Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I yield myself an additional 2 minutes of time that has been designated for the leader or Senator Roberts. I will be brief because I know Senator Feinstein is waiting.

Mr. LOTT. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I conclude by talking about what we should do now. The Intelligence Committee should do its job. We should not jump to conclusions. Let's review the report. Let's do our homework. We pushed so much of it off on our staff, now it is time we do it ourselves. Let's read what is in there and then let's decide what recommendations we are going to make. Why do we have these committees that are evenly divided? I have studied the history. I have been involved in how the Intelligence Committee works. We have carefully tried to make sure we put our best on that committee and that it is equally divided and that it is not partisan. The same thing in the House. Now it is time we lead and show some direction. I hope we will take some action. I am for actually making some really aggressive rules. I am not sure our intelligence community is set up properly. I don't like the idea that we have 13 different agencies running around. Who is in charge, who coordinates and asks them and directs them? I think there are some problems there. Then there are those saying we need an independent commission. The President said we should have one. Let's do everything we can to find out the facts and see the recommendations and take action and reassure ourselves and the American people. Now that is being condemned. I think we should do our work in the Intelligence Committee. Let the President appoint this independent commission. Let's do this job in a responsible way and not rush to judgment. There will be efforts today to say, well, the report is totally inadequate, before the Senators even read the report. I realize Senators don't like to have lengthy sessions of reading material to review these recommendations. But never before has it been more important that we do this right. I think we should make changes. I personally think there need to be some personnel changes. That may not be my decision. But hopefully I can help get a result that will make sure we don't have another, ``Oh, my God, what didn't we know?'' hearing. This is too serious. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's do our job, let's do it in a nonpartisan way, and let's try to keep politics, as much as we can, at least out of Intelligence. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes under the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Kyl and Senator Reid for making sure we have this time. I, too, think we need to sober up a little bit and look at the facts of what is involved. First, it is an election year. Politics will come into play in everything we do. I don't mean that necessarily critically of us or either side. It is a fact. I suspect that it is having a hand in what we are seeing now. Secondly, the fact is, we do have some problems with our intelligence community. It is not new. It didn't come up over the last 10 months or the last 10 years. It probably goes back to the mid-1970s when we had the Pike and the Church commissions that forced changes in the intelligence community from which we have never quite recovered. That is when we started getting away from human intelligence and relying on satellites and computers and technology. That is a big problem. We can go back and point to things we didn't know or information we should have had back in the 1980s and 1990s that we didn't have. For us to take a look at our intelligence community and ask questions about why they have not done some things or they have gotten some things wrong is perfectly legitimate. The most important question should be, what are we going to do about it? Instead of pointing the finger of blame, trying to put some scalp on the wall and say: We nailed somebody because this information may not have been completely accurate, we should ask: What did we know? Did we need to know more? Were there inaccuracies? If so, what were they, and what are we going to do about it? Do we need to completely reconstruct our intelligence community? Do we need to make some changes at the head of some of these agencies? I don't know yet. But that should be our approach because we are going to need our intelligence community. We need it this very day. Senator Kyl was making the point. Our troops are in the field today all over the world, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are working with the intelligence community today to try to make sure they know what is going on and what is happening, what the threats are. We don't want to undermine them. At the same time, if we are going to make improvements or changes, the sooner we can do it, the better. The other thing is, what did we know. It is almost as if there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew they had weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological. They tried to get nuclear capability. We know they killed their own people. They used chemical weapons on the Iranians. I was talking to a constituent this morning who was in Bazra back in the early 1990s, who talked about how simple it was to produce chlorine gas. Yet if you looked at the plant, you could be told, this is just a plastics plant. But it is very simple to make chlorine gas. It is very toxic, and that was what was used, I believe, against the Iranians. So we know they had these weapons of mass destruction. Did they dismantle them, destroy them? Where did they destroy them? Why did Saddam Hussein give out bad information? Was he being lied to? Yes. Was he lying to the world community? Yes. There are all kinds of problems or questions such as that. Did they move these weapons to Syria, Iran? We know they had them. That is a fact. We still don't know exactly what happened to them, and that is a danger. What are we going to do about it? Let's become a government of commissions. It is really easy. Pass it off to a commission--the base- closure procedure, the 9/11 investigation, Social Security, intelligence. Let the Congress just say: We know nothing; we see nothing; we hear nothing. Let's