Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation proposing a change to the Internal Revenue Code that has been endorsed by both the Joint Committee on Taxation and the United States Treasury Department. It is a simplification measure that has been passed by this body on three separate occasions, and I am pleased to be joined by the gentleman from Montana, Senator Baucus, the Ranking Democratic Member on the Finance Committee, in introducing this common sense legislation today. It is now time for Congress to act again and include this meritorious provision in the next appropriate tax bill reported from the Finance Committee. Corporations and affiliated groups of corporations, for any number of good reasons, find it appropriate and many times necessary to shed some of their businesses. If the business is not being sold, the Internal Revenue Code makes it possible to reorganize without having to recognize gain on the transaction. A typical transaction is a spin-off transaction performed per the terms of section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code, where a parent corporation distributes the shares of its subsidiary(s) to its shareholders who once had shares of just the parent corporation now have shares of both the parent and the shares of just the parent corporation now have shares of its subsidiary(s) to its shareholders who once had shares of just the parent corporation now have shares of both the parent and the subsidiary. As a matter of long- standing tax policy, there is typically no tax exacted with these kinds of divisions, nor should there be. Typically the business hasn't changed what it is doing; it is simply being done under a separated ownership structure and the shareholders have ownership in two corporations instead of one, with no overall change in their holdings. In order to be accorded tax-free treatment, section 355 requires the corporation involved in the transaction to be engaged in an ``active trade or business.'' Under the current regulations interpreting section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code, a much more rigorous test of ``active trade or business'' is imposed if a holding company seeks to spin-off a subsidiary than would be the case if the subsidiary were simply owned directly by the parent corporation. It is a distinction without substance and requires corporations, holding companies, to go through major restructurings to satisfy the requirements of section 355. There is absolutely no substantive policy rationale for such a result. The distinction is inappropriate and has been identified as such by both the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Treasury Department in 1999 and 2000. This legislation addresses that anomaly and treats both situations equally. The cost of this provision is minimal, at about $8 million a year by the last revenue estimate from the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. This provision is a small but significant step toward simplification of the tax code, and I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee and in this body to act on this change one more time, and hopefully for the last time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation proposing a change to the Internal Revenue Code that has been endorsed by both the Joint Committee on Taxation and the United States Treasury Department. It is a simplification measure that has been passed by this body on three separate occasions, and I am pleased to be joined by the gentleman from Montana, Senator Baucus, the Ranking Democratic Member on the Finance Committee, in introducing this common sense legislation today. It is now time for Congress to act again and include this meritorious provision in the next appropriate tax bill reported from the Finance Committee. Corporations and affiliated groups of corporations, for any number of good reasons, find it appropriate and many times necessary to shed some of their businesses. If the business is not being sold, the Internal Revenue Code makes it possible to reorganize without having to recognize gain on the transaction. A typical transaction is a spin-off transaction performed per the terms of section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code, where a parent corporation distributes the shares of its subsidiary(s) to its shareholders who once had shares of just the parent corporation now have shares of both the parent and the shares of just the parent corporation now have shares of its subsidiary(s) to its shareholders who once had shares of just the parent corporation now have shares of both the parent and the subsidiary. As a matter of long- standing tax policy, there is typically no tax exacted with these kinds of divisions, nor should there be. Typically the business hasn't changed what it is doing; it is simply being done under a separated ownership structure and the shareholders have ownership in two corporations instead of one, with no overall change in their holdings. In order to be accorded tax-free treatment, section 355 requires the corporation involved in the transaction to be engaged in an ``active trade or business.'' Under the current regulations interpreting section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code, a much more rigorous test of ``active trade or business'' is imposed if a holding company seeks to spin-off a subsidiary than would be the case if the subsidiary were simply owned directly by the parent corporation. It is a distinction without substance and requires corporations, holding companies, to go through major restructurings to satisfy the requirements of section 355. There is absolutely no substantive policy rationale for such a result. The distinction is inappropriate and has been identified as such by both the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Treasury Department in 1999 and 2000. This legislation addresses that anomaly and treats both situations equally. The cost of this provision is minimal, at about $8 million a year by the last revenue estimate from the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. This provision is a small but significant step toward simplification of the tax code, and I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee and in this body to act on this change one more time, and hopefully for the last time.

