Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Jo-Anne Coe, who made history as the first woman to serve as the Secretary of the Senate after our good friend Bob Dole became Majority Leader in 1985, died suddenly on Friday, September 27, of an aneurysm. We all have experienced the love and friendship of those most loyal staff who work for and with us over a period of years and eras in our lives. And I am calling to the Senate's attention today the loss of Jo- Anne Coe because she was an especially cherished friend and confidante of the entire Dole family, most recently serving as Bob's indispensable Chief of Staff in the private sector. Some referred to her as Bob's alter ego or ``Bob Dole in an ultra suede suit.'' All who knew her respected and admired her talent and loyalty to Bob and the Senate institution. On behalf of the entire Senate family, I offer our profound sympathy and prayers to Jo-Anne's family, especially to her daughter Kathryn Lee Coe Coombs of Alexandria, VA. I ask unanimous consent that a tribute to Jo-Anne Coe be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Tennessee Valley Authority has long served as an engine for economic development in my part of the country and has enjoyed widespread support for its efforts to provide power that is needed to fuel the economy and enhance the quality of life of those it serves. It is my desire to assist the TVA in continuing its legacy and carrying out its mission. To provide that assistance, the Congress, the Administration, and the TVA itself must determine whether TVA's policies, practices, and long-term strategies are consistent with the realities of today's marketplace. The TVA is at a crossroads in its illustrious history. The United States taxpayer and the power consumers in the TVA service area have provided the capital necessary to develop, finance, and operate one of the largest, if not the largest, public power systems in history. The TVA is now facing a number of challenges with respect to its existing generating system in the form of environmental compliance, aging and obsolete plants, and the urgent need to provide additional generating capacity to meet the demands of the future. It is my belief that the United States taxpayer is unwilling and unable to continue to bear the financial burden and risks associated with addressing these challenges. The reality of the marketplace for energy and the political imperatives with which we are confronted mandate that any new financing strategies and supplemental sources of capital be considered and utilized by the TVA. Likewise, we need to review and analyze the short- term and long-term financing and risk management strategies employed by the TVA with respect to its almost $26 billion of debt. During 2002, we have witnessed the results of risky and sometimes corrupt corporate financing and management practices. Although I have no reason to believe that TVA has been involved in any such practices, I believe we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to examine the financing and disclosure practices of the TVA to ensure that their investment is being protected. I note that TVA has utilized short-term financing facilities and derivative securities as hedging and interest rate management techniques. We need to better understand the risks and rewards associated with these strategies. The legislation that I am introducing today would require that the TVA provide the Congress and the Administration with a 10-year business outlook and strategic plan with respect to its development and financing needs, as well as an analysis of its ongoing financing and risk management strategies. During the period in which the TVA is responding to this Congressional mandate, the TVA would be required to cease and desist from incurring new obligations or entering into any arrangements for the development or financing of new, additional, or replacement plant, equipment, or capacity. Likewise, during this period the TVA would be required to gain the concurrence of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the appropriate Senate and House Committee leaders before undertaking any additional financing or refinancing activities. The legislation specifically provides for the necessary flexibility for the TVA to continue normal operations and fund necessary maintenance activities while complying with this Congressional mandate. I strongly support the TVA and I recognize its importance to the economic health of several states in the southeastern United States, including my own. Indeed, the TVA is a critical component of the infrastructure that supports the economy of the entire United States. It is my desire in introducing this legislation that the TVA be positioned to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Introduction of this legislation is the first step to help the TVA achieve that goal.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Tennessee Valley Authority has long served as an engine for economic development in my part of the country and has enjoyed widespread support for its efforts to provide power that is needed to fuel the economy and enhance the quality of life of those it serves. It is my desire to assist the TVA in continuing its legacy and carrying out its mission. To provide that assistance, the Congress, the Administration, and the TVA itself must determine whether TVA's policies, practices, and long-term strategies are consistent with the realities of today's marketplace. The TVA is at a crossroads in its illustrious history. The United States taxpayer and the power consumers in the TVA service area have provided the capital necessary to develop, finance, and operate one of the largest, if not the largest, public power systems in history. The TVA is now facing a number of challenges with respect to its existing generating system in the form of environmental compliance, aging and obsolete plants, and the urgent need to provide additional generating capacity to meet the demands of the future. It is my belief that the United States taxpayer is unwilling and unable to continue to bear the financial burden and risks associated with addressing these challenges. The reality of the marketplace for energy and the political imperatives with which we are confronted mandate that any new financing strategies and supplemental sources of capital be considered and utilized by the TVA. Likewise, we need to review and analyze the short- term and long-term financing and risk management strategies employed by the TVA with respect to its almost $26 billion of debt. During 2002, we have witnessed the results of risky and sometimes corrupt corporate financing and management practices. Although I have no reason to believe that TVA has been involved in any such practices, I believe we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to examine the financing and disclosure practices of the TVA to ensure that their investment is being protected. I note that TVA has utilized short-term financing facilities and derivative securities as hedging and interest rate management techniques. We need to better understand the risks and rewards associated with these strategies. The legislation that I am introducing today would require that the TVA provide the Congress and the Administration with a 10-year business outlook and strategic plan with respect to its development and financing needs, as well as an analysis of its ongoing financing and risk management strategies. During the period in which the TVA is responding to this Congressional mandate, the TVA would be required to cease and desist from incurring new obligations or entering into any arrangements for the development or financing of new, additional, or replacement plant, equipment, or capacity. Likewise, during this period the TVA would be required to gain the concurrence of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the appropriate Senate and House Committee leaders before undertaking any additional financing or refinancing activities. The legislation specifically provides for the necessary flexibility for the TVA to continue normal operations and fund necessary maintenance activities while complying with this Congressional mandate. I strongly support the TVA and I recognize its importance to the economic health of several states in the southeastern United States, including my own. Indeed, the TVA is a critical component of the infrastructure that supports the economy of the entire United States. It is my desire in introducing this legislation that the TVA be positioned to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Introduction of this legislation is the first step to help the TVA achieve that goal.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe in just a moment the Senate will be ready to move to completion on the Department of Justice authorization conference report. Mr. President, I say to Senator Kyl from Arizona, who has been speaking for the last several minutes, that I appreciate his speech and his very effective and diligent work. He cares an awful lot about national security, about our defense capability, and about our intelligence communities, and his position on what we need to do in Iraq. It is not easy being a member of the Intelligence Committee sometimes. It takes a lot of extra meetings, a lot of briefings, and an awful lot that you can't talk about. For a Member of the Senate, that is tough. But Senator Kyl certainly does a good job in that effort. Order Of Procedure

