Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Susan Kirinich, a detailee of the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of H.R. 3.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will further yield, who is the cloakroom--is he a Senator? This is highway legislation that has been held up for 2\1/2\ years that is causing people to get killed, that is keeping us from creating jobs. The Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Oklahoma and all other Senators trying to manage this legislation have been very effective, very helpful of everyone, very considerate, but it is time we get this legislation going. The very idea that a Senator on Monday afternoon is calling in here or hiding out in his office or calling from some airport saying they object to us going to this legislation--I would like for them to explain that to their constituents. The Senate has been playing around long enough this year delaying everything, slow- walking everything. By the way, this is not partisan; it is on both sides. This legislation is critical. It is time the Senate starts acting as a Senate instead of a kindergarten. I hope the Senators will give the consent this Senator from Missouri needs to get on this legislation and get it out of here. If we do not, our constituents are going to know who is the problem and why we are not getting this job done. It is time we get some Senators by the nape of the neck and tell them to put up or shut up because this legislation is critical. It is time to get it done. We ought to be having votes on amendments this afternoon. The very idea of Senators hiding in their offices saying, I am not ready, or I don't want to come, or I object--get over here and legislate and start acting like adults. I thank the Senator from Missouri for yielding to me for that calm expression of concern.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to mark up S. 271, a bill which reforms the regulatory and reporting structure of organizations registered under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Susan Wells at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr President, on April 21, 2005 the Joint Committee on Printing approved the following rules for the committee. Pursuant of rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Attache Show Choir from Clinton High School in Clinton, MS, is celebrating 25 years of excellence and has gained national recognition as the premier show choir in the country for its outstanding winning tradition. The Clinton High School Attache Show Choir was formed in September 1980 by Winona Costello. Since 1992, the award winning Attache Show Choir has been under the direction of David and Mary Fehr who truly have a passion for excellence. Since 1980, Attache has established a winning tradition by capturing 52 Grand Champion titles, 5 second place titles, and 4 third place titles in 64 competitions during the last 25 years at prestigious competitions throughout the Nation. Nationally, Attache has achieved unprecedented recognition and has received numerous awards through the years for Best Vocals, Best Choreography, Best Overall Effect, Most Creative Show, Best Show Design, Best Repertoire, Best Costume Design, Best Visuals, Best Instrumental Combo, Best Rhythm Section, and Best Brass Section competing against choirs from all over the Nation. In its last 35 competitions dating back to the 1995/1996 season, Attache has captured the Grand Champion title 33 times. During the last 15 consecutive competitions, Attache has captured Grand Champion titles and therefore, has the longest grand champion winning streak of any show choir in the Nation. In the last 10, Attache has had the privilege of hosting a number of competitions, including Showstoppers Invitational in Orlando, FL, and Show Choir Nationals in Nashville, TN, where they also performed the opening number at the Grand Ole Opry in March 2005. During the 2005 competition season, Attache captured Grand Champion titles at the 10th Anniversary Fame Show Choir Cup in Branson, MO; the Fame Show Choir America in Orlando, FL; the Petal Invitational in Petal, MS and the Buchanan Invitational in Troy, MO. Attache has gained extensive praise and accolade for their remarkable talent, phenomenal showmanship, and extraordinary success. It is with great pride to recognize the contributions of this nationally known musical group which has brought honor to its school, its community, and to the State of Mississippi.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Joint Committee on Printing will meet on Thursday, April 21, 2005, at 2 p.m. to conduct its organization meeting for the 109th Congress. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Susan Wells at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would ask the majority leader, who sponsored this concurrent resolution, to clarify his intended meaning of the fourth ``Resolved'' clause on page four of the resolution. I am specifically interested in the intention of the use of the terms ``any additional action'' and ``large commercial aircraft market.'' I ask because the aerospace industry is an integrated and global industry. In most every instance, aerospace companies are vertically integrated to some degree and they are engaged in many other related activities. In many instances, they are component manufacturers, as well as platform manufacturers. Would it be correct to understand that the majority leader does not intend that this clause target these other business activities that are not directly associated with the marketing and sale of large fixed-wing aircraft to commercial carriers in the passenger transportation market?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his response. Additionally, I understand that it is not the purpose of this resolution, and more specifically of the fourth ``Resolved'' clause, to suggest punitive action be taken against any company's activities related to products sold to U.S. Government agencies, such as the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, or the U.S. Coast Guard, whether those products are radars, components of radars, or helicopters. Is this understanding correct?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his clarification of the resolution and its intent. I would encourage all of my colleagues to consider with care the possibility of unintended consequences. The complexity of this industry is such that my State and almost every State has numerous business and economic interests that could be negatively impacted if we are not careful about how we respond to a legitimate concern.