let somebody else do it. By the way, I have watched these commissions. Just because you have Republicans and Democrats, are you going to call them independent? How about an independent commission set up by the President that might have people who weren't clearly Republican or Democrat? How about experts on intelligence, people who have been at the CIA and the FBI, people who are not identified in the political area? If you want a real independent commission, that might be the way to do it. I have another question: Why don't we do our own work? What do we have the intelligence committee for? The more I am on there, the more I think maybe we should not have it the way it is presently constituted. We are not going to wait for the Senate Intelligence Committee to put out its report. We are not going to wait on the House, bipartisan, Select Intelligence Committee to put out its report. No, we are going to rush pellmell and create a commission before we even see the report. I suspect the report from the Senate Intelligence Committee is going to be more aggressive than a lot of people might think. I think we are going to ask a lot of legitimate questions. How about letting the Iraqi survey team, the group that is out there still looking, do their work. But, no, it is a political year. We are going to use this to question all kinds of people. The President got information on which he relied. The Senate got information it relied on. If there was inaccurate information, we ought to find out why and determine what we are going to do about it. We need to back off a little bit because we are dealing with people's lives. How we act in the intelligence area is going to be very important in the next few months. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? I wish to speak on the pending legislative issue, the pension bill. Is the floor open for comments?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation. I commend the Senators who have been involved in working out most of the disagreements, including Senators Grassley, Baucus, Gregg, Kennedy, and, of course, our leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, who have all been involved in working through the difficulties of this legislation. Quite frankly, this is complicated and difficult legislation to understand. A lot of times, people start referring to issues by acronyms such as COLA or DRC. If you are not really involved in the intricacies of pension issues and, particularly, this area of deficit reduction contribution, you can get lost in the details. You can even be misled as to what the reason for it is and what the impact will be. I have followed this issue because I am a member of the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction in the area of pension plan contributions, and also as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I do believe the airline industry is in a difficult situation now, but I think they are a critical part of America's economy and our transportation system. There is no question that they have been greatly impacted by fuel costs, the events of 9/11, and even, temporarily at least, by the war in Iraq. They have been struggling to deal with those issues. They also have had mistakes in their past, in management decisions. Some of the contracts they have with labor put real pressure on them in terms of being able to make enough money to pay all the costs of delivering this service. Regardless of that, I think it is hugely important for America that we have a viable and available airline industry. We have been doing things to try to help them. Right after 9/11, we passed major airline relief, leading up to the war in Iraq. In the aftermath of 9/11, we provided direct assistance to the airlines. Late last year, we passed the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, a significant multiyear legislation that was hard to get through, but we got it done. It was supported by management and labor and the administration in the end. That gives some certainty about what the administration will be doing, what they can do. We opened up some areas that needed some changes. This area is also very important to the survival of some of our airlines. Some will argue that it gives the major airlines an advantage over the smaller airlines. I certainly am not in a position to want to do that. I want all of our airlines to be able to meet the responsibilities and commitments of their pension plans but also to be able to stay in business and provide service. We need the shorter routes, the ones that fly from point to point, and the hub airlines. I want a healthy airline industry. This is one step in that process. Some people will attack this legislation and say the airlines brought it on themselves. Sure, they have made mistakes, but a lot of things they are being hit with cannot be put at their doorstep as being their fault. They didn't cause 9/11. They have not been responsible for the increasing and up and down prices of fuel. A number of factors that have played into their economic situation they cannot be blamed for. They have certainly made mistakes, but this is not something they brought on. This is a requirement in the law that we put on them. This is a part of the PBGC legislation, where they have to pay into the pensions, and we capped how much they could pay in. A few years ago, in 2000, the airlines were committed and paying, I think, 100 percent of what was needed. But in the last year or two, they have fallen under severe pressure, and, as a result of the quirks in the law, they now would have to pay an accelerated penalty, even more money, because of the 30-year Treasury bond calculation process to determine how much they paid in. That has come to a conclusion. They have to go to a new system. My point is that I think this DRC relief is the right thing to do. It is a temporary 2-year deal. They are not absolved of all of their responsibilities. It is an 80-60 percent--80 percent relief in the first year, 60 percent in the second year, and only plans that were not subject to the deficit reduction contribution relief in 2000 would be eligible for this relief. The plans would not be able to increase benefits if they were 75 percent funded