Mr. LOTT

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

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

Mr. LOTT. The pending business is the amendment offered by Senators Landrieu, Domenici, Vitter, and others with regard to the offshore royalty.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe there are some negotiations going on on other issues. My intent is to speak strictly on this amendment, and then I would be glad to put a quorum back in place if there is not another Senator waiting to speak. To me, this amendment is about energy production, but it is also about basic fairness. I am not going to argue at this point with those who are opposed to oil and gas drilling in various and sundry places. I personally think we should drill where the oil, where the gas is. I know that is a novel idea. I do believe we need a national energy policy that is broad, that will have more production of oil and gas and clean coal technology and hydropower and nuclear power and LNG plants and conservation and alternative fuels--the whole package. I am glad we appear to be getting to the end of this debate and amendment process and hopefully will produce a bill that passes overwhelmingly and will get into conference and will come up with a bill that can be passed. We need to do it for the country. This legislation is about national security, and it is about economic security. If we don't deal with the problems of energy needs, if we don't become less dependent on foreign imported oil, the day will come when we are going to have a problem. Just remember, those troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world, those sailors steaming in ships, those tanks, those planes, it takes fuel to run them. So it is about national security. We are an energy-driven economy. We need this diversity. We need more production, more independence. I believe we should open more areas than we are prepared to do apparently. But the fact is, in my part of the country and the Gulf of Mexico, we have been prepared to have an energy policy. We have been prepared to have the oil and gas industries and refineries and nuclear plants and LNG plants. We are prepared to do what is necessary not just for our own people and for the financial benefit of our own but, frankly, for the whole country. We are prepared to produce fuels and oil and gas and other fuels. We are prepared to refine it and share it with the rest of the country. We are prepared to wheel our power to other parts of the country because we have been willing to take the risks. We are willing to build utility plants. Other parts of the country don't want to drill. They don't want coal. They don't want nuclear power. They don't want hydropower. They don't want utility plants. They want nothing. But they want to flip the switch and have the lights come on. They want to get in their SUVs and drive off into the sunset. I resent that hypocrisy, quite frankly, but that is the way it is. All we are saying is, in our area--Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama--we have been willing to do what needs to be done, the right thing for our region, for our people, and for our country. So we have oil and gas off the coast. I haven't had a problem with it. I live on the Gulf of Mexico. When I get up in the morning and look out the window, I am looking at the gulf. I am looking at the pelicans that now are plentiful. I am sure they are coming from Louisiana. When I look at ships going and coming, I am looking at oil tankers, smaller tankers that are lightering oil from bigger tankers. I can remember sitting on my front porch and looking at a natural gas well being flared late at night. It wasn't ugly. It was really quite pretty. But there are risks that go with this. Particularly in Louisiana, they have paid some prices for what we have done. We levied the Mississippi River, the big and mighty Mississippi River, to keep it from overflowing year after year. That has affected their wetlands because now you don't have that overflow that goes particularly west of the river that puts sediment out there. The levees send it right on out into the gulf. Now we are concerned about dead zones. We are concerned about the impact on salinity. We are concerned about the fisheries in the gulf, the shellfish and others. We have had to oil drill. In some areas of our region, that has led to some channelization. When you are taking things from under the Earth, I think it has an effect on elevation in certain areas, wetlands areas in particular, estuaries. You might say: Wait a minute. You get the benefit of the business. Some, yes, I don't deny that. It does create some jobs--some good- paying jobs, some dangerous jobs. It does, though, create a lot of activity for which we have to provide services--roads, harbors. Some of the big companies in the Gulf of Mexico drill off of our coast of Mississippi, but they don't do business there, not in my State. They don't really even hire that many employees. So there is some good from this, but there is some risk and some bad things. Other parts of the country, when you drill in their States, they get 50 percent of the royalties, and we get an infinitesimal 1 percent plus some benefits within, I guess, the 6-mile limits of the State. But that money coming out of the gulf goes into the deep dark hole