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there is no more solemn and important duty for the Senate, in my opinion, than to debate the momentous issues of war and peace. I remember in 1991 when we debated the gulf war resolution that it took on a very serious aura. Every Senator spoke. Senators actually came to the floor and listened to the debate. It was a challenge. Not a one of us didn't feel some amount of concern and trepidation and respect for the importance of that vote. I think we are fixing to embark on a debate of that magnitude again today. The issue of Iraq is one that we are concerned about and which we have been wrestling with for 11 years. But I think that today on the issue of Iraq we have reached what Winston Churchill called ``not the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning.'' After weeks of careful preparation and bipartisan negotiation--it has been truly bipartisan on both sides of the aisle in the Senate, and in the House it has been a bicameral effort--I believe the Senate will, once again, show why it is called ``the greatest deliberative body.'' I think we will have some very interesting and very thoughtful speeches that will be given next week. Obviously, we will not all agree. Obviously, we will have respect for each other--no matter what the position may be. But I think, in the end, we are going to see we are going to have a very broad, bipartisan vote expressing our concern about what this situation is in Iraq, about the fact the United Nations resolutions-- all 16 of them--have been ignored, for the most part, for 11 years, and it is time we take action to avoid some horrendous events that could occur if we do not. I believe we will give the President the authority he needs to deal with this problem. I want to emphasize this President has listened, and he has also challenged us. He has shown commitment and leadership. Some of us in Congress were saying: We want to hear from the President. Come to us. Tell us what you know. Tell us what you want. Let us have a debate. Let us have a vote. He did so, and he continues to work with us to this very moment. Some people said: Oh, well, you have to take your case to the United Nations. Let the United Nations be a part of this. Encourage the United Nations--in fact, demand the United Nations--live up to its responsibility and its own resolutions. The President did that. He went to the United Nations and gave one of the most impressive speeches I believe he has ever given. He gave the bill of particulars to the world community about what the problems are and why we had to deal with this menace. I think it changed the United Nations. And while we still do not have a resolution from the United Nations, I know Secretary Powell is working on that. I know the President and others are talking to the world community. I have had the occasion, as the Republican leader of the Senate, to talk to representatives from seven countries over the past 2 weeks and get a feel for what they are thinking and what their concerns are, what their suggestions are. So this President is working with us, with the United Nations, and with the world community. As the Republican leader, I have entertained views from all sides of our own caucus. When we got the first draft of the Iraq resolution, every word was not accepted as being perfect or brilliant. There were some suggestions made, and I listened to them. In fact, I remember there was one phrase in the resolution, when I read it the first time, I said: What does that really mean? I don't think I really like that. So we did have input. We did have the first draft sent by the President, but the President invited our input and our participation in the development of this resolution, and changes were made. We had the first resolution, the second resolution, the third resolution, and now the bipartisan resolution that was introduced in the Senate by Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, Senator McCain, and Senator Bayh. It is the resolution we should consider. Will there be another alternative? Perhaps. I have no problem with that. Will there perhaps be an amendment that is agreed to in advance? Perhaps. I have no problem with that. I do think we are going to have a problem if we just allow this to be endlessly amended. It would be a filibuster by amendment. I think we need to have a full debate but be prepared to go to votes on these important issues by the middle of next week. Senator Daschle, perhaps, will give his own thinking about the specifics of when we might begin to get to some votes. I have listened to opinions on the other side of the aisle, too. I did not just talk to Senator Shelby or Senator Lugar or Senator McCain or Senator Warner or Senator Hutchinson. I talked to Senators on both sides of the aisle, and so did the administration. Because of this, I think we have been able, with the help of the White House and the combined House leadership, to emerge with a strong resolution we now present to the Congress and to the world. For those who brought us to this moment--the President, the Speaker, Congressman Gephardt, Senators Lieberman, Warner, McCain, Bayh, Daschle, and others--who are involved in this process, I think the Nation should be grateful. I believe the result of this debate, and the resolution we will vote on next week, will lead to a safer world. Let me make it clear from the outset, no one--not the President, not any Member of Congress--desires to see our men and women engaged in a fight in Iraq or anywhere unless it is absolutely necessary. Our history shows that Americans do not seek war; we always are slow to anger. But we got plenty mad last year because of the horror we saw here at home. We now realize the danger is not just over there, as they said in World War I and World War II. Oh, no, it is here. One suicide bomber, with a weapon of mass destruction, is a threat to thousands, perhaps millions. We are the only Nation in history, though, after having been involved in a war, a conflict, that has turned around and offered a helping hand to all the peoples of the world, including our enemies. We helped in Japan. We helped in Germany. We have done it over and over again. There is no greater force for good than the United States of America. When our security and our people are threatened, we act swiftly and decisively. But what we want for everybody is opportunity and freedom and democracy--or to choose what they want if they don't want democracy; make that choice. We want to be safe and secure here at home. That is what this is all about. We are good people, with attributes from our forefathers I am very proud of. But we are very serious about protecting our people at this critical time. I will save the catalog of Saddam Hussein's crimes for another time, probably about the middle of next week. But today we begin the process of ensuring this violent and cruel man can no longer menace us, his neighbors, and his own people. It is up to us today to send a message to the world, and to America's friends--particularly the Prime Minister of Great Britain, who has shown great strength--that we do appreciate what they have done, and we thank them for their support and courage, and we are committed to stand with them to eliminate the threat this rogue regime poses to peace in the world. Let there be no mistake either; the elimination of the Iraqi threat is essential if we are to win the war on terror. We know Saddam Hussein's ongoing relationship with the dark forces of international terrorism. Some people say: Show us a smoking gun. Well, there is a lot of smoke out there. We do know of a lot of things that are ongoing, and we will get into some greater discussion of that next week. We know other evil regimes are looking to see if he, Saddam Hussein, can once again bluff his way out of trouble, thereby emboldening others to seek more deadly means to threaten the United States and the civilized world. This has huge meaning. If we now go through the process of huffing and puffing and saying we are going to take action, and there are going to be inspections, and there is going to be the destruction of these weapons, and if not, we are prepared to do whatever is necessary, including using force, and we do not do it, the ramifications will be endlessly negative. The President, answering his critics who decry so-called American unilateralism, has put the case before the world. For 11 years, Saddam Hussein has flaunted the will of the United Nations. He has amassed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. He has gassed his own people. He has shown blatant contempt for the rule of law and the United Nations. If the United Nations is to be a force for peace, it must show it stands ready to meet this ongoing threat in the international community. If it does not, it will be consigned to the ash heap of history, as the League of Nations was before it--a grand idea unable to cope or confront evil dictators bent on the destruction of world peace. I said at the outset this vote is the ``end of the beginning.'' The Senate will rise to the occasion, as it has throughout its eventful history. As we engage in this momentous debate, let us ensure by its conclusion we will have set in motion ``the beginning of the end'' of Saddam Hussein and all for which he stands. Now, I see Senator Daschle is in the Chamber. I thank him for his effort in this regard. We do not always agree. We have a lot of conversations people don't even know about to try to come to a fair agreement on how to proceed. We talk about process, and we still have a way to go. But here, in a few minutes, we will officially begin this debate, an important debate. Every Senator will have his or her chance to have their say. I believe Senator Daschle has in mind a process most Senators will feel is fair--I hope all Senators. At the end of the day, in a reasonable period of time, we will get to a vote. But as we started, I thought it was important we express our appreciation for what has been done, and our reassurance to the American people and our colleagues we are going to ensure it be done in a respectful way, regardless of positions, but that it produces a result which is going to be good for America. Madam President, may I inquire, is it anticipated this would be the last vote of the day but that we would continue in session as long as any Senator wishes to speak?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we now in a period of time that has been set aside for the appropriate recognition of the great service of Senator Helms?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is with a great deal of pleasure but also sadness that I come today to pay tribute to the great Senator from North Carolina--sadness because I have enjoyed so much knowing him and working with him over the last 30 years, watching him in the Senate and in North Carolina and across America, loving him in so many ways and being inspired by him. I remember when I first came to the Senate, he said: Thank goodness the cavalry is arriving. I said: Senator Helms, we will be glad to be the light cavalry for your heavy artillery any day. So it is a moment of sadness but also of celebration of a great life, a great Senator, a lovely wife and a great family. Dot Helms is just the sweetest woman in the world. We come today to wish them much happiness and many years of enjoying their grandchildren and their beloved home in North Carolina in the years ahead. So it is with mixed emotions. When the Duke of Wellington peered through his spyglass and saw Napoleon astride his white charger crossing the field of Waterloo, he turned to an aide and said, ``The wave of his hat is worth 40,000 men on the field.'' For me, and many others, that is the way it is when Jesse Helms walks on to the floor of the Senate. Like his mentor Richard Russell, a Democrat, Jesse Helms transcends his times. He is the Senator's Senator. To many of us, Jesse Helms is a hero of almost mythic proportions. To those of us from the South, he exemplifies what we were taught in Sunday school and aspired to be--the true gentleman, soft spoken, innately fair, unfailingly courteous, and a man to whom his word is his bond. That is the Jesse Helms that so many of the staffers and so many of us know on a personal basis. It is not necessarily the one that one has seen portrayed sometime in the media, but that is the one we really know, an incomparable gentleman. For 30 years, he has combined the rare qualities of humility and vision; love of country and statesmanship; and a faith in God and freedom that made him a legend across many parts of America and around