or less. An application process would allow companies that are not in those industries to request DRC relief if they were not subject to the DRC in 2000. This is a temporary modification to provide relief to allow airlines to work through the difficulties they are having now. I believe this relief will enable them to move forward and fulfill their commitments in the future. It is not going to bring in all of the plans. It is targeted at airlines and steel only, and I understand only a couple of steel companies would be affected by this. This legislation is bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans have been working to try to address some of the concerns and deal with the recognition that interest rates have contributed to this problem, stock market declines have contributed to this problem, and what would we do to be of assistance to the airlines. But it also makes sure the PBGC is not left holding the bag. I think we have come up with the right solution. Some people will argue the DRC relief will actually worsen the financial standing of the PBGC. I am concerned about the financial stability of the PBGC, but I think this temporary, limited relief will actually be in its best interest. If we do not do this, some of these airlines will go into bankruptcy and PBGC will have an even more difficult situation on their hands. If these companies wind up taking chapter 11, then the pension fund is going to have a problem. The point might be made: Let's wait for the bigger pension reform bill. I know Chairman Grassley and others want to have broad pension reform. We need to do that. But we are not going to be able to do it in the next month or two, and I don't even think we are going to be able to get it done this year. We need to do it. We ought to do it. This problem is imminent. If we don't act by April 1, these airlines and steel companies are going to have to pay at the accelerated rate, which they are not going to be able to do. So it is timely. We have to act now because in a very short period of time, the roof will come falling in on these companies. I understand there may be a couple of amendments. I appreciate the fact that Members did work with me on a provision I had concerning multiemployer withdrawal liability. We worked on compromise language that is in the legislation which I think is acceptable. Many of the questions that were raised by the chairman of the Budget Committee and by Senator Kyl of Arizona have been addressed. I understand they may have an amendment or two. We ought to debate those amendments and have a vote. But then I hope my colleagues will allow this legislation to move forward, go on to conference, and let's get it done in a timely fashion. It is in the best interest of the airline industry and, I believe, the PBGC, and the American taxpayer. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 22, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to receive a classified operations/intelligence briefing regarding ongoing military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other areas of interest.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Thursday, January 22, 2004, at 10 a.m., on ``Judicial Nominations,'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Panel I: Senators. Panel II: Raymond W. Gruender to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit. Panel III: Ricardo S. Martinez to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, Gene E.K. Pratter to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Neil Vincent Wake to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 22, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on Intelligence Matters.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in accordance with section 318 of Public Law 101-520 as amended by Public Law 103-283, I am submitting the frank mail allocations made to each Senator from the appropriation for official mail expenses and the quarterly summary tabulations of Senate mass mail costs for fiscal year 2003 to be printed in the Record. The official mail allocations are available for franked mail costs, as stipulated in Public Law 108-7, the Omnibus Appropriations Act 2003. I ask unanimous consent that the materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in accordance with section 318 of Public Law 101-520 as amended by Public Law 103-283, I am submitting the frank mail allocations made to each Senator from the appropriation for official mail expenses and summary tabulations of Senate mass mail costs for the third and fourth quarters of fiscal year 2001 to be printed in the Record. The third quarter of fiscal year 2001 covers the period of April 1, 2001, through June 30, 2001. The fourth quarter of fiscal year 2001 covers the period of July 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001. The official mail allocations are available for franked mail costs, as stipulated in Public Law 106-554, the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2001. I ask unanimous consent that the materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in accordance with section 318 of Public Law 101-520 as amended by Public Law 103-283, I am submitting the frank mail allocations made to each Senator from the appropriation for official mail expenses and the quarterly summary tabulations of Senate mass mail costs for fiscal year 2002 to be printed in the Record. The official mail allocations are available for franked mail costs, as stipulated in Public Law 107-68, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2002. I ask unanimous consent that the materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I am happy to answer the Senator's question. This provision was adopted in the Senate after being offered by the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. LOTT. That is correct. Section 808 will allow carriers to interline cargo in Alaska so long as the cargo has an ultimate origin and/or destination outside of the United States. It does not allow foreign carriers to carry or transfer cargo with an ultimate origin and destination both in the United States.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, could I inquire about what time remains for Senator Wyden?

