Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 364 submitted earlier today by the Republican leader.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could inquire of the majority leader, would it be appropriate at this point for me to perhaps respond to some of the resolutions and have a few remarks before I yield the floor back to him to do whatever he would like to do in terms of concluding his remarks today?

Mr. LOTT. Just briefly, Mr. President, with regard to the resolutions we have just passed, I want to add my specific expression of appreciation for our Vice President, Vice President Cheney. He is a long-time friend. He understands the institution of Congress. He has proven to be a very active Vice President and, obviously, a good and valued adviser to our President. But we all actually have a special affinity for this Vice President because we think he does understand the Congress as an institution, and I think he has been very positive in the way he has dealt with us. I just wanted that to be on the Record. I thank Senator Byrd for his performance as our President pro tempore, for his making us think about the history and the traditions of this institution, for his sometimes unbelievable speeches about history, and for his great quotes from memory of poetry and famous statements by statesmen and politicians. It is a very interesting thing to watch and listen to him. Of course, the one and the only centenarian, Senator Strom Thurmond, has done so much for his State and for his country. I just want to put on the Record at this point also that in his service in the Senate he has cast 16,348 votes. He was here last night until the last vote was cast. We are going to celebrate his 100th birthday with several events December 1. He will be one of the legends that will be long remembered in this institution and by our country. Let me say to Senator Daschle, I have enjoyed working beside him throughout this historic Congress and over the years. Sometimes we sit down and visit more often than a lot of people would think or realize. We certainly have a very strong personal relationship--one the media seems to miss. And that is just as well, probably, because if people really knew the kind of friendship we have and what we talk about, it would either hurt him or me--or both of us, or our colleagues. But that is as it should be. This is the Senate. We must find a way to work together. As I said on the floor yesterday, how we produce legislation is quite often messy and not pretty, but our forefathers designed this to be a body that could be moved only by unanimous consent or consensus. Sometimes it takes days, sometimes it takes weeks, and sometimes it takes months--just like last night. After all the fussing, the fighting, the squabbling, the amending, and positioning and all that went into it, when we voted on the Homeland Security Department Bill, the vote was 90 to 9. We actually scratch our heads and say, Why all that thunder and lightning and then that result? Well, that is a part of the process. Quite often that happens in the Senate, because along the way you have made changes. You have reconsidered other people's positions. But in the end it is quite often that a bill will pass by a wide margin. We have been through changes in leadership positions. The process to consider the removal of President of the United States who had been impeached by the other body, and now this historic 107th Congress. We should not go off quietly into the night without giving some recognition and some credit to what we have done in this Congress. We started over with a 50-50 split--somewhat historic in its own right. There had been 50-50 splits before, or even splits before. I have gone back and studied how those things were handled. They were handled not too well a lot of times. In fact, in one Congress I think it took them 4 or 5 months before they ever agreed on the rules to proceed. There was some criticism of me and our caucus, and probably of Senator Daschle and his caucus, with the agreement we came up with for this 50-50 split. If we had to do it over again, we probably would do it somewhat differently, or we would have done a few more things than we were actually able to agree on. But we did come to an agreement. We did move the session forward, and we produced some historic results during that period when we were evenly divided. At the beginning of the year, Senator Daschle actually was the majority leader for 17 days. He could have tried to take advantage of it. He could have tried some things that would have been infuriating to my side, or that wouldn't have been good for the Senate or the country. But he didn't do that. He did do some things, but they weren't done in a way that was taken advantage of in that interim period. Then I became majority leader again in the 107th Congress for about 5 months or so. Then I was back in the minority; Senator Daschle is back as majority leader. We were sort of getting used to our sea legs under this new arrangement in the latter part of June and July. We probably had not gotten our sea legs yet, and then came September 11. We had not planned on that, and we were stunned by it, the institution, as individuals, our staffs. Not only did America come under attack in New York and the Pentagon, and with plans to attack other places, we had the anthrax situation that put Senator Daschle's staff in a very difficult, dangerous position. All of us were affected by that. A lot of Senators rose to the occasion. The leadership, our officers rose to the occasion. I will talk more later about the service of our Sergeant at Arms, General Lenhardt, and the Secretary of the Senate, Jeri Thomson. They were under enormous pressure, and they were dealing with a totally different situation than we had ever experienced. We were the pilot project. We did not want to be, but we were. How did we clean the Hart Building? How did Senators get their work done? Well, they wound up in other Senators' offices. They wound up in my office upstairs. They were all over the place. We did what we had to do. Also, I believe those events united this body in a way that was very positive, and this country in ways that we are still experiencing. But we did find a way to speak with one voice, to pull up our courage, to continue to do our job. Those ugly, tragic events of that day gave us a period of unity and production that I have not seen since I have been in Congress. We passed bill after bill after bill to deal with the tragedy--from aviation security, to make sure our airlines did not go out of business; the PATRIOT Act--I will not enumerate all the things we did do. We did it working together across the aisle, across the Capitol, and with the administration in many instances. I have said here on the floor before, an interesting thing happened: The American people's approval of our conduct went to the highest in history. I don't know what the highest level was, but at least in the high seventies. Why was that? Because they saw us working together in a nonpartisan way to do what was right for our country. And when we got back closer to doing business as usual, those numbers sort of drifted back down. I think maybe during this period we are going to be out we ought to meditate and think a little bit about how we did in September and October and November of 2001, what we did not do sometimes in 2002, and see if there is a way we can, once again, come together and work together more often. So there have been bumps and potholes and there have been disagreements and there have been huge battles over prescription drugs and energy legislation and homeland security and a lot of others, but more often than not, we did get a result. We found a way to get it done. It takes an interminable amount of patience to be majority leader. Senator Daschle exhibited that patience, sometimes to the consternation, I know, perhaps, of his own colleagues in his own caucus. But that is the way it has to be done. So now we close out this historic period. We have had an election. We will be coming back in January with 11 new faces in the Senate and new leadership in the majority. I will have that opportunity again, God be willing, that we have of swearing in on January 7. We will need to