Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I was pleased to see the majority leader say yesterday he was still holding out hope we could get a highway bill completed before we go out for the election. To me this should not be about the election, but it should be a major focus of what we are doing. Another week is about to go by without any real apparent movement on the highway bill. Why? Why isn't the conference getting this job done? It would mean jobs instantly from Alaska to Mississippi and from Maryland to California, because the projects are ready to go, but the money and the new authorizations and new formulas are not in place. Some suggestion was made yesterday, perhaps we could get together with the House and Senate, the President, and do a 1-year extension. Why? Why would we want to extend the current program? It needs to be bigger and better. It needs to be updated. We haven't done this now in 4 or 5 years. It is time to have a highway bill. It is not only about highways. It is about highways and bridges and abutments and public transportation and innovative programs that take advantage of modern technology. We need to upgrade this law. One other thing. Every day that passes, every week that passes, people are being killed on highways because they are not modern and are not safe. That is what drives me the most. I know too many cases of people who have died on narrow, hilly, inadequate roads in my State and I am sure all over the country. I am not going to let up on this. As long as we are in session, I am going to keep asking the question: Why aren't we doing a highway bill? There is plenty of blame to go around. But there is no need to get into that. I want to give credit. I want to praise the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, Senate and House, and the leadership for getting the job done. But I don't think that is happening. I don't quite understand why. Is there some decision that has been made, some silent conspiracy to extend it, do it another day? Maybe we could get more money next year. Maybe we could raise taxes next year and get it even bigger. Of all of those, if that is the thought, that is wrong. We need to get a bill that is at a level we can defend as being one that is going to be paid for by gasoline taxes, how we use the trust fund, maybe some changes in how that is handled, but we need to find a way to get it done now. We should find a bill the House can pass, the Senate can pass, and the President can sign. Let's do it and let's do it now. We could complete this bill within a week. Why don't we do it?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, my apologies; what is the time divide?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the agenda we are going to be dealing with in September. But before I do that, I want to say I was very proud of the job that was done by the people of New York City, the leadership of New York City, and all who were involved in the Republican National Convention in New York. I must confess, I dreaded going to New York City for our convention. I was worried about the heat at the end of August. I was worried about the traffic and congestion. I was worried about the ability to secure the place from potential terrorist threats. I was concerned about what the protesters might do. I had a lot of concerns. I also had some concerns about how the convention itself would be perceived. But I must say, I was pleased with the way the city handled the convention. It was not as hot as I expected. The traffic was not as bad as I expected. The protesters were there, but they stayed within reasonable bounds. They were able to express themselves. Some of them went too far, and they wound up being arrested. The police in New York City did a very effective job. They were friendly. They were helpful. The city officials, Mayor Bloomberg, the State officials, Governor Pataki and his administration, all who were involved in the security and transportation aspects of the convention deserve to be commended because it turned out to be very good. The convention itself, the events surrounding the convention, the experience, exceeded my greatest expectations. There were good speakers every night. I won't dare to name them now because if I name one, I might not name another who did a wonderful job. I was inspired by it all. But not wanting to make this a partisan speech, my real purpose is to extend my congratulations to the city of New York. They did a great job. I feel as many people said when New York City was attacked on that infamous day of 9/11, we all became New Yorkers, and from that we all became Americans again. We did a lot of things in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way for the future of the people in that city and for the security of the American people. That was a good experience which came out of that terrible event. So I want the record to show I found the whole event most enjoyable and a productive product for the political process.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, looking at the agenda for September--others set the agenda and I understand that and I will support that--there are certain things we must do. We need to confirm Congressman Porter Goss to be head of the CIA. We need to look at the 9/11 Commission recommendations and see how much of those can be done in a responsible way. I know there will be some who will resist and will defend the status quo or worry about committee turf. But we have a problem. Our intelligence operation is not set up properly. We had failures as we went into Iraq. We should not try to deny that. We should acknowledge it. I commend our men and women in the intelligence community who do a great job. They are on the line this day in Afghanistan, Iraq, and even here in America. We should recognize that talent. We should be careful not to undermine the morale of those organizations. We have learned there is a problem with chain of command and how the analytical material is checked and double-checked. We know the Intelligence Committees in the Congress have not been set up in a way to do proper oversight. I can say that from experience, having looked at it from a leadership position, but also as a member of the Intelligence Committee for the last year and a half. It is not set up properly. Membership should be permanent, so that members not only can attend hearings, but understand what they are hearing, the dialog, acronyms and people, and burrow in and ask the right questions. This is not so that we will go native and become captive to the community, but so we will be able to ask the right questions. Even the staffing arrangement has to be changed. We have a limited period of time and, obviously, this requires taking up some of that time. I want us to act in this intelligence area, as far as how it is set up, in the executive and legislative branches. We may not be able to do it all in September, but let's do all we can and then we can continue to work on it, provided, of course, we don't let the forces of the status quo rise up and prevent the necessary changes that I believe are called for. I am a strong advocate of reform across the board when it comes to our intelligence community. Of course, we have to deal with the appropriations bills in some way. I am pleased the leadership decided to call up the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Certainly, other than defense, nothing is more important to fund as soon as we can and in the best way we can than homeland security. I hope we can get through that process in a reasonable period of time, knowing there will be some amendments to be offered. We should get that appropriations bill done. Beyond that, I am not sure whether we are going to have an omnibus appropriations bill or a continuing resolution or for how long funding will be continued. That will be left in the hands of others in the leadership and even the Appropriations Committee. But I want to talk about some other issues that don't always pop up when people are talking about what we should do in