Mr. LOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I believe this is an issue whose time has come in the Senate. It is an issue I am very familiar with because I have dealt with holds, both as a Senator as a leader. I have placed holds, and probably over the years some of them have been anonymous, not so much out of intent, just that is the way it was. I remember talking to Senator Wyden years ago, and Senator Grassley, about what we could do to have a better understanding of what a hold is and how it works and what could we do to stop the anonymous holds. Senator Daschle and I even got together on a letter and tried to clarify how holds should be handled, and what they mean, and how Members should deal with them, by telling the committee chairman or the sponsor of legislation that they had a hold. But there was no enforcement mechanism, so it did not happen. At this time of year, holds are particularly a problem for the leadership. Republican or Democrat, this is not a partisan issue because when they pop up right at the end of the session, it could be unrelated to the nominee, unrelated to the bill. They can be a part of a rolling hold. But with all the warts of the hold, it is something Senators prize, maybe even treasure. But I do not see how anybody can defend them being anonymous. If there is a secret hold on a bill or a nominee, and it is just at this time of year, it is almost impossible for the leadership to deal with it. The leader, he tries to track down who has the hold, and sometimes the staff will not even tell you who has the hold because they have a problem. I can remember tracking down Senators in their hideouts, finding Senators in airports, saying: Please, this is the Deputy Secretary of State or this is a Commissioner who needs to be confirmed. It is not good for the institution. I think someday we should even look at the whole practice of holds. You have an institution where one Senator--one Senator alone--particularly at the end of a session, can defeat a nominee or a bill anonymously. There is something wrong with that. You are putting your constituency or the constituencies of others and 99 Senators at the mercy of one. There is this feeling here in the institution that we cannot touch the traditions or the precedents or the rules of the Senate. They are sacrosanct. They are holy. How do you think they got there? Changes were made. Improvements were made. Or problems were created. So that is why I do commend Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley for being doggedly persistent on this issue. I do not wish to be a part of a process or an effort that causes difficulty for the leaders. They have enough problems now. They are concerned with the Energy bill, the omnibus bill, the Medicare prescription drug bill, the FAA bill--you name it. So I do not want to contribute to their problems. But I do think something needs to be done here. I think we need to address the overall issue of holds, but at the very minimum we should have some way to deal with secret holds. When we sent the letter, as I suggested earlier, we required Members to notify the sponsor of the legislation, the committee of jurisdiction, and the leaders of their hold. It had a little effect for a little while. Senators sort of said: Oh, yeah. OK. By the way, what is a hold? A hold is a notice by the Senator--to the staff, usually--that before a nominee or bill is brought up, they want to be notified so they can debate it or so they can reserve all rights to amendments. That is all it really is. Now, if it is anonymous, that makes it even more damaging. But it is a problem for the leader because you try to get the work completed, and the threat of a filibuster or endless amendments basically kills it. So since there was no enforcement mechanism, it just did not accomplish what we wanted it to accomplish. This resolution would place a greater responsibility on Senators to make their holds public. It creates a standing order that would stay in effect until the end of this Congress. This is something that Senator Byrd had suggested, that maybe was the solution that would do the job. We can see how it works. Let's make it a standing order, not change the rules. Let's make it apply to the rest of this Congress, which would be next year. If it works, great, we might want to build on it. If it does not, it is dead. The order requires that the majority and the minority leaders can only recognize a hold that is provided in writing. I put a hold on a nominee today. I said: Please put a hold on this nominee. Letter will follow. So I put it in writing and it is not a secret thing. Moreover, for the hold to be honored, the Senator objecting would have to publish his objection in the Congressional Record three days after the notice is provided to the leader. That is critical: notice. That is all really we are looking for here: Understand what a hold is; put it in writing; and make it well known. A hold should be left to the wrestling ring, not to the Senate, and it certainly should not be in secret. I hope the leadership, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, will work with Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley to find a solution that will allow us to do this. The light of day always has a purifying effect. This is getting to be very moldy. We need to deal with it. Again, I emphasize, I am for this because I think it would be good for the institution. I am for it because I think it is the right thing to do. I am not for it because I am trying to cause problems with the leaders. Heaven forbid, I don't want to do that. Actually, we are trying to help them deal with a problem. They are hesitant to do it because I know Senators are going to slip up next to them and say: Wait a minute, you may not want to change anything here. This is the way it has been done. I challenge the Senators to stand up here and say they should not at least make it public. We can't have cowardice on something that is affecting people's lives and on legislation that affects our country. I guess I am getting a little carried away. I agree with the Senator. I am going to continue to work to try to find a way to be helpful in getting this issue addressed because I think it is time we do it.