the world. Senator Helms believes that the most sublime word in the English language is ``duty''--duty to God, to country, to the Constitution, and to family. As I noted, if one reads some of the national media, they get a completely different impression. He long ago was labeled ``Senator No,'' and they condemned him to the liberal version of purgatory. I think what really made him mad was that Senator Helms was the one politician who never really cared too much about what the chattering classes had to say. After all, he had been one of them. He pays attention to the English language. He was a journalist. He had higher commitments on which he was focused. What counts to Jesse Helms in the end is what people say in Monroe, Rocky Mount, Dunn, the larger cities and hundreds of small towns and churches across the ``Old North State,'' as they call it in North Carolina. Jesse likes to tell a story recounted to him by another great North Carolinian, the late Senator Sam Ervin, also a Democrat. When ``Senator Sam'' picked up a copy of the Charlotte Observer one day and read what it had to say about him, he shook his head in disgust. The fellow selling the paper was an old man named Lum Garrison. Senator Helms liked to talk about Lum Garrison. When Lum saw how upset the Senator was, he said: Don't worry, Sam. The Charlotte Observer don't know nothing and they got it mixed up. Incidentally, it was Jesse's friend Sam Ervin who walked out of his home in Morganton, NC, when Senator Helms was in the political fight of his life in 1984, faced down the news media and endorsed Jesse Helms for reelection. Senator Ervin bucked his own party and his Governor when he said there are many intelligent people in public life but few of them are courageous. Jesse Helms is courageous. That was from Sam Ervin. If we listen to what some people say, we would not know that Jesse is the son of a small town sheriff, and that he and his beloved wife of 60 years, Dorothy--or ``Dot''--have three children, one of them adopted, and seven grandchildren. We would not know that Jesse Helms was the father of the United Cerebral Palsy Telethon and that he never lost an election, whether it was for the Raleigh city council or the Senate. We would not know it was Jesse Helms who defied a sitting Republican President to rescue the moribund candidacy of a former actor and Governor of California in the 1976 North Carolina Republican primary, thus laying the groundwork for the Reagan revolution 4 years later. We would not know that the positions he championed singlehandedly for so many years, the sanctity of life, smaller government, lower taxes, welfare reform, prayer in schools, and an American-centered foreign policy are now in the mainstream of American political thought. Senator Helms is an uncompromising foe of the enemies of freedom. When some politicians were trying to make peace with communism, accepting the ``inevitability of history,'' Jesse jeered the Soviet Union and its acolytes, echoing Winston Churchill's words, ``We will have no parley with Communists or the grisly gang who worked their wicked will.'' He gave inspiration to Margaret Thatcher and Alexander Solzhenitsen and freedom fighters throughout the world. He was a friend of Sadat and Begin and championed the cause of the American military when that cause was in some ways out of favor. In the 1970s, when some people would say freedom was in retreat, no one was as fearless or courageous in crusading for liberty as Jesse Helms. When he spoke, the Kremlin and Castro trembled. The great English Prime Minister William Gladstone noted that the Senate was one of the most remarkable political institutions invented by the mind of men. This place has been witness to some great giants, men and women, who have made a difference. Obviously, we all think about Webster and Clay and Calhoun and Russell. When Jesse Helms retires to North Carolina with Dot, he will join this rollcall of American heroes and take with him the thanks of a grateful Nation. We won't see his like again anytime soon. You have earned, Senator Helms, as you leave this institution, the recognition of having done the job, having completed the race.

Mr. LOTT. ``Well done, my good and faithful servant.'' Thank you so much for what you have done for all of us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Wayne Boyles, Jimmy Broughton, Anne Chitwood, David Crotts, Sonja Damuth, Michele Dekonty, Pat Devine, Shane Fernando, Sherri Hupart, Joe Lanier, Matt Leggett, Judy Lovell, Ruthie McGinn, Langley Moretz, Elizabeth Parker, Mary Lynn Qurnell, Jim Schollaert, Kelly Spearman, Ricky Welborn, David Whitney, Sara Battaglia, Jose Cardenas, Richard Douglas, Walter ``Skip'' Fischer, Brian Fox, Jeffrey Gibbs, Philip Griffin, Kristopher Klaich, Carolyn Leddy, Walter Lohman, Patricia ``Patti'' McNerney, David Merkel, Lester Munson, Susan Oursler, Maurice Perkins, Jedidiah Royal, Kelly Siekman, and Susan Williams for the duration of this morning's tribute to Senator Helms of North Carolina.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding Naval Officer, Commander Dave Manero, for the tremendous work he has done as a member of my staff during the second session of the 107th Congress. It is my privilege to recognize his many career accomplishments and to commend him for the superb service he has provided the Navy, the great State of Mississippi, and our Nation. Commander Manero is the son of Carmen and Rosemary Manero of Highland Park, NJ. He earned his commission through NROTC at the University of Pennsylvania where he graduated in 1988 with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering. He received his Wings of Gold from Helicopter Training Squadron Eight at NAS Whiting Field, FL. on July 7, 1989. Following flight school, Commander Manero reported to Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light, HSL, 41 where he received training in the SH-60B Seahawk with a follow-on tour at the HSL-45 `Wolfpack.' While assigned to the Wolfpack, he deployed in USS Paul F. Foster, DD- 964, as Detachment One Operations Officer in support of Operation Desert Storm. During the Gulf War, he worked in close coordination with British Lynx helicopters in the destruction of six hostile surface combatants. He subsequently cruised as Detachment Three Maintenance Officer embarked in USS Jarrett, FFG-33, in support of Operation Southern Watch. He was presented with the 1991 Naval Helicopter Association national ``Aircrew of the Year'' and the 1993 Wolfpack ``Officer of the Year'' awards. Commander Manero's next assignment included selection for the Navy's Advanced Education Program where he attended a two-year Masters Program at Harvard University. He graduated in 1995 with a Master of Public Policy specializing in International Affairs and Security. After graduate school, Commander Manero was assigned as Flag Lieutenant, Commander Carrier Group ONE located in San Diego, CA. He deployed to the South Pacific embarked in USS Blue Ridge, LCC-19, and Arabian Gulf in USS Carl Vinson, CVN-70, as a member of the fly-away Joint Forces Air Component Commander's staff. Commander Manero returned again to the East Coast where he attended the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School and graduated in December 1997 with Class 112. In January 1998, he reported in to the Naval Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Squadron in Patuxent River, MD where he served as a Test Pilot and as the Sea-Control Department Head. A Member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, he has accumulated over 2800 flight hours in over 30 different aircraft types. In May 1999, Commander Manero reported to the HSL-43 `BattleCats' where he served as Training Officer, Detachment Officer-in-Charge and Squadron Maintenance Officer. Prior to his detachment from his department head tour, he was selected for Commander and was nominated for the prestigious `John Paul Jones Inspirational Leadership' award. Dave is currently assigned as a Legislative Fellow on my staff and has made tremendous contributions towards shaping our Navy's future through the DD(X), Littoral Combat Ship, LHD, and LHR programs. He also was instrumental in securing over $108 million in Military Construction funding for Mississippi. I offer my sincere congratulations for Dave's recent selection to command. He will depart my staff in December to take command of a squadron in mid-2004. Throughout his most distinguished career, Dave has served the United States Navy and our Nation with pride and excellence. His awards include the Air Medal, two Strike Flight, the Navy Commendation Medal, five, two with Combat Valor distinction, the Navy Achievement Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, and numerous other campaign and unit distinctions. Commander Dave Manero has been an integral member of my staff and has contributed greatly to the best-trained, best-equipped, and best- prepared naval force in the history of the world. Dave's superb leadership, integrity, and limitless energy have had a profound impact on my entire staff and will continue to positively impact the United States Navy and our Nation. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I wish Dave, his wife Justina, and their children Michael and Elizabeth ``Fair Winds and Following Seas'' and the best of luck in their bright future.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding Air Force officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jim ``Scorch'' Hecker, upon his departure from my staff. Lieutenant Colonel Hecker was selected as an Air Force Fellow to work in my office during the Second Session of the 107th Congress due to his professional reputation and superior knowledge of Defense issues, the United States Air Force requirements process, and the military presence in my home State. He has been a valued team member and it is a privilege for me to recognize his many outstanding achievements and the superior service he has provided the United States Senate, the Air Force, and our Nation. Lieutenant Colonel Hecker, the son of Rick Hecker and Cindy Walker, was a graduate of the Air Force Academy where he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant. Since then, Lieutenant Colonel Hecker has spent the majority of his career patrolling the world's skies as an Air Force fighter pilot. Following flight training, he began his service flying the F-15C ``Eagle'' in the 8th Fighter Squadron, 49th Tactical Fighter Wing at Holloman AFB, NM. When the F-15C's left Holloman AFB, so did Lieutenant Colonel Hecker. He was reassigned to the 390th Fighter Squadron, 366th Wing, Mountain Home AFB, ID. During this tour, Lieutenant Colonel Hecker was instrumental in bedding down the F-15C aircraft in the first Composite Wing in the Air Force. After this tour, Lieutenant Colonel Hecker attended the Air Force Weapons School at Nellis AFB, NV with a follow-on tour at the 44th Fighter Squadron, 18th Air Base, Okinawa, Japan. As the squadron Weapons Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Hecker was the lead