of the Federal Treasury. A lot of it goes into land and water conservation for other parts of the States. Other States are saying: We don't want you to drill or produce or build utility plants in our area. And by the way, we don't want you folks down there who are doing the job and taking the risk to get any of that money. We want that money to come up to the Federal Treasury and come to our States. Now we are accused of trying to bust the budget. No, we are trying to get a fair share. It is not big money in my State, but it would make a huge difference. When you come from a small 2.8 million-population State with a history of poverty and needs, even though we are making some progress now--we are not 50th or 49th or 48th on most lists; we are moving up the line, creating more jobs, more businesses, better education, better roads--we have other problems. We do have wetlands that are being disturbed or destroyed. We are losing some land, as they are in Louisiana. We do have some environmentally sensitive and some historic sites we need to preserve, protect, and improve. We need some help. We are prepared to do the dirty work. We are prepared to take the risks. We are prepared to do the right thing and share it with America. But we do think we should get a little bit of the return on the royalties that go right through our hands to the rest of America. This is not a great money grab by Louisiana or Texas, Alabama. This is a way that we can get some help from things that we are producing, some benefit that will help our people and preserve the areas we live in and love. We are accused of being insensitive to the environment and to conservation. Well, this will give us a way to do something about it. Quite often, we don't do what we need to do because we cannot afford it; we do not have the money. I plead with my colleagues from all parts of the country: Look at what we are doing. Look at what problems we are coping with, and look at what we will do with this small amount of money. By the way, the budget allowed $2 billion in this energy area for us to make some decisions on. Yes, it can be objected to on a point of order at the committee or on the floor or out of conference. But there was money allowed, and this amendment gets well within that number. I think this is a questionable budget point of order, although I don't dispute that the chairman has that authority. I want him to have that authority. Chairman Judd Gregg is doing his job. I am not mad at him. I told him I hope he will do his job and I hope he will do it for effect, but don't get mad about it. If anybody should get mad, the Senators from Louisiana and the Texans should get mad, and the Mississippians, too. I support this amendment. I plead with my colleagues, let us have a little bit to help ourselves, and we will in turn help the country.

Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. LOTT. I thank my colleague from Mississippi for his comments and his knowledge of the issue and the procedures we are dealing with. It is a great comfort to have him here. One final point before I yield the floor. I thank Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman for working with the Senators who are sponsoring this legislation to try to help us find a way to make this effort, to get it at a level that would be helpful to us that would not be a budget buster, that would comply with the amount of money that was allowed in the budget resolution. So I commend Senators Vitter and Landrieu, and I hope we will be able to get this provision approved. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have great fear that some day, one of those hurricanes will go right up the mouth of the Mississippi River and inundate New Orleans. When Hurricane Ivan was coming through the gulf last year, when it got to the hundred-mile marker, it was headed for my front porch. Then it veered to the east and missed us by about 90 miles and did a lot of damage. What can we do about that? First of all, you have to have evacuation routes. We need more money for roads to allow the people to get out of there. The best buffer against the damage is the wetlands, the protective barrier islands, protective areas. The only reason my house hasn't been wiped out is because we have a seawall in front of my house, and we are up on a relatively high point. My house is 11 feet up off the ground, what we call an old Creole house. It survived hurricanes for 150 years. But these estuaries, these areas outside the main area in which we live, are critical because once that high wind and water hits that area, it begins to lose its strength. If we keep losing land into the gulf, across the Gulf of Mexico, the hurricane damage--even though the violence may not increase, the damage will really increase. This is just one aspect. By the way, we have to be prepared to get people off these oil rigs and out of the Gulf of Mexico. We have to have infrastructure to do that. This will help us achieve that goal. I yield to my colleague from Mississippi.