Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9 a.m., Tuesday, October 28, 2003, in Room 301 Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a confirmation hearing on four Presidential nominees to the Election Assistance Commission. The nominees are Paul S. DeGregorio (R) of Missouri (2 year term); Gracia M. Hillman (D) of the District of Columbia (2 year term); Deforest ``Buster'' Soaries (R) of New Jersey (4 year term); and Raymundo Martinez III (D) of Texas (4 year term). For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that in accordance with title V of the Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Rules and Administration intends to update the ``U.S. Senate Internet Services Usage Rules and Regulations.'' Based on the committee's review of the 1996 regulations, the following changes to these policies have been adopted effective October 8, 2003. The following changes have been made:

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I understand other Senators, including Senator Byrd, may be speaking on this and will be here in a few minutes. I thought I would take the opportunity to make some comments on a specific provision in this conference report. First, I am pleased that the Senate is considering this very important appropriations conference report for the new Department of Homeland Security, and I am pleased that the chairman of this subcommittee is my colleague from Mississippi. He has shown real leadership and stamina in getting this done, bringing it to the floor of the Senate, and holding the line on making sure that what we spend is what we need, a reasonable amount, and not allowing it to spiral out of control, which it could have very easily. He deserves a lot of credit. It went right into conference and secured an agreement. This is going to be one of the appropriations bills that gets to the President for his signature early. That is the way this process should be done, because it is going to be finished before the beginning of the next fiscal year. There are not many appropriations bills that are going to do that this year or in most years. I do have a concern and am disappointed with a particular provision in this conference report that affects the FAA reauthorization conference report. As chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, we had extensive hearings, as I know this appropriations subcommittee did as well, in developing the legislation that led to the FAA reauthorization bill. It became very clear early on that one of the major issues that we had to confront was how to pay for security capital costs at airports. We have additional needs. There are additional costs. Many of the airports' lobbies are crowded because they have the new equipment that has been installed there to scan our luggage. A lot of additional costs have been heaped on the airports, local authorities, and, as a matter of fact, the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration. The majority of the costs they are dealing with in the airports themselves are associated with modifying the airports to install explosive detection systems so that the baggage can be fully screened. Eventually, we will have to move them out of the lobbies because we have lines in airports now outside the buildings. That equipment is going to have to be moved. The estimated cost associated with these modifications ran up to as much as $5 billion. I must say I gulped when I heard that. I have asked a lot of questions about just how much is needed and how are we going to fund it. That was the natural question to come up. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, as we worked aggressively to deal with tighter security at airports, the TSA was allowed to take $500 million out of the Airport Improvement Program. Those funds are supposed to go for improving the airports, for aprons, runways, security fences. But that money was diverted, $500 million of it, out of the normal AIP program into the security area. The Transportation Security Administration came before the committee and said: We are going to need another $500 million, and we are going to need more and more and more. We made it clear that they could not take another $500 million bite out of the airport improvement program, which is what they intend to do. But we do see that we need probably at least $250 million a year to help airports fund these important security projects. So we had to also come up with a way to provide that money. The way that has been done is a $2.50 security fee that has been assessed on all airline passengers. The airlines will tell you that the passengers are not paying that fee. They are just having to absorb it. Because if they raised ticket prices even a little bit, that would affect decisions that passengers make to go a different way or go on some other airline. So they maintain they are having to eat that fee. Regardless, the actual fee is supposed to be on the passengers. I have some problems with that, particularly when you look at how that money is really being paid. It is a tremendous cost that is one of the issues affecting our airline industry and the ability of airlines to make a profit and to stay in business. So I actually considered the idea of eliminating this fee. The other side of the coin is that we have to come up with some way, if we are going to provide for these security changes, to pay for them. While I think everybody has a responsibility to assume some of the cost--the Federal Government and local governments, perhaps, and airport authorities--the people themselves are getting additional security. So we decided to leave the fee in place. Now, in my view, that is kind of like the highway trust fund. It is a fee charged for a specific purpose: aviation security. It should be used for that purpose, and that purpose should include airport security. For years, the highway trust fund money was held in the trust to make the deficit look lower than it really was. It was also quite often used in ways other than highways and bridges, and it has continued to change. On the last highway bill, we had a big discussion about that. The budget people wanted to keep some of that money in the trust fund to help with the budget numbers; the appropriators didn't want to mandate that that money