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Oregon and his thoughtful comments about the electricity section. I do think this legislation includes good language in that area that will be fair to all sides of electricity production. I do believe, as a result of this legislation, we are going to have a better grid. There are incentives to expand the grid where it is needed. In my part of the country, there have been significant investments in the grid already. We have a surplus of power. We are delighted to have more competition. We are delighted to work to have interconnectibility. But my concern had been that this language, this section, was not written properly, that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would have come up with a plan that would have forced ratepayers in my State to pay for additional transmission lines which would not benefit them. So it is a delicate balance. It has been very hard to work through this with regional differences, with Senators on both sides of the aisle coming at it from a different viewpoint. But through the efforts of Senator Domenici and Senator Craig Thomas, and the interest of Senators such as Gordon Smith and Larry Craig, and the chairman in the House, Billy Tauzin, we came up with a good package. I appreciate the efforts of all concerned. We will hear from the chairman and ranking member about details of this legislation. I am sure they will go into some of the specifics about policy decisions that were made in the electricity section and also give us detailed information about some of the tax policy, the tax incentives that were included in this bill. I guess there is some sticker shock when we learn that the tax section would actually wind up being some $23.5 billion. But it is a diverse package and one that I do believe will produce more energy in this country. It has a lot of incentives. Some of them will not produce that much, and I acknowledge that. Some of it I would not have included. Probably two-thirds of it I would not have included. But this is the art of legislating. So I want to speak to the broader perspective of what we are doing. We have not passed major energy legislation in the Congress for 10 years. The truth is, we have done very little since 1979, when we were dealing with lines at gas stations and unreliability of supply. Frankly, it has not been getting better over the years. It is getting worse. We are becoming more and more and more reliant on foreign oil for our energy needs--now well over 50 percent, probably headed for 60 percent. This is dangerous. We are relying on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, and other countries such as Canada and Mexico, countries on which it makes me very nervous that we are dependent for their oil to power this country. This issue is about the future of America. Are we going to continue to be dependent on this foreign oil and, if we are, what will that mean for our economy if they decide to jack up the prices or cut off the supply, or if there is a change of government that produces uncertainty as we have seen to a degree in Venezuela, not to mention Iraq, of course. That leads to the national security aspects. If we don't have a reliable energy supply, it will affect our ability to power our ships, our planes. I thought it was so ironic last year that we were involved in a direct conflict with Iraq and yet we were winding up relying on Iraqi oil which we brought to the United States, refined, and put in airplanes to bomb Baghdad. This is a dangerous situation. What is the solution? Produce more energy supply of our own. The whole package, not just oil but, yes, oil. We have a lot of oil in America that is captured in these stripper wells, these small wells. We have natural gas that we could produce more of. What we have done in America is there is no incentive to produce it, and by the way, we have locked up lots of it. You can't drill in most of the Gulf of Mexico, not on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts, not in certain areas in the west. So slowly but surely we have stopped production in America. This bill will produce some more oil and natural gas. We will be able to have greater use of coal because we are going to put an investment in clean coal technology. We are going to have more hydropower and, yes, more nuclear power. The cleanest power producers are natural gas and nuclear power. Why don't we encourage more of that? And we have lots of incentives in here for alternative fuels: ethanol, biodiesel, whatever that is. We are going to use biomass, and some of that will be done in my State. I don't think it is going to produce a whole lot. I think it is going to eat up a lot of money. But we will look for alternative fuels, and that is good. So that is part 1: more production. Some people say we don't need more production; we can conserve ourselves into an energy policy. How ridiculous can you get. What are we going to do, go back to just burning coal in the fireplaces? I used to have to bring in a scuttle of coal every morning before I went to school, and I didn't like it. It was cold to bring in the coal, and it was dirty burning. I never liked it. Well, what are we going to do? Just produce more blankets. They would probably be sent to us from China. Let's get real. In conservation, yes, give incentives to people to better insulate their homes and to maybe buy more fuel-efficient and better appliances that don't create pollution. Let's include that. More production: let's go after alternative fuels. Let's have conservation. Let's have the whole package. What will be the result? America will be more secure. Our economy will be stronger because this bill will produce jobs. You may say, well, they are not real jobs or maybe they are temporary jobs. A job is a job where I come from. Where I come from, if you want to eat and live and do well, you have to find a job. You take what you can get. This will produce over 800,000 jobs. This is a jobs bill. It is about the future reliability of our economy, about the future of our national security, and it is about jobs, which will help our economy. It is