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as we debate America's energy future, it is critical that we focus on the growing challenge to America's energy security and ultimately to our way of life--posed by an overseas threat currently underway to acquire the world's limited energy resources. China's need for energy is growing rapidly, as China is now the second largest consumer of energy in the world. For all of 2005, it is forecasted that China will consume 7.2 million barrels of oil per day, and its demand could double by 2020 as its economy grows. At the same time, China produces very little of the energy it uses, and thus is forced to import almost all energy. In its quest for oil, China has become aggressive in brokering deals in every part of the world through its national oil companies. These companies are Government controlled, and unlike private companies are willing to accept lower rates of return with no concerns about a balance sheet. In short, our country's energy companies may soon find it difficult to compete against these Government owned energy companies in the global energy arena. These companies have access to abundant capital in national treasuries and none of the constraints of regulation faced by U.S. companies nor concerns about rates of return. Unfortunately, we have a very recent example of this. The China National Offshore Oil Company, CNOOC, has now made public the fact that it is seriously considering making a bid for a U.S. based company, Unocal. This is after Chevron, also a U.S. based California company, has just received FTC preliminary approval for acquisition. This would pave the way for lower energy prices for American consumers. Now, here in the eleventh hour, this Chinese national energy company may offer a counterproposal which would raise troubling policy concerns regarding our National and energy security. Certainly, there would have to be serious review of this situation by numerous Federal agencies including the FTC, SEC, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of State, and many others. China in the past year has brokered deals for oil reserves in Africa, Iran, South America and Canada. Now they have their sights set on a U.S. company and its assets. We are not operating with a level playing field, and it is hard to imagine how America energy companies can continue to compete under these circumstances. We must do something about this. If we do not act now, we will see fuel prices for consumers increase, and it will be too late to do anything about it. We must begin working today to find a way to work cooperatively with our global trading partners, including addressing conservation, energy efficiency and technology issues, rather than finding ourselves on a collision course in a quest to seek energy resources.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to state my support for the nomination of Thomas B. Griffith to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. I believe that Mr. Griffith will serve the Federal judiciary with honor and distinction. Mr. Griffith served as Senate Legal Counsel while I was majority leader, and I found him to be intelligent, honorable, and supremely qualified for this position on the Federal bench. As Senate Legal Counsel, he represented the Senate, its committees, Members, officers, and employees in litigation relating to their constitutional powers and privileges; advised committees about their investigatory powers and procedures; and represented the institutional interests of the Senate with honor. He was appointed to that nonpartisan position by a unanimous resolution sponsored by the leaders on both sides of the aisle. In addition to his service to this body, Mr. Griffith has obtained extensive legal experience in private practice in civil, criminal and regulatory matters. Mr. Griffith currently serves as assistant to the president and general counsel of Brigham Young University, a position he has held since August of 2000. As general counsel for BYU he is responsible for advising the university on all legal matters, including the management of all litigation involving the university. Evidence of qualification can also be found in Mr. Griffith's outstanding academic record. He graduated summa cum laude from BYU, receiving high honors with distinction from its Honors Program. He later received his Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law and served on the editorial and articles review board of the Virginia Law Review. Mr. Griffith has the support of a broad, bipartisan group of attorneys and law professors, including Abner Mikva, former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This nominee has also served on the American Bar Association Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative's Advisory Board. With the CEELI, he participated in the training of judges and lawyers in Croatia, Serbia, Russia, the Czech Republic and several other countries and has actively worked to establish a regional judicial training institute in Prague. His experiences in these unique endeavors should be of particular value during his tenure on the bench. Additionally, between 1991 and 1995, Mr. Griffith dedicated hundreds of hours in the pro bono representation. He has also represented disadvantaged students in the public school system in North Carolina during due process hearings that accompanied disciplinary actions. The American Bar Association has stated that Mr. Griffith is qualified for this position in the Federal judiciary, and I concur.