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg for the leadership he provided at the Budget Committee. This is never an easy job. I worked with Senator Pete Domenici when he was chairman, and we had this vote- arama and critical votes year after year. We got it done every year except for 2 out of the last 3 years. We need this blueprint in place so we can go forward, so we can have some modicum of controlling ourselves, controlling spending. I don't like everything in this resolution, particularly. I think right now the aggregate of money for a State is too much; the aggregate amount of money for Treasury and IRS is too much. I would like to have more in agriculture, education, transportation. But if each one of us picks our issue where, ``Oh, no, we can't have any restraint here,'' we will never have any. I enjoy listening to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle get up and give these great speeches about how we have a problem with the deficit, we have to have restraint, and then when it comes time to have restraint, to do things to help the economy grow, or control spending in any area, we all say: No, not my area. We have to do it across the board. We know that the problem in the Federal Government is not on the discretionary side. It is not how much we are going to be spending on highways or education. The growth there has been relatively restrained. That is true in most of these categories. The problem is in the mandatory area. Frankly, I have never liked mandatory areas. What does mandatory mean, you get it no matter what? Then a Governor or legislature can keep adding people, keep adding people, perhaps for good reason, perhaps political reasons. All of a sudden, you have a program that grows like topsy-turvy, totally out of control. It is going to bust State budgets. It already has. It will have a huge impact on the Federal budget. These mandatory programs are going to cause situations where we cannot continue to afford to spend what we are spending in the future, what we committed to on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Do I think this is a great program? Yes. I personally know what they mean. I have benefited from them. I have seen what they don't do. When my father was killed in an automobile accident after 30 years of paying into Social Security, because of the marital situation and my age, our family got nothing out of it. I would like to have some sort of system where people pay and they have an opportunity for their families to benefit, if they so choose. Medicare--I know what it means to people who are aged and have health problems. I think what we did on the prescription drug issue was a huge mistake. We didn't have real reforms. In fact, we put more burdens on Medicare, and we are not going to be able to afford what we have gotten into on Medicare. But Medicaid is the subject for discussion. My State has wrestled with this. Over the past few years, we kept adding people and programs to it until it was not a problem for a while, but for the last 2 years it is absolutely totally out of control, and my poor State of Mississippi, there is a $270 million hole. The Governor and legislature fought about it, cussed about it, struggled with it. Finally, last Sunday night at midnight they came up with an agreement. What was the agreement? They couldn't figure out any way to pay for it or to cut it, and they borrowed the money from the tobacco trust fund, and said: Don't worry, we will pay it back later. Excuse me? I don't think that is a very good or permanent solution. The States need help. We need to be thoughtful in how we reform Medicaid to make sure those we are committed to giving help really do get it, and that it is done in a controllable, reasonable way. The Federal Government is part of the problem. We have to match the funds. The President made a very small recommendation of some savings in the Medicaid area. Then the Senator from New Hampshire took that, and actually he took some of the savings and added some of it back in areas where it was badly needed, for a net savings of only $14 billion in this resolution over 5 years. If we cannot support that, we might as well fold our tent. Let me say to my colleagues here, too, that we are going to have to do this. We are going to have to do it now and later. When we come back out of conference, we are going to have serious reforms, or a way to get to reforms and some savings in the Medicaid area because we cannot continue down this road. I am sorry. I am embarrassed to say that Democrats seem to not want to have any kind of restraint, and, unfortunately, some of my Republicans colleagues, too. This is an important vote. It is not the only important vote. It is not one that will destroy the whole process, but it is going to tell a whole lot about who we are. I don't see how anybody who votes for this amendment to knock out this little, tiny savings can ever raise their voice again and say they are worried about deficits and Federal Government spending to go on too long. I realize I am talking in very broad terms and not going into any specificity. This is an important vote. I plead with my colleagues, show some restraint. We have shown so little restraint for several years. We have all been a part of that. But now we are paying the price. We have these deficits which we have to cut. It is estimated this resolution would cut the deficit about half over the next 5 years. I believe that is right. It is probably not enough. We probably should do more. The red line and the red ink on the chart in these entitlement programs is going to swamp us. Some people say we can do that later. Can we do it better later? No. Every year we wait, it gets worse. It makes the reforms and the necessary savings more difficult and larger. I just wanted to urge my colleagues to support the Budget Committee's action and support this resolution. Don't vote to take out the tiny savings in Medicaid that is included here. The States have to be doing some of that. They show a lot more restraint and leadership than we do on them. They have one thing that is different: they have to have balanced their budgets every year. It is in their constitutions. My poor State does. Maybe someday we will still have to come back to that at the Federal level. I thank Senator Gregg for his leadership, and I thank him for yielding.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I have an inquiry. The Senator from Washington has 5 minutes she was going to use. I was under the impression that the Senator from Washington had 5 minutes.

Mr. LOTT. If she is willing to wait, I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 10 minutes off the underlying resolution.

Mr. LOTT. If I could, I understand there is a substantial amount of time on the underlying resolution. I was hoping to speak not just on ANWR but also on NIH and Amtrak. I thought it should come off the underlying resolution, not just Amtrak, and I have been sitting here for almost an hour. I thought, with the flow back and forth between supporters and opponents of the amendment, that it would be appropriate I be allowed to speak at this time.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe it was my request that is pending. Let me make a couple of observations. First, whenever Senator Stevens wishes to speak, I will defer to him. Second, since we only have 4\1/2\ minutes of time, I would be willing to take just 4\1/2\ minutes to speak only on ANWR and come back on the other issues at another time. I amend my request to ask that I be allowed to take this 4\1/2\ minutes if it is off the resolution so I can address this issue.

Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry. Could I inquire, has Senator Stevens' time already been identified before this 1 o'clock vote?