September. Yes, we should deal with the intelligence issue. We should do some confirmations--confirm Porter Goss. We should do some judges and appropriations. But there are an awful lot of other things that have not been done yet that we should complete before we go out. It is going to be very unattractive and, in fact, an admission of failure to do our job if we don't complete work on some of the bills that are in conference--for instance, the highway bill. I hear some talk now that we should extend the current highway authorization into next year. Why? We need those highway jobs this year. There are very few things we can do, if anything, that would create more jobs quicker than to pass a highway bill. There are highway projects, bridge projects and public transportation projects all across this country that can begin immediately and will put thousands of people to work. By the way, it would make our roads safer and would help with economic development. We are in conference. There have been a lot of discussions, but I don't know that we are going to be able to get it completed if we don't pick up the pace. If we don't, then I think that all involved should feel badly because the American people will not be well served if we don't do the highway bill and we put it off until after the election or even next year. I urge the leadership on that conference committee in the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, to pay attention to this highway bill and get it done. It would be a huge achievement for the American people if we pass that bill before we go out. I am not incriminating any individuals, but I am going to feel very critical of the Senate and the Congress if we don't get that highway bill done before we go home again. I realize maybe it is futile now, but when are we going to get serious about energy? For 3 years we have been striving mightily to produce an energy bill. We get tangled up on one issue or another, such as over whether we should drill in Alaska. Now it is over an additive, MTBE. Meanwhile, we don't have a national energy policy. When the price of a barrel of oil went to $48 and more, as it did, I began to ask why, and what are we going to do about it? I know that if we pass an energy bill in the morning, it would not immediately affect the price of a barrel of oil that much, but it would help our long-term energy security. I think this is an issue that is staring us in the eye and we are continuing to blink. Sooner or later we are going to pay an economic or a national security price if we don't stop our dependence on foreign energy, and oil specifically. I am very unnerved to think we depend on over 50 percent of our oil coming from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and elsewhere. What if they cut us off for whatever reason? What would happen and how soon? I am tired of hearing excuses about why we didn't do it. I want to know how we are going to get it done. This bill came through committee, passed the Senate and the House, came out of conference and was passed by the House and came to the Senate, and with 57 votes we stalled out. Here we sit with no clear path to getting an energy bill. A pox on all our houses if we don't do something about that. Some people say stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I agree. We should not fill the SPR when the price of oil is as high as it is. That is a small part of what should be done. We need the whole package. And I want to say this: We need more exploration, more oil drilling, more natural gas wells, more coal, more hydroelectric power, and we need to perfect clean coal technology. We should have incentives for conservation and alternative fuels, the whole package, but here again the Congress is failing in doing its job by not passing an energy bill. We should do it before we go home for the election. Another bill I think is urgent that we pass is the so-called Jumpstart Our Business Strength, or JOBS, bill. It is a bill that is required because the World Trade Organization held that some of our tax policies were an unfair subsidization of our manufacturing. The World Trade Organization ruled that way. By the way, as a result of that, each month the tariff put on American goods by the European Union continues to go up 1 percent--it is now 11 percent, headed for 17 percent--because we supposedly had an export subsidy. That subsidy should be eliminated and that money should be moved over into the manufacturing area in a way that would help keep American industry in America and create jobs. How can we not do this? Some people throw up their hands and say we cannot get it done in the next month; that the House and Senate bills are too big; that the Senate bill has too much in it, and they are too different; how will we ever merge them? I don't care. Throw them both out the door and come up with a different, smaller bill, one that gets the job done in conference, and do it now. The chairmen of the committees in the House and the Senate and the ranking members need to get this done. I don't see how in the world we can leave this session of Congress and not pass that JOBS bill and allow American products to be hit with an ever-increasing tariff of 1 percent increase every month, going up to 17 percent, and say we will see you later and we will get to it next year. I urge my colleagues, especially the leadership and chairmen of the committees and the ranking members, to find a way to get this bill done. Lastly--and I will yield the floor--some people are whispering that ugly phrase ``lame duck.'' I have been here 32 years. I have been through lame ducks and they are all ugly--to come back after the election, when Congress is filled with people who have retired and have been defeated, and may have a different vested interest, perhaps. Now I admit that on occasion, even though they were ugly, they were usually brief and we did something good. We did it during the Clinton administration. We did a very important trade bill and, I think, once in the late nineties, maybe we came back and did the omnibus appropriations bill and then left. But I am worried about the large amount of work being considered for a lame duck session this year and whether that would be in the best interest of the American people. Whatever we cannot get done in terms of appropriations, let's either do it in an omnibus bill for the entire fiscal year or do it through a continuing resolution until February. But the idea that we are going to come back in December and work right up until Christmas and fix what needs to be fixed in that period of time to me is a very dubious and, frankly, unwise suggestion. How can it be stopped? I had somebody in the leadership ask me that: Oh my goodness, we have other things we have to do; how can we avoid a lame duck session? Real simple, Mr. President. The two leaders in the House and the two leaders in the Senate say we are not coming back for a lame duck session. It is not in the best interest of the American people. Tell the appropriators to do what they have to do, but we are not coming back for a lame duck session. If we do not do that and we come back here, I dread to see it. I welcome my colleagues back. I hope everybody had a nice, restful August. I hope we get a lot done in September. I do not expect very much because there are a few distractions underway, but we are poised on the brink of being able to do some good things. If we could get a highway bill, an energy bill, the JOBS bill, we could all go out and take credit for it. I remind my colleagues of the same thing I said many times over the years to leaders, to my good friend from South Dakota--when you produce a product, everybody wins. When you don't call up a bill or you don't finish a bill, the American people lose, and that is where we are poised to go. Which will it be? I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LOTT. Can I inquire under my reservation?

Mr. LOTT. So, Mr. President, the request is that next would be Senator Nelson, and then if Senator Frist comes at that point he would be recognized?