be spent, even though we needed highways and bridges. We came up with a compromise that the Budget Committee and appropriators could live with, and we spent more money and built more roads and bridges. This is how I view a fee being paid for security at the airports. We said it would go into a fund where it would be earmarked for that purpose. The Appropriations Committee indicated that that was a problem for them because they don't like, understandably, that this money is earmarked in a particular area. They say the Appropriations Committee will look at that and make those decisions. Therefore, in the Homeland Security conference report, even though I thought we had worked our disagreement out, we originally had a fund of $500 million and we went to $250 million, leaving money that could be used for discretionary purposes, the appropriators chose to override the authorizing committee. That is the way it went through the Senate, with Senator Cochran raising concerns at the time the FAA Reauthorization was on the floor, but I thought it was with an understanding to allow the process to move forward. Now the conference report knocks that provision out--it is kind of novel because the appropriations conference report knocks out a section in a bill that has not yet been passed. That was a little unusual, I thought. But I do think money that is paid by the passengers as a security fee for purposes such as airport security should be spent for that purpose, at a level designated by the authorizing committee. It should not be left to the discretion of the appropriators or anybody else to spend it at a level they see fit, although they may be spending the money on justified programs in other aviation areas of the Transportation Security Administration. So I am concerned about this. This bill is too important for our country, it affects too many people, and there are too many things to be delayed. I would not do that. I wanted to go on record expressing my disappointment particularly in this section--how it was done--and say that if we are not going to mandate spending this money for airport security, it would be my desire to eliminate the fees. That may be where we will have to go next year. For now, this is a small part of a very large bill, although I think it is an important one. I had to raise my concerns and my objections, while not being prepared, of course, to delay this important legislation. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise this morning in support of President Bush and our troops as this Nation continues to fight and win the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the globe. We all know there are many great attributes in our United States of America. The people of America will rise to any occasion and will do what is necessary to protect freedom and opportunities for themselves and future generations. But there are some attributes on which sometimes we fail a little bit. One of those is we are a bit short sometimes in our memory, remembering back to what happened a few years ago. Sometimes our patience is a little short and we want immediate action. We will rise to any occasion, fight off any chaos, but then we want to deal with that situation and move on to something else. I think that is a little of what we are seeing now as we listen to what I consider to be sometimes overheated rhetoric in questioning motives and resisting doing what is necessary to complete the job: a little patience, a little commitment to support freedom and democracy which we are trying to assist in Iraq and in the war on terrorism. I said we seem to have forgotten. What happened to that era of the great Senator Vandenberg who stood up and said, when it comes to foreign policy and war, partisanship ends at the shoreline, or something to that effect; that when we are dealing with an international problem, a conflict, a war, we are all together. Or even more recently, Lyndon Johnson aggressively supported the policies of President Eisenhower even though the leader of the Republicans at the time, Senator Taft, did not necessarily go along with it. But there was a bipartisan policy. We have had that in our efforts to deal with these very difficult issues in Iraq and Afghanistan and homeland security, but it seems to be a little frayed right now. I think that is dangerous. I don't think it is good for America. I don't think it is good for what we are trying to achieve in fighting terrorism around the world. I don't think it is good for our troops. Also, how short is our memory that we don't even remember the debate that was going on 1 year ago? We were discussing what to do about Iraq. The President was then going to the United Nations, and Secretary Powell had been to the United Nations. We were demanding more information. We were saying the President needed to go to the United Nations. And in each incident, he actually did what people were asking him to do. He did it. He went to the United Nations. He made the plea. Unfortunately, the United Nations didn't support what they said for 10 years in a dozen resolutions. They said: We can continue to negotiate; more inspections, more inspections. They would not step up and take action against this brutal tyrant, Saddam Hussein. But we did. America did. The President did. The Congress did. That is the point I am trying to make. We had this debate. We knew what we were going into. We had looked at the intelligence. Was the intelligence perfect? No. Is it ever? It is always subjective. But we voted in this body 77 to 23 for the Iraq resolution. The House of Representatives voted almost 300--296--to 133. So we should not forget that vote. We should not forget the tremendous successes that have been enjoyed in terms of getting Saddam Hussein out of his position where he was spending money on palaces and allowing the people to suffer. He was murdering his own people and his neighbors. The infrastructure was just decaying beyond repair. We stepped up, and we did the same in Afghanistan. Our troops did a great job. Now are we going to say, It's your problem? Do we really expect the French to do the job? I don't think so. We are going to have to stay the course. We are going to have to do this job, and there is nobody else going to do it for us. Oh, when the problem is in