Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Has Senator Dorgan completed his remarks?

Mr. LOTT. I think the order was for Senator Inhofe to be next, but since he is not here, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak at this time, despite the previous agreement.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, certainly I always enjoy working with Senator Dorgan on these issues. I think he has a legitimate point. He does note that we need a fund to make sure these security fees go for the purpose they were intended. But he does think, at least in this instance because of the security aspect, we should waive the local requirement. It should also be noted that, in fact, local communities, particularly with bigger airports, are probably not going to get or could not get a cost share, and, even if they did in some ways, it would be passed on to the airlines, therefore undermining a lot of what we are trying to do now. We are trying to get the priorities set where the people who are getting certain parts of the security should be the ones who pay for it, and we shouldn't always try to find a way to pass it off to the airlines. Sometimes it is a Federal responsibility. In other instances, other people--I think also local governments--should have some part of this pie. But we agreed for a variety of reasons to accept Senator Dorgan's amendment. But I want colleagues to know and the American people to know the Bingaman amendment does the same thing but in a different category. I think, in fact, it is even worse. In the essential air service area, where special help goes to small airports and a lot of rural airports-- that affects airports in West Virginia, North Dakota, and probably in my State of Mississippi--with this additional Federal assistance to keep airports functioning, there would be some small local match. The administration recommended, by the way, that we eliminate the EAS problem; or, if we had EAS, you have the local match required for all of the airports. The language in the bill specifies that there would be 10 airports where we would have this local match to see how it would work, and if it would work. We now are agreeing to accept the Bingaman amendment because right now, I think out of concern for local communities and trying to have this essential air service, the amendment would probably pass. But I want to say, again, I think for us to set the precedent and require not even a dollar from local communities when they are getting additional security, particularly where they are getting essential air service which is vital to their communities and which is important from an economic standpoint for the local cities and counties to put up no money--and in the case of the Dorgan amendment--at least in the bigger airports, it could create definite problems in terms of costs being passed on to the airlines. In this case, it is just a question of these local communities not wanting to have to share at all. I think we should continue to look at some small amount--10 percent or 5 percent, some amount of local share. But for now, we will accept it. We will continue to work on these issues. It is important for us to get this important legislation completed so that the airlines, the airports, general aviation, and the American people will know what they can count on in terms of the Federal Aviation Administration and their programs over the next 3 years. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to interject my remarks at this point. I believe Senator Inhofe is next in order to speak. I yield the floor, unless Senator Dorgan would like me to yield to him. Does he want to get action on his amendment?

Mr. LOTT. We have no objection.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have considered these amendments and we find no problem with them at this point. They have been cleared on both sides.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, are we going to dispose of that amendment now?

Mr. LOTT. It has been cleared. It may save some time if we could go ahead and agree to it.

Mr. LOTT. Has this been approved on both sides?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wanted to make sure I understood what this amendment is. I had not had a chance to look at it. It is not specific to a particular airport or a particular State.

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield to me at this point?