Mr. LOTT. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, are we still operating under the 3-hour time agreement with regard to the tax bill and the tobacco issue?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am not sure whether I could be considered pro or in opposition to in this particular case, but I do want to be heard on the broader issue and also on the tobacco provisions. I begin by congratulating and expressing my appreciation to leaders on both sides of the aisle for finally coming to an agreement on a process that will get us into conference on this important legislation. It is unfortunate that it has been delayed for weeks. We should have been in conference a month ago or more. Some of the demands about how we would go to conference or what would happen in that conference have been very inappropriate. One can't preordain what will come out of a conference. They can't say that any one person will determine whether a conference is reported, whether it is a leader or anybody else. But this issue is so important that we need to go into conference. It is about some important tax provisions that will help manufacturing, service, and our high-technology businesses and workers. It is a way to deal with a problem we have caused by a ruling by the World Trade Organization saying that our tax provisions, our alleged subsidies, were not in compliance with WTO, and we are being penalized in an increasing amount each month on a lot of American products because we have not dealt with this issue. We should have dealt with it a year or two ago, but at least now we will have an opportunity. Without rewriting the history, I think we need to get this bill into conference. We need to deal with this problem caused by the World Trade Organization's ruling, and we need to deal with the funds that are available because of that in a way that will help job growth and the economy. This is all well-intentioned. I have been pushing to go to conference. I must say, I am very worried about what is going to come out of conference. This bill and the one from the House have acquired a lot of barnacles. If you allow enough barnacles to be attached to the hull of a ship, it will sink. This one is in real jeopardy of sinking. First of all, as has become our pattern in the Congress, we are greedy. A bill that should be revenue neutral or should be somewhere around $50 billion has become--I don't know how much--$150 billion. How far is it going to go? The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee tells me it is $170 billion. We do have a little deficit. Anybody notice that? Here we have taken a good opportunity to do something good that would be responsible in dealing with trade practices and protecting our own producers and creating jobs, and we are going to distort it way out of proportion. It has become a pretzel. I went along with adding the energy tax provisions to the bill. I didn't think that was the way to do it; I said so at the time. But it was at least the tax provisions, and it gave us some way to maybe deal with the energy needs of the country. But that was the first of the barnacles that was added. And then in the House, I saw on the media this week where all these provisions have been added that will benefit General Electric, that would give them additional tax breaks and will contribute probably to more jobs going overseas. How did that happen? Did somebody miss that? Did it get in there without anybody being aware of it? Then the House added about $10 billion for a tobacco allotment buyout. I assumed that was just an aberration in the House and that Democrats and Republicans would say they are not going to do that and we would get back to the basics of this bill. Now the Senate is going to join the stampede. We are going to regulate tobacco with the FDA, and we are going to have a buyout even bigger. I guess this alternative would be paid for by the industry. What in the world is tobacco policy, whether it is the amount of the allotment or the FDA, doing in this bill? I am very worried that this bill is going to--and we are adding to the confusion--sink under its own weight in conference, and our companies and producers in America will be hit with an ever-increasing import fee every month. Here is what we ought to do. We need to get a grip, cut out all of this unrelated stuff in this bill. Some of it I would have to sacrifice, too. I want an energy bill. This may be the only vehicle leaving town. I would like to put the entire energy bill, with some modifications that may be necessary, in this bill. But this bill, on its own, needs to be done. It needs to be done clean. It needs to be cut by probably two-thirds. And we need to get all the undergrowth that has been added to it off of it. If we could do that and still find a way to get an energy bill, a highway bill, and a jobs growth bill done without all of the adds that are costing billions of dollars, we could go out of this session with our heads held high. But we are setting up a box that we may not be able to get out of. I oppose this proposal on tobacco. I am very much concerned about how we are going to get through conference and get this bill down into the $50 billion range where it should be instead of $170 billion. We have all contributed to the problem. I plead guilty. We all have. But now is the time where generally, when you go to conference, you get over your temporary political fantasies and you do the right thing. You produce a bill that can pass and will help the economy. Will we do it this time? I am sure that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, who enters the Chamber smiling, can work miracles in this conference. I am expecting it and looking forward to supporting him in that effort. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues and our leadership on both sides of the aisle to find a way for us to work together to address some of the critical issues facing this country. We have in conference now on a highway bill, a transportation bill that is important for economic development, for the creation of jobs, and for safety. I hope the conference will not become so obsessed with achieving the highest possible funding level that we wind up not getting a bill. It takes leadership and courage. It also takes being willing to accept what you can get, and get a conclusion that is good for everybody and move forward. We need an energy bill. The very idea that we still do not have a national energy policy is indefensible. Yet we continue to labor over how do we get an energy bill, what is in the package, and how are we going to get back to the floor of the Senate. We need to find a way to do that. The very idea that there is an effort to block the FSC/ETI JOBS growth bill, which involves a ruling by the WTO which has led to American products being hit with a penalty in Europe, and that we are not going to go to conference until we get some guarantee of what the result will be or that one Senator will be able to decide the conference report, what have we come to? We should get this bill in conference and get a result. Does it need to be changed? Yes. Has it become bloated? Absolutely. But if we don't deal with this, American products are going to wind up facing a penalty of 12 percent or more before we get a chance to address it again. It could go up to 17 percent. We are not going to deal with the job growth provisions in this legislation. We need to find a way to get it done. I hope our leaders will find a way to get these conferences going or get us into conference and get a result, because we need to get this done for the American people. I know it is a political season-- Presidential campaigns, Senate races, and congressional. I still maintain, as I always have, that the best politics is results. Get things done for the people. There is plenty of credit to go around. If we stand here and find a way to question each other's motives and block and obstruct and confuse, we are going to pay a price as an institution. I worry about that.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on the Select Committee on Intelligence report, I emphasize again, this was a unanimous bipartisan vote. There are problems with the intelligence community. We did not get what we needed before we went to war in Iraq. It was flawed and misleading and inaccurate. We should acknowledge that. But all the effort that is going on now to find a way to fix political blame is a mistake. We should be working together to produce results. That is why I am working with Senator Feinstein of California on some proposals. That is why I am working with Senator Wyden on some proposals. We have 1 minute remaining?