also about ensuring clean, affordable, and reliable energy--the whole package. I think we have good legislation here. We do have incentives in it for ventures such as geothermal energy. That will bring a renewable energy online, could create a few hundred jobs. We also are going to put a real emphasis on clean coal technology. We have an abundant supply of coal, and we are developing the technology to be able to use it, burn it, and in a clean way. I commend my colleagues for producing this bill. It is like every legislative piece. It has a few warts on it. If you are expecting the perfect, this is not it. But we need to do this. We have been arguing about it for 3 or 4 years. The things that held us back in the past we did set aside. Now we are going to be able to get this legislation. When you look back on this year, there is going to be a lot the Senate can take credit for having made a difference in the country--the tax bill, the partial-birth abortion legislation, energy legislation, and transportation bills. I am glad we have this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it. It will make a difference for the future. I thank Senator Hutchison of Texas for putting together this opportunity for us to speak.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this is an important piece of legislation that has been in the process all year now. As we know, the aviation industry has had its difficulties since the events of 9/11 and the Iraq war. Aviation across the board has struggled to comply with additional security requirements and to become economically viable again. A lot of changes are happening in the industry. But Congress certainly has not been insensitive to the needs of this industry. We passed legislation to be of assistance in, I guess, 6 weeks after the 9/11 events, and then earlier this year additional assistance was provided to the airline industry as a result of losses they were experiencing and expected to experience as a result of the war in Iraq. But they need the broader long-term Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization. I consider this legislation to be the third leg of the stool to give the aviation industry, as a whole, an opportunity to get up and running, to provide service to the American people, and to, frankly, see blue skies again. That is why this legislation is very important. If we do not extend this FAA reauthorization, there are certain parts of the program that will either be deferred or will have to shut down. So it is not insignificant that we are up against the wall in terms of extending the Federal Aviation Administration legislation. I emphasize, too, that this is not just about the agency. This is about an important part of our economy. We are very mobile in America. Transportation is such an important part of our economy. Americans are flying all over the country, as we speak, on airlines and in general aviation. They are in our airports. It is an important part of our economy. It creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, when it is allowed to function as it should. So we need to get this legislation passed. It is, in my opinion, about safety in the aviation industry at our airports, in general aviation, with the airlines. We need to make sure the money is there for the aviation program, for the security that needs to be put in place on the airplanes, in the airports, on the perimeters. This is very important legislation. It is part of our overall homeland security program. I remind my colleagues that H.R. 2115, the FAA reauthorization bill, is a 4-year $60 billion bill. This is a huge piece of legislation. We need to get it done. I would like to point out to my colleagues some of the impacts we see as a result of this industry and what it means. First, aviation generates more than $900 billion in GDP every year. Over the life of this bill, the legislation is expected to create approximately 665,000 jobs; $14.2 billion in airport grant funding would create these 665,000 jobs. There would be 162,000 jobs in 2004 alone; $14.2 billion will be used for security, safety, and capacity projects at airports; $13.3 billion would be to modernize the air traffic control system, and $500 million for the Essential Air Service program. This is an important piece of legislation. A lot of money is involved. It is not just about the big airports; this is about the smaller airports. We do have good programs included here, including the Essential Air Service, and also a program that allows communities to be involved and participate with some funding of their own. We have had an experimental program in place now for the last couple years. This would extend that small community Essential Air Service program. A number of communities around the country are very much interested in having that opportunity. It also provides new opportunities for flights out of Reagan National Airport, 8 new flights inside and 12 new flights outside the perimeter. So this is very important legislation in terms of the airports. For the first time we actually make sure the regional airlines get some assistance. When we passed the big legislation back in 2001, the regional airlines were sort of left out. So we would get that done. It provides for cost-effective programs that could save the taxpayers $173 million per year. It has a huge impact on States all over the country. I would like to show a chart to give you some idea of the amount of money and the amount of jobs that would be affected by this legislation. I have the list here. It is too small probably for most of you to see, but I will just pick a couple of them: Alaska, $522 million, 24,000-plus jobs. I see the Senator from Georgia, a very important terminal in Atlanta, one of the most important in the country, $162.6 million; 7,722 jobs; a smaller State, North Dakota, $59.2 million, 2,814 jobs. The list is here. If you want to see how your State would be affected with dollars and jobs, we have the information for you. The question would be, Why has this taken so long? We passed it back in May in the Senate. It passed the House. We went to conference. We worked out an agreement on good legislation. But it did include some language that became controversial. It did say there would not be privatization of the air traffic control system, but it identified 69 sites in medium and small communities where contract hours could be considered or could be actually put into place. So there was a criticism about that. After trying to work it out in a variety of ways, we went back to conference and took that language out. So we basically went back to the status quo. We don't say there won't be privatization of the air traffic control system, and there won't be. We didn't say that, well, these 69 contract areas might be considered for contract hours. We took both of those out, thinking, well, we are ready to go now. Strangely enough, that was not acceptable, either. So we have been working in a bipartisan way to try to come up with some solution that would satisfy both parties, all parties, and how this could be handled. Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Dorgan, and I sent a letter to the FAA Administrator, Marion Blakey, last week saying we thought it would be appropriate to have a 1-year moratorium on any effort of privatization. We have been working with the administration on that issue since that time. The administration, I believe, is willing to make a commitment to not go forward for 1 year, for a moratorium, while GAO does a study of the impact of privatization, and also so the Commerce Committee, chaired by the Senator from Arizona, can have hearings on that matter. But they want to be able to go forward with those things that are already underway. The net result for the air traffic controllers and for other unions within the FAA would be a 1-year moratorium. However, where there is an ongoing A-76 study, that would not be stopped. Now I am being told maybe even that is not enough. I ask, how much is enough? This is very important legislation that affects the economy of the country and this industry. Are we going to let 1 or 2 groups decide we will not have this $60 billion bill unless they get some guarantee on something that is not going to happen, anyway? I don't believe that is reasonable. I think we need to go forward and have this vote. Let the American people see who wants to be of assistance to aviation, who really wants to have safety in the skies. Let me say to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, be careful how you vote because this legislation provides funds for security at airports. It changes who pays for the security costs and where that money would go. The AIP, airport improvement program, which was used for $500 million in security costs over the last couple of years would not continue to be used for that purpose. It would go back to being used for what it was originally intended--improvements at terminals, runways, and aprons, but there would be a dedicated line of money that would go to security. If you vote against this legislation, and it continues to drag out indefinitely, and we don't get these security funds to the proper place they are supposed to go-- particularly the airports--if we have another instance at an airport, or with the airline industry, I would not want to be on record voting against this very important legislation that has been developed over a long period of time, in a bipartisan way.

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee he has put his finger right on the heart of the problem. There are funds that would not go out for security and airport improvement if we don't pass this legislation. The alternative would just be to extend the current law for, I don't know, 6 months. The Senator is right that in that case the status quo is in place. As a matter of fact, any privatization efforts that might be underway or they want to do in that period could go forward. We had worked it out where we had language both in the conference report and in a letter that would say there would not be privatization of the air traffic control system. Finally, even other parts of the FAA would get a 1-year moratorium. This is the classic example of where my colleagues in the Senate-- Democrats--seem to be hopelessly pursuing where the last rose lingers. We have a whole bouquet in this bill. It is good for the American people. It is going to be good for the industry and it will create jobs. We are looking for this one last thorny rose we can claim and say, well, we got it done. I note the House has already passed this legislation and we are, I assume, sometime in the next month going to complete our session of this year. We need to get this done. It would be very positive for the industry and for the Congress for us to go ahead and complete this action. The Senator is absolutely right. The alternative, if we don't pass this legislation, is the status quo, which would allow the administration to do whatever they please in terms of privatization under legislation Congress has previously passed. I will make one other note. On this idea of contract towers, there are mixed emotions on both sides of the aisle. It is not a Republican or Democrat thing. But there have been hundreds of these contractors put into place. Usually, they are supported by local congressmen and senators--and, by the way, it is an idea that really exploded and was used extensively during the Clinton administration. I am not being critical. In many cases, it makes common sense. In many communities, if you don't have the contract towers, you would not have anything. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we haven't been able to bring this to conclusion. I think it is time to vote and see who is for getting this legislation done and who wants to preserve the status quo, I guess, or have nothing, which would hold up funds to the tune of billions for security and improvements at our airports. Since the chairman is here, and I know Senator Lautenberg is waiting to speak, I will reserve the remainder of my time. We will claim more time after Senator Lautenberg has had a chance to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on the time of the Senator, I am glad to respond.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2197 to Amendment No. 2150

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