Mr. LOTT. I note that I have looked at this situation and I am going to support what this amendment is trying to do. I think, in this case, this area he is referring to has been disadvantaged. We do not want to and do not intend to start down the line of making an exception here and there. This is a case where, clearly, you have been disadvantaged by the way it has been interpreted. I appreciate the Senator being willing to work out a fair solution.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask it be read in its entirety.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me explain why I offered this amendment. Senator Specter raises some very legitimate concerns, and we need to know what the situation is with regard to safety standards and the conditions of the workers in these foreign repair stations. First, I was not aware of this amendment or the committee was not aware of this amendment until about an hour ago. We have not had a chance to find out more about what the ramifications are, the need for it, or what we need to do. We have had no hearings on this matter. There is no question we need to make sure these foreign repair stations for airlines are good ones and the workers at these stations meet certain qualifications. They are doing good work basically. I am offering this amendment on behalf of Senator Inhofe who has some experience in this area, has been to some of these foreign repair stations and has some concerns. Being a pilot himself, having served on the committee of jurisdiction in the House, this is something we would like to know his feelings about and make sure of what the situation is today. He thought, though, we needed to look into it and understand what is happening. For instance, we may, by doing this, be imposing more requirements on these foreign repair stations that do not need certain laws or regulations in the various countries. We may be taking actions that would drive up costs. We may be taking actions that would have a dramatic impact on our own domestic airlines, which, by the way, some of the most profitable routes are overseas routes. This is a reason Northwest was Northwest Orient. There is no question American, Delta-- the big airlines--do have very important overseas routes. I would like to know if they think they are getting good service. What problems and what costs are going to be the result of this action? That is what I say to Senator Specter. It is a legitimate concern. We may need to do something more in this area, but I would like to know what the ramifications are before we actually put this requirement in place. This amendment, as I understand it and as it has been read, says the Administrator has to have a study of the need to establish this program to ensure that foreign repair stations meet the conditions of standards described in other sections of the law, that they report the results of that study, together with the Administrator's recommendations and conclusions, to the Congress within a specified period of time. This is not just an open-ended generic thing. That would also give us time on the committee to ask questions of all those impacted by the requirement. I think this is a good solution to a problem we should not ignore, but before we act we need to know what the impact is going to be. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 907

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that staff member William Hunt in my office be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of S. 824.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 17, 2003, in Room 301 Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing on Senate Resolution 151, requiring public disclosure of notices of objections (``holds'') to proceedings to motions or measures in the Senate. For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the generous effort put forward by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and his ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Levin, to make sure we had an opportunity to offer this amendment. He could have been so disposed to try to block it or stiff us or in some other way undermine the effort to have a full debate and a vote on this issue but he chose not to do that. I do appreciate it very much. He is always generous and kind, and he has proven that is the way he is proceeding on this amendment and this bill also. So I thank him. I have worked very closely on Defense authorization bills ever since I came to the Senate some 15 years ago. I served on the Armed Services Committee for a number of years, I think almost 7 years. I worked there with Senator Warner, Senator McCain, and others in a bipartisan way. I can remember struggling as leader to find the time to carve out for the Defense authorization bill to be passed so the appropriators did not have to just move forward without an authorization bill, which I think is not a good way to proceed. Quite often, it took a couple of weeks to get it done. This year, this bill, which is I think one of the best Defense authorization bills I have seen in a long time, got through in almost record time, at least in recent history. We were told that it might actually get through in 2 days. Well, I did not believe that, but I think when all of it is added up it may be 5 days, which with a bill of this importance and this magnitude, it is still warp time, and it is because the committee did a good job. They have a good bill, and I commend them for that. So my support of this amendment in no way should be an indication that I do not appreciate the work that has been done and