their immediate neighborhood, such as Bosnia or Kosovo, the Europeans say: You must lead; you have to come in. We supported that operation. Almost every action that was requested by President Clinton we supported, sometimes very reluctantly. I remember thinking: OK, I support the bombing of the site in Afghanistan and the Sudan, because we thought they had chemical precursors. They didn't have them. But generally we came together and we provided leadership. I saw a lady from England on TV this morning. Somebody asked her: Why do the Europeans and other people in the world not feel good about Americans right now? She said: It is because you are leaders; the world expects you to do the job. You do the job, and they are jealous of you. They want it, but they don't like it. It is human nature. We should not be too hard on them. I called on cooling the overheated rhetoric, and I want to remember that myself. We all overspeak and overstate our positions sometimes, but this is serious stuff with which we are dealing. We called on the President a month ago: Mr. President, you have to step up and remind us what the vision is. He did. He went on TV. He rocked us back on our heels. He didn't ask for $55 billion or $65 billion to do the job as we thought he would. It was $87 billion. Oh, yes, I was a little stunned. I don't like the deficits we are beginning to have. They were caused by the economy, 9/11, by the stock market problems--all kinds of situations. Still, that kind of money deserves some close examination. I have been saying for several days now I want some answers. As representatives of the people, we should ask for answers. We deserve that. Exactly how is this money going to be broken out? Fifty-one billion dollars will go for the Iraqi campaign; $11 billion for the Afghanistan campaign. It is not over. Are we are going to follow the example of generations of failure in Afghanistan or are we going to finish the job there? Of course, Noble Eagle, $4 billion for homeland defense. The job goes on. We have the list of where the money would go for reconstruction, and I have asked questions. Mr. President, there is $5 billion for border enhancement. We need that because terrorists are coming into that country from all over the region to attack our coalition troops--the Americans, the British, the Poles, and the United Nations. We need to do more--basic electricity services, water and sanitation services, transportation, oil infrastructure. Some people have said and I have said: Why don't the Iraqis do more on their own? They are going to have this oil coming in; they are going to have oil. They don't have it. They are broke. The infrastructure is more decimated than we ever dreamed. So I have questioned this money, but I have looked at it. I have thought about it. I listened very carefully to Ambassador Bremer yesterday, and I am convinced we have to do this. We have to have the money for our troops to do the job, for homeland security, for the reconstruction, and we have to do it now. It is a critical part of restoring security right now. Leaders who are working with us are being intimidated, assaulted, and murdered. People from whom we had been getting information, who were helping us get people into the police and developing a force for the future, have withdrawn because they are a little concerned whether we will stay the course. A lot of it is affected by the people's attitude. Right here, in the DC area, we have people without power. It weakens defenses. So we need to move in there quickly without going through an international organization, without trying to hassle through a loan arrangement, and provide the money so we can get the power back on, so we can get the water flowing. There should be a process that others join in. Surely, countries of the United Nations, if it is worth anything, will help the Iraqis with their humanitarian needs as they continue to rebuild the infrastructure, as they try to develop their own government. Can the United Nations help with that? I hope so. I would like to give them a chance. I have not seen a lot yet, but they could. After we get over this initial phase, I think the reconstruction money right now is every bit as important as the security money. It is a part of the security. We want to stop the assault on our troops. We want to begin to get the border under control. We have to do it and we have to do it now. A year from now it will be worse, maybe impossible. So I came this morning to say I did not just leap to accept this amount of money. I did question how it could be done, but I am convinced if we do not do this, others will not follow suit. We are going to be going to other countries around the world that should be of assistance, Japan and countries such as Turkey that can hopefully provide some troops. We are going to ask them to ante up and kick in. But we are going to have to set an example. If we haggle over the details of this arrangement, they will not do their job. Then we are going to have to go to countries such as Russia, France, and Germany and say they have to forgive the debt that they have accumulated over a period of years because they were working with Saddam Hussein. We have to lead. We have to set an example, but it is tough. I am going to support the whole package. We should do it quickly because if we do not, this moment could get away from us, and we could just walk away, leave that country and those people, that region, in chaos. In the end, if we do not stop it here, over there it will be here. So I urge my colleagues to stand up; let us do what we did last year. Let us do the right thing; let us finish the job. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that there will be a joint meeting of the Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on the Judiciary at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, September 16, 2003, in SR-325, Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a joint hearing on Ensuring the Continuity of the United States Government: The Presidency. For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution which would disapprove the new media ownership rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission on June 2 of this year. I must say, in listening to the chairman of the Commerce Committee, I share a lot of his concerns and questions. I know from my discussions with him, and he knows, we need to do more in this area, and he believes the FCC ruling may not have hit the target in every area. He makes a good case about the difference in the size of the markets, from Phoenix to Jackson, to Minot, and other areas. Maybe he has touched on the answer. Maybe we need some sort of a tiered arrangement. I think in this case the fundamental policy is the one that really matters; that is, cross-ownership is not good. I think there are things you lose when you have the same newspaper chain owning one or two or three of the local radio stations and the same number of local television stations. I have a background, to a degree, in radio. My mother worked for a local radio station, WPMP/WPMO, which served Pascagoula and Moss Point. She was a bookkeeper. She did the logs, and then she did some announcing. She was the first woman's voice I had ever heard on a radio. And I did a program in high school for the local high school. This station was local, personal, and involved in the community. They were part of the community, and they were involved in the Chamber of Commerce. They had remotes, and if you opened a new furniture store on Market Street, they would go down there with a remote and would say: Come down to see the new furniture store here and maybe win a lamp. It was very personal. We have lost that involvement. I have a different attitude than Senator McCain in my thinking: It's OK to have these big radio chains, but I have to acknowledge that we have lost something in the process. We have lost some localism. We don't have any in my hometown anymore. WPMP and WPMO have limited exposure. I don't know who owns them. If you want local news, you have to listen to a radio station 19 miles away in Biloxi, WBMI. This is my question: If that has not worked out, if there are consolidations, if one or two companies own an overwhelming number of radio stations, do we want that to happen in television? We already have all these chains that gobbled up our local newspapers. I don't know where these people come from or get their ideas that come in with these big chains. They worry me about some of the things they do and their idea of how they should report the news in local communities. I have a real problem with what happened at the FCC in this instance. I want to emphasize this: This is not a newfound position. This is a position I have had for basically 30 years in Congress. First, I am not one who thinks big is always bad. I don't believe we have to keep it small. I want the American people to have more of everything--more choices, more opportunities, more diversity, more competition. That is great. I am all for that. I am also one who has voted many times for deregulation. It has not always worked out perfectly. I am not as theoretically pure on deregulation as I used to be. I voted to deregulate trucking and deregulate the airlines, and I am for deregulation as much as possible in this area. But this is a little different now. This gets into First Amendment rights. It does get into the airwaves and who owns them. It does get into what happened with the networks and the chains. Do the American people really feel good about what is happening with the media in America? No. Check the polls. Check the people. This very morning I talked with my mother. She is 90 years old. She said: You weren't born in the backwoods. I said: What are you talking about? She said: You were born in Grenada Hospital, a small town, but it wasn't the backwoods, and they always make it sound like you are Abraham Lincoln coming out of some log cabin, which is fine, I like that politically. But my mother was offended that they had reported incorrectly as to my background. I said: Mother, relax, nobody pays attention to that. These people write stuff they think will make the story sound more interesting, embellish the truth. You know that. This very morning we talked about this. This is not about personality. This is not about revenge. This is not about prevailing in a position. This is about doing what is right and in the best interest of the American people. I recommended the Chairman of the FCC Michael Powell to President Clinton for a Republican vacancy when I was serving as Majority Leader. That was my prerogative. That is the way we worked things out with President Clinton and, by the way, he had been recommended to me by Senator McCain. This is not about personality. I like the Democrats and Republicans on the FCC. I find them to be highly qualified, good people. I just think they missed the target this time. By the way, who has the ultimate say for the American people on something such as this? Should it be these Commissioners? Should it be this agency? Or should the Congress have a little say in this? Shouldn't we at least have the right to say: Wait, this is a dangerous thing for freedom, information, and democracy in America. Go back and do it again. We have that right. In fact, I think we have that responsibility. This is not partisan. In fact, there are 20 cosponsors, or more, of this disapproval resolution. I know for sure in addition to myself there is Senator Hutchison from Texas, Senator Snowe from Maine, Senator Collins from Maine, and Senator Allard from Colorado and Senator Chambliss from Georgia both signed the discharge petition for this resolution. So you see there are Republicans and Democrats, small State Senators, big State Senators. Colorado, Texas, and Georgia are not exactly small places. By the way, they have seen some pretty interesting examples of what happens in Dallas or Atlanta with that sort of consolidation. What would this disapproval resolution do? If it is passed, if it gets through the Senate and House and the President signs it, the FCC will have to take another look. They might come back and say: We will do these modifications or we will go with half of this or not all of this, and they may need more action from the Commerce Committee and from the Congress. Great, we can do that. The President may veto this resolution. I think that would be a mistake. We are coming at this issue on all fronts. We are going after the issue with a resolution of disapproval and we will go after it in the appropriations