find a way to work together again. I believe we will. Senator Daschle, when he became majority leader, stood in that place and pledged to me, and to the Senate, that he would work with us, and he would be fair in his dealings. I think he has kept that commitment. I make the same pledge to him. I have learned some lessons being in the minority and being in the majority and being back and forth. It is a humbling experience. I think you learn that you have to do some things differently. I hope I will do them better. And I will need his help. So I believe we will find a way to work together for the best interests of this institution and for our country. I thank the many people associated with this Chamber, too. As I said to Senator Smith, it is far too often we forget to thank the people who make this place work: the people who turn on the lights, the policemen who work to keep us and our constituents and our staffs safe, the elevator operators, the custodians, the pages. All of these people who work in this Chamber and in this building are an important part of getting our job done. So to you all, I express my appreciation on behalf of myself and the Senate because you do a great job. With that, I would just like to conclude by wishing everyone a safe, happy holiday season. We need this respite. In the end, faith and family are more important even than what happens here. Now we will have a chance to spend some time thinking about those things and being with the ones we love the most. I look forward to returning in January. I look forward to seeing all of my colleagues as we begin the work that needs to be done for a stronger and freer America and peace in the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, putting the homeland security bill together has been a difficult almost herculean task. Many Senators have played important roles in this legislation, but it could not have been done without the contributions of our staff. Without the aid of these individuals, the work of this institution would be impossible to accomplish. I would like to recognize the hard work and dedication of those staff members whose contributions to this legislation have been critical and without whom we would not have been able to pass this bill. On the Democrat side of the aisle, I want to recognize the contributions of Senator Lieberman's staff--especially his staff director, Joyce Rechtschaffen, as well as Laurie Rubenstein, Mike Alexander, Kiersten Coon, Holly Idelson, Kevin Landy, Larry Novey, and Susan Propper. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Sarah Walter of Senator Breaux's staff, David Culver of Senator Ben Nelson's staff, and Alex Albert of Senator Miller's staff. On the Republican side, I would especially like to thank Richard Hertling, Senator Thompson's Staff Director who, along with Rohit Kumar of my staff, was integral in the drafting of the bill that we are sending to the President. I would also like to compliment the rest of Senator Thompson's staff--Libby Wood Jarvis, Ellen Brown, Bill Outhier, Mason Alinger, Alison Bean, John Daggett, Johanna Hardy, Stephanie Henning, Morgan Muchnick, Jayson Roehl, Jana Sinclair, Elizabeth VanDersarl and Allen Lomax--all of whom played an important role in crafting this legislation. Senator Gramm's Legislative Director, Mike Solon, and David Morgenstern of Senator Chafee's staff also played very important roles in the process. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of those individuals from the other body and from the White House, all of whom dedicated significant time and effort to this bill. From the House of Representatives, the efforts of the House Select Committee staff--in particular Hugh Halpern, Paul Morrell and especially Margaret Peterlin--were absolutely essential to drafting the compromise language. From the White House, I would like to thank Ziad Ojakli, Christine Ciconne, Heather Wingate of the Legislative Affairs Office, Wendy Grubbs, Michael Allen, Richard Falkenrath, Sally Canfield and especially Lucy Clark from Governor Ridge's Office of Homeland Security, Christine Burgeson from the Office of Management and Budget, Brad Berenson from the White House Counsel's office, and Joel Kaplan from Chief of Staff Andy Card's office for their assistance in putting together this legislation. Without their efforts and cooperation, this bill could not have come to pass. These staff members have worked diligently and largely in anonymity. Given all that they have done in service to their country, I think it is appropriate to recognize their work publicly, so that the rest of the country knows, as we all know, how well we are served by our staff.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I concur with the Senator from Rhode Island. It is clear that the government contractor defense contained in the SAFETY Act could be raised only in response to design defect claims.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding staff member and friend, Eric Womble. For the past 7 years, Eric has served as my national security adviser and military legislative assistant, and as one of my most able counselors. As Eric moves on to new challenges in the private sector, it is my privilege to commend him for his service. The son of Thurston and Olive Womble, Eric was born at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland and was raised in Mobile, AL. He received his undergraduate degree in 1979 from the United States Naval Academy and was designated a Naval Flight Officer in 1980. Before retiring from the United States Navy in 1997, he served in many assignments, including: Patrol Squadron Twenty-Four, VP-24; the Joint Chiefs of Staff Intern Program in Washington, D.C.; the Program Resource Appraisal Division in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, OP-81; Flag Secretary to Commander Seventh Fleet in Yokosuka, Japan; Fleet Replacement Instructor in Patrol Squadron Thirty, VP-30; Operations Officer in Patrol Squadron Forty-Nine, VP-49; Executive Assistant to the Chief of Naval Research; and in the Department of Defense's Congressional Fellows Program. During his military career, Eric was awarded the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Services Medal with a gold star, Navy Commendation Medal with three gold stars, Joint Service Achievement Medal, and Meritorious Unit Commendation with bronze star. He also earned an MBA from Marymount University of Virginia and served as a White House Social Aid for President Ronald Reagan. When Eric came to work for me seven years ago, I assigned him the task of helping me implement an innovative plan to create new jobs in Mississippi by growing the research and technology base at our universities and in our industrial community. Eric's efforts helped Mississippi universities and businesses grow their research and technology programs by approximately 200 percent from 1996 to 2002. This growth in research and technology was a major factor in attracting several Fortune 500 companies, including Nissan Motor Company, Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company and Alliant TechSystems. Mississippi also has become home to several new military commands including Special Boat Unit Twenty-Two, the Navy's Southeast Region Human Resource Office, and the Air National Guard's first C-17 squadron. This prescription for growth, which Eric helped me pursue for seven years, also helped several existing entities in Mississippi, including Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Raytheon Aerospace Company, and the Meteorology and Oceanography command to prosper and create more jobs. When our military was suffering from extremely low retention and recruiting in the mid-1990's, Eric helped me craft legislation that helped reverse these troubling trends. During his tenure on my staff, the Congress passed the largest pay raise for our military men and women since 1981, repealed the REDUX retirement system, reset the future pay raise formula to Employment Compensation Index plus one-half percent, implemented dual compensation exemption for military officers, reset the pay caps for our Flag and General officers, created the TRICARE For Life military health care system, and targeted millions of dollars in pay raises to our mid-career