the considerations that have been given of the issues that I really do care about and that are in this bill. I think the record will also show that I have been consistent on this BRAC idea. Just a little history that maybe I should offer today, going back to when I was in the House of Representatives and I was the Republican whip in the House and on the Rules Committee. One day I was ambling up the center aisle and I met up with this young Congressman, maybe on his first or second term, named Dick Armey from Texas. He had this brilliant idea called BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Act. He wanted to know how he could get that done. I look back on it and question my judgment, but I told him as a member of the Rules Committee and the Republican leadership, well, this is probably how you would need to do that and how you would need to proceed, and explained what happened in the Rules Committee. At that point, I said I do not agree with what you are trying to do. I think this is an abdication of responsibility. We should not be doing this, and if you think this is going to take politics out of it or make it easier, you have not been around long enough. Well, dang if he did not go out and do it. So I am partially to blame, I guess, for the process that was put in place by that young Congressman who went on, of course, to be the majority leader. The reason why I think it is an abdication of responsibility is, look, we have closed bases before. We did it after World War II. We did it after the Korean war. We did it after the Vietnam war. How do I know? I know of bases all around my region of the country: Brookley Air Force Base in Mobile, AL, the Greenville base, the Grenada base, the Greenwood base in my own State, lots of bases. How was that done? The Pentagon, particularly the military service personnel, looked at these bases, at what the requirements were and where the redundancy was. They made recommendations to Congress of what bases needed to be closed. In many instances, I do not know exactly how it worked, they either had to affirmatively approve it or, if they did not disapprove it, they could be closed. We could work that process out but, no, no, we want a process where we can say, no, I do not see it; I do not hear it; I am not involved, do not tell me about it; I do not want it. What is the responsibility of the executive branch and the legislative branch? That is to do our job. I think this process takes out the considerations that can be given by a Congressman or by a Senator who knows about a base in Virginia or Montana or wherever it may be. They know all the ramifications, what the needs are, what the problems would be if it is closed. I have never liked this process. The process has not been that unfair to me or to my State. We fared pretty well but then we do not have a whole lot of bases as compared to other States. But we were on the lists. Oh, yes, we were on the lists. There were bases that really should not have even been on the list. It does affect the economy and it does affect the people. The cities and the States go out and hire Washington people who used to work on the Hill or worked at the Pentagon to be lobbyists. Millions of dollars will be spent across America in fearful anticipation of this next round of BRAC, even in places where they are not going to be closed. I have urged those responsible, if you are going to do this, target it where there is redundancy and there needs to be closure; specify those areas, and do not say, well, it could be every base. If you don't, hundreds of bases will be on the list. If they have been on the list before, they may be again. Everyone will run out and start trying to deal with this problem. Some say people are not really worried about it. Once a month, I do a satellite feed to television stations in my State. Almost every month I get a question: What is happening on BRAC? Are we going to be on the list? They are in fearful anticipation. One in particular I refer to probably will not be on the list, but they are scared to death. I question it on that basis. If you think this takes politics out of the process, take a look at the last process during the 1990s. There was a lot of concern about some on the list or taken off the list. Human beings are involved. They will use every tool they can to affect it or protect themselves. We should not think this is some pure process. It is not. Also, the timing. We have been through 2\1/2\ rounds. We still are dealing with some of the aftermath of that, the cleanup. Could we reacquire them? Have they been transferred to the cities and States? When will we know the full benefit or the detriment of that? Sometime later on. The timing now is what bothers me. We have troops all over the world, thousands in Asia and Europe and Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting a war--not a battle, a war on terrorism. Then we will say, well, we are going to start closing bases. What about some bases in Europe? We have been talking about that for 20 years. Before I came to the Senate, we were talking how we needed to take a look at our basing requirements in Europe. The Soviet Union is gone. Didn't anybody notice? Yet we are still positioned in Europe as if we were going to go with tanks and heavy equipment into the Soviet Union. When are we going to get around to this? In defense of the Pentagon, they are busy, they have a lot going on, and they have done a great job. They have not had the time, perhaps, to decide what we are going to do in Okinawa and South Korea and the rest of Asia and Europe and what the future