Mr. LOTT. I think I have 1 minute left.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we need to find a way to deal with the problem. The point I want to make is, Congress is now like somebody that has been at the scene of an accident. We saw it happen, but now we are pretending we weren't there. Congress is a part of this problem. For 20 years we have underfunded, we have limited human intelligence. We have improperly funded the intelligence community. We have allowed a situation where 80 percent of the money for the intelligence community is under the Department of Defense, not the CIA. Let me give some numbers. During the 1990s, the number of CIA stations declined by 30 percent. The number of agents declined by 40 percent. The volume of intelligence reports decreased by 50 percent. The intelligence community connected the dots, and got it wrong. It was not just our intelligence community that got it wrong--there was a global breakdown in intelligence analysis. The report is not an indictment of the hard-working and dedicated men and women who put their lives on the line, and are charged with connecting the dots. It is a criticism of the process and community at large, and demonstrative of a lack of leadership, oversight, and insufficient investment. The breakdown in intelligence capability evolved over several years. It was recognized in 1976 by a 5-volume report by the Church committee. Our intelligence gathering and analysis capability--especially human intelligence and linguists--was gutted in the 20 years that followed, particularly in the 1990s, when the Congress did not adequately fund the intelligence community. President Clinton relied on this same analysis of the Iraqi threat when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act. The Congress relied on this same intelligence when we passed several resolutions regarding Iraq; President Bush relied on this intelligence when making his decisions as well. Many have asked whether I want to change my vote given today's assessment of pre-war intelligence--I do not. Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people; supported terrorism and trained terrorists; provided ``bonuses'' to the families of terrorists; a destabilizing factor in the Mideast. Let's not play armchair quarterback by asking ``what would have happened if.'' The country would be much better served if the Congress and the President took action as soon as possible to fix the organization, leadership, and oversight problems that we have with our intelligence community. When the American people read the Intelligence Committee's report, they will see some fundamental things that need to be changed in the intelligence community. First and foremost it is evident that the Director of Central Intelligence does not really control all aspects of the intelligence community. In fact, as I have said, 80 percent of intelligence dollars go to the Department of Defense, not the CIA. Moreover, many of people that lead the 15 agencies that comprise the intelligence community work for the Department of Defense, not the Director of Central Intelligence. To fix this problem, Senator Feinstein and I are about to propose legislation that will establish a Director of National Intelligence--or DNI. The DNI will be a Cabinet-level position that will lead the intelligence community, and be responsible for aggregating intelligence for the President. As for the specific processes that cry out for reform, the report focuses on two in particular. One, layering of uncertain conclusions-- judgments were layered upon other judgments, and specific concerns and uncertainties were simply lost; two, group think--because we knew Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used them on his people, any data that appeared to support this continued behavior was viewed favorably, and dissenting data was discounted or underreported. Those ``process'' types of deficiencies quickly lead one to ask: How can the intelligence community provide better oversight and supervision of ``expert'' analysts; and how can the Congress provide more effective oversight of the intelligence community? There are clearly process reforms needed within the intelligence community, and Congress's oversight of that community. I know that Chairman Roberts and Vice Chairman Rockefeller, are very concerned that our intelligence community is broken, and are committed to taking action in the coming weeks and month to address many of the most critical deficiencies. With particular regard to congressional oversight, I believe that there are some fundamental things that need to be changed such as term limits of committee members. Currently, members can only serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee for 8 years. That means that when they know enough to be conversant in the intelligence business, they need to rotate off of the committee. We need intelligence committee members who can speak the lingo and understand the processes. Consequently, term limits need to be eliminated. Also, the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee regarding classified matter is sometimes muddied due to overlap with the Armed Services Committee. I submit that a simplified approach to jurisdiction could enhance oversight and accountability. The process of document classification and redaction also needs to be reviewed. When the Intelligence Committee first prepared this report, the CIA recommended that about half of it be redacted. I understand the need to protect the names of sources and intelligence methods. But I can tell you that most of those redactions were not of that nature; they were everyday, unclassified words. The report you see today is less than 20 percent redacted, and the Intelligence Committee is still working with the CIA to release more of the report. Notwithstanding, it is my belief that in matters such as these, the CIA is too close to the intelligence process to provide an objective view of what really needs to be classified. Consequently, I am working with Senator Wyden to propose legislation that will establish a small independent group under the President that will review documents such as this report to ensure that classification decisions are independent and objective. In addition, I urge the President to nominate as soon as possible a candidate to serve as the Director for Central Intelligence. This is a critical time of this Nation as we fight the global war on terrorism, and we need to have effective leadership in-place at the CIA as soon as possible. As we make progress in fixing the intelligence community, I repeat my call to both sides of the aisle to not politicize the issues or the prospective remedies. We owe it to the American people and to the members of the intelligence community to fix the fundamental problems outlined in this report, and create an intelligence community that can best serve the national security interests of the United States. We are part of the problem. Let's find the solution. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for his leadership on this issue and for his comments. To have a former State attorney general of the State of Texas and a former member of the Texas Supreme Court speak on this subject as an enlightened judge and as an authority, in my opinion, on the Constitution, is a very important part of this process. So I look forward to hearing more of his thoughts on this subject as he has talked about the case law, the legal precedents, and what is at stake with this amendment. I know others have done it, but let me take a moment to read the amendment we are proposing to the Constitution, because there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do. I have seen a number of different amendments or language being proposed, many of them a couple of paragraphs, quite long or complicated. This one is very simple, direct, right to the point and I think does what needs to be done. Some people would say it does not go far enough, but I think this is the careful way the Constitution should be amended. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. It is quite simple and direct. Will it lead to some court consideration in the future? Surely. But what has caused this problem is the aggressive actions of the activist courts to take decisions in Massachusetts and in other places that have left us no alternative. So I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 40, the Federal marriage amendment. It would amend the Constitution to provide specific protection for the institution of traditional marriage. I am an original cosponsor of this measure because I believe marriage should only consist of a union between a man and a woman. Traditional marriage has existed as a fundamental building block of our society for thousands of years, and we have learned that it provides the best and most stable environment for nurturing the children who become America's and the world's next generations. Now we see the courts have been moving in this area on what I consider a radical quest to sweep away the traditional definition of marriage, one man and one woman, by allowing same-sex couples to marry. This undemocratic activism by the courts can only be stopped, the future stability of our society protected, and this whole area clarified, by the safeguard of a constitutional amendment. Some Senators have argued that while they support traditional marriage, they do not believe a constitutional amendment is necessary or proper at this time. They maintain the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, is sufficient to protect traditional marriage by allowing individual States to bar the recognition of same-sex marriages that may be allowed in other States. Unfortunately, I am convinced they are incorrect. When the Supreme Court of Massachusetts directed the Massachusetts legislature to authorize same-sex marriages, the inadequacy of the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, as it is commonly referred to, was exposed. Approximately three-fourths of the States have laws protecting traditional marriage, indicating the democratically enshrined views of the residents of those respective States. But activist courts in many of those States could unfortunately overturn these laws by forcing that State to authorize same-sex marriage or to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other States. Additionally, now that the State of Massachusetts has endorsed same-sex marriages, the legal system in every other State will be impacted when couples of the same sex are married in Massachusetts but go to other States to seek divorces or probate wills, even if that particular State chooses not to recognize such marriage. This development could obviously create, and is beginning to create, legal chaos in the country. Furthermore, sadly, it is only a matter of time before the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned by unelected Federal judges who ``find'' rights in the U.S. Constitution which simply are not there, such as the U.S. Supreme Court did in the Lawrence v. Texas case. Therefore, a constitutional amendment protecting marriage is the only way to adequately guarantee the sanctity of this fundamental institution. Those who oppose the amendment say the U.S. Constitution should only be amended on rare occasions and for crucial reasons, if at all. I agree, and I think this is a rare situation and a critical one. I have been disappointed occasionally over the years that we have not been able to succeed in amending the Constitution. A few years ago we lost in the Senate by one vote to have a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. A few years after that, we actually had balanced budgets and a number of Senators said, see, we do not need it. Well, here we are again. By the way, there would have been an exception for national emergencies or national security requirements that we are now dealing with. When we look at the Constitution, wonderful document that it is, the original Constitution turned out not to be perfect. We had the articles of the Constitution and we went through Article V, Article VI, Article VII, and stopped, and then we had the 10 amendments that are referred to as the Bill of Rights. So there were 10 amendments that were soon added, and in the last century alone we added 12 amendments. Most people would say some of those amendments are not exactly earth- shattering amendments. The 27th, being the last one, is one that took almost the entirety of this country's history to get through the process to actually be ratified, but it had to do with the compensation of the services of Senators and Representatives. I will bet if we asked the American people to list the 10 things they think the Constitution should perhaps be amended for, that would not be one of the top 10. It is a sacred document. It is one we should defend and protect. We take an oath to it. We do not take an oath to the people. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and I think we should do that. There are occasions when we should consider the process. They should be in areas that are critical and they should be rare. We have not had a serious debate on a constitutional amendment now for about 6 or 8 years. A constitutional amendment dealing with marriage being between one man and one woman seems to me to be an issue that is important enough for us to have a debate on amending the Constitution. There are those who say it should not be amended lightly. I certainly agree with that. But our Founding Fathers made sure it would not be done often and that it would not be done lightly. The process for ratification of an amendment is a very difficult and lengthy one. Under the Constitution, within Article V itself, it says it requires a two- thirds vote of both Houses of Congress to approve a constitutional amendment and three-fourths of the State legislatures must ratify the amendment for it to become a part of the Constitution. There is one other very difficult procedure in the Constitution in which a convention process can be conducted to get an amendment approved. I know how difficult that is, too, because some years ago I actually joined in a bipartisan effort to try to go through the State legislatures to take advantage of this part of the Constitution to have a convention that would lead to a balanced budget requirement in the Constitution. My own State legislature took that action, as well as several other States, but it soon fizzled out and I do not believe that process has been used in the history of our country. So this is not an issue we should take lightly. It is rare, it is exceptional, and it is one that will take a lot of thought and debate before we get through the process. Some people say, well, what about federalism? What about the rights of the States? That is what we are talking about. If we do not deal with this issue that may arise from the full faith and credit clause, some States such as, say, Alabama or Oklahoma are going to have a real problem in dealing with what the courts have directed in the State of Massachusetts. Full faith and credit says we have to respect each other's laws. But I do think we need clarity in this very critical area. I think the Constitution deserves to be amended when it deals with something so traditional and which is such a vital part of our country and our future. Marriage is our most basic social institution, and its traditional definition as the union of a man and a woman is intended to be the best environment for rearing children. There is a reason that we have a ``traditional'' definition of marriage: God's design and the resulting evidence of science and common sense clearly demonstrates that the union of a man and a woman is the best, most secure and nurturing atmosphere in which to bring up children. This does not mean that single parents, foster parents, and others cannot do heroic jobs of raising children--because many children are being raised by these heroes. However, marriage is meant to affirm the ideal model in which to bring up the next generation. Mothers and fathers both matter, and both make critical contributions in the lives of children. A man and a woman united in marriage can uniquely provide the many different attributes that children need as they are reared to become our next generation, and both make important contributions. I am going to yield the floor at this point, since I am about to lose my voice talking about this subject, but I think this is an issue whose time has come. I commend the leader and Senator Santorum for making sure this issue is debated in the Senate.