enlisted military personnel and officers. Eric also assisted me in improving the quality of medical care to our military veterans by helping me craft legislation to establish a Medicare Subvention Demonstration program and a prescription drug program. During the Clinton administration, Eric was instrumental in my efforts to bolster our Nation's armed forces by getting $48 billion in additional funds for our military through supplemental and congressionally added funds. He also helped me gain $823 million in military construction funding from 1996 to 2003 to revitalize Mississippi's most critical military bases. In particular, I should note that Eric's naval experience was significant in helping me bolster the naval shipbuilding industry on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. He was instrumental in bringing together the Navy, the Office of Secretary of Defense, industry, and the Congress to ensure a robust naval shipbuilding program. His work was reflected in the development of the LHD, LHA(R), LPD-17, DD(X), DDG-51, and the Littoral Combat Ship programs. I know that the citizens of Mississippi benefited from Eric's relentless pursuit of military and economic development projects that will impact the State for years to come. The country, too, should be proud to have had such a champion of strong military ideals fighting to preserve our nation's military power and to properly support our men and women in uniform. As a result of his outstanding performance, Eric was recently awarded the Mississippi Distinguished Civilian Service Medal and the Department of the Navy's Superior Public Service Award. As Eric moves onto a new and exciting position as Vice President for Programs at Northrop Grumman Corporation, I wish him, his wife Wendy, and their children, Melissa and Matthew, every success. Eric has served our country for more than 27 years, and as he embarks upon his new journey, I wish to take this opportunity to thank him for his service and to wish him nothing but the best in his new career.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I concur with the Senator from Rhode Island. It is clear that the government contractor defense contained in the SAFETY Act could be raised only in response to design defect claims.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding staff member and friend, Eric Womble. For the past 7 years, Eric has served as my national security adviser and military legislative assistant, and as one of my most able counselors. As Eric moves on to new challenges in the private sector, it is my privilege to commend him for his service. The son of Thurston and Olive Womble, Eric was born at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland and was raised in Mobile, AL. He received his undergraduate degree in 1979 from the United States Naval Academy and was designated a Naval Flight Officer in 1980. Before retiring from the United States Navy in 1997, he served in many assignments, including: Patrol Squadron Twenty-Four, VP-24; the Joint Chiefs of Staff Intern Program in Washington, D.C.; the Program Resource Appraisal Division in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, OP-81; Flag Secretary to Commander Seventh Fleet in Yokosuka, Japan; Fleet Replacement Instructor in Patrol Squadron Thirty, VP-30; Operations Officer in Patrol Squadron Forty-Nine, VP-49; Executive Assistant to the Chief of Naval Research; and in the Department of Defense's Congressional Fellows Program. During his military career, Eric was awarded the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Services Medal with a gold star, Navy Commendation Medal with three gold stars, Joint Service Achievement Medal, and Meritorious Unit Commendation with bronze star. He also earned an MBA from Marymount University of Virginia and served as a White House Social Aid for President Ronald Reagan. When Eric came to work for me seven years ago, I assigned him the task of helping me implement an innovative plan to create new jobs in Mississippi by growing the research and technology base at our universities and in our industrial community. Eric's efforts helped Mississippi universities and businesses grow their research and technology programs by approximately 200 percent from 1996 to 2002. This growth in research and technology was a major factor in attracting several Fortune 500 companies, including Nissan Motor Company, Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company and Alliant TechSystems. Mississippi also has become home to several new military commands including Special Boat Unit Twenty-Two, the Navy's Southeast Region Human Resource Office, and the Air National Guard's first C-17 squadron. This prescription for growth, which Eric helped me pursue for seven years, also helped several existing entities in Mississippi, including Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Raytheon Aerospace Company, and the Meteorology and Oceanography command to prosper and create more jobs. When our military was suffering from extremely low retention and recruiting in the mid-1990's, Eric helped me craft legislation that helped reverse these troubling trends. During his tenure on my staff, the Congress passed the largest pay raise for our military men and women since 1981, repealed the REDUX retirement system, reset the future pay raise formula to Employment Compensation Index plus one-half percent, implemented dual compensation exemption for military officers, reset the pay caps for our Flag and General officers, created the TRICARE For Life military health care system, and targeted millions of dollars in pay raises to our mid-career enlisted military personnel and officers. Eric also assisted me in improving the quality of medical care to our military veterans by helping me craft legislation to establish a Medicare Subvention Demonstration program and a prescription drug program. During the Clinton administration, Eric was instrumental in my efforts to bolster our Nation's armed forces by getting $48 billion in additional funds for our military through supplemental and congressionally added funds. He also helped me gain $823 million in military construction funding from 1996 to 2003 to revitalize Mississippi's most critical military bases. In particular, I should note that Eric's naval experience was significant in helping me bolster the naval shipbuilding industry on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. He was instrumental in bringing together the Navy, the Office of Secretary of Defense, industry, and the Congress to ensure a robust naval shipbuilding program. His work was reflected in the development of the LHD, LHA(R), LPD-17, DD(X), DDG-51, and the Littoral Combat Ship programs. I know that the citizens of Mississippi benefited from Eric's relentless pursuit of military and economic development projects that will impact the State for years to come. The country, too, should be proud to have had such a champion of strong military ideals fighting to preserve our nation's military power and to properly support our men and women in uniform. As a result of his outstanding performance, Eric was recently awarded the Mississippi Distinguished Civilian Service Medal and the Department of the Navy's Superior Public Service Award. As Eric moves onto a new and exciting position as Vice President for Programs at Northrop Grumman Corporation, I wish him, his wife Wendy, and their children, Melissa and Matthew, every success. Eric has served our country for more than 27 years, and as he embarks upon his new journey, I wish to take this opportunity to thank him for his service and to wish him nothing but the best in his new career.