will hold. That is my point. Why should we do this? Before we start closing bases in America, we need a full assessment of what our needs are around the world. Will we bring the troops back? What will our efforts be to protect forces and be mobile? What do we need here? I could have maybe gone along with a deal and said we will go forward with this once we have done the assessment and have identified what we will change in Europe. I have learned around this place, never say never. I could conceive of a time and a circumstance where maybe this would need to be done. At this particular time, we have not properly assessed our needs. We are at war. It sends a terrible signal, and it is bad for the economy. We are trying to get the economy going, and it has a negative impact on the economy. Colleagues, look at what has been identified here. The criteria for this round include military value. Does it have value as a military asset? Should it be eliminated or outsourced? Read that language carefully. Does it have value as a military asset? Is that a way of saying, Do we need the Corps of Engineers? Should it be eliminated or outsourced? Outsourced, is that what is behind all of this? Jointness: Does the base possess multiservice functionability? What does that mean, we are going to combine Air Force and Navy pilot training? Have we thought that through? Preservation of training areas: Does the base have unique training areas hindered by encroachment or environmental issues? That is a good thing to consider. Homeland defense: Does it play a vital role in homeland defense? That is interesting. We should consider that. And cost and its economic impact. One of the areas that worries me, my impression is a lot of attention will be given to health-related installations. Look down the list. We are talking about Army health clinics, a clinic in Alaska, talking about medical groups in Alabama. I am not sure that is the place we need to focus either. It will have an effect on military personnel and on our veterans at a time when we are making a commitment to them under TRICARE and telling our military personnel they will have good health care service. Are we going to be looking at closing the facilities around the country? Beware. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. This would knock it out of the 2005 round. Maybe 2006 would be considered. Maybe something could be worked out in conference. I invite my colleagues to pay attention to this. This will wind up being a huge problem is my prediction.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I yield myself 5 minutes of the time reserved for the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in cosponsoring and supporting the introduction of legislation to create the National Museum of African American History and Culture. I particularly want to commend Senator Brownback, the Presiding Officer this morning, for his leadership on this issue. This legislation could not be introduced today in a way that it can be considered and acted upon without his willingness to stay behind it, to work through some of the problems that did exist and to work with the Rules Committee and our staff to make sure we had legislation that could have broad-based support and could actually be passed by the Senate. I am pleased to see my colleague from the Rules Committee, the ranking member, Senator Dodd, as a cosponsor, as well as Senator Frist, Senator Stevens, Senator Santorum, Senator Smith, and Senator Daschle. Obviously, leadership on both sides of the aisle has decided to join in sponsoring this truly historic legislation. The National Museum of African American History and Culture will be built and operated within the Smithsonian Institution and be a full- fledged Smithsonian Museum. That is a critical point to be made. It gives additional stature, credibility, and supervision that will be very helpful in the years ahead as we try to make sure this museum exhibits the way it should and is fully utilized by the American people and supported by the Congress. I rise to express my support for the legislation because this museum will showcase not only the history and the culture of African American experience, but it will serve as a vivid display of the countless contributions that African Americans have made to the United States and in fact to the world. Back in 2001, I had an unusual experience. It was one of those rare weekends when I stayed in Washington and my family, including my wife, were all back home in Mississippi. So I took a bicycle ride down the Mall and I wound up at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. I parked my bicycle across the way kind of in the edge of the bushes and just watched people. I do not know what really started me to doing that, but I guess I was struck, as I pulled up, at the number of people there and how they were relating to this memorial. They touched it. They shed tears there. They stood there. It was obviously a moving and spiritual experience, a connecting experience, maybe an experience of closure for some people. It struck me what an important monument and memorial that site is. Later on that same week, I was meeting with a group of African American business leaders and we ended up talking about how to properly and adequately recognize the contributions of African Americans and their role in shaping American history. I conveyed to them the story of my experience at the Vietnam Memorial and how it seemed to positively affect the people that came there, and that it caused me to recognize that every American needs a monument, a memorial, that