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, for his leadership on the Judiciary Committee and his aggressive support for this fine nominee to serve in our Federal judiciary. It is a great pleasure for me to rise today in support of the confirmation of the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. There are a lot of people who I would like to commend and congratulate for bringing us to this point of justice for a very fine nominee to our Federal judiciary. We can be critical of how we reached this point, the so-called compromise that was developed by the 14 Senators who came together. You can give credit to the leaders in both parties in certain respects. But the fact of the matter is the Senate voted finally to give Justice Brown an up-or-down vote. I am proud of that. I think the Senate should take some pride and credit for allowing this nominee to reach this point in the debate and in the voting process. I was pleased, yesterday, to see that 65 Senators voted to invoke cloture to bring this nomination to an up-or-down recorded vote. So a lot of people deserve credit, and I want to make sure they have it. I want to thank them for it. I also want to ask for the forgiveness of this nominee for the way she has been treated. I do not think this has been one of the Senate's proudest hours. I think this nominee has such an outstanding personal story to be told, and I will not repeat the history of where she was born and where she was educated and what she has been through, but she has lived the American dream, and she has lived it well. She did not just complain about her status. She worked and got an education. She applied herself. She has been given opportunities, and she has taken advantage of them. I am proud to say I support her nomination. I think she will make an excellent judge. I really do believe most opposition to her has just been simply the fact that she is an African-American conservative woman. I do not think we should vote for or against judges because they are conservative, moderate, or liberal. I think we should vote on them based on their background, their education, their experience, their decorum. Do they have the ethics for the job? Do they have conflicts of interest? If they meet all of those qualifications, in my opinion, they should be confirmed. That is what Presidential elections are about. They are about electing men or women to that office who will nominate people to the Federal judiciary who agree with their philosophy. When President Clinton nominated people to the Supreme Court--and I have said this before, but I repeat it again--when he nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court, I knew I did not agree with her philosophy. I knew I would not agree with many of her decisions in the Supreme Court. But she was qualified by experience and by education, by every criteria that we should evaluate, and I voted for her. I voted to confirm other judges whom I did not agree with philosophically. There have been attacks on Justice Brown that she has a philosophy of life, certain moral values, as though that is disqualifying. I do not understand that. Are we not entitled to our opinions, personal opinions, even as judges, let alone as Senators? We certainly have ours and express them routinely. I think judges have a right to have personal and private lives and to be able to give a speech in which they state positions which may not necessarily be reflected in reasoned decisions as judges. You can have an opinion, but if the law is on the other side, you have to rule that way. There was a recent decision by a Federal district judge in my own State that I don't agree with, and I know he doesn't agree with it personally. But he upheld the law in a very reasoned decision. That is what has happened with Justice Brown. She has strong beliefs based on her life experience, but she hasn't tried to impose those in an unfair way as a member of the California Supreme Court. Yet she is attacked--attacked relentlessly and, in my opinion, unfairly and inaccurately on many occasions. For instance, she has been attacked here for a quote in her dissent in Stevenson v. Huntington Memorial Hospital in which she distinguished age discrimination from race discrimination. Based on this quote, they suggest Justice Brown doesn't believe in public policy against age discrimination. To draw this conclusion based on what Justice Brown wrote is as wrong as making the same accusation against the U.S. Supreme Court, which drew the same distinction in Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, a case Justice Brown cited. It should be added that both Justice Brown and our Nation's highest court are correct. All of us will eventually get old, and we have parents and grandparents. But most of us will never know what it is like to be Black or Hispanic in America, to be pulled over for no reason other than your skin color, to have grandparents or parents who did not get to go to college or even sit at the same lunch counter or drink from the same water fountain. These charges are totally out of line with other decisions that she cited and with her own life experience. She has been attacked for opposing Social Security and Medicare as socialist programs that should be reversed. This is completely untrue. Not a single opinion of hers suggests that she opposes these programs. In fact, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee directly