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I understand the Senator from Alabama has some other remarks he would like to make. I appreciate his allowing me to proceed between the remarks he just made on Senator Gramm and others he will be speaking on momentarily. One of them is the person I want to commend, but I can't do that without thanking Senator Sessions for what he had to say about Senator Phil Gramm. I have had so much to say about him over the past month, I won't repeat it here. I have already made some remarks on the floor and had a chance last week at the retirement dinner to talk about him. He certainly will be greatly missed. He is such a talented, intelligent, persistent but delightful person. He has been a great Senator, great Congressman. He has a very large record of which he can be proud. I have worked with him in the House when he was a Democrat, in the House when he was a Republican, and in the Senate. There are a lot of bills that would not have passed, a lot of issues would not have been properly handled if he had not been willing to take the time, dig into the substance, and get them done. But they are great bills, great laws that have his name on them: Gramm-Latta, the first budget of the Reagan years; and Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, which was a budget restraint mechanism he put in place in the 1980s here in the Senate; and Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the reform bill on financial services that was passed a couple years ago, and many others. But I took the time recently to add up bills or issues that I knew he was involved in just over the last 2 years that would have been much more expensive if they had passed, would have been hugely expensive. He probably has saved the taxpayers over the past 2 years somewhere close to $1 trillion, certainly in the hundreds of billions of dollars. There might be those who say we should have spent that money. Well, you can argue that, but I can show direct cases where he has helped influence legislation or stopped legislation that would have been very costly to working taxpayers in America. I thank Senator Sessions for what he had to say today.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon before the Senate adjourns for the year to recognize the extraordinary contributions of an individual who is not a Senator but who, in addition to having been a long time staff member here, is one of the Chamber's most beloved individuals, I believe. That is R.J. ``Duke'' Short or, as Senator Thurmond would call him, ``Duke Short,'' which is pretty hard to understand if you don't know what he is actually saying. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know well that Duke has served for the past decade as chief of staff to the legendary Senator Thurmond, who is retiring next year at the age of 100. Duke has served our ``centennial Senator'' with incredible ability and grace. His judgment, his demeanor, and his knowledge on both the ways and traditions of this Chamber have impressed me. I have actually gone to him and asked for advice and made sure he knew what we were thinking about doing and making sure Senator Thurmond was comfortable with that. I know many Senators have gone to Duke and sought his counsel as one of our longest serving and most effective staff members. In so many ways Duke has been the Senate's unelected 101st Senator, I believe. The trust Senator Thurmond puts in him is obvious to anyone who has watched the two of them interact over the years. Duke is Strom's most constant companion, his closest and most trusted adviser and, I believe, his dearest friend. Theirs is not the usual relationship of a Senator and staffer. It is more like a father and son. I know that Duke has had opportunities to go do other things, but at the urging or at the request of Senator Thurmond, he stayed. And he is going to stay with Senator Thurmond to the last day the Senator is here. Even though they have been close on a personal basis, Duke Short has not misunderstood his role or stepped beyond the boundaries into the role of an elected official. He has always had a clear understanding of his responsibilities and, most importantly, where his job ends and an elected official's begins. It takes a person of extraordinary integrity and incredible common sense to be able to juggle both the role and the responsibilities that Duke Short has shouldered, and I can say without hesitation or equivocation: Well done, Duke. He should be very proud of his service to the Senator, to the Senate, and to his country. By the way, there is something more to his career than his service to Senator Thurmond and the Senate. He served in the Army's prestigious 82nd Airborne. Then he came to the Senate as a staffer in 1974, where he served as a senior investigator for the Subcommittee on Internal Security. He rose quickly through the ranks, later serving as chief investigator of the full Senate Judiciary Committee where he oversaw literally hundreds of judicial nominations and helped shepherd through the confirmations of Chief Justices and Associate Justices who now sit on the Supreme Court. To this day, he is remembered fondly by judges and justices all across the Nation as the individual with whom they worked most closely and who was always courteous and wise in his counsel as to how they should conduct themselves during the confirmation process. As in his other duties in the Senate, Duke performed in the confirmation arena with the greatest dignity and integrity. Many of you may be surprised to know that Duke Short had a life before even his military service and before coming to the Senate. He was a U.S. Treasury Department agent and received numerous awards for distinguished service and assistance to our Nation's Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers and officials. But it wasn't always the law enforcement, investigations, or government. He also originally was a chiropractor. That was his original profession. He is a graduate of the Palmer College of Chiropractic with the degree of Doctor of Chiropractic. Maybe there was some other role he performed for the Senator that we didn't know about. What an interesting career this gentleman has had. He is an alumnus of North Georgia College and the recipient of South Carolina's most distinguished civilian award--the Order of the Palmetto. He is, of course, most fortunate to be married to Dee, a charming lady whom we will miss along with Duke when they go on to their next career. I know my colleagues join me in wishing Duke good luck and our best wishes as he leaves the Senate in January at the conclusion of Senator Thurmond's record-setting term. We will miss Duke's good humor and his style. He is the epitome of a Southern gentleman. He leaves this institution with a marvelous record. Too often we commend each other and we talk about the great deeds of Senators, and not enough attention is given to loyal staff members who serve in this body and in this room and on committee staffs and on personal staffs. But Duke Short could not leave without proper recognition of his service. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield time off my leader's time. How much time does the Senator from Texas need?

Mr. LOTT. I yield 10 minutes of leader's time to Senator Gramm.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to briefly speak in support of this legislation. I come from a coastal area. When I was in the House of Representatives, I served on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and was a member of the Commerce Committee. I pay close attention to the maritime industry and what is happening with our ports and our ships and shipping industry. I am very pleased to see this legislation has been brought to the floor. I commend the chairman of the committee, Senator Hollings, and the ranking member, Senator McCain, as well as others who were involved in working through some of the difficulties to produce results. Senator Stevens was involved in that, and Congressman Young on the House side. I had more than one conversation with Senator Thomas and Senators Baucus and Grassley. A lot of people worked to help make the production of this legislation possible. I must say, I am amazed it took that kind of a heave because this is such necessary legislation. We probably could have and should have done it last summer. There is no use reviewing all of what went into that, but there is no doubt in my mind that we need to pay attention to port security. That is a place where we could have vulnerability. I believe we are making progress in using sophisticated technology to begin to address those threats, but, still, we need to pay attention to this area and make sure we are doing all we can to protect the American people from terrorist attack or exploitation in our ports. The vast majority of the