Mr. LOTT. Has not been----

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am glad I could assist the Chair in clarifying the time at this point. This is a very important issue. It is time, I agree, we should get it resolved. I think it should be resolved with a majority vote. We can argue over the rules as long as we like. But to me, this is a critical issue. It symbolizes what we are going to do about the future in the energy area. I do not have some beautiful picture I am going to show today. If I were going to show one, I would show one of my four grandchildren. Are we going to have energy production in our country or not? Are we going to continue to put various areas off limits where we cannot have more production? There are some people, I guess, in this institution who think we can conserve ourselves into an energy policy. We need to produce more oil, more natural gas, more coal with clean coal technology, hydropower, all of it, and have conservation and alternative fuels. And we should produce this oil in Alaska, or natural gas, or whatever it is up there. When I came to the Senate, I spent some time talking to the experienced hands around here, and I asked about how you deal with different issues. One of the things I was taught by my predecessors here in this institution is you pay attention to the Senators from their State when it is an issue involving their State. This is an issue that is supported by the two Senators from Alaska, supported by an overwhelming number of people in that State. It is supported by the Native Americans in that State. This is the right thing to do from their standpoint. I do not understand why Senators from Massachusetts and Washington and Maine are trying to dictate what should happen in this area in production that we need as a country. I am absolutely floored by all of this. I think it is time we consider what is for the good of the overall country and get over all these dire threats of doom of what we might do if we have exploration in this very limited area. And, ladies and gentlemen, it is about jobs. It is about revenue. Why do you think most of the unions are supporting this? They were in my office today saying: We are for this, because they understand it would involve jobs. They understand it would involve more revenue coming into the Federal Treasury. They understand it is about energy independence. When are we going to learn? The price of a barrel of oil is $54 a barrel. Gasoline is somewhere close to $2 a gallon, in some areas as much as, I think, $2.16 a gallon. Venezuela made it clear recently they would like to cut us off completely. We are dependent on a very volatile area of the world for our oil supply. Probably about 60 percent of our energy needs is supplied by foreign oil. Even in this remote area of Alaska we are saying we cannot produce more oil and gas. Who is going to lose if we do not have energy sources? We are going to have it in my State. We are going to produce our own oil and natural gas and coal. We are going to have excess power. By the way, if they are willing to pay for it, we will be glad to wheel it up to Pennsylvania and Massachusetts and Connecticut. We will share. But I will tell you, if we do not have oil and gas and coal to run our powerplants, the electricity is going off. It is time we get serious about this issue. We should vote down this amendment. I commend Senator Judd Gregg and the Budget Committee for taking this action. I think we should do this if for no other reason than because of support for the Senators, particularly Senator Stevens, who has spent a career trying to do the right thing for Alaska. Who has done more for conservation and environmental issues in Alaska than Senator Ted Stevens? Nobody. He has made every possible plea for this. So I hope we will do it. It is the right thing to do. We should do it in his honor. I thank my colleagues for giving me this opportunity to vent a little bit. I am amazed at the irresponsibility of this Congress and the previous Congress and the American people to a degree in the energy field. We want it, but we do not want to do anything to produce it. So I hope maybe this will be a sign today, when we vote to defeat this amendment, that we are finally getting serious about more energy production in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Amtrak amendment and would use the 1-minute time I believe was just allocated. Is that appropriate parliamentary procedure at this point?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have a long history of being supportive of Amtrak. I was chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee when we passed the last reauthorization. I have the honor of serving there again this year. I am committed to trying to find a way to get a reauthorization and get a reliable stream of funds for Amtrak so its future can be certain and so this does not have to depend just on annual appropriations. We are going to get that done. This puts the cart before the horse, before we get a reauthorization. We are going to designate more money for it. To make matters worse, the $1.2 billion, while it is significant, will just continue the drip, drip, drip of funds for Amtrak but yet not enough for them to do what they need to do in track improvements and capital improvements. I believe this is the wrong place to do this amendment. Last but not least, it does it by raising unspecified taxes. While I support the intent of the Senator from West Virginia and I support Amtrak and I am determined to get this job done, we shouldn't do it in this way at this point. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have had this debate before. Here we go again. I think it is an important debate and we need to think very carefully about it. I certainly agree with Senator Feingold and Senator Voinovich that Congress has been spending money recklessly over the past few years. We need to restore fiscal discipline. Unfortunately, this amendment does very little to address that problem. I cannot help but remember that during the late nineties and the early part of this century, we had a balanced budget for 4 years. We actually had surpluses. How did that happen? There was some fiscal responsibility. We forced President Clinton to join us in a balanced budget amendment in 1997. But we also cut taxes in a way that encouraged growth in the economy. We grew bigger. That is one thing you need to think about. The economy is showing growth. It was pretty fragile last year, but it continues to show positive signs in terms of production, and unemployment is at 5.4 percent. It should be headed the other way. More people are being hired. There are positives in the economy. I talked to the experts about how did that happen. Part of it happened because we did tax cuts where we let people keep more of their money instead of bringing it to this city and wasting it. We encouraged growth in the economy. We encouraged family tax relief, families with children, research and development, we cut taxes on dividends. We took some actions that made a huge difference. That is how we had balanced budgets and surpluses. But then, for a variety of reasons, we started spending more and more again. A variety of things happened. First, we got used to having surpluses, so we started spending money, whether we should or should not. We made commitments on Medicare and Medicaid that we should have made, and then the economy started going down. Then, we had 9/11 and we have had all the extra spending for the defense of our country, our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we spent a lot of money on homeland security. We wasted a lot of it, in my opinion. But we are doing a better job and we are doing some things that had to be done. We are going to continue to have to spend money to try to make America safe against terrorists. But the combination of overspending in the beginning of the century, a falling economy in 2000 and 2001, and 9/11, has led us to the deficits we now have. One of the interesting things to me about this is that the focus is on, by the way, you cannot let people keep more of their money unless you cut spending or raise taxes. The focus should be on how we control spending. Year after year, this administration, previous administrations, and we have spent more and more and more. I will be glad when we get to the point where you cannot raise spending for Amtrak or NIH or anything else that you don't offset in some way. We need fiscal responsibility, but this is not the way to get it, in my opinion. On the floor this week, there have been amendments offered on the budget--mostly by Democrats, with