bill, if we have to. I prefer we do it through the authorization bill, as Senator McCain said. I don't like the Appropriations Committee always having to do our work because we will not or cannot find the time to get it done. The Commerce Committee voted. We reported out S. 1046. I am a cosponsor of it. Senator Stevens of Alaska is for that bill. I believe Senator McCain said he would be supportive of that bill. If we fail here, we will be back here, there, and everywhere because this is a very critical issue. Let me go back to the process. I was worried when I saw this developing. I had a feeling it was not going right. The proof was that we were having trouble getting information about exactly what they were going to do. On April 9, 2003, I joined a large bipartisan group from Congress in sending a letter--most of the signers are on the Commerce Committee--to Chairman Powell and the Commission saying we were disappointed that the FCC-revised ownership rules would be released in final form June 2 without any opportunity for the Congress or the public to review them beforehand, in effect saying: Wait a minute, have more hearings; come see us about this. They pretty much summarily ignored that letter. I ask unanimous consent that this letter to the Commission be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I don't think they reached out and listened enough. I know the committee was worried about it. Then they--poof-- made their decisions, and then they came before the Commerce Committee to explain it. I have to tell you, I scratched my head at some of their explanations, particularly their explanation of the media ownership cap at 35 percent and why it should be raised to 45 percent. The 35 percent cap is a position I supported back in the midnineties and earlier. We had a huge debate as to whether it should be 25 or 35. Senator Dorgan wanted 25. I think I supported that, but we finally went along with 35 percent. When questioned on that issue, the chairman said something to the fact that a couple of the networks are above or at this cap now so we should raise it to 45. Does that mean when they get to 45, we are going to raise it to 55? I admit we can have disagreements on the cap. Maybe it should be this level, a little higher, a little lower. I would rather have no caps than have this creeping raising of caps. Should we have some restraint on the reach of one network owned by these corporate giants? I think so. Am I mad at one network or the networks versus the cable? No. This is ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox--it is all of them. I just think that some limits are appropriate, which would give a greater variety of voices--and also I worry about more and more dominance by the networks. Local affiliates, if you get them off in a corner, say they don't want the cap to be raised. Local affiliates say: We don't like a lot of the programming; it is trashy, worthless; we would rather have local programming. Boy, they have trouble now. You don't think the networks don't tell them: You are going to run what we send you in Jackson, Mississippi, or Portland, Oregon, or a small town in Oregon? I don't like that. Again, localism is good for the people--some choice, some discretion. That is one of the things at risk here. Let me emphasize, we have an unusual alliance on this issue. We have the Actor's Equity Association. I generally don't team up with actors, other than in the Senate. We have the AFL-CIO, the National Organization for Women. Then we get over to the Family Research Council and the National Rifle Association. This is the far, far, far left and the far right, and everything in between, I think. Here is an interesting thing about this alliance. This is a diverse group, and they generally represent people, individuals. That is why they have had this avalanche of mail at the FCC opposing these regulations. I understand perhaps it is the largest number of comments to the FCC of any issue in history. The groups here represent individuals, generally speaking, not big or corporate interests. I like being identified with those people. I like worrying about what the fishermen in Biloxi, Mississippi, are going to be able to hear and see, and that they have choices. So this is a very important issue and it is one we should act on. The Majority Leader has been very cooperative with this. He could try to maneuver this around or push this off, but he was reasonable, as was Senator Dorgan, and I am glad to be involved in this effort. I do want to emphasize that personally I am less concerned about the cap than I am about the cross-ownership. I think we ought to repeal the new rules as to both, but my major worry is this consolidation of newspaper, television, radio, cable, the works, and how in towns the size of Jackson, Mississippi, one entity is controlling everything. I do not know that it is that dangerous to people. People are smarter than we are, and the media, for sure. They would just watch it, dismiss it, and not put much stock in it, but I would still like for them to have that choice. By the way, we should note that the court has also stepped in. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia placed an injunction, a stay, of the new rules so Congress could have more time to officially override them if we see fit. That is what this is all about. I do not think anybody should be apologetic for supporting this or worried about what the impact is. This is part of the process. I do not want to get all caught up in process, but I think what is at stake here is bigger than process. This will have long-lasting effects, and once we start down this trail unwinding that Gordian knot we would be tied to in community after community in America, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to do something. I urge my colleagues not to worry about the personalities, not to worry about the threat of a veto, not to worry about the threat of a network or a newspaper or a chain. What can they do to each and every one of us that they have not already done? Worry about what is at stake, and it is really fundamental. This gets to what makes this country great, and that is the ability to have diversity of opinion and arguments, different points of view. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to step up, let us vote for this disapproval resolution. We put this process in place for a reason. We have been very careful about using it. This is only the second time in the history of this disapproval resolution process that it has been used, but this is a good one to do it on. I am delighted to join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting this disapproval resolution and I thank Senator Dorgan for the courtesies he has extended along the way, and I am glad to work with him. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The Senator is correct. The intent of this provision is a narrow one and does not affect the use of non-AIP funds by any airport. Nothing in this section or any other provision of the FAA conference report would prohibit an airport from using either passenger facility charges, PFC, or other locally generated monies to fund noise mitigation projects below a DNL of less than 65. It is my understanding that the FAA agrees with this interpretation of the effect of the provision.

Mr. LOTT. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution that addresses the issue of anonymous ``holds'' that Senators use to prevent consideration of legislation and nominations. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the distinguished former Majority Leader, Senator Byrd, along with the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden. The resolution we are submitting today builds on the work of Senators Grassley and Wyden who have pursued this issue for years. On June 17, I chaired a hearing at the Rules Committee to consider a resolution, S. Res. 151, that Senators Grassley and Wyden introduced that would have amended the Senate's Rules to require the publication of the names of Senators who have placed holds on legislation or nominations. Many Senators and witnesses who testified before the Committee expressed concern about the propriety of incorporating an informal custom designed to obstruct--the hold--in the Senate's rules. Others were concerned that there could be unintended consequences to making this permanent change in the rules of the Senate. As a result of that hearing, I worked with the sponsors of the resolution and with Senator Byrd to develop what we believe is an appropriate way to resolve the problem of anonymous holds. The resolution we are introducing today reflects that work. During my tenure as Majority Leader, I, along with Senator Daschle attempted to address the issue of secret holds. We sent a letter to all Senators and indicated that members placing holds on legislation or nominations would have to notify the sponsor of the legislation, the committee of jurisdiction, and the leaders. Unfortunately, we had no mechanism to enforce those requirements and secret holds continue to plague the Senate. The resolution we are submitting today would place a greater responsibility on Senators to make their holds public. Our resolution creates a Standing Order that would stay in effect until the end of the 108th Congress. The Order requires that the majority and minority leaders can only recognize a hold that is provided in writing. 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 a leader. New sections would be created in the Legislative and Executive Calendars that would identify the names of Senators with holds on particular measures and nominations. The order also provides a brief written format that a Senator must use to indicate his opposition to proceeding. In addition, a format is provided to remove a hold. I believe that holds, whether anonymous, or publicly announced, are an affront to the Senate, the leadership, the Committees and to the individual members of this institution. As leader, I could not establish a rational and timely agenda for the institution to perform its business without having to first consult with, effectively, every other member of the Senate. One day, a Senator would have a hold on a bill and after I convinced him to lift the hold, the next day I was told another Senator had placed a hold on the same bill. And don't get me wrong, these weren't just holds from Democrats, they were holds from some of my best friends on this side of the aisle. This Order does not eliminate the right of a Senator to place a hold. Some day, the Senate may decide that holds, in and of themselves, are an undemocratic practice that should no longer be recognized. I, for one, would consider eliminating the hold, by for example, limiting debate on the motion to proceed. However, I believe before we consider such a drastic step, we should, at the very least, eliminate the secret hold and I believe this Order will achieve that goal. Secret holds have no place in a publicly accountable institution. A measure that is important to a majority of the American public and a majority of Senators can be stopped dead in it's tracks by a single Senator. And when that Senator can hide behind the anonymous hold, democracy itself is damaged. How do you tell your constituents that legislation they have an interest in, legislation that has been approved by the majority of a committee, is stalled and you don't know who is holding it up? What does that say about this institution? I think the secret hold has no place in this revered institution. I believe that if we adopt this Resolution, the public will have greater trust in the Senate. Secrecy and anonymity in an institution of the people does not engender trust among our constituents. Holds belong in the wrestling ring, not in this hallowed chamber. This resolution is an experiment in making the Senate and Senators more accountable. At the end of the 108th Congress, the Senate will be able to determine whether it wants to make this a permanent Standing Order or whether it wants to modify the Order. I hope my colleagues will give the Senate the opportunity to see if this approach will eliminate the secrecy surrounding holds and facilitate dialogue that breaks the logjam on legislating in this body. I ask unanimous consent that the text a copy of the February, 1999, letter I sent with Senator Daschle be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, could I ask unanimous consent that the request be amended to the effect that we have a recorded vote on the first judge and the next four be by voice vote?