asked her whether she regards New Deal programs such as Social Security, labor standards, and the Securities and Exchange Commission as socialist, and she replied, unequivocally, ``no.'' Has she raised some questions about some of those programs in her private speeches or even her public speeches? Perhaps so. I think it could be done on a principled and substantive basis. But, again, that doesn't disqualify her. If you look at the reasoning she has used while a member of the California Supreme Court, you will see that she cites the law and upholds the law. What she may have said in some speech should not disqualify her. Senators here have cited a list of interest groups who oppose Justice Brown. But consider this. She is on the Supreme Court in California, not exactly a hot bed of conservatism or moderation. She was retained by the California voters by a margin of 76 percent of the vote, the highest margin of the four California Supreme Court justices on the ballot, six points higher than Stanley Mosk, a well-known liberal jurist in the State, and higher than California's chief justice. The people believe she is a good supreme court justice, qualified, and has been rational and moderate in her views on the supreme court, or they wouldn't have voted for her with 76 percent of the vote. She has been attacked for her dissent in a case against companies that sold cigarettes to children. The truth is, Justice Brown clearly wrote in her opinion that selling cigarettes to minors is against the law and those guilty of it should be punished. To suggest that she did not feel this way is totally inaccurate. Yet that has been said on the floor of the Senate during the days of debate we have had. There are some people who don't exactly share her views who have endorsed her. I read one newspaper column being very critical of her, saying she should not be confirmed. But it went on to say that she has routinely written the decisions of the court, that her decisions are interesting, almost lyrical, and very professional. Yet you maintain in the same column she is not qualified? In fact, in a recent column, law professor Jonathan Turley, a self- described pro-choice social liberal, points out that ``Brown's legal opinions show a willingness to vote against conservative views . . . when justice demands it'' and that Democrats should confirm her. Even though Justice Brown has expressed personal opinions against too much government regulation, she has consistently voted to uphold regulations in every walk of life. You mean to tell me that you are disqualified for the Federal judiciary if you think that there are too many government regulations? I certainly believe there are. I would hope that we would have Federal judges that would quit compounding it by writing more and more regulations of their own. Justice Brown joined in an opinion upholding the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, and expansively interpreted the act to allow the plaintiffs to proceed with their clean water claims. Justice Brown upheld the right of plaintiffs to sue for exposure to toxic chemicals using the Government's environmental regulations. Justice Brown upheld California's very stringent consumer safety standards for identifying and labeling milk and milk products, thereby ensuring that the government has a role in protecting the safety of our children and all Californians. Justice Brown joined in an opinion validating State labor regulations regarding overtime pay. The list goes on and on and on. I believe Justice Brown has been very unfairly charged. She is highly qualified. Some would even maintain she has been willing to take this abuse and to step down to this court that is not superior to the one on which she now sits. She has been willing to go through this crucible to be confirmed. She should be confirmed. I am pleased to see a woman, a nominee of this caliber, with her American life story, be nominated. I believe, and I certainly hope, she will be confirmed. I think that history will prove that she will be an outstanding member of the Federal judiciary. I ask unanimous consent to place further examples of rulings by Justice Brown in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to Ange1 Campbell. She is my counsel and director of my Special Projects Office. This outstanding staffer will be leaving my office after 8 years of exceptional service to spend more time with her growing family. Angel is the epitome of a dedicated, hard-working public servant. She has been remarkably gifted at advocating for Mississippi, the place we both call home, to Federal executives in the many government departments and to fellow congressional staffers. I know that many constituents from the State of Mississippi will also feel her absence. There are many staffers working in Congress who will miss her detailed, knowledgeable explanations of the infrastructure features that are unique to our home State to help them while drafting legislative initiatives. And that is why I want to take a moment with my colleagues to recognize and to thank Angel for her many genuine contributions to my office and to the citizens of Mississippi. Angel is a native of Southaven, MS. She received her bachelor's degree from the University of Mississippi and later earned her law degree from Samford University. She and her