the complicity of some Republicans occasionally--to add $50 billion more in spending--just so far. By the time the smoke clears this week, there will be amendments that would add probably $200 billion or who knows how much more than what the President budgeted, which is a significant budget; $843 billion is not chicken feed. Then you add entitlements on top of that. So we have a problem. Here is the real kicker. If we pass this amendment, this is really a tax increase. If we don't have the ability to extend some of these tax cuts that we already passed, we committed to the people--if you ask the experts what would happen if we didn't extend these tax cuts in these critical areas of capital gains and dividends, they would say: We are not worried about that. We have factored that into our economic thinking. You are going to do that. Well, could we get 60 votes for it? Are we going to do that? Can we be assured we are going to get that accomplished? This would lead to tax increases of $70 billion on working Americans and families with children. That is why I cannot support it. You might say, well, I can go down the list and say one after the other to my colleagues on both sides, Do you think we ought to do something about the AMT tax relief problem, the fact that 9 million Americans are being forced into higher tax brackets because of the AMT that we got into years ago? Do my colleagues think we should not address that? Why, the Senator from Ohio would say, we are going to have to do that; why, absolutely we are going to do that, and we should do that. Does this mean we should not have money for the tax extenders for such things as R&D tax credit, the work opportunity tax credit which helps business employ millions of Americans who might not be employed otherwise? Oh, no, everybody says, no, I am for that. Does this mean my colleagues do not want dollars for small business expensing, which is really a tax increase on small businesses? They are the ones where the jobs are really being created. That is where the real entrepreneurial spirit is. But most people say: No, no, I want to encourage small business, so I would want to extend that. What about capital gains and dividends? Well, I guess some people in the Senate might say: I do not want to do that; that is the middle income or upper income people. Tell that to the millions of Americans now who do receive dividends, and they are not wealthy Americans, either. So if we do not extend these, the result is going to be we are going to have a tax increase on millions of these working Americans. It would have a devastating effect on the economic growth that we are encouraging. There would be fewer jobs and even more dependency on the Government. I have watched it over the years in my own State. Year after year we were one of the poorest States in the Nation. We thought we could spend our way out of poverty. We were not in debt because we had a constitutional amendment that said we could not do it. So we kept trying to spread money out to people, saying that if we keep supporting everybody--one-quarter of the entire population in my State is on Medicaid. Finally, a few years ago, we said: Wait, we are not going to be able to spend our way out of being the poorest State in the Nation. We are going to have to take some aggressive action to have better quality education, better infrastructure. We are going to have to go out there and create jobs, solicit jobs. We are going to have to have tax reform. We are going to have to cut taxes. What has happened? We are creating jobs. We are not the poorest State in the Nation anymore. We are glad to give that title to another State, maybe South Dakota, West Virginia, or Arkansas. They can fight over that title. We do not want it. We finally got up off our knees and said: We are tired of being poor. We want to grow the economy. We want our people to have an opportunity to get a good education, have jobs, and create jobs. That is why we have Nissan, Textron, International Harvester, and FedEx in my State. Northrop Grumman has two different new plants in my State to build unmanned aerial vehicles. That is why Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Eurocopter, and now the newest steel mill in America is in Mississippi, because we quit trying to spend our way out of poverty. We started trying to figure out ways to attract people and create jobs and allow people to make more money, have a decent paying job, and keep more of their own money. Yes, we cut taxes, and we started growing. Hallelujah. We also had tort reform to get these frivolous class action lawsuits under control. So that is why I think this is totally wrongheaded, goes absolutely in the wrong direction. I hope my colleagues will not fall into this trap. The Finance Committee would have to come up with at least $30 billion probably in revenue raisers over the next 5 years to cover dealing with these tax provisions. We would not really be getting anything for it in return. Chairman Grassley tells us that if we had to come up with this $30 billion, it would basically max us out because that is the bare minimum we need to prevent a tax increase on Americans without looking at what we need to have some growth in the economy and help working families in America. This is a responsible budget that we have come up with. We should not put this provision in it. Let me understand this. We want to discourage tax cuts on working people being able to keep their money, and instead we want to force tax increases and spending cuts? I like the spending cuts idea. That is the only part I really heard that I like, but we need to think about what we are doing. Finally, maybe we can begin to top out this spending orgy that we have been involved in and begin to come down. By the way, everybody on the floor, we are all screaming and hollering: Oh, my goodness, you do not mean agriculture, do you? Oh, wait, you are talking about some of our beloved education programs? No, we did not mean that. You do not have money for Amtrak, you do not have enough money for shipbuilding, you do not have enough money for highways? Everybody ought to have to ante up a little bit. The problem is not tax cuts and tax relief for working Americans and families with children; the problem is we cannot control our insatiable appetite for spending. By the way, I acknowledge that I am guilty. I have been a participant. I tried to get more of my fair share in Mississippi because for 135 years we did not get our fair share. Why did we not get it? Because we did not stand up and ask for it. We did not play on the national team. This is not the way to go. Senator Gregg has provided leadership and courage. I have been speaking against things today and over the last 2 weeks. I support Amtrak. I am from an agriculture State. I want more highway money anyhow, anywhere, any way I can get it, but at some point we have to ask, how much is enough? There is an amendment to add money for NIH. I have been a part of the Republican commitment over the past few years to double the spending for NIH, and we have done it. Now we are being told that is not enough, we need $2 billion. We need to sober up, and this resolution will help us do it. It is not going to be easy. We are going to have withdrawal pains, but we need to stop spending. We need to try to find some way to help reduce this deficit by encouraging growth in the economy. I urge my colleagues, vote against this so-called pay-go provision, and let us go with this resolution the way it was written. I hope this time we can get a conference report, too, because if we do not, we are doomed around here. If we cannot do these little tiny cuts, some minimum reforms, wait until we really have to deal with the big choices. They are coming. They are coming down the road, and it is a Mack truck. Unfortunately, the roads are not in very good shape. I hope it does not fall into a pothole or a bridge before it gets here. We need to pass a highway bill. As much as I would like for that highway bill to be $318 billion, $350 billion--we cannot come up with enough highway money to suit me--I am going to vote for some restraint. If it is over $184 billion and it is not paid for in an appropriate way, I will vote to sustain a veto. We have to all do this. We talk about it. The Senator from North Dakota knows we need to do this. He wants to do it. We have to have some help. We have to have some ``followership'' and courage. Now is the time to do it. This amendment is not the way to do it. I thank my colleagues. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LOTT. How is the time divided between now and 3 p.m.?