U.S. international trade flows through our ports. And I have worried that some enterprising terrorist could put some very devastating material on a tramp steamer or a boat that would come into South Carolina, New York, Baltimore, or Pascagoula, MS, and have a devastating impact on those communities. So we need to think through this. Over the past few decades, international and domestic port transportation systems have responded to ever-increasing volumes of two-way trade by increasing their efficiency at moving cargo. The challenge before us, though, is to take steps to find out what is on those ships, what is in that cargo. We have to look at the port of demarcation. How do we deal with them on the high seas? How do we make sure a threat is properly checked into or assessed? What do we do once they get into the ports? So this is important legislation. It is not to diminish the threat in all the areas of transportation. We have to think about and review all of them: aviation, trucking, automobiles, points of entry on land. But this is one area in which we need to take action, and that is what the legislation does. The administration took immediate steps to increase the security for our maritime transportation system. The Coast Guard dedicated increasing resources to protecting our ports. The Customs Service initiated programs to improve its awareness of all cargo movements into the United States and to push its inbound cargo screening efforts out to foreign ports. The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, that we are considering now, provides new direction to the administration and additional authority so we can deal with this area in a comprehensive manner. The bill establishes a system of national, area, port, and waterfront facility and vessel security and response planning and involves the State officials, local officials, and Federal officials and industry representatives. The bill improves the authority for the Customs Service to collect cargo information. It promotes the sharing of intelligence information among agencies involved in maritime transportation security and close coordination of security planning and operations among those agencies. To me, it is unfathomable that they could not do that anyway; that is, exchange information and get information. This bill will make sure that authority is there. The bill establishes a national transportation security card system to control personnel access to secure maritime terminal areas, including performing background checks on applicants. Again, I cannot believe we actually did not already have a system such as this in place. I hope the administration will, and I urge them to, work closely with the maritime industry, especially in those sectors with frequent personnel turnover, such as the inland waterway towing vessel industry, to address their needs for quick approval of employee access to these secure areas. We do not want to become another bureaucratic nightmare and maze of delay, but this system needs to be put in place. So I do believe this bill will help us to assess the effectiveness of our antiterrorism measures at foreign ports and to work with those ports to improve those measures. It will provide additional funds in this area. It will give the Coast Guard more authority and authorizes more assistance as they deal with marine safety and the maritime policy improvements. So this bill is a good achievement. I am glad we are getting it done. It may wind up being one of only four or five conference reports on which we do complete action before we leave at the end of this session, but this is one of which we should be proud. I commend the chairman, once again, for being willing to take my calls and sit down and say: Can't we just work together? We did and we got the results. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will begin by thanking Senator Daschle for his remarks so well delivered just now and also for conversations that he and I experienced in the aftermath of this tragic loss. I rise today also to pay tribute to the life and the service of Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. He had a real impact on this institution. He was a committed warrior to things he believed in. He did it not only with compassion but with sincerity and also generousness and geniality. He never failed to take the time to tell a story, to explain why he felt so strongly about these issues. He was unfailingly willing to be considerate of others, to seek an agreement as to how the process would work, even when it led to a battle of words and of votes. He also had such an upbeat, optimistic view of that process, that battle, and the next one. He would come over and say: ``Good job, I'll get you next time,'' if he hadn't won. Even when he might be the single vote, or one of a couple of votes--just a few--he was undaunted. You cannot help but admire that approach to life and to the Senate. I not only understand when Senators take a different view, I appreciate it when they take that view--the way Paul Wellstone did. I have learned over the years that the saying that seems trite is so true in life and in this institution: You can disagree without being disagreeable. He was the master at that. I appreciated the friendship we developed. I loved to pick at him. I loved to go over and kid him about the little extra face hair that he had for a while, and I would tell him he was my man for the nomination for Presidency. When other potential candidates would come up, I would say: Oh, no, I am already committed to Paul. He loved it, actually. He was very kind to me. When I faced difficult tragedies--as with Paul Coverdell, when I stood here with tears rolling down my face, announcing the loss of that great Senator--he would always be one of the first to come over and engage and say how he felt. Sometimes in difficult straits that the Senate has had to go through, when Senator Daschle and I had to make difficult decisions, he would be the only one who would come over and say: It was tough, I know, but you did the right thing. I remember that. So I think the people of Minnesota have an awful lot to be proud of in their Senator. When I went there to pay my respects to the people of Minnesota and to the family and to his friends and supporters, Senator Kennedy was on the bus as we were leaving the airport. He said: We appreciate the fact that you are here. I know you are here not just because you are the leader of the party, but because you wanted to pay proper respects. I said: I am here because it is the right thing to do, but also because, if the tables had been reversed and this was for me, Paul would have been there. I really believe that. So I take my hat off, I salute the Senator. He will be missed. The Senate will be different. But to the people and his family who are so heartbroken, to his friends and supporters and the people all over his State, our memory of him and his service will not be forgotten. He will go down in history as a truly unique Member of the Senate. I guess we all are in some respects but Paul more so than others. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I extend our welcome to our new Senator, Dean Barkley from Minnesota. I congratulate him on his selection and wish him well on behalf of the Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. I pledge to him my commitment and our commitment to work with him as he fills this interim appointment on behalf of the people of the great State of Minnesota. I reviewed his background. I have had a chance to visit with him. I know he is going to be very serious about this opportunity he has to do the right thing for his own State but also for our country. His experience as director of the Minnesota Planning and State Strategic and Long-term Planning Agency should serve him well in his time in the Senate. His involvement in the effort toward good government in his State, his participation in the reform party and the independence party, and as a matter of fact his friendship and work over the years with members of both parties, Democrat and Republican, will serve him well in this period that he will be in the Senate. We are looking forward to the opportunity to encourage him, to answer his questions, and to work with him on behalf of the people he will now represent. So I extend our congratulations and our welcome to Senator Barkley of Minnesota.