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on July 20, 2004, the city of Moss Point, MS will take time out to honor and pay tribute to one of its own, Mr. Thayas Ray Bray. In fact, his accomplishments are so numerous and his dedication to his community so strong, Moss Point officials have designated this Saturday as ``Thayas Ray Bray Day.'' Along with his wife, Joyce Bray, and two sons, Jerry and Keith, and their families, I want to take this opportunity to join the City of Moss Point in congratulating Mr. Bray on all of his hard work. Mr. Bray's service to his local community and fellow citizens has taken on many different forms over the years. He has served as president of YMBC, MPAC, Exchange Club, and JC. He has owned Moss Point Sonic since 1976, as well as Lucedale Sonic, and has co-owned Jackson County Funeral Home. I understand he was the original organizer of Moss Point Impact, and a member of the Mississippi Restaurant Association. All the while, he has remained an active member of First Baptist Church of Moss Point. By giving back so generously to the community through volunteer time, he has truly made a difference in the lives of others. Leading youth in Boy Scouts and Little League baseball are prime examples of his dedication. He has supported local activities such as the high school band and football, Gulfport Special Olympics, and YMBC Golf Tournaments. He also has been an active supporter of the fight against Muscular Dystrophy, and has supported both the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association. As you can see, his contributions to the City of Moss Point are far- reaching and have benefited the community in many different ways. So again I want to thank Mr. Bray for his contributions to his community, and I want to join my friends and neighbors in applauding and commemorating his service.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 14, 2004, to conduct an oversight hearing on the Federal Election Commission. For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352. Subcommittee on National Parks

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, when we dedicated the National World War II Memorial and commemorated the 60th anniversary of D-Day, much was made of the fact that this Nation loses an average of over 1,000 World War II veterans every day. Just last week, we honored the passing of one of the greatest members of that great generation, President Ronald Wilson Reagan. I want to take this opportunity to recognize the passing of another great member of that great generation, Thurston Esco Womble. When President Reagan spoke at the 40th anniversary of D-Day, he memorably referred to the assembled veterans as ``the boys . . ., the heroes who helped end a war.'' Thurston Womble was one of those boys, one of this Nation's unsung World War II veterans who helped ensure the United States of America maintained its freedom and way of life during a very difficult time in our Nation's history. Mr. Womble's service began prior to Pearl Harbor, when he enlisted in the Navy in March, 1941. By that October, he had gone through the Metalworkers School in Norfolk, VA. Womble was soon assigned to duty on the U.S.S. Cincinnati (CL-6), engaged in patrol and convoy duty in the western Atlantic and Caribbean, blockading occupied French men-of- war, and searching for German blockade runners. In November, 1942, Cincinnati assisted in the interception and destruction of the German blockade runner S.S. Annalise Essberger. Although the German crew scuttled their ship, a boarding party reached it in time to take all 63 crew members prisoner before the blockade runner sank. Early in 1944, Cincinnati served as escort flagship for three convoys transporting men and equipment from New York to Belfast in preparation for the invasion of Normandy. She subsequently participated in the assault on Southern France and patrolled South Atlantic shipping lanes until the war in Europe ended. But Thurston Womble's naval service did not end there. After the war ended, he went back to school at the Philadelphia Navy Yard and graduated as a boilerman. He was then assigned to duty aboard U.S.S. Lake Champlain (CV-39), one of our newly built aircraft carriers assigned to so- called ``Magic Carpet'' duty, bringing veterans of the European Theater back home. Womble was aboard in November, 1945, when Lake Champlain crossed the Atlantic in 4 days, 8 hours, 51 minutes, a record which held until surpassed by the U.S.S. United States in 1952. He was in charge of lighting off the boilers in Lake Champlain's #1 Fireroom for that historic transit. On February 18, 1950, in Quincy, MA, Womble married Olive Bates Merrill. They became the parents of Noreen, who is a high school teacher in Inverness, FL, and Eric, who served as my national security adviser and military legislative assistant for 7 years. In the years after World War II, through the Korean Conflict, and up until 1960, Womble served on a veritable parade of U.S. Naval vessels: U.S.S. Beverly W. Reid (APD-119), U.S.S. Houston (CL-81), U.S.S. Fargo (CL-106), U.S.S. Bataan (CVL-29), U.S.S. San Marcos (LSD-25), U.S.S. Fort Mandan (LSD-21), U.S.S. Laning (APD-55), and finally, U.S.S. Saratoga (CVA-60). Womble rose in rank and responsibility to become a Boiler Technician Chief Petty Officer and Leading Chief of the Boilers Division aboard Saratoga. His commanding officers repeatedly cited, not only his mechanical abilities and technical skills, but his energy, enthusiasm, and his outstanding and inspirational leadership in performing tasks ``not previously considered within the capacity of ship's force personnel.'' Truer words were never spoken than in 1960, when his commanding officer wrote, ``The Navy will realize a great loss when Womble retires this coming August.'' That was when Womble became a fleet reservist and started a second career. Womble's Navy career probably wasn't what his parents, Huey Clayton and Thelma Esco expected when he was born in Autauga County, AL, on August 16, 1922. But the experience of being raised in rural Alabama in a close knit family taught Thurston the values that carried him through a long and honorable Naval career. Following his active-duty service, he enrolled in Jones College in Jacksonville, FL, to study business management and worked 13 years in Mobile, AL, as the representative for the Royal Insurance Companies, specializing in employee protection and workplace safety. In 1980, he became Sales Manager and Quality Control Manager for G&V Industrial Contractors, also in Mobile, AL. Thurston then served as Director and Chief Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspector for my home State of Mississippi. All in all, it seems clear to me that Womble carried his experience as the son of a carpenter, fisherman and farmer, as well as his devotion to his Navy shipmates, into a career of devoted and humble service to the people and communities in Mississippi and Alabama. During an active and reserve career that spanned 30 years, Thurston was awarded the Navy Occupation Medal; European Clasp, American Defense Service Medal; American Area Campaign Medal; European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal; World War II Victory Medal; Korean Service Medal; National Defense Service Medal; and six Good Conduct Awards. Thurston Womble's final days where spent with the family and friends he loved so much--and doing what he enjoyed most, golfing and fishing. He is survived by his wife of 54 years, Olive, their children, Noreen and Eric, Eric's wife Wendy and grandchildren, Melissa and Matthew. I extend my sincere condolences to the entire Womble family on their loss. I also want to thank Thurston for his dedicated service to our country and for setting an example that the rest of us can only hope to emulate; our great Nation owes him a debt of gratitude.