Mr. LOTT. Could I propose that the request be amended so that we would have a recorded vote on the first three and count that as one, and that the last two be on voice vote?

Mr. LOTT. I was proposing the first vote would be en bloc on the first three judges and that the final two be by voice vote.

Mr. LOTT. The first vote would count for three.

Mr. LOTT. Could I ask if the leader would consider a modification-- with apologies to all because I know we would all like to wrap this up--that we have the first two votes be recorded votes of 10 minutes and the final three be voice votes.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I tread out of these waters somewhat hesitantly because in the past I have gotten involved in similar situations. I know the Majority Leader will be here shortly to respond to some of the things that have been said today. But because of some of the things I have experienced, I would like to remind my colleagues that Senator Dorgan is right: the Majority Leader is the leader. The Majority Leader, working with the Minority Leader, has a tough job. He has to juggle a lot of balls. The idea that there is something unusual about considering two or three or four issues intermittently, that that is something new, is ridiculous. We have had double tracking, triple tracking. I learned it from my Democrat predecessors when they were Majority Leaders. To intersperse with a legislative bill executive calendar nominations is done every day, every week. There is nothing new or unusual about that. Until you have walked in the Leader's shoes, I urge you to be careful about trying to second-guess him in trying to juggle these different balls. It is a tough job. We should be voting on judges. We should be confirming judges. I really don't appreciate the criticism that I think is being indirectly cast at the Leader. I am sure he is going to comment more on the days we have spent on this and other work we need to do. Everything is urgent all of a sudden. I know how it works. For 3 or 4 months around here the Leader is dredging for legislation to call up. And then all of a sudden, in May or July, everybody shows up and says: Hey, I'm ready. I want my bill. We want to do something about class action lawsuits. We want to do the Energy bill. We want the State Department authorization bill which, by the way, had to be pulled down because of totally unrelated issues. For the first time in 15 years we were about to get a State Department authorization, and it was basically forced off the floor because of unrelated, irrelevant amendments that were offered to it. We will get through this if we work together. I am worried about the institution right now. We are fiddling while our energy is burning. For 3 years we have been hacking away at getting a national energy policy. We don't have one. And it's absurd for us now to be pontificating, saying we haven't made enough progress, when I don't know how many days we have been on this bill--I think 16 days, to be exact. There is no question this bill is being slow rolled. Everybody knows that. For some reason, and I don't know why, the Democrats are dragging it out, slowing it down. They don't want this Energy bill to be finished and go to conference. That is my opinion, one Senator's opinion. This is a bill that has ethanol in it. We had this big agreement way back there. We thought once we got an ethanol agreement--a huge agreement--that would grease the slides and this legislation would go right through. Here we are, a month later, and we are not making good progress. I think we should quit trying to say this side is delaying or that side is going to different issues. We need to get this done. We are talking about production, more production in America. We need more oil and natural gas. I don't know what the statistics are now but about 56 percent of our energy needs are coming from foreign oil. People, I guess, want to kill the bill because they don't like the environmental provisions, or they are afraid ANWR will be opened to actually produce more oil. I don't quite understand the fear. This is a balanced bill. The committee did a good job. It was a bipartisan bill, more production--even going to the excessive ethanol that is included in it. Conservation, it has encouragement of conservation. It has alternative fuels to the point of being ridiculous. It has the tax provision that came out of the Finance Committee--a huge package of unbelievable things. We have an abundance of desire to try to solve this problem, and I think we need to solve it. On the electricity section, I have some problems with that. I don't like several pieces of it. I am not particularly happy with so-called SMD and the regional transmission organizations, RTOs. I think it is a problem for my region of the country but I am not about to be a part of trying to drag it out or delay this bill. It may be in my interest locally to do that or to work to get it changed, but for our country we are going to stand here and accuse each other of not handling this right, while ``Rome'' and Washington, DC, burns. This is ridiculous. Now, on judges, we don't look good, my colleagues. This is mutually assured destruction. It continues to escalate to ``you did it to us, so we are going to do it to you.'' Now