husband, Terry, have three wonderful and energetic children; Taylor, Trey, and Jackson. Even as her family grew while on my staff, she continued to balance her priorities and served both her family and Mississippi well. Angel truly loved fixing the problems and challenges our Mississippi constituents called and wrote about. She understood their frustrations and would take them to heart. Then she would dedicate herself to solving their individual cases while simultaneously looking for a systemic solution to save others the same aggravation. To say that Angel was relentless in finding answers to difficult problems is an understatement. She aggressively worked for each and every Mississippian. She became so proficient in her responsibilities, other congressional staffers, and even some of our colleagues, would often seek her advice. Angel had several hats and one vital job was that of providing excellent legal advice to everyone in the office. In a time frame when many large legal matters were being considered, like the confirmation of judges to tort reform to class action reforms, the staff needed and valued her wisdom. She could clearly explain the law and the bill's provisions in ways that were understandable. She was there to teach and lead the staff. Angel started as one of my staff assistants, but she quickly moved up the ladder to become the director of my special projects. There she also had direct responsibility for a wide range of appropriation matters that affect all facets of Mississippi's life. She was a leader with a steady confident managerial style that was accepted by our new and young staffers. She rapidly molded them into experienced staffers who became effective surefooted Mississippi advocates who helped ``shepherd'' hundreds of millions of infrastructure and business investments dollars into Mississippi. Angel looked beyond constituent complaints and appropriation issues, that were important, and also devoted time to a much larger problem area, the root of many of the constituent challenges. She helped create a long term program for economic development and creating transportation, communication, technology infrastructure solutions for Mississippi. She ensured that these projects, both big and small, were both sustainable and cordinated with the State government. She ensured that no corner of the State was ignored and she was always looking for ways to leverage an idea into reinforcing the existing economic development aspects of Mississippi's marketplace. This was especially challenging because of the dynamics of the State, but because Angel was trusted by numerous local officials and she got it done. In this capacity she made many lasting tangible contributions that ``will positively affect Mississippi for decades to come. There are many Mississippians who have jobs because of her vision and stick-to-it- ness. It is simply not possible to point out all of the contributions Angel made to Mississippi, but I would like to highlight three of the major ones. First, let me mention I-69. This interstate highway, which will eventually connect the United States with Canada and Mexico, will run through Mississippi in DeSoto County and the Delta because of Angel's focused hard work and determination. Many folks said I-69 would never be built. Boy, did she prove these naysayers wrong. She helped secure over $100 million for the Greenville Bridge over the Mississippi River and the first segments of this interstate are currently under construction in DeSoto and Tunica Counties. I-69 will provide the impoverished Mississippi Delta with the opportunity to market itself to companies around the world and hopefully this region of our State can take its place in the new global economy with this infrastructure. Second, let me mention the Nissan Plant. Many were involved in getting the company to decide on Mississippi and many had the grad ideas, but Angel was part of a small cadre of folks who turned the ideas into reality by knocking down the bureaucratic, regulatory barriers to make the idea a reality. Eighteen months after the announcement, the field I would I drive past in Canton is now a bustling factory producing quality vehicles driven and loved by thousands of Americans. We can thank Angel for her tireless work behind the scenes on one of the largest economic development projects in the United States in recent years. The new Nissan plant represents approximately $950 million in direct investment and almost 4,000 new jobs for the people of Mississippi. These numbers do not include the countless spin-offs and suppliers which have been needed for such a massive undertaking. Nissan's positive ripple effect on the Mississippi economy will be felt for decades to come. Finally, let me mention Angel's instrumental role in securing millions of dollars for Mississippi transportation projects such as the Canal Road Connector, improving Mississippi's formula for receipt of highway funds, and for retaining existing jobs at the Babcock & Wilcox plant in West Point, MS. These are just a few of the things that Angel Campbell has been involved with during her tenure with me. I know everyone will miss seeing Angel on a regular basis and I will miss her work, her spunk and her good cheer and humor. She has been a valuable asset to me and trusted advisor. Everyone in the office benefited from her energy and enjoyed her company. It saddens me to see Angel depart my staff, yet I fully understand the priorities of her family. I respect her desire to watch her children grow. Her husband and children have many reasons to be proud of her work her in the Senate for nearly a decade. She made a Mississippi difference, a difference that will be seen and felt for the next decade. I will be forever grateful for her loyal service and dedication to me, and to the State of Mississippi. I wish Angel Campbell good luck and pray God may continue to richly bless her and her family.