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding Air Force Officer, MAJ Annette Ortiz, for the tremendous work she has done as a member of my staff during the 108th Congress. It is my privilege to recognize her career accomplishments and to commend her for the superb service she has provided the Air Force, the great State of Mississippi, and our Nation. Major Ortiz earned her commission through ROTC at the University of Hawaii where she graduated in 1990 with a bachelor of arts degree in telecommunications with a minor in German. She completed specialized undergraduate navigator training at Mather Air Force Base in November 1991, and KC-135 Combat Crew Training School at Castle Air Force Base in August 1992. In July 1994, Major Ortiz retrained into the C-130E at Little Rock Air Force Base, where she demonstrated academic excellence. Following flight school, Major Ortiz reported to the 906th Air Refueling Squadron, 43rd Air Refueling Wing, at Minot Air Force base. While assigned to the 906th, she deployed on inter-command refuelings in the Pacific, European, and Southwest Asian theaters. In support of Operation Restore Hope, the humanitarian re-supply operation in Somalia, she was the lone recipient of the coveted ``outstanding performance'' evaluation rating during the 15th Air Force Standardization and Evaluation Inspection. She also flew several combat missions into Tuzla and Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, including participation in Operations Provide Promise, Joint Endeavor, Deny Flight, Joint Guard, and other NATO supported European operations. Major Ortiz subsequently served as an Instructor Navigator, C-130E, for the 37th Airlift Squadron, 86th Airlift Wing, at Ramstein Air Force base. During this assignment, she instructed combat employment of the C-130 Adverse Weather Aerial Delivery System, AWADS, and Aircraft Defensive System, ADS. She also led tactical formations of multiple aircraft during joint airborne transportability training and special assignment airdrop missions. Following that assignment, Major Ortiz served as a C-130 FTU instructor navigator and assistant flight Commander at the 53rd Airlift Squadron, Little Rock Air Force base. In this capacity, she provided training to students from the US Armed Forces and 27 allied nations regarding combat mission planning, tactical formation, and airdrop/airland procedures. Major Ortiz's next assignment was air operations staff officer, Special Operations Command Pacific, Camp Smith, HI. During this tour, she was first attached to the Air Mobility Warfare Center Tactics Division where she assisted with the instruction of the Combat Aircrew Tactics Training course. She also updated and developed course curriculum, including the Blue Command and Control course that focused on development of tactics. Subsequently, Major Ortiz was attached to the headquarters Air Force, Directorate for Future Strategic Plan. In this capacity, she participated in the Quadrennial Defense Review and developed strategic personnel initiatives. Major Ortiz was instrumental in the formulation of doctrine and policy that pertained to the total force of Active, Reserve, and civilian Air Force personnel. In October 2002, Major Ortiz was selected to serve as a legislative fellow and special assistant on my staff. During this 1-year assignment, she was responsible for a wide spectrum of issues that directly affected the security and national defense of the United States. She was also instrumental in carrying out a wide range of special projects, and was particularly effective at coordinating and resolving a broad range of complex military issues for constituents. Major Ortiz also provided expert advice regarding foreign policy matters, and provided effective liaison with senior staff of the Foreign Relations Committee and both Defense Committees. Upon completion of her fellowship, Major Ortiz resumed her status as a Reservist and became a permanent member of my staff, serving as the deputy national security advisor. Throughout her most distinguished career, MAJ Annette Ortiz has served the Air Force and our Nation with pride and excellence. Her awards include two Air Force commendation medals, Air medal, three Aerial Achievement medals, two with Oak Leaf Cluster, the 15th Air Force outstanding performance flight evaluation, and numerous other campaign and unit distinctions. Major Ortiz has been an integral member of my staff and has contributed greatly to the best-trained, best-equipped, and best- prepared Air Force in the history of the world. Annette's superb leadership, integrity, and limitless energy have had a profound impact on my entire staff and will continue to positively impact the United States Air Force and our Nation. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I wish Annette, her husband Carlos, and their children Sofia Anna and Carlos Joseph Alejandro the best of luck in their bright future.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the remarks of our former colleague, Senator Connie Mack, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am delighted we are moving forward with this amendment. I know how much the managers like to get the process started and consider major amendments. I believe this is an issue that deserves some consideration and some debate during the day and early on. We will be prepared to work with the managers to get a reasonable time agreement and get to a vote because I think this is the best way to proceed on legislation such as this. We are not interested in delaying tactics. I rise to offer this amendment which would modify the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990, BRAC, to first consider our needs overseas before we move forward with closing more bases at home. Let me emphasize what this amendment is not. This is not an amendment that would eliminate or terminate the next BRAC round. This is not an amendment that would even delay it for 2 years, as the House Armed Services Committee language now provides. I believe they would delay the next base closure round until 2007. No, this amendment specifically says let's go forward with the realignment overseas. Let's look at our force structure. Let's determine how many installations are truly needed and required overseas, what their missions are, and what will the future call for. We have talked about needing a more mobile, lighter force with a lot of prepositioning, but as we found out in Iraq, that may not be all that we need. Then the question is, if we decide to bring back some of these divisions, such as the 1st Armored Division now based in Germany, where would we put them? The question is, before we go to the next domestic round, let's get this decision on realignment and changing of force structure overseas, see what we are going to need over there, where we are going to put our troops, and what are we going to do with them when they come home. Then the BRAC Commission would go forward with the domestic round. I want to emphasize a couple of points about how this would work. It would make clear that section 2913, the selection criteria, for the 2005 round does not apply in that we would have the overseas realignment first and then the domestic. It would keep the existing schedule for the Pentagon's mission of a list and for a BRAC consideration of that list. It specifies that the Secretary's May 16, 2005, submission to the BRAC Commission should include a number of items. The Secretary's May 16, 2005 submission to the BRAC commission should include a detailed plan for eliminating excess physical capacity at the overseas bases and facilities of the Department of Defense, the operation, sustainment, and recapitalization of which diverts scarce resources from defense capability; a list of overseas bases and facilities that will be closed or realigned during the period 2005-2010 and a schedule for implementing each base closure or realignment; where the personnel and equipment from each base on the list will be relocated to; the infrastructure investments that are required at each receiving base; an estimate of the annual net savings for each of the military