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the people of the United States were shocked and saddened to learn of the cold blooded and cowardly attack on hundreds of Australian tourists vacationing on the island of Bali, on October 12. In a few shocking seconds our friends lost more of their fellow Australians than at any time since the darkest days of World War II. Although Australia is at the farthest corner of the earth, America has no greater friend or ally. Just this year Prime Minister John Howard addressed a joint session of the United States Congress to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the signing ANZUS Treaty, the document that has formally tied our strategic destinies together for the Food of the entire Asian Pacific Rim. But our relationship with Australia did not begin with the ratification of one treaty. American and Australian soldiers have fought together on every battlefield of the world from the Meuse Argonne in 1918 to the Mekong Delta and Desert Storm. In all of our major wars there has been one constant, Americans and Australians have been the vanguard of freedom. In fact when American troops launched their first combined assault on German lines in World War I, it was under the guidance of the legendary Australian fighter General John Monash. We share a common historic and cultural heritage. We are immigrant peoples forged from the British Empire. We conquered our continents and became a beacon of hope for people struggling to be free. For over 100 years, the United States and Australia have been the foundation for stability in the South Pacific. When America suffered its worse loss of life since December 7, 1941, the first nation to offer a helping hand was Australia. The day after the attacks on Washington and New York, Australia invoked the mutual defense clause of the ANZUS Treaty. They were the first to offer military support. Australian special forces are in Afghanistan and after Great Britain have made the largest per capita contribution to our efforts there. In the fight to break the back of al-Quaeda and the Taliban, Australian troops scaled the mountains around Tora Bora. Mr. President, we received another wake-up call on October 12. We can no longer let the nay sayers and the hand wringers counsel timidity have their way. The free world is clearly in the sights of fanatics who want to plunge us into a new dark age. Whether it be Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, or the coward who attacked men, women, and children on holiday in Bali, they are part of the same threat to free peoples. We send our heartfelt condolences to the people of Australia and pledge to stand with them in their fight for peace and freedom.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, last week, the Judiciary Committee pulled from their agenda the pending nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd to fill a seat on the 4th circuit court of appeals. That was contrary to all of the understandings as to what would happen with regard to that nominee. I think various Members on the judiciary committee on several occasions had been assured he would be given a vote. I think there is no question that Senator Thurmond had been under the impression there would be a vote on Shedd's nomination this year. Yet the nomination was removed from the calendar and, therefore, not even considered by the committee. A vote was not taken, and I presume it was blocked procedurally because there would have been enough votes in the Committee to actually report Shedd's nomination to the full Senate had there been a vote. I understand that moving to the executive calendar is traditionally a prerogative of the Majority Leader. However, there has been an extraordinary and unprecedented violation of Senate rules and tradition in the manner in which Judge Dennis Shedd's nomination was considered in the Judiciary Committee. I also believe that the manner in which Senator Thurmond was led on regarding Judge Shedd's nomination constituted a slight of Senator Thurmond during the final days of his long and distinguished Senate career. I remind Senators that we depend very heavily around here on comity and trust to do the vast majority of our business on behalf of the American people. When that trust is violated or misused it is hard to conduct business as usual. Mr. President, Dennis Shedd's nomination was finally put on the Judiciary Committee's agenda way back on Sept. 19, but was held over to the next mark-up which as it turned out was last Tuesday, October 8th. It is also my understanding that the normal practice is that when Senators in the Committee hold legislation and nominations over at a mark-up, the tradition and practice has always been that the items held over are placed on the very next mark-up. In this instance, the October 8th mark-up was actually postponed from the previous Thursday, October 3rd, so that Chairman Leahy could concentrate on passing the Department of Justice (DOJ) Re-authorization Conference Report. During the vote to invoke cloture on that bill, it is my understanding that Senator Thurmond was once again assured by Senator Leahy that Judge Shedd would be on the mark-up on October 8th. Unfortunately, that assurance as well as the practices and traditions of the Committee were violated last week because Judge Dennis Shedd's nomination was pulled from the committee's agenda--preventing the Committee from reporting him out to the full Senate. However, breeches in decorum regarding Judge Shedd and Senator Thurmond predate last week. On July 31st, Chairman Leahy publicly promised Senator Thurmond at a committee meeting that Judge Shedd would be voted on this year. When Shedd wasn't on the August 1st mark-up, Senator Leahy assured Senator Thurmond's Chief of Staff that Shedd would be voted on immediately after the August recess. When Shedd was not on the agenda for the first mark-up after the Senate returned in September--which was Sept. 5th-- Senator Thurmond then was assured that Dennis Shedd would be on the next mark-up on Sept. 19th. While Shedd was actually put on that mark-up on Sept. 19th, he was held over to the next mark-up--which is the right of Senators in the Committee to do. And then, as I said previously, contrary to tradition and practice, Shedd was kept off the agenda for the last mark-up of the year by Senator Leahy. Mr. President, there is no doubt about Judge Shedd's qualifications. He has strong bipartisan support. One of his most ardent supporters is the distinguished Democrat Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings. The ABA--the ``Gold Standard'' so often cited by Senator Leahy--gave Judge Shedd a ``Well Qualified'' rating, its highest rating. So, it is not Judge Shedd's qualifications which are standing in the way. He was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the United States District Court for South Carolina in 1990, and has now served as a federal jurist for more than a decade--following nearly twenty previous years of public service and legal practice. In addition to his service on the District Court, he has sat by designation on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on several occasions. Judge Shedd also has served on the Judicial Conference Committee of the Judicial Branch and its Subcommittee on Judicial Independence. From 1978 through 1988, Judge Shedd served in a number of different capacities in the United States Senate, including Counsel to the President Pro Tempore and Chief Counsel and Staff Director for the Senate Judiciary Committee when Senator Thurmond was the Chairman. Judge Shedd would bring unmatched experience to the Fourth Circuit. He has handled more than 4,000 civil cases since taking the bench and over 900 criminal matters. In fact, no judge currently sitting on the Fourth Circuit has as much federal trial experience as Judge Shedd, and none can match his ten years of experience in the legislative branch. Mr. President, Dennis Shedd's record demonstrates that he is a mainstream judge with a low reversal rate. In the more than 5,000 cases Judge Shedd has handled during his twelve years on the bench, he