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 7, 2005 to conduct a Business Meeting on the following agenda: Resolutions To authorize alteration of the James L. King Federal Justice Building in Miami, FL.; H.R. 483, to designate a United States courthouse in Brownsville, TX, as the ``Reynaldo G. Garza and Filemon B. Vela United States Courthouse''; S. 1140, to designate the State Route 1 Bridge in the State of Delaware as the ``Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge''; S. 1017 To reauthorize grants for the water resources research and technology institutes established under the Water Resources Research Act of 1984; S. 260 Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program; S. 858 NRC Fees/Reform Bill; S. 865 Price Anderson; S. 864 Nuclear Security. The hearing will be held in SD 406.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday June 8, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``The Tax Code and Land Conservation: Report on Investigations and Proposals for Reform''.

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 Wednesday, June 8, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 8, 2005 at 9:50 a.m. in SD-430.

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 June 8, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a briefing.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet, Wednesday, June 8, 2005 from 2 p.m.-5 p.m. in Dirksen G50 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Disaster be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 8, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., on Research and Development to Protect America's Communities from Disaster, in SR-253.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 8, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. on Current Challenges that Confront American Manufacturers, in SR-253.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Brigadier General Gervis Parkerson is a lifelong resident of Mississippi, having graduated from Gulfport High School in 1967 and Mississippi State University in 1971. He enlisted in the United States Marine Corps following his graduation from college and completed Officer Candidate School at Quantico, VA. He graduated from Naval Flight School in 1972 and served as a carrier based pilot in the Marine Corps until 1976. He is a Master Aviator with over 7000 flight hours, having flown in the T-42A, U-8F, U-21A, CH-53D, T-34, T-28, OH-6A, UH-1H, and the C-7A with the United States Marine Corps, and the 1108th AVCRAD. After leaving active duty, Brigadier General Parkerson returned to Mississippi and was employed in the private sector. In 1980, he joined the Mississippi Army National Guard with the 114th Area Support Group, and in 1981 began full-time duty as Aircraft Maintenance Officer, HHC 114th Area Support Group, in Hattiesburg, MS. He assumed command of the 1108th Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, in 1994 at the rank of Colonel. As Commander, he directed the maintenance of over 500 aircraft within the 9 southeastern States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The AVCRAD also provided sustainment maintenance to the Army Aviation and Missile Command's Corpus Christi Army Depot, as well as mobilization of non-deployable assets for the Army National Guard. Brigadier General Parkerson has received several awards and decorations including the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Army Reserve Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Overseas Service Medal, and Meritorious Unit Citation. He has also received the Mississippi Magnolia Cross, one of the highest medals awarded to a member of the Armed Forces of the United States of America by the Governor of the State of Mississippi. Additionally, he was awarded the Bronze and Silver Order of Saint Michael from the Army Aviation Association of America for his superb dedication to Army Aviation. Brigadier General Parkerson has been married to his wife, Brenda, for the past 26 years and they are the proud parents of two grown children, Beau and Leah. Through his personal contributions and effective leadership, Brigadier General Parkerson has greatly strengthened the United States Army and the Mississippi National Guard while reflecting great honor upon himself, his family, and those with whom he has served. Under the authority of the State of Mississippi, he will be promoted to the rank of Brigadier General, and placed on the retirement list after 34 years of dedicated commissioned service. On behalf of the United States Senate, I would like to thank Brigadier General Parkerson for his honorable and tireless service to this Nation, and congratulate him on completion of an outstanding and successful career.