pilot responsible for preparing the squadron to go to war. During this tour, Lieutenant Colonel Hecker deployed in support of Operations SOUTHERN WATCH where he led combat missions patrolling the skies over Iraq enforcing the no-fly zone. In July 1998, Lieutenant Colonel Hecker was handpicked to return as an instructor at the Air Force Weapons School where he deployed in support of Operation ALLIED FORCE. Lieutenant Colonel Hecker led 10 combat missions and was the focal point in the Combined Air Operations Center C5 Strategy Cell for resolving air-to-air issues. In 2000, Lieutenant Colonel Hecker left the cockpit to serve on the staff of the Secretary of the Air Force in Washington, DC as an Air Force Senate Liaison Officer and then was selected to serve as a Military Legislative Fellow during the 2nd session of the 107th Congress. Lieutenant Colonel Hecker quickly became a valued member of my staff sharing his proven operational experience and insightful knowledge on a number of Department of Defense issues, including defense health care, operational beddown of C-17 and C-130J aircraft, various weapons systems, military construction, university research programs, and economic development projects. Specifically, Jim was instrumental in helping the Air Force gain Congressional support for the F/A-22 aircraft and solve the weather radar problem with the WC-130J aircraft at Keesler AFB. He helped me articulate a successful case for adding funding for additional maintenance training simulators and military construction projects that will help ensure the successful beddown in Jackson, MS of the first ever C-17 aircraft assigned to the National Guard. He successfully negotiated with Northrop Grumman Corporation to move the production of the Global Hawk's wing as well as full assembly of the Fire Scout to Mississippi. Lieutenant Colonel Hecker's coordination with the staffs of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee led to over $108 million in military construction funding for Mississippi's military bases. Lieutenant Colonel Hecker is married to the former Terrie Lee Draney of Colorado Springs, CO. They have two children, 7 year-old son Jaden and 5 year-old son Colton. The Congress and the country applaud the selfless commitment his entire family has made to the Nation in supporting his military career. Among Lieutenant Colonel Hecker's many awards and decorations are the Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Air Medal with oak leaf cluster, and Air Force Achievement Medal along with numerous other campaign and unit distinctions. Lieutenant Colonel Hecker will return to the Air Force at Langley AFB, VA where he will once again control the skies in the F-15C. I have appreciated greatly Lieutenant Colonel Hecker's contributions to my team and I will miss him. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I wish Lieutenant Colonel Hecker and his family ``Good Hunting and Godspeed.''

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to honor U.S. Coast Guard Port Security Unit 308 from Gulfport, MS. Port Security Unit 308 deployed to Southwest Asia for 6 months in support of Operation Southern Watch in March 2002 after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The unit was able to quickly restructure and produce a 53-person detachment for harbor security operations in support of enhanced Force Protection of United States Assets in the Arabian Gulf. The brave men and women of Port Security Unit 308 Detachment Foxtrot provided around the clock anti-terrorism Force Protection for all Fifth Fleet Naval assets located in the Mina Salmon area of responsibility. Waterside patrols logged over 4300 underway hours that included 291 escorts of U.S. Fifth Fleet Naval ships along with performing 1,481 intercepts. In addition to the escorts and intercepts, over 320 inspections were conducted. During the past six months while performing AT/FP, USCG PSU 308 Detachment Foxtrot was responsible for the safety of over 25,000 military personnel. I would also like to recognize MK1 Eddie Spann and BM2 Billy Mcleod who were recognized for their outstanding performance by being selected as Sailors of the Month, June 2002, for Naval Security Forces, Naval Support Activity, Bahrain. I ask all my colleagues to join me in a round of applause for the fine individuals who are dedicated to winning the war on terrorism. The following members from Port Security Unit 308 deployed in support of Operation Southern Watch: LTJG Edward Ahlstrand, PSC James Altiere, PS1 Michael Beshears, BM3 Shannon Brewer, PS2 Ronald Brown, QMC David Conner, BM3 William Courtenay, PS1 Blevin Davis, CAPT Ronald Davis, GM3 Robert Dambrino, BM3 Samuel Edwards, TCC Patrecia Geistfeld, LCDR Robert Grassino, MK1 Kenneth Hall, BM3 Charles Hartley, GM3 William Harvey, BM2 Roger Holland, PS2 Darrell Holsenback, BM3 John Hughes, YN1 Brian Hutchinson, HS1 Jason Jordan, BM2 Jim Kinney, MKCM Potenciano Ladut, BM3 Gene Lipps, BM3 Bradford Margherio, PS3 Marcella McDow, BM3 James McKnight, BM2 Billy McLeod, YN2 Tamara Mims, BM3 Paul Muscat, DC3 Jonathan Pajeaud, BM3 Jonathan Phillips, BMC Lisa Pilko, BM1 Darren Rankin, LCDR Michael Rost, SK1 George Scherff, BM3 Terry Sercovich, PS3 David Simonson, PS3 Russell Shoultz, PS3 Benjamin Smith, LT Robert Smyth, MK1 Eddie Spann, BM3 Jordan Stafford, ET2 Stephen Strausbaugh, BM3 James Strempel, PS2 Jon Traxler, ENS Ted Trujillo, LT Timothy Weisend, PS2 Danny Welch, GMC Edward West, GM3 Lewis West, PS3 David Wood, GM3 Joshua Yarborough.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I renew my request the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Just to clarify my intent, Madam President, this is not to get recognition to try to offer an amendment or affect the procedure on the pending issue. Talking with Senator Reid, he wanted to make sure that at the conclusion of my remarks there would be an opportunity for someone to seek recognition on the other side. I am sure that would be the case, although Senator Bunning is here and wishes to speak on the amendment at hand. I would like, rather than just to speak on the amendment, to use leader time, as was done by Senator Daschle this morning, to speak on this critical area.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, the Senate now has been on this important issue over 3 weeks. The creation of the Homeland Security Department, something that clearly is very important, needs to be done. Perhaps it needed to be done earlier--without being critical of anybody. There needs to be some way to bring these different groups together and get a focus, get some direction, to give them the directions they need and the funds and the people to deal here at home with the threat by terrorists and by others. We need this Homeland Security Department. I had thought we could probably do a Homeland Security Department in a few days--probably less than a week. But here we are, now. Obviously, we are going to take a month on this issue. What is at stake? What has delayed this issue is the President's authority to impose national security interests, the security of the American people in their homes and their streets and their businesses, innocent men, women, and children here at home--for the President to be able to act in the national security interest, to have some flexibility in management authority to make sure this Department runs efficiently. Yet we see we are still arguing over work rules in the workplace. We are still arguing over whether the President should have the authority to say, for national security reasons: I am going to be able to move people and money around, and we are going to be able to override work rules to look after the security of the American people. I think it is ridiculous that we have come to this point. I oppose the pending amendment because, once again, this is an effort to try to find a way to make it difficult or even impossible for the President of the United States--and not just this President, Presidents--to be able to do the job on homeland security. The President has said that the Senate needs to act on homeland security. There is beginning to be doubt about the Senate's commitment in this area because we are putting special interests of certain groups over homeland security. That is a legitimate debate. The debate has been gentlemanly. We have not had many amendments because we have had more talk than we have had amendments. But now we have the President's proposal that has been offered by Senator Gramm and Senator Miller--a bipartisan bill with some changes that have been agreed to. And now we have an amendment that will be offered. That is all well and good. That is fine. Then there is the separate issue of the Iraq resolution. What are we going to do about Saddam Hussein? Let me read to you what the President of the United States said on that issue. I want to thank Members of both parties of the U.S. Congress for working to develop a strong resolution and a strong signal to the world that this Nation is determined. That is what the President actually said. Now, I am deeply saddened by the tenor and the tone of the remarks of my friend, the majority leader, this morning on the administration's conduct and Iraq. We live in grave times, when this body should be carefully and deliberately debating the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose against the United States. Instead we heard accusations that a President of the United States is using the possibility of war for political purposes. Who is the enemy here? The President of the United States or Saddam Hussein? That is who was attacked this morning here on the floor of the Senate. I think we would be better served debating Saddam Hussein and the threat he poses for the world. He is a brutal dictator. He has already used chemical and biological weapons against his own people. We know he has the ability to deliver these weapons. We know he has invaded his neighbors. We had better be asking ourselves what we are going to do about this tyrant. He has for 11 years ignored 16 U.N. resolutions and has been involved in the killing of thousands of innocent people. For anyone who seems surprised that we are engaged in this debate, I ask a very simple question. Where were you, 9 months ago, when the President of the United States came before a Joint Session of Congress and said, ``Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens-- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world? Where were you, 9 months ago, when the President continued, ``States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic''? Where were you 6 months ago, on the half year anniversary of September 11, when the President said, ``Here is what we already know: some states that sponsor terror are seeking or already possess weapons of mass destruction; terrorist groups are hungry for these weapons, and would use them without a hint of conscience. And we know that these weapons, in the hands of terrorists, would unleash blackmail and genocide and chaos''? The President continued, ``These facts