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. President, I wish to make some remarks before we start this series of votes at 3 o'clock. I understand there will be several stacked votes, four or five at that time. First, I remind my colleagues that this is an important process. This is a process where we pass a budget resolution. This is a blueprint that we are trying to put in place of how we will proceed the rest of this year and even, depending on the enforcement mechanisms, next year. This is not written in stone. This is not the Ten Commandments. This is an outline. This is a blueprint. These are aggregate numbers. I must say, ashamedly, for 2 of the last 3 years we did not have a budget. I think that is one reason we had such a mess at the end of the session last year. I admit, it was an election year, but we need to have some guidelines of what are we expected to do at Commerce, how can we do a better job at the Transportation Security Administration, how much money is going to be available, what is going to be available at the Finance Committee, what are we going to do with our entitlement programs and tax policy? One way or the other, what are the appropriators going to do? I hope my colleagues will not get too overwrought and too much into the details. I do not like a lot of this budget proposal. I do not like a lot of what the President proposed, but I will have my opportunity to make my case and I will have my opportunity to vote for or against parts of it. This is just the beginning. This is the kickoff. By the way, it should be a bipartisan effort to get this budget resolution in place. I think the committee has done a good job. First, it cuts the deficit in half within 5 years. We have been dealing with increased defense needs. We have been trying to figure out all the needs of homeland security. We had economic problems, and the deficit has gone up. Now it is time we begin to do something about it. We need to begin to control spending, and we need to be careful about our tax policy which can hurt the economy if we have raised taxes or if we cut taxes even in the wrong way versus cutting taxes in a way that gives incentive for growth. This budget starts in the right direction of reducing the deficit. It fully funds the President's request for defense and homeland security. I guess we need to do that. The numbers are adequate in both areas. I would like to see some more in defense. And I do not like the mix in the President's budget for defense. But that is not what we will decide here. This bill maintains job-creating tax policy and it strengthens budget enforcement tools. Because we did not have a budget resolution last year, and 2 years before that, we have been losing our ability to impose some budget and fiscal restraint. This resolution does provide outlines that will take us into doing more, and doing a better job at education, energy, welfare, and pension policy, all of which we need to do. I hope we will be careful. Let's not get too hot with the rhetoric this week. When we get to Thursday night or Friday, we will pass a budget resolution and move forward. With regard to the amendments, I was interested to see we got some amendments on Social Security. This may be good. Is this a sign that Democrats are going to join us and we are going to have a serious discussion? Senator Lindsey Graham has his neck way out there, so far out I am not about to join him where he is right now, but he is trying to get us going, get engaged in this discussion. A lot of people say we can't do this, we can't talk about any kind of restraint in growth and benefits. We can't do anything about age. Oh, no, we can't do anything with personal savings account. If you listen to what they are saying, it is we don't want to do anything but raise Social Security taxes again. We have done that too many times. My time is gone. I urge my colleagues: Vote against these points of order. This would be the exact wrong way to get started toward Social Security reform and getting a budget resolution. I will have more to say about all this later. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to give notice to Members and staff of the Senate that the Committee on Rules and Administration (``Committee'') has approved amendments to four Committee regulations. Pursuant to Title V of the Rules of Procedure for the Committee and having provided advance notice of our intention to approve the following amendments to regulations, we hereby approve said amendments effective February 1, 2005. 1. The following regulations are approved as amended: A. Committee Regulations for Furniture, Accessories and Special Allowances Policy for Senate Office Buildings, as amended by adding, deleting and substituting as follows: Delete the second sentence in item 5 which reads ``However, once modular is chosen for a suite, it shall remain a part of that suite regardless of which Senator occupies the space.'' Under Section A in item 5, delete ``A.'' and the words ``of funding for this program'' and substitute ``and the order in which the request is received.'' Delete Sections B and C in item 5. Delete item 7. At the end of second sentence in item 8 add the following: ``or through the Senate Furniture web system.'' Under Section A in item 8 delete the words ``to be transferred to the intended office'' at the end of the sentence and substitute ``by the Committee on Rules and Administration prior the transfer.'' At the end of first sentence in item 9 add the following: ``available for viewing through the Senate Furniture web system (http:// senate.aoc.gov)'' Under Standard Furniture and Accessories, Senators' Suites-- 1. Delete ``Chairs--Ergonomic (with or without arms)'' 2. Delete ``Chairs--Folding Chairs'' 3. After ``Chairs--Conference'' add ``(with or without arms)'' 4. Delete ``Chairs--Reception'' and substitute ``Chairs--Desk (with or without arms)'' 5. Delete ``Chairs--Reception (without arms)'' 6. Delete ``Chairs--Secretary'' 7. Delete ``Coats--Rack'' 8. Add ``Credenza--(Conference room & Front office only)'' 9. Delete ``Desk--Secretary'' and substitute ``Desk--L-Shape'' 10. After ``Fireplace--Screens'' add ``(Russell SOB only)'' 11. After ``Fireplace--Tools'' add ``(Russell SOB only)'' 12. After ``Lighting--Ceiling (Chandelier)'' delete ``Fixtures (Reception and Conference Rooms in Russell SOB only, no more than 2 total)'' and add ``in Russell SOB only, (Reception Rooms, Conference Rooms and Senator's Personal Office, limited to 3 total)'' 13. After ``Lighting--Floor Lamps'' add ``2 per office'' 14. Delete ``Lighting--Reading Lamps'' 15. Delete ``Magazine Rack'' 16. Delete ``Microfilm Cabinets'' 17. Delete ``Modular Furniture--Limited to Hart SOB for now)'' 18. Delete ``Partitions--Textures (i.e. wood)'' 19. After ``Refrigerator--Medium'' add ``Not to exceed 3 total'' 20. Delete ``Stand--Smoke (Ashtray)'' 21. Delete ``Tables--Folding'' 22. Delete ``Window--Venetian Blinds (2 inch, Russell and Dirksen SOB's only)'' 23. Delete ``Window--Mini Blinds (Hart SOB only)'' Under Senators' Personal Offices-- 1. Delete ``(Bathroom)--(Vanity under sink)*'' 2. Delete ``(Bathroom)--(Cabinet over/next to sink)*'' 3. Delete ``Chairs--Reception'' and add ``Chairs--Side (with arms or without arms)'' 4. Delete ``Chairs--Reception (without arms)'' 5. After ``Chairs--Overstuffed'' add ``(Historic)'' 6. Delete ``Lighting--Reading Light'' 7. After ``Lighting--Ceiling (Chandelier)'' delete ``Fixture (Russell SOB only) and add ``in Russell SOB only, (Reception Rooms, Conference Rooms and Senator's Personal Office, limited to 3 total)'' 8. Delete ``TV Cabinet'' and add ``TV/VRC Cabinet'' 9. Delete ``VRC Cabinet'' 10. Delete ``Upholstery Fabric'' 11. Delete ``Wardrober'' 12. Delete ``Window--Curtains or Draperies'' 13. Delete ``Window--Venetian Blinds (wood or metal)'' 14. Delete ``Window--Mini Blinds'' 15. Delete ``* Standard part of building structure'' After heading ``For Loan (for Meetings and Related'' add ``Functions)'' A copy of the Committee Regulations governing Furniture, Accessories and Special Allowances Policy for Senate Office Buildings, as amended, is included as Attachment A. B. Committee Regulations Governing Senate Travel and Travel Promotional Awards, as amended, by deleting paragraphs five and six in Section II(A)(3)(b) and related Appendix A and substituting as follows: Travel promotional awards (e.g. free travel, travel discounts, upgrade certificates, coupons, frequent flyer miles, access to carrier club facilities, and other similar travel promotional items (``Travel Awards'')) obtained by a Member, officer or employee of the Senate while on official travel may be utilized for personal use at the discretion of the Member or officer pursuant to this section. Travel Awards may be retained and used at the sole discretion of the Member or officer only if the Travel Awards are obtained under the same terms and conditions as those offered to the general public and no favorable treatment is extended on the basis of the Member, officer or employee's position with the Federal Government. Members, officers and employees may only retain Travel Awards for personal use when such Travel Awards have been obtained at no additional cost to the Federal Government. It should be noted that any fees assessed in connection with the use of Travel Awards shall be considered a personal expense of the Member, officer or employee and under no circumstances shall be paid for or reimbursed from official funds. Although this paragraph permits Members, officers and employees of the Senate to use Travel Awards at the discretion of the Member or officer, the Committee encourages the use of such Travel Awards (whenever practicable) to offset the cost of future official travel. A copy of the Committee Regulations governing Senate travel and Travel Promotional Awards, as amended, is included as Attachment B. C. Committee Regulations for the Senate Health and Fitness Facility by the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, as amended, by deleting paragraph (d), Section 3 and substituting as follows: The Facility and its equipment shall be available for use by all Members of the United States Senate upon the payment of fees as determined by the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules and Administration. The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules and Administration shall notify the Secretary of the Senate of the amount of any fees to be charged hereunder and direct the Financial Clerk of the Senate to collect such fees from those Members desiring to use the Facility. A copy of the Committee Regulations governing the Senate Health and Fitness Facility, as amended, is included as Attachment C. D. Committee Regulations governing Public Transportation Subsidy, as amended by deleting and substituting as follows: In the first sentence of Section 2, substitute ``(P.L. 105-178)'' for ``(P.L. 105-78)''. In the first sentence of Section 2, substitute ``$105'' for ``$100''. In item (a) of Section 4, substitute ``$105'' for ``$100''. In the second sentence of third paragraph of Section 6, substitute ``employee'' for ``employer''. In item (c) of Section 7, substitute ``$105'' for ``$100''. A copy of the Committee Regulations governing Public Transportation Subsidy, as amended, is included as Attachment D. Attachment A--Furniture, Accessories and Special Allowances Policy for Senate Office Buildings (Approved September 27, 1989) (Amended June 29, 1994) (Amended February 28, 2004) 1. Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 174c, furnishings for offices in the Senate Office Buildings are supplied and maintained by the Architect of the Capitol through his representative, the Superintendent of the Senate Office Buildings. Matters of general policy are subject to the approval of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. 