is sort of theirs that reflects their heritage. It could be of all kinds of backgrounds in America. We have talked about the need for the Native American monument somewhere in this city to honor what they have contributed to this country. So I believe the creation of this museum will go a long way toward a similar type healing process for African Americans, and I am honored to be a part of it. The Smithsonian is no doubt one of the world's leaders in preserving, displaying, and telling the story of the American experience. Often called the ``Nation's Attic,'' the Smithsonian houses the great collections of the United States and educates the public on our rich history and the importance of ensuring that knowledge passes from one generation to the next. However, our national attic currently has some voids and we should work to fill those voids in a very careful, thoughtful, and responsible way. Having this museum is one of those voids that needs to be addressed. Last year, a Presidential commission was appointed to study the possibility of creating a museum dedicated to African American history and culture. The commission spent thousands of hours researching the possibilities of bringing this museum to light. The commission held dozens of forums and meetings across America and received feedback from a broad spectrum of citizens and leaders within the African American and other communities. These forums and discussions were thoughtful, calculated, and complete. The feedback was resoundingly clear--a national museum is the proper vehicle for showcasing and telling the world about the African American experience. I could not agree more. I am delighted to join in sponsoring this legislation. The history and culture of African-American life in this country is a very important part of the history of our culture and all that is America. Its story needs to be included in the sacred places in this city. I commend Senator Brownback for his leadership. I am glad to join in a bipartisan effort to get this legislation approved. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, June 5, 2003, in Room 301 Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing on Senate Rule XXII and proposals to amend this rule. For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I first want to acknowledge the hard work done by the Armed Services Committee and Senator Warner and his staff on the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization bill. Having served on this committee for many years, I know how intense the discussions are in the committee and how difficult the decisions are when crafting a bill this complex and so critical. I do, however, want to engage the chairman on a subject of great national interest: Navy ship construction. Over the years, this country has seen a steady decline in not only our naval ship force structure, but in the capacity to construct these great warships. Instead of building the requisite 12 ships a year to maintain our current and modest naval capability, we are merely producing 6 to 7 per year. The erosion in our naval capability should not continue. I know this is a subject of acute interest by Chairman Warner, a former Secretary of the Navy, and would like to hear his thoughts on the issue!

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 20, 2003, in Room SR-301 Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct an oversight hearing on the operations of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the Smithsonian Institution. For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352. permanent subcommittee on investigations

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor an outstanding citizen of Mississippi. Mr. Fred Taylor of Oxford, MS has recently retired from the Board of Directors of First National Bank. Mr. Taylor and his wife of 70 years, Jewett, have served the Oxford and Lafayette County community for 45 years. Fred Taylor has a history of outstanding achievements that can be traced back to his high school days in Gallman, MS. Mr. Taylor was a standout in football, basketball, and baseball at Copiah-Lincoln Agricultural High School and, for his ability, was inducted into the Copiah-Lincoln Athletic Hall of Fame in 1989. After high school Mr. Taylor attended Mississippi State University before transferring to Transylvania University in Lexington, KY, where he lettered in football and basketball and received a degree in economics. In his professional career, Mr. Taylor has spent time in a variety of jobs, from coaching high school football and basketball, to selling insurance, to operating his 600-acre cattle farm in Oxford, Mississippi. He has also served as the Commissioner for the Lafayette County Soil and Water Conservation District, Director of the State Soil and Water Conservation Commissioners, President of the Mississippi Cattlemen's Association, Director of the Oxford/Lafayette County Chamber of Commerce, and numerous other prestigious positions of public service. During these years, Mr. Taylor has been recognized numerous times by his colleagues and peers for excellence in his work and dedication to his community. In 1984 he was inducted into the Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Museum Hall of Fame. He has also been the recipient of the Citizen of the Year Award given by the Oxford-Lafayette Chamber of Commerce, as well as numerous agricultural, soil, and conservation awards. As I am sure you can see, Mr. Taylor has distinguished himself both personally and professionally, and he has been a valued asset to Mississippi. His record of service is not only a testament to his abilities, but also to the quality of his personal character. Oxford and Lafayette County have been well served by his commitment, guidance, and leadership and would not have been the same if it were not for his direction. It is for these reasons that I feel the need to pay tribute to him and to share his record of contributions to Mississippi with all of you here today.