cannot be denied, and must be confronted. In preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, there is no margin of error, and no chance to learn from mistakes. Our coalition must act deliberately, but inaction is not an option.'' Again in May, the President said: The evil that has formed against us has been termed the ``new totalitarian threat.'' The authors of terror are seeking nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Regimes that sponsor terror are developing these weapons and the missiles to deliver them. If these regimes and their terrorist allies were to perfect these capabilities, no inner voice of reason, no hint of conscience would prevent them. The President of the United States has been actively laying out the case against Iraq in a deliberate and focused way for nearly 1 year. Just a month ago, Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in Congress were saying to the President: Mr. President, make your case to the American people. Come to the Congress. Make your case to us. Let us be engaged in the dialog and the debate, have some resolution prepared, and vote. Go to the United Nations. Make your case to the world community. Reach out to our allies around the world, and those not necessarily our allies, and show them the danger. Talk to them. Have a dialog. The President did that. He has been going to the American people. So has his administration. He came to the Congress and said: You are right. I am going to consult with you and communicate with you. Let us have a dialog. Let us have a debate. Let us have a vote. A number of Democrats have stood up and said: Yes, this problem is serious, and we must address it. We must address it now. The President went to the United Nations. He showed commitment and leadership. He turned the whole debate there around and put pressure on the United Nations to decide if they were just going to be a League of Nations or if they were going to really enforce their resolutions that had passed several times. The President gave a bill of particulars about why we must act, and we must act now, because with ever passing day, week, month, and year, the threat grows, it doesn't diminish. This is about the people in Iraq who are being oppressed and who have been killed. This is about security in the region. This is about security here at home. Some people have said: He can't deliver nuclear weapons yet. He may not have them. He has the delivery systems. He is working to make them longer range. We know that. He is trying to get materials he needs to have these nuclear weapons. But put aside the nuclear weapons. We know he has biological and chemical weapons right now. We know that. Some of these weapons can be delivered with an aerosol can--right here; not somewhere else; right here. Have we forgotten the events of 9/11 so soon, which was so catastrophic and so big? Are we ignoring what we are learning from the hearings that are underway and from the realities of the threats from terrorists all over the world, and particularly from Saddam Hussein? Once the President came to the Congress, some people said: Wait. We didn't mean now. Some people said: Let us do it instantly. Now some people say it is being politicized; we shouldn't do that. We should reduce the shrill of rhetoric. We should try to find a way to do this in the right way and in a broad bipartisan way. But let us go beyond the situation right here at home. Is somebody going to accuse Prime Minister Tony Blair of politicizing the issue? He is not up for reelection. In fact, he is going against a lot of the people in his own party. I think the British people support what he is doing. But he has shown real courage. He went before the House of Commons this week and laid out the information he had. He deliberately pointed out the danger and why we need to act now. Nobody can accuse him of politicizing the issue. This is what he said. [The British Joint Intelligence Committee] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability. The Prime Minister continues: Since the departure of the inspectors in 1998, Saddam has bought or attempted to buy: specialized vacuum pumps of the design needed for the gas centerfuge cascade to enrich uranium . . . an entire magnet production line . . . and has attempted, covertly to acquire 60,000 or more specialized aluminum tubes which are subject to strict controls due to their potential use in the construction of gas centerfuges. All this, and Iraq has no civil nuclear powerplants. So they are not doing it for that purpose. The Prime Minister concluded: Two things about Saddam stand out. He has used these weapons, thousands dying in chemical weapons attacks in Iraq itself. He used them in the Iran-Iraq war, started by him, in which one million people died. And his is a regime with no moderate elements to appeal to. Read the chapter on Saddam and human rights. Read not just about the one million dead in the war with Iran, not just about the 100,000 Kurds brutally murdered in northern Iraq, not just the 200,000 Shia Muslims driven from the marshlands in southern Iraq; not just the attempt to subjugate and brutalize the Kuwaitis in 1990 which led to the Gulf War. Read about the routine butchering of political opponents; the prison ``cleansing'' regimes in which thousands die; the torture chambers and hideous penalties supervised by him and his family and detailed by Amnesty International. Read it all again and I defy anyone to say that this cruel and sadistic dictator should be allowed any possibility of getting his hands on more chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons. That was the British Prime Minister. This is not about politicizing the issue. We shouldn't do that. But it is a very important issue. The American people's security is at stake. I think what maybe has happened here is a desire to try to find some way to put this issue off or to in fact make it political. But let me correct the Record just in case some of the comments here were inspired by misinformation. Today's Washington Post story on President Bush and Vice President Cheney has remarks in it that are flat wrong. The partial quote cited in the Post was specifically referencing the current debate over management flexibility of the Department of Homeland Security--not the war on terror in Iraq. I think that is a very important and critical difference. I took the time to look at the Vice President's remarks. I know Dick Cheney. I have the utmost respect for him. I have heard him speak to several different groups--political meetings and nonpolitical. He is always low key, very studied in what he says, very careful, and it is never inflammatory. He does talk about the need for the right actions in the economy, national and homeland security, and trade promotion authority. He has talked about the things we have done. Then he said: President Bush and I are very grateful for the opportunity to serve our country. We thank you for your support, not just for our efforts, but for good candidates like Adam Taff, who will make a fine partner for us in the important work ahead. What is the problem with that? When I looked at what was said today, I must confess, I was shocked and even horrified. I have taken a moment here to talk to some of the colleagues on the floor about the important work ahead of us. At a press conference this very morning, I was saying: We are going to work this language out. We are going to find language that will give the President the authority he needs but language that will have broad bipartisan support in both bodies. We can find a way to do that. But the accusations leveled against the President of the United States today cannot stand. This is not about unity. That is the worst kind of division. I am going to try to remain calm and attribute the reaction I heard today to perhaps misunderstanding. We are not going to question anybody's patriotism here, but we are going to question the commitment and what we need to do to protect the American people. It is not about questioning it; it is about doing it. We are not going to pass a homeland security bill that ties the President's hands. It is not going to happen. And he will not sign it. We are going to take action against Iraq to make sure their weapons of mass destruction are located and destroyed. If it takes regime change, this Congress, this Senate is already on record saying we support that. I think it is time we get a grip on things. We have a lot of work to do. Here in the Senate, we are not moving anything. We are becoming totally dysfunctional. And now we are going to add to that the type of accusations we had here this morning? We have 2 weeks and 2 days or so to do a lot of important work: the defense of our country, homeland security, economic security issues that we need to address--terrorism insurance. There is so much we need to do. I hope we will find a way to do those issues and get this discussion back on the right track. I yield the floor, Madam President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, today the Senate takes time to celebrate the life and career of one of its most outstanding Members who, though always a loyal son of South Carolina, has become, indeed, a nation's treasure. It is not enough to say Senator Strom Thurmond has lived his life well. It has been an extraordinary life. Again and again today, we will hear points made about various accomplishments in his life. Senator Daschle has already noted many of them, but there is so much that can be said about this particular Senator that words are almost inadequate. As I was thinking about him over the weekend, I thought about his life and what he has done and what he has seen and the little acts he does on a human personal basis. First, when one thinks about it, his is a life that has included being an educator, a judge, a soldier, yes, a general, Governor, a Presidential candidate--in fact, when I was 7 years old, Senator Thurmond was already running for President and carried my State as well as four others, I believe--and a U.S. Senator where he has served so admirably as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and President pro tempore. I remember in my first couple of years in the Senate, Senator Thurmond was managing a bill on the floor. I believe it was a crime bill. I remember he got right out in the center aisle and gave a fantastic speech, with energy, all the enthusiasm one would expect from a much younger man, but then he was young in spirit, and he made us all feel good about what we could do as the years went by. He has been a philanthropist. He has practiced what he has preached. The record is replete with scholarships and examples of generosity from this Senator, what he has done for others on a financial basis but, more importantly, at times, on a very personal basis, and I will talk about that in a moment. Obviously, he has achieved the ultimate in life also as a proud father. Watching him with his sons and his daughters is a marvelous experience for all of us. He truly has achieved the rank of statesman. Some serve