departments that will result from the closures and realignments; and a certification whether the need exists for an additional round of domestic base closures and realignments in 2007. It also says in developing the overseas base closure plan, the Secretary shall take into consideration the report of the Commission on review of overseas military structures of the United States that is due to report its findings by December 31, 2004. In other words, this process is underway, but we need to get those Commission reports. They need to take into consideration the overseas decision before they go to the next domestic round. That is basically what this amendment does. I want to cite, though, why I feel so concerned about this. The record is clear that I have never thought BRAC was a good idea. I think the way it should be done is the way it was done always up until the 1980s. The Pentagon determines where they have overlap or duplication, they send up foreclosure recommendations to the Congress, and Congress acts. The argument might be that Congress wouldn't act. They did. Congress acted in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, and up to the midpart of the 1980s and numerous bases throughout the country were closed. It is an assumption we cannot assume our rightful role in this Government or in that process. So that is something that is clear. There are other factors now. As I have looked at domestic bases and looked at overseas bases, the very idea we are now going to move forward with a base closure round that would close up to 25 percent of our existing bases is a real concern, if that is going to be done domestically. As a matter of fact, CBO says the four--count them, the four BRAC rounds we have already had resulted in little or no excess capacity in the United States--little or no excess capacity. Yet the Pentagon is insisting on moving forward with this BRAC at this time. Let me assure my colleagues, too, they are doing it differently this time. The list is not being compiled by uniformed services, but it is being pulled up to the Office of the Secretary of Defense level. That does worry me. We are doing this at a time when we have our troops all over the world, in combat situations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American people are concerned about our troops, concerned about our capacity to have sufficient numbers there. We have National Guard and reservists serving now and doing a tremendous job, I think, up to perhaps as much as 40 percent of the troops are deployed in those locations. Keep this in mind. The next BRAC round will include National Guard. We didn't have that in the past. But National Guard facilities will probably-- will, under the definition they are going forward with, be included in this process. These are communities all over America, in almost every State. I have here a list of the bases that have been on earlier BRAC closure lists or would probably be on the list, based on the criteria as we now understand them. All over America, communities and States are worried about the situation. They are employing consultants to represent the communities or the States. It is running into the millions of dollars because of this sheer uncertainty: Is it going forward or not? Are we going to be affected or not? And, by the way, the Secretaries of Defense--and I say Secretaries because I have talked to three of them about it--refuse to set up this criterion in such a way where you look at the places where you know you have duplication or overlap. Why put everybody on the list, everybody in an uproar, when you know as a matter of fact the duplication is in this place or that place? No, they don't want to define it in that sort of limited way. Here is the point. We need to decide what we are going to do overseas first. We need to be careful about what we do domestically because it could be affected by what we do overseas. At a time when we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, at a time when our people are already concerned about what the future is for their military men and women in their communities and in fact their families, let's do this in such a way that people will feel comfortable we are going about it in the right way. There have been some bases eliminated overseas since the wall came down. In fact, I think 700 facilities in Europe have been closed. But we still have 200,000 troops stationed overseas--80,000 in Germany alone, and that doesn't count some of the reservists and civilians. I suspect there are as many as 100,000 in Germany alone. Let me give an example here with this chart of what we are talking about. This is Germany--unified Germany, surrounded by Belgium, France, Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark. I don't think they are threatened by any of those countries. You will see on this chart the sites where we have Army and Air Force bases in Germany. They are, of course, right across the central part, but they are also now in what was East Germany. There are 310 installations, an estimated 100,000 people in Germany alone. Do we need 310 installations? Some of them are small, but let me assure you on my recent trip to Berlin it was clear they wanted to keep all these bases and it was clear why. Because economically it is helpful--economically helpful to Germany. Yet we are talking about closing bases here at home, when we have 310 bases there. By the way, this is also a country that has recently said they would no longer provide 2,500 troops to guard our installations in Germany while the troops ordinarily stationed there are in Iraq not even 2,500 troops. I am saying let's take a strong look at Germany. It is not only Germany. I don't want to pick on Germany. We have, I think, 18 installations in Belgium, 12 in The Netherlands. Let me make sure I have the exact numbers--18 in Belgium, 310 in Germany, 12 in The Netherlands, 101 in South Korea, 54 in the United Kingdom. There is a list here of what we have overseas, a total of 721 facilities overseas. Do we need to have a hospital or Air Force bases in Germany? Sure. Do we need to have naval bases in Spain? Sure. Do we need to have prepositioning at various places around the world? Absolutely. We have heard a lot of talk about this restructuring or realignment overseas, but we still have not gotten it done. In fact, if you look at the force structure plan for BRAC 2005, based on the Pentagon's forecast, it assumes the same forces as now, from 2005 to 2009. It apparently assumes the forces that are based overseas now will remain based overseas. Are we going to have a realignment and bring some home or not? I think this amendment makes good sense. It does not stop BRAC. It allows it to go forward. But it puts the horse before the cart. Let's look at the overseas situation. Let's assess what we need there. Let's find out what we are going to do with them if we do bring them back home and then go forward with the next step. I talked with Senator Dorgan a lot about this. We thought about it carefully. We want to do the right thing. Surely there are some bases we could close and installations in the United States that could be closed. But I think we should do it in an orderly way and I think the timing of doing it now could not be worse. I don't trust this process. Some people say if you do the commission, it takes it out of politics. Who believes that? Commissions are beyond politics? Take a look at the last commission. We got in a terrible conflict based on a decision that involves the States of Texas and California. I am not picking on those States, but it happened. Let's take more time. Let's do the overseas situation first and then go forward with the domestic bases a year or two from now, when we will have a better feel for what is happening in the world. Since we are limited on time, I would like to withhold further comments at this time so Senator Warner or Senator Dorgan could speak and perhaps Senator Cochran wishes to be heard on this issue, too. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I don't intend to, I don't even believe it is my role, I don't know that anyone has had a chance to look at it.