2. Effective on the date of adoption of this policy by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the Superintendent of the Senate Office Buildings shall undertake to survey the physical quality of all furnishings presently assigned to offices. Thereafter, a survey will be conducted on an annual basis. Office heads, as defined in the Senate Equipment Regulations, should work with the Superintendent's Office to identify furnishings that do not meet an acceptable level of quality. 3. When the survey is completed, all items on the Standard Furniture and Accessories list that are in disrepair will be declared ``surplus'' and/or repaired. This does not preclude repairs as needed irrespective of survey timing. No furnishings will be delivered to an office unless they are functional and in quality condition. 4. The Superintendent's Office will maintain a full inventory of all furnishings assigned to designated suites, including documentation of furnishings provided from the Standard Furniture and Accessories list, and items purchased from the Senators' special furniture and accessory allowance. 5. Senators with suites in the Russell or Dirksen Buildings shall have the option of using traditional or modular furniture to create an effective office environment. [However, once modular is chosen for a suite, it shall remain a part of that suite regardless of which Senator occupies the space.] A Senator electing to use modular furniture in Russell or Dirksen shall use the modular system in the suite except for the Senator's personal office, reception room, and conference room. [A.] Modular furniture will be offered to Senators in Russell and Dirksen based upon the availability and the order in which the request is received. [of funding for this program.] [B. Modular furniture will be offered to Senators with suites in the Russell and Dirksen Buildings on a seniority basis until all Senators have had the opportunity to elect to use modular furniture. [C. Senators not electing initially to use modular furniture in Russell or Dirksen must wait until all other Senators on the current list have been offered modular furniture and have elected to accept or have declined. The updated seniority list shall apply after Senate moves.] 6. Senators in the Hart Building shall utilize modular furniture as the basic system of furnishing. The actual system of furniture in place in a suite in the Hart Building shall remain in the same suite regardless of which Senator occupies the space. In the Hart Building, traditional furniture may be chosen for the Senator's personal office, the Chief of Staff's office, the reception area and the conference room. [7. Modular panels shall not be provided in any private offices.] 8. Only a Senator or the designated office head of each Senate office will have the authority to request furniture and furnishings in an office. Such requests may be made by submitting a ``Request for Service'', letter or through the Senate Furniture web system. Written confirmation of a telephone request to the Superintendent of the Senate Office Buildings also will be accepted. Office heads should be designated in writing and a file of these names will be maintained by the Superintendent's Office. The transfer of furniture from one official office inventory to another may be authorized based upon the following: A. All furniture items to be transferred from one Senate office or Committee to another Senate office or Committee must be authorized by the Committee on Rules and Administration prior the transfer. [to be transferred to the intended office.] B. The Senator, Committee Chairman or designated office head must agree to the release of the furniture on a Request for Furniture form providing for the removal of those items from their office inventory. Additional furniture intended to replace the furniture proposed for transfer shall be requested simultaneously on a Request for Furniture form. C. The Senator, Committee Chairman or designated office head receiving the transferred furniture must agree to its receipt on a Request for Furniture form so that the furniture can be incorporated into their office inventory. The Superintendent shall adjust the official office inventories based upon completion of the issuance or return of furniture items. 9. The Architect of the Capitol will maintain in stock an inventory of the following items, referred to hereafter as the Standard Furniture and Accessories list, available for viewing through the Senate Furniture web system (http:/// senate.aoc.gov): Standard Furniture and Accessories--Senators' Suites Bookcase--See Shelves; Chair Mats; [Chairs--Ergonomic (with or without arms); [Chairs--Folding Chairs]; Chairs-- Conference (with or without arms); Chairs--Desk [Reception] (with or without arms); [Chairs--Reception--without arms]; Chairs--Executive; [Chairs--Secretary]; Coats--Tree; [Coats-- Rack]; Credenza--(Conference room & Front office only); Desk--Computer; Desk--Half size; Desk--Flat Top Executive; Desk--[Secretary] L-Shape. Fans & Heaters; File Cabinets--Lateral 2-Drawer; File Cabinets--Lateral 5-Drawer; File Cabinets--2-Drawer; File Cabinets--5-Drawer; Fireplace--Screens (Russell SOB only); Fireplace--Tools (Russell SOB only); Footrests--Furniture or Computer; Lighting--Ceiling (Chandelier) [Fixtures (Reception and Conference Rooms in Russell SOB only, no more than 2 total)] in Russell SOB only (Reception Rooms, Conference Rooms and Senator's Personal Office, limited to 3 total); Lighting--Floor Lamps (2 per office); [Lighting--Reading Lamps]; Lighting--Desk/Table Lamps; [Magazine Rack]; [Microfilm Cabinets]; Mirrors--(One per suite standard); [Modular Furniture--(Limited to Hart SOB for now). [Partitions--Textured (i.e. wood)]; Partitions--Acoustical; Racks--Pamphlets; Refrigerator--Medium (Not to exceed 3 total); Shelves--Open Shelves (Book); Shelves--Desk Organizers; Shelves--Cabinets (with doors); Sofa--Love seat; Sofa--Couch; [Stand--Smoke (Ashtray)]; Stand--Telephone; Stand--Plant; Tables--Conference; Tables--Round; Tables-- Computer; Tables--Coffee; Tables--End; [Tables--Folding]; Tables--Other (assorted sizes); TV Stand; [Window--Venetian Blinds (2-inch, Russell and Dirksen SOBs only); [Window--Mini Blinds (Hart SOB only)]. Senators' Personal Offices [(Bathroom)--(Vanity-under sink*); [(Bathroom)--(Cabinet- over/next to sink)*]; Cabinet--Telephone; Chairs--High Back (Desk); Chairs--Side [Reception]-(with arms or without arms); [Chairs--Reception-without arms]; Chairs--Wingback; Chairs-- Overstuffed (Historic); Credenza; Desk; Lighting--Table Lamp; Lighting--Floor Lamp; [Lighting--Reading Light]; Lighting-- Ceiling (Chandelier) [Fixture (Russell SOB only)] in Russell SOB only, (Reception Rooms, Conference Rooms and Senator's Personal Office, limited to 3 total); Lighting--Mantle Fixtures (Russell SOB only); Lighting--Wall (Sconce) Fixtures (Russell SOB only); Lighting--Rheostat. Mirror; Refrigerator--Compact; Shelves--Bookcases; Shelves--Cabinet; Sofa--Love seat; Sofa--Couch; Table-- Coffee; Table--End; TV/VCR Cabinet; [VCR Cabinet; [Upholstery Fabric; [Wardrober; [Window--Curtains or Draperies; [Window-- Venetian Blinds (wood or metal); [Window--Mini Blinds. [*Standard part of building structure] For Loan (for Meetings and Related Functions) Blackboards, Easels, Folding Tables, Piano (small charge for tuning), Podiums, Stacking Chairs. 10. A Special Furniture and Accessory Allowance will be authorized to the Architect of the Capitol for the purpose of furnishing a Senator's personal office, reception room and conference room when a Senator is elected/reelected for a term of office. This will be in addition to the furnishings requested from the Standard Furniture and Accessories list and only will be authorized during the first year of each Senator's new term of office. Such amount will be determined by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration as a recommendation for appropriation to the Architect of the Capitol to become available for the Senator's term of office. Provisions will be made for Senators to purchase through this special allowance furniture and accessory items which are unique to their offices and/or home state. All acquisitions from this allowance will be made by the Architect of the Capitol in consultation with the office head. 11. A ``Request for Service'' or other written request for furnishings will be acknowledged within five working days reflecting appropriate disposition of the request. If requests are made for items critical to the function of the office which are not on the Standard Furniture and Accessory list or are out of stock, and delivery/restock is not anticipated for three months or greater, an office head may submit a request in writing to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. If requests are made for special items, as part of the Special Furniture and Accessory Allowance, appropriate information should be attached from a commercial supplier or a catalogue from which the items are available. If favorably acted upon by the Rules Committee, an approval to purchase will be forwarded to the Architect's Office. 12. Certain furniture and accessory items may be built to published plans, including typewriter racks and table platforms for computer work stations, open shelves and sorting racks for desks and tables, and bookshelves, in accordance with a standard catalogue provided by the Superintendent. An office head may submit a written request for an item by identifying it from the Superintendent's catalogue of sketches. 13. Office heads may submit to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration at any time a request to add items to the Standard Furniture and Accessory list. The Committee, in consultation with the Architect of the Capitol, will review the list annually to ensure that items continue to meet the needs of Senate offices acknowledging changing technology and staff environments. 14. Furnishings secured through the Architect of the Capitol from the Senators' Special Furniture and Accessory Allowance may be returned at the request of the office head to the Architect's inventory. They then may be purchased at a depreciated price with a Senator's personal funds or as a charge to the Special Furniture and Accessory Allowance. All returns will be made without credit to the original purchaser's Special Furniture and Accessory Allowance. 15. The Committee on Rules and Administration, in consultation with the Architect of the Capitol, will monitor requests for non-standard items to preserve the architectural conformity of the Senate Office Buildings. 16. Furniture is not authorized by statute to be purchased through a Senator's Official Personnel and Office Expense Account. However, T.V. stands and V.C.R. stands are considered accessories to equipment and may be purchased in a manner consistent with the statutes and regulations governing the purchase of standard and non-standard equipment. 17. All furniture and accessories, whether chosen from the Standard list or purchased from the Senators' Special Furniture and Accessory Allowance, remain the property of the Architect of the Capitol. Senators will be responsible for any furniture stolen, lost, or otherwise unaccounted for, and reimbursement for all losses will be made in an amount equal to the fair market value of such furniture after applying an appropriate depreciation. 18. The implementation of this policy is subject to the availability of appropriated funds to the Architect of the Capitol. Approved: Committee on Rules and Administration. Christopher J. Dodd, Ranking Member. Trent Lott, Chairman.