their country as teachers, jurists, or as State or local officials, but Senator Thurmond has been all of those and so much more: A counselor to Presidents, a warrior in the cause of freedom, not to mention a humanitarian, a staunch patriot, and a faithful friend. I do not think we will ever see a life in history such as that of Senator Strom Thurmond; he has served his country in so many ways. His public career spans the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the present President, George W. Bush. Senator Thurmond knew the veterans of the greatest war. He was there. He saw it in real time. He knows the soldiers of our current war on terrorism, and today, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, he works to make sure they have what they need to do the job because he understands the importance of their job in the defense of freedom. When I was born 60 years ago, Senator Thurmond was already a judge and well on his way toward a governorship and his candidacy for President. Yet here we are today as colleagues in this great institution. I know I am not alone in feeling humbled by his presence. In the days to come, the newspapers will emphasize his extraordinary political career, but the epic that is Strom Thurmond is far too grand to be summed up as an enduring politician and to leave it at that. No, we know better. After all, it is not many of us who have a room in this Capitol named for us while we are still here to use it. Another Senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, in his time was described this way: As a Senator, he was the model of courtesy. He listened attentively to each one who spoke, neither reading nor writing when in his seat. At one time or another, I believe every Senator in this Chamber has been touched by Senator Thurmond's courtesy, and we will honor him if we continue to follow his example in that regard. Hardly a day goes by, when Senator Thurmond is on the floor, that he does not call me over and offer support and offer a piece of candy for my beautiful wife. He reassures me what a beautiful lady she is and what a credit she is to this Senator from Mississippi. I wonder sometime, too, if we all appreciate and even our pages realize that a great man of history walks among us every day, but he does it in such a humble way and such a generous way. How many of us have taken the time to not only acknowledge these pages who are seeing history in the making and are working for us to make the institution look better, but taken the time to bring them to the dining room for a meal? I always loved it when I was in the dining room and Senator Thurmond came with a whole string of pages right behind him treating them to lunch. It was like a hen with her biddies behind her, a beautiful sight--a little thing, but typical of Senator Thurmond. There are the calls he has made when friends have had trouble in their family or illnesses or deaths. There are stories of Senator Thurmond calling people or even going to the house of one of his former staff members after she had had a baby. Knocking on the door, he came to congratulate her and to get a look at this newborn baby. Over and over, that is the kind of man he has been. So while he has had these great achievements, he has kept that common touch. In fact, I think the greatest story about Senator Thurmond is not list of achievements but the fact he has never wavered in defending, protecting, and working for the principles he believes in and the importance of keeping that human touch, that personal touch. Senator Thurmond is a different case in many ways. He is, of course, of a different generation and he exemplifies its strengths just as he has worked to leave behind its shortcomings. During his last Congress with us, it was sometimes difficult to remember that at the start of World War II, a mere youngster of 39, he actually resigned his office as a judge. He was with the 82nd Airborne Division and landed in the Normandy Invasion on D-day. Half a century ago, GEN Douglas MacArthur addressed the Congress and delivered his famous line about old soldiers: They never die, they just fade away. Well, Senator Thurmond decided to do neither. He resolved to keep working for his country, devoting all of his experience, all of his wisdom, all of his energy to that task. We have been blessed and enriched by his determination. He has been here every day, and I have not checked the record, but I think he has been here for every vote this year, which is typical of the sheer iron will that has been the example of his great life. He has seen the defeat of nazism, the collapse of communism, and the bringing down of the Iron Curtain. He has been an important part of making all of that possible. He has worked with Presidents repeatedly to support their efforts to do what needed to be done for our country. It has been 213 years since George Washington was inaugurated as President and the first Congress assembled to write laws for the new Nation. Senator Thurmond has seen more than 99 of those years. It reemphasizes the fact we are still a young country. This great Republic is still very young in the annals of history, and this one man has seen almost half of those years. He is an institution, a senior statesman, but he is much more than that. He is a patriot. He loves this country of ours in an old-fashioned way, a simple and deep way that seemed to have gone out of style a few decades ago but a way we have relearned during this past year. Our centennial Senator's life is a part of the rich rolling tapestry that is America's history. This soldier who fought at Normandy, this cold war warrior who helped Presidents overcome communism, has lived to witness a new enemy of freedom strike at us and all that we hold dear. He saw the tragedy last September that still tears at our hearts, but he saw, too, the resurgence of what he cherished most: Pride in America, devotion, honor and sacrifice for America. I do not know of any other Senator who will earn this title, but it seems to be appropriate to refer to Senator Thurmond as our centennial Senator. He could have very easily been an inspiration perhaps for that great quote that is attributed to Teddy Roosevelt back in 1910 that sums up, I believe, the greatness of this Senator. It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. Senator Thurmond has been in the arena. He has been dusty and sweaty and, yes, probably even bloody, but he still stands, the rock from South Carolina, a great Senator, a great man, a great friend. The Senate will not quite be the same when we convene next year, but we will all be better because of the Senator from South Carolina. Senator Thurmond, you are the best. You are an institution, but more than that you are a great friend. We love you and we wish you many more happy days in your next career.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me begin tonight with a quote from Federalist Paper No. 37, January 11, 1789, by James Madison. It is misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good. James Madison believed then it would always be very hard to investigate events and do it in such a way, in moderation and without partisanship, that the public would be able to find out what really happened and then determine what should be done in the future to keep it from happening again--to advance the good or obstruct the bad. Another quote goes from an anonymous source goes something along the lines of: If God had created a commission to establish Heaven and Earth, we wouldn't be here today. Mr. President, my own experiences with commissions over 30 years in Congress have not been good. I view Congressional commissions as an abdication of responsibility. What are we for? Why do we have an Armed Services Committee, an Intelligence Committee, a Governmental Affairs Committee, or a Foreign Affairs Committee? It seems to me that we in Congress should do the work of reviewing the laws and overseeing the agencies and the various departments. Are they serving the public the right way? In a responsible way? Or is there an abdication of responsibility and duty by the various administrations in charge of running our government? One of the reasons I have never supported BRAC, the various base closure commissions, is that when we create those commissions we are basically saying: We do not have the courage to do it; do not let us know what is going on; shove it off on a commission and let them do it. But in the past closing excess bases had always been handled without a commission after every previous war. However, about 20 or 25 years ago Congress started to say: No, we cannot do that, we will not do it. In the past after previous wars how was the military scaled down? Pentagon officials and other administration officials--after World War I, after World War II, after the Korean war--would send recommendations to the Congress regarding excess capacity and bases they felt were no longer needed. And unless Congress blocked it, the bases were closed. I bet every State in the Nation still has bases left over from World War II. In my own State, we had bases in Hattiesburg, in Greenville, MS, and Greenwood, MS. Some of the finest airport runways in our State are the very sturdy concrete runways that were built during World War II for air training facilities. Congress simply acted and then the administration acted. Then powerful members of Congress started saying: No, you cannot close my base; close someone else's base. That is what ultimately led to the creation of commissions. I have no doubt about the integrity and the good intentions of Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain with their proposal to create an independent commission to investigate September 11, 2001. How did that attacks happen, where were the failures, and how can we avoid repeating them. I know these two men. They are men of good faith that feel so strongly about our country they want this to be a positive thing. They envision some commission of grand pooh-bahs and gray eminences that will assemble and give us the benefit of their great wisdom, men and women who have been in the Government, been in the intelligence community, been in Congress, and thus could do the country a great service. Mr. President, the track record of that happening is unfortunately very poor. As with all commissions, there are fundamental problems with this commission. Of course, we are now in the second iteration of how this commission would be set up and I presume there will be a third and a fourth. I presume the House will have yet a different version after they go through their iterations of a commission. And then the Administration has concerns that will have to be addressed as well. Let me point out where a few of the problems with this particular commission are. Initially, the first draft of the Lieberman-McCain proposal would have had 14 Members, 5 appointed by the Democrat leaders in Congress, 5 by the Republican leaders in Congress and 4 by the President with the President naming the chairman. Then someone figured out, wait a