we have employed a new mechanism; we are going to filibuster judges. This is a huge mistake for this institution and it will not be allowed to stand. Now we are beginning to question each other's motives. I was concerned about what I saw last night in the Senate. We seem to be spiraling downward. Somebody needs to sit down and say, look, we are going to stop these accusations, stop the filibusters, and we are going to vote on these judges. This is personal to me because I believe Judge Pickering of Mississippi was very badly and unfairly treated last year. I believe the vote on him will be different this year. Now it is Pryor. There is no reason to oppose the Attorney General of the State of Alabama with his record--not to mention Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, and Kuhl. We have circuits now--the Sixth Circuit, I believe, includes Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan--with a 25- percent vacancy. I didn't know Senators could use a blue slip to block a judge from their circuit. We don't pick the judges for the circuits; the President of the United States picks those. In my circuit, they can come from Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas. I don't think I have a blue slip or an ability to block a judge in that circuit that is from my State, or from another State, even though I might not particularly like him or her. Now we have appellate court judges being stopped in circuits all over this country because one or two of the Senators from the appellate circuit might want to try to stop them. I haven't served on judiciary; maybe that is what happened some in the past. That is another example of what is really getting to be a problem. I urge the leadership on both sides of the aisle on the committee to find a way to stop this because you are going to filibuster these good men and women. Then we are going to question your motives and you will question ours. I think the Senate needs to take a deep breath. Maybe what we need is an August State work period--go home for a while and cool off. I am not going to affix blame, but I think the way this Energy bill is being handled is a huge problem for our country. I hope we will calm down, get an agreement to move forward, give the Leader the opportunity that he should have to bring up judges, or other Executive Calendar nominees, as all Leaders do, and let's have a meeting in September and find a way to stop what is going on with judges. I admit that I made some mistakes when I was Majority Leader in how I handled them, too; but it has gotten worse since then. I don't think anybody can deny that. This mutually assured destruction must stop. I have said this before. Heaven forbid, if we ever have another Democrat President and a Democrat Senate, we are going to filibuster your nominees for the courts. It will happen. Some of our colleagues may even say they want that right. That is wrong. You have a lot of ways you can slow down or delay hearings or judges but filibustering judges on either side is wrong. I won't be a part of it if the tables are turned, and I was not a part of it when I was Majority Leader. I stood right there and spoke against filibusters when I was Leader. I voted against a filibuster and forced votes on judges with whom I vigorously disagreed. Two from California, Paez and Berzon, I will never really be comfortable with what I did there. I said we are not going to filibuster these judges on the floor of the Senate. So this is a terrible precedent and the Leader cannot let this stand. So, my colleagues, I sound like a schoolteacher lecturing but, because of the experiences I have been through, I plead with the institution to get on the Energy bill, make progress, and vote on these judges. A couple of judges might not even get 50 votes but that is the way it works. If you get a vote, you win; if you don't, you lose.

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT. Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. I remember that very well. We did the right thing. That is what I am asking now of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Let's find a way to do the right thing on these judges. It is totally indefensible, for instance, that on Miguel Estrada we cannot work something out where he won't be defeated by a filibuster. I remember other votes, too. I have said on this floor two or three times that I voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to go on the Supreme Court. I didn't agree with her philosophically at all, and I don't agree with many of the rulings she is coming out with. President Clinton was the President; he nominated her. But she was qualified by education, experience, and demeanor, and I voted for her. I think we deserve that kind of return of courtesy. The Majority Leader is here, so I will stop. I say to the Majority Leader, I was talking about the difficult job he has, and I know he is going to have some statistics that will indicate what has been occurring. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we are ready to proceed to the regular order.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, are we ready to proceed?

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

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