small business men and women the opportunity to provide jobs. We are making progress. The Finance Committee came out with a unanimous, bipartisan package which is now going to be a part of what we do here. We are going to get through this process in a reasonable period of time. Our leaders, I am sure, are talking about how exactly we can get to conclusion and what we will go to next. But we have only had about 3 days, as was pointed out, on which we were actually dealing with amendments and making progress. There have been 76 amendments filed. There are still 26 pending. We have disposed of 17 amendments. So we are making progress. But the vote that just took place did block some Members who had legitimate amendments which are relevant, although they are not germane postcloture, and there are a few amendments that are germane postcloture. So I assume we will get to a conclusion after some of those amendments are considered, and we will complete this legislation before this week is out and then we can move on to the next issue which is of concern to everybody, and that is the Iraq resolution. I wanted the Record to reflect we are making progress and that there is not an action out of the ordinary to delay this bill. We have been through this before, and actually we are going to complete action in what is probably about a normal period of time for this type of legislation. I yield the floor.

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 Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).