has been reversed fewer than 40 times (less than one percent). So, it should be clear that Judge Shedd is the victim of a deliberate, calculated, attempt by outside groups to embarrass one of President Bush's nominees and not any deficiency in his professional training or temperament. But Judge Shedd is not the only victim here. This is also an affront to Senator Thurmond in his final days as a Senator. We owe it to Senator Thurmond, as a sign of our respect and admiration for his distinguished service, to vote on the nomination of his former staff director before Senator Thurmond's career comes to an end--an action the Senator feels that Senator Leahy gave him his word he would do. Mr. President, the rules of the Senate provide a motion to discharge a nomination. I want to do that. But I am under no illusion that I would be allowed to make that motion and have it succeed under any circumstances. That has been tried on the other side of the aisle when I was majority leader, and I know that it would be interpreted as a partisan vote and that the majority leader would have to press his members not to allow that to happen. But I feel so strongly about the unfairness of the treatment of this nominee and the way it has reflected on Senator Thurmond that I have to take some action. The Senate must be in executive session in order to move to discharge a nomination. That would not happen. Having said that, we feel we must make another effort. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session; that the nomination of Dennis Shedd, to be a Fourth Circuit judge, be discharged from the Judiciary Committee and placed on the calendar; further, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no intervening action or debate; that following the vote the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that this action occur prior to the adjournment of the 107th Congress.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question and a suggestion?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are in session this week--today and I presume tomorrow. I guess there is a possibility we will be in session again next week. In view of the commitments that were made that this nominee would be considered by the committee, is there a chance there would be another executive session or markup session of the Judiciary Committee either tomorrow or next week to further consider this nomination, because at least 2 weeks will have transpired between the last time it was supposed to be considered and when the Senate would go out for the election, and possibly even after the election? The majority leader will note my UC just asked consent that it occur before the adjournment of the 107th Congress. I did not say today or next week, although, obviously, I feel strongly it should be considered soon. Is there a possibility something could be worked out in this regard?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe I still have the floor. I was asking the Senator to yield. He was still, I guess, proceeding under his objection. I take my time back. I would like to put some other issues into the Record. Mr. President, I do want to respond to the comments about the nominations that have been confirmed and those that are still pending. There have been 131 judicial nominations submitted by President Bush during the 107th Congress--32 U.S. circuit nominees; 98 district nominees, and one U.S. Court of International Trade judge. So far, 80 of the 131 nominees have been confirmed--14 U.S. circuit court judges and 66 district court judges. But the key figure is that there are still 49 nominations pending before the Senate, without final action 49 nominations. There are still 31 nominations pending in committee. Of the 16 U.S. circuit court positions that have not been confirmed--15 are still in the committee, just one is on the floor, and that one is the nominee for the Sixth Circuit, Mr. John Rogers, who has been pending on the Executive Calendar since July. I thought there had been an agreement that we would move that nomination before the August recess. Again, that circuit court nominee has been pending on the Senate floor since July--almost 4 months ago. And there are 15 other circuit nominees in committee, some of whom have been waiting over 500 days without even a hearing. As to district court nominees, there are still 15 of them in committee as well, and the 17 that are on the floor for consideration were just reported last week. I hope we will at least confirm those nominations before we leave, although on many occasions, we had to have recorded votes to move even district judges. I wonder if that means we are going to have to have 12, 14, 16, 17 recorded votes in the Senate on district judges to get them confirmed before we adjourn for the year. And, of course, the one USIT position is still pending in Committee and has been since December of last year. The key point is the alarming number of vacancies on the federal courts--77, which is almost 10 percent of federal judgeships. I understand from the Judicial Council and from the Chief Justice, that over 30 of these nominations are for seats that are considered emergency vacancies that need to be filled. We can always talk about percentages and numbers, Mr. President. For example, so far only 43 percent of this President's circuit nominations in his first 2 years have been confirmed. President Clinton got over 86 percent of his circuit nominees confirmed in his first 2 years in office, the first President Bush got 96 percent and President Reagan got 95 percent. Only 43 percent of circuit court judge nominations have been confirmed in this Congress compared to almost 90 percent for other Presidents over the past 20 years. That is a problem. I know there have been disagreements in the past about nominations when I was majority leader, but we did move large blocks of nominations. We had some approved that were very controversial and others were not moved in the final analysis. The problem with this particular nomination is not only the exceptional qualifications of the nominee and his history as a former judiciary committee staffer, but more importantly, the way Senator Thurmond has been treated in the process. Judge Shedd is eminently qualified for the job. He is a former staff director of the Judiciary Committee. And he has been a sitting Federal district judge for over a decade, confirmed by the Senate, probably unanimously. Nevertheless, after Senator Thurmond was given the word that he would have this nomination voted on before the year was out, this nomination was pulled from the calendar of the committee's last markup. Mr. President, that is simply a tragic conclusion to an almost five- decade career in the Senate. It is also in my view a violation of the unwritten rules of civility about which we all talk and aspire to in the Senate. That is why I will make a continued effort to find a way for this nominee to be considered by the committee and confirmed by the Senate in this Congress before Senator Thurmond retires. Senator Thurmond, Judge Shedd, and the American people deserve better. Senator Thurmond as an icon of this institution in his final days deserves better. And the honor and traditions of the U.S. Senate deserve better. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 shedd's background Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the United States District Court for South Carolina in 1990, Dennis W. Shedd has served as a federal jurist for more than a decade following nearly twenty years of public service and legal practice. In addition to his service on the District Court, he has sat by designation on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on several occasions. Judge Shedd also has served on the Judicial Conference Committee of the Judicial Branch and its Subcommittee on Judicial Independence. From 1978 through 1988, Judge Shedd served in a number of different capacities in the United States Senate, including Counsel to the President Pro Tempore and Chief Counsel and Staff Director for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Shedd is well-respected by members of the bench and bar in South Carolina. According to South Carolina plaintiff's attorney Joseph Rice, ``Shedd--who came to the bench with limited trial experience? has a good understanding of day-to-day problems that affect lawyers in his courtroom . . . He's been a straight shooter.'' [Legal Times, May 14, 2001.] According to the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, attorneys said that Judge Shedd has outstanding legal skills and an excellent judicial temperament. A few comments from South Carolina lawyers: ``You are not going to find a better judge on the bench or one that works harder.'' ``He's the best federal judge we've got.'' ``He gets an A all around.'' ``It's a great experience trying cases before him.'' ``He's polite and businesslike.'' Plaintiffs lawyers commended Shedd for being even-handed: ``He has always been fair.'' ``I have no complaints about him. He's nothing if not fair.'' [Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, Vol. 1, 1999.] Judge Shedd would bring unmatched experience to the Fourth Circuit. He has handled more than 4,000 civil cases since taking the bench and over 900 criminal matters. In fact, no judge currently sitting on the Fourth Circuit has as much federal trial experience as Judge Shedd, and none can match his ten years of experience in the legislative branch. Shedd's record demonstrates that he is a mainstream judge with a low reversal rate. In the more than 5,000 cases Judge Shedd has handled during his twelve years on the bench, he has been reversed fewer than 40 times (less than one percent). Since taking his seat on the Fourth Circuit in 2001, Judge Roger Gregory (a Democrat appointed by President Bush) has written opinions affirming several of Judge Shedd's rulings.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe under the agreement, I have 15 minutes of this time.

Mr. LOTT. I will use approximately 5 minutes of the time and yield the remainder of my time to Senator Warner. I would like to begin by saying how much I appreciate the work that has been done here in handling this legislation, having a full debate. Senator Warner has been here joining in the discussion, Senator Reid, Senator McCain. There has been a serious effort to make sure we had an orderly process where Senators could make their feelings known. There has been thoughtful discussion on both sides of the issue, and there might have been one or two quorum calls the whole time because Senators have known, when you come to the floor, this will be your opportunity to speak on this issue. And there will be more time today. As I look at the schedule that was lined up through the diligent efforts of Senator Warner, Senator McCain, and Senator Reid, we are going to have votes on amendments-- even amendments that would not be germaine postcloture. There has been a real effort to make sure Senator Byrd and Senators Levin, Durbin, Boxer, and others have an opportunity to offer amendments and make their case. We will have five votes between now and approximately 4 o'clock this afternoon. Mr. President, I remember the discussion back in 1991 on the Persian Gulf resolution. I think we had about 2 days of debate previously, and 2 \1/2\ days when we actually took up the debate--when it passed. It was a very important debate. I thought it was an occasion when the Senate proved it is the world's greatest deliberative body. It was very serious. Every Senator spoke, we had the vote, and it passed. I thought it was one of the high-water marks since I have served in the Senate. It was only 2 \1/2\ days and every Senator got a chance to speak. In 1998, at the request of President Clinton, I moved aggressively, in a bipartisan way, to pass the Iraqi Liberation Act. As I recall, at that time, Senator Kyl worked with me on that issue, Senator Warner was involved, as were Senators Kerry and Lieberman, and we passed that resolution, which also called for a regime change unanimously, with very short debate--as I recall, maybe even a half day, or a day at the most. But it was important debate and an important vote. So when we have been called on by Presidents of both parties to address this very serious issue in this very serious area of the world, we have handled it in the right way. I think that is the case here. Senators were told in my conference, and I know Senator Daschle told his side's conference, you will be able to speak on Friday and, again, on Monday. We will stay as long as you need. We had all day yesterday. A great effort was made to make sure Senators had a chance to speak. Now Senators have a chance to offer amendments and speak on them. After the vote between 3 and 4 o'clock, there will be more time because Senators do feel strongly about this and want an opportunity to be heard. They are going to have that opportunity. I believe this issue has been aired fully. It is not new. We have been worrying about this, talking about this, and debating the seriousness of the threat from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction for years--really, for 11 years. There is new information that is available. We have had our classified briefings. I have made sure Senators on our side--and I know the administration has made sure Senators on both sides of the aisle--have had a chance to get briefings at multiple opportunities. So Senators know what the issue is. We have seen, yesterday, Senators from both parties moving toward giving the President the authority to do this job. I hope we can get inspectors in there, that they can find the weapons of mass destruction, and they are destroyed. But I don't trust Saddam Hussein. His record is clear. I think, once again, he will resist, he will agree, he will dissemble. In the end, he will try to block this. You can always hope and pray we will find a solution here. The President of the United States has listened to the American people, to the Congress, to the U.N, and our allies. The President came to the Congress and said, yes, I want your input. He sent up some suggested language on this resolution, and it was changed once and then twice; significant changes were made at the recommendation of Senators on both sides of the aisle. So he has worked with us in this effort. He encouraged our involvement and our debate. He has gone to the U.N. and called on them to stand up to their commitment and do their job, and quit passing resolutions that are not backed or demanded to be complied with, with force if necessary. He did the job. He and his administration, including the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, have worked with allies at the U.N. and with our allies around the world. This President has made it clear he is not going to act precipitously, but he is prepared to act. This President has led with commitment and has shown leadership. He is prepared to try to find a peaceful solution here. But unless we make it clear he is committed, we are committed, and the U.N. is committed, this problem will not go away. It is serious and it is imminent. It takes but one person with a small container to bring very dangerous weapons of mass destruction into this country. Some people say, why now? Well, because the threat is not going to lessen. It has been 4 years since we passed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998. I suspect matters have gotten much worse. Besides that, the U.N. is going to be leaving soon for the year and won't be back until next August. We want to see action from the U.N. We need to act to show our commitment, and we need to show our determination to get them to act in a way that has real force. I think we have had a full debate and we will have more debate. To try to delay it another day, another week, is not going to be helpful. We need to stand up now, show we mean what we say, and we are going to get the results and, by doing that, perhaps something can be worked out without the use of force. But this President has asked for this. This Senate is committed to this. I believe the vote will be overwhelming. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. There will be times for postcloture debate. We have bent over backward to make sure everybody had an opportunity and will still have an opportunity to speak and even offer amendments. With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Virginia, who has done a magnificent job in fairly managing this legislation.