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to recognize one of the finest officers in the United States Navy, RADM William ``Bill'' Cobb, on the occasion of his retirement on May 15, 2003. Admiral Cobb will leave his current job as Program Executive Officers Ships after over 37 years of faithful and dedicated service to the Navy and our great Nation. During his time in Washington, he engaged the Congress on numerous issues vital to our national security. Today, it is my pleasure to recognize some of Bill's many accomplishments and commend him and his family for their service to the Navy and our Nation. Admiral Cobb entered military service in 1968 after receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering from the United States Naval Academy. He continued his education at the Naval Post Graduate School where he earned a Master's Degree in Operations Research in 1975. Admiral Cobb also attended the National Defense University's Industrial College of the Armed Forces, ICAF, in 1990; the Defense Systems Management College in 1992; the Executive Program, University of Michigan, Graduate Business School in 1994; and the Senior Executive Program in National and International Security at Harvard University in 2001. As Executive Officer aboard USS Jouett, CG 29, Admiral Cobb shined as a leader. Even though Jouett started out last in every competitive category, Admiral Cobb's ability to motivate all levels of the chain- of-command catapulted the ship to the fleet's number one combatant in battle readiness. He later assumed duties as Commanding Office of USS Coontz, DDG 37, where his ship provided the initial response to a distress call after USS Stark was struck by an errant Iraqi cruise missile. During his tour as Commander of Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, Naval Ordnance Command, and Commander Naval Surface Warfare Center, NSWC, he was responsible for all of the Navy's In- Service Engineering Agents, ISEA. Admiral Cobb also excelled in a variety of key staff assignments including Chief of Staff and Head, Fleet Introduction and Lifetime Support Division, AEGIS Program Office; a tour in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations as Head Readiness Sustainability Team, OP 09O; and Chief, Cruise Missile Division, Plans and Policy Directorate, Commander Atlantic Fleet, where he planned all of the Tomahawk strikes for Desert Storm. As Program Executive Officer for Theater Surface Combatants, PEO TSC, he was responsible for the AEGIS shipbuilding program, the Navy's Theater Ballistic Missile Defense, TBMD, program, and introduction of the Cooperative Engagement Capability, CEC. On the international front, he headed shipbuilding programs with Spain and Japan, and worked with thirteen of our closest allies on the Standard Missile program. His tremendous effort significantly enhanced our allied forces' defenses against the growing tactical ballistic missile threat. Admiral Cobb was also responsible for the life-cycle support of several ship classes including Ticonderoga Cruisers, Arleigh Burke Guided Missile Destroyers, Spruance Destroyers and Oliver Hazard Perry Frigates. In conjunction with the Secretary of the Navy's reorganization efforts, Admiral Cobb took on the significant task of reorganizing three major Program Offices into one. Program Executive Officer, PEO, Ships now has sole responsibility for life-cycle support for all 13 surface ship classes, the heart of our entire Navy. This new Program Office is responsible for the execution of current and future shipbuilding programs that will carry the Navy well into the 21st century including the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers, the LPD 17 San Antonio Class Amphibious Ships, the Navy's future destroyer DD(X), X, and the Littoral Combat Ship, LCS. The DD(X), and LCS programs, due in large part to Admiral Cobb's leadership, will revolutionize our Navy with the availability of more lethal and agile firepower than ever before seen in history. Always an inspiration to those who served him, Admiral Cobb made it a point to recognize those Officers and Sailors who transformed his vision of the Navy into reality. His contribution to the success of our Navy goes well beyond the material changes he made in the programmatic world. Admiral Cobb made each sailor keenly aware of their importance to the Navy and the true appreciation that he held for their efforts. His unique ability to recognize talent and to foster camaraderie among those who served him had an enormous influence on countless junior sailors, and will continue to steer the course of our Navy well into the future. On behalf of my esteemed colleagues, I offer the sincere congratulations of the United States Senate to Admiral Cobb, his wife Karen, son Bill II, Buddy, daughter Jeanne, and granddaughter Isabelle on a truly magnificent career. Admiral Cobb will be missed by our Navy and has the heartfelt appreciation of our entire Nation. We wish our friend the best of luck in his undoubtedly successful future and bid him ``Fair Winds and Following Seas.'' (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LOTT

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