minute; that means there would be nine Republicans and five Democrats. That doesn't look bipartisan enough. So they said we cannot do that. Now what is actually in the legislation as proposed is that five people would be appointed by the Democratic leadership and five by Republicans. Senator Daschle appoints three; I would appoint two; the Speaker would appoint three; and Congressman Gephardt, two--for a total of 10 members. However, there are no Presidentially appointed members, and no process for selecting a chairman. The bill just says there will be a chairman and a vice chairman of opposite parties. So, wonderful, how are the Chairman and Vice Chairmen going to be chosen. By Heaven? If the commission were constituted that way they would be meeting 3 months just to pick their chairman. Which Member is going to break ranks and vote with the other five? I know the presumption is that these will be men and women of such eminence and prominence that they would meet, all 10 of them, and quickly decide on a chairman and a vice chairman and they would move along swiftly. It ``ain't'' going to happen. I have had direct personal experience with a few commissions over the past 10 years, particularly when I was majority leader. I was involved in setting up a gaming commission to look at gaming in America, the effects of gaming, Internet and Indian gaming and the problems associated with gambling. I don't know how much money they spent for that commission. And good men and women were on that commission--men, women, minorities, and Native Americans representing all the various viewpoints. It was well constituted and the people who appointed the members did an exceptionally good job. The commission members met, they acted seriously, they went all over the country, they thought about it, and they filed a report, and closed up their commission. I bet not one U.S. Senator ever read the report, ever. And I am embarrassed to say I read an outline and kind of glanced over it. I was not an advocate of the gaming commission, but I went along with it at the request of, among others, my great friend from Indiana, Dan Coats. Good work. Good intentions, Mr. President. Nothing came of it. Even more recently, we had the Breaux Commission on Medicare. That was an interesting one, too. I think it was set up correctly number- wise, with good people: Jay Rockefeller from the Finance Committee; Bob Kerrey, a very innovative thinker on Medicare; Dr. Bill Fritz was appointed on our side; Senator Phil Gramm, certainly one of the most knowledgeable Senators in this area who is also on the Finance Committee. Even former Finance Committee Chairman Pat Moynihan was on it. We also had people from the real world on the commission. I know a woman on the commission who was over 70 with silver hair--I will not mention her name because I cannot connect it to her age. She dealt with Medicare on a daily basis. She benefitted from Medicare. She knew what she was talking about. We had all these people who knew what Medicare was suppose to do for the nation's seniors, in theory. It was a great commission. John Breaux was the chairman. I might note that it was interesting how John got to be chairman. I remember specifically talking to President Clinton about somebody both sides could accept. We settled on John and he took it and did a good job. The commission met and their meetings were on C-SPAN. They did a lot of thoughtful work, they had good debate, and they made excellent recommendations. They issued a commission report detailing their great recommendations. What happened to their report Mr. President? Nothing. None of their recommendations have been implemented or acted on. And, by the way, they called for providing a prescription drug benefit. They had a plan to do it without bankrupting the entire Medicare system. It was the Breaux proposal and then the Breaux-Frist proposal. It was a tremendous effort. But nothing ever came of it. So the track record on Commissions is not good. I don't want this to be a commission that is not set up right, that spends millions of dollars for nothing. I am told it is just $3 million, but I bet it winds up being closer to $12 million or more and that does not count the cost of the assistance that the other parts of the federal government are required to give it under the proposed bill. The commission will also stretch out over 18 months. When its report is ultimately filed, it will garner headlines and discussion on the weekend talk show for a week or two, but then it will be forgotten and not much will come of it. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that if we do create the commission that I am wrong. But I don't think the prospects or the track record look very good. Now, again, as I have said, the actual language of the amendment concerns me in many respects. For instance, it says that one of the purposes of the commission would be: . . . to ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks. However, there is no provision in this bill as to how the commission will have to deal with the evidence they are given by the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, Federal courts, and others in order to safeguard it. Would the public, and our enemies, be able to get this information through the Freedom Of Information Act or not? I suppose this issue can be addressed, but it is not clear in the bill as written and it needs to be. Mr. President, the commission is also given almost total access to the nation's classified information, yet again there is nothing in the proposal that requires or directs the commission to safeguard it. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees have strict rules and elaborate procedures--as does the CIA, DOD, the National Security Agency and other entities entrusted with the nation's top secret information for protecting such information. Yet, there is there is no explicit requirement in this bill for this commission to protect our national secrets. But again, that is why I like the joint House-Senate Intelligence Committee's efforts--it is equally divided among the parties, they have experience dealing with classified information, and they have settled procedures for handling such information. Astoundingly, it appears that most of this new commission's proceedings would have to be public since they would be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act and that it materials available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act despite that fact that the Commission would be dealing with some of our most important and best kept secrets. I also have concerns about the procedures for using and the extent of the subpoena authority granted the commission under this amendment. It appears that once elected, the Chairman, Vice Chairman, or even the Chairman of a Subcommittee created by the Commission, can issue any and all subpoenas he or she desires without having to go back to the rest of the Commission for permission, approval, or even a vote on the wisdom or propriety of their subpoena. We do not generally grant such unilateral subpoena authority to Chairman and Ranking members in Congress. Mr. President, I have been opposed to this commission thus far. First, of course, as I have said, because I oppose commissions almost universally because I do not think they produce good results and because that is what we in Congress are for. But second--and one of the things I have been thinking about--is because we have already had the joint intelligence committee, House and Senate, looking into this matter. Those members have been working through these issues. They are still working on it. They have not yet completed their work. We have not received a final report. We are getting a few preliminary staff reports. Nevertheless, it seems we are going to go ahead and have this vote before we even get to see what the final results of Congress' own inquiry are. By the way, I do wish the Joint Committee would do their work and tell Congress what we need to do to protect Americans from terrorism in the future. If we need to change even more about how our intelligence community operates, let's do it. I think we can do it in a bipartisan way. Mr. President, I note that the amendment as proposed also states that the commission will: . . . make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States' preparedness for, and response to, the attacks . . . [and] investigate and report to the President and Congress on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism. I wonder if the sponsors are aware that, since 1995, the Government has produced reams of materials regarding counter-terrorism, intelligence activities, and aviation security. Since 1995, seven commissions have dealt in this area and issued 10 separate reports prior to 9/11. One of the past commissions was the so-called Gilmore Commission. Its official name was the ``U.S. Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction.'' The Gilmore Commission submitted three reports to the President and Congress. The first one submitted in 1999 was titled ``Assessing the Threat.'' The second submitted in 2000 was titled, ``Toward a National Strategy for Combating Terrorism.'' The final report submitted just before the 9/11 attacks was titled ``For Ray Downey.'' The panel consisted of government officials and infrastructure specialists who examined domestic and international threats to the homeland, and made many recommendations for increased security and better coordination between federal and state agencies in combating terrorism. Then there was the Hart-Rudman Commission led by two very respected Senators. Its official title was the ``U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century'' and it ultimately issued reports and specific recommendations in 1999, 2000, 2001. The reports were titled ``New World Coming: Major Themes and Implications'' (1999); ``Seeking a National Strategy'' (2000); and ``Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change'' (2001). The commission, which was chartered by then Secretary of Defense William Cohen, had a broad mandate to study ``the anticipated security environment in the early 21st Century.'' Its recommendations in three reports call for a counter-terrorism policy focus on deterrence and domestic preparedness capabilities. Most significantly, the Commission recommended establishing a Homeland Security Agency while noting the need for more human intelligence. Then there was the ``IC21: The Intelligence Community In The 21st Century'' Report. This was done by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence which published the report in 1996. The goal was to ``define the type of intelligence community which would best meet the U.S. national security needs into the next century.'' There was the so-called Bremer Commission created by Public Law 105- 277 and officially titled the ``U.S. National Commission on Terrorism and National Security in the 21st Century.'' The Bremer Commission released its report in 2000 and recommended a more aggressive domestic and foreign policy in combating terrorism. Then there was the Aspin-Brown Commission, led by two more well respected gray eminences of the kind we are talking about--former Congressman Aspin and former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown. The Commission was created by Public Law 103-539 and charged with ``Preparing for the 21st Century and Appraisal of U.S. Intelligence.'' They made three findings in 1996: That the United States needed to better integrate intelligence into the policy community, needed for intelligence agencies to operate as a community, and needed to create greater efficiency and bring more rigor and modern management practices to the system. This was in 1996. A really important commission was the ``U.S. White House Commission On Aviation Safety and Security,'' which issued a report from its Chairman--Vice President Gore to President Clinton in 1997. It was a good report. It also had specific recommendations about how to improve aviation security. What happened to it? Nothing was acted on. Congress didn't act on it. Good work was done. This commission was tasked with developing ``a strategy to improve aviation safety and security, both domestically and internationally.'' Let's look at a few of the recommendations this report made in 1997-- over four years before the 9/11 attacks took place. The very first paragraph in the report's 3rd Chapter--titled ``Improving Security for Travelers''--said the following: The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence sources have been warning that the threat of terrorism is changing in two important ways. First, it is no longer just an overseas threat from foreign terrorists. People and places in the United States have joined the list of targets, and Americans have joined the ranks of terrorists. The bombings of the World Trade Center in New York and the Federal Building in Oklahoma City are clear examples of the shift, as is the conviction of Ramzi Yousef for attempting to bomb twelve American airliners out of the sky over the Pacific Ocean. The second change is that in addition to well-known, established terrorist groups, it is becoming more common to find terrorists working alone or in ad-hoc groups, some of whom are not afraid to die in carrying out their designs. Mr. President, that one chapter went on to make 31 recommendations for improving aviation security. Some of those recommendations given over four years before 9/11 tragedy were as follows: Recommendation 3.7--The FAA should work with airlines and airport consortia to ensure that all passengers are positively identified and subjected to security procedures before they board aircraft. Recommendation 3.9--Assess the possible use of chemical and biological weapons as tools of terrorism. Recommendation 3.10--The FAA should work with industry to develop a national program to increase the professionalism of the aviation security workforce, including screening personnel. Recommendation 3.11--Access to airport controlled areas must be secured and the physical security of aircraft must be ensured. Recommendation 3.14--Require criminal background checks and FBI fingerprints for all screeners, and all airport and airline employees with access to secure areas. Recommendation 3.17--Establish an interagency task force to assess the potential use of surface-to-air missiles against commercial aircraft. Recommendation 3.19--Complement technology with automated passenger profiling. Recommendation 3.20--Certify screening companies and improve screener performance. Recommendation 3.21--Aggressively test existing security systems. Recommendation 3.23--Give properly cleared airline and airport security personnel access to the classified information they need to know. Recommendation 3.24--Begin implementation of full bag- passenger match. Recommendation 3.26--Improve passenger manifests. Recommendation 3.27--Significantly increase the number of FBI agents assigned to counter-terrorism investigations, to improve intelligence and to crisis response. Mr. President, all of this information is in the public record. It is there. Why don't we make use of it? The list goes on. There were over 90 GAO reports before 9/11 and now there are over 50 GAO reports on Aviation and National Security and Terrorism since 9/11. There was a 1999 report titled ``The FBI 30-year Retrospective Special Report on Counter-terrorism'' that was put out by the FBI's Counter-Terrorism Division and which detailed 30 years of terrorism. It was done after terrorists were caught in 1999 trying to smuggle bomb-making materials into Jordan, and into the US from Canada in Washington State to disrupt celebrations of the Millennium. That report gave the American public the following assurances in 1999: In November 1999, the FBI restructured its National Security Division to create, for the first time, a division- level component dedicated specifically to combating terrorism. In 1999 the FBI established the Counterterrorism and the Investigative Services divisions to further enhance the operational and analytic focus on the full range of activities in which violent extremists engage. The FBI's 30-year retrospective report concluded with the following-- as it turned out false--assurance in 1999: While the threat is formidable, the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement community have developed an effective and highly integrated response to the [counter-terrorism threat.] . . . Increasingly, the FBI's efforts involve the assistance and cooperation of other intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The threats of the new Millennium require such an integrated and aggressive response. Mr. President, do you see my point? Good work has been done by good men and women, experts in this field, reports on what we need to do in order to do a better job--in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 and 2000 and 2001. All this good work by the commissions, the GAO, the FBI, and others has not resulted in us doing anything about it. Now we are going to have one more commission report. These are the commission reports on my desk that have been done already since 1995--a pretty good stack. It is very interesting reading. The GAO report here, just on the top, ``Combating Terrorism, FBI'S Use of Federal Funds for Counter-terrorism and Related Activities''-- there is just simply a plethora of counter-terrorism reports available making thousands of recommendations. These reports did not look at the specific events that led up to 9/11 and what happened and what we have learned from that, but they did look at what we should have been doing to prevent it. I think, unfortunately, this commission amendment is probably going to be agreed to, but I wanted to raise my concerns about the way the commission amendment is drafted, the way the commission would be created, the cost that would be involved, and the likelihood that at the end of the day its findings will meet the fate of those from so many commissions before it. As to money, I am sure they are starting off way low. They will be back asking for an increase in money within 3 to 6 months. I have already experienced that, too. In fact, one of the commissions I referred to earlier came back wanting more money, they wanted a little bit more, they came back yet a second time but I said: No. Wrap it up. So I just do not think this is a wise thing to do. I think we ought to do it, or I think the administration ought to do it, but somebody needs to grab hold of this and do it the right way. Maybe the joint intelligence committee can still give us what we need in order to decide if we need more laws or if we need more reform within the intelligence community. But this commission is not going to bring us a lot more. It may get a few big headlines. It is going to cost a lot more money. Yet, I doubt if much will come out of it. By the way, probably the earliest we will get anything out of it specifically would be 18 months from now. Goodness gracious, if we need to take action on what we have learned and what we know, are we going to wait for 18 months to see this commission report before we act? By the time this commission acts, I fervently hope that Congress will already have done everything that needs to be done as a result of the events of 9/11. I thank the Chair for showing patience, and the staff here. I do not want to keep them too long. But I was afraid I would not get an opportunity to raise these questions tomorrow before we go to the vote. Maybe there will be a stampede to just get this done, but, boy, we are going to need to do a lot of work before we enact it into law. I believe we are ready to complete our work for the day. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the professional achievements and public service of a truly extraordinary man, Dr. Kelly S. Segars, and to congratulate him on his selection as the 2002 Mississippi Family Physician of the Year. The son of the late ``Doc'' and Ora Segars of Red Bay, Alabama, Dr. Segars displayed a penchant for helping and healing the sick from a very early age. He graduated with honors from high school, pharmacy school, and medical school despite an interruption while serving one tour in the Army during the Korean War. His military decorations include the American Defense Medal, the United Nations Medal, and the Army Commendation Medal. Upon graduation from medical school in 1959, Dr. Segars entered the practice of Family Medicine in Iuka, Mississippi, not far from his birthplace, where he continues to practice today. Dr. Segars delivered some 500 babies before obtaining his board certification in geriatrics. He has been seeing some of the same patients for over 40 years and considers his many patients simply his ``friends who have a medical problem occasionally.'' Dr. Segars' son joined his practice about 15 years ago, and the clinic, which is vital to the health of so many in the rural community of Iuka, has grown to include 31 employees. Despite his resounding success as Iuka's resident physician--as if that accomplishment was not already enough for one man--Dr Segars' has consistently worked for the betterment of his community in many other ways. He established the First American National Bank just four years after opening his medical practice. It was the first bank established in the Great State of Mississippi since the bank holiday in 1929 when all of the banks were closed. He also chaired his town's municipal library committee where he initiated the project, obtained the funds, and oversaw construction of the library. His most recent civic project is the re-designation of highway US 72 to Interstate Highway 72, acknowledging the advantage of an Interstate Highway to draw bigger, more lucrative industries to Tishomingo County. It takes a special individual like Dr. Segars, with a clear vision of the future, to recognize the need for a public institution or additional infrastructure, and then to take it upon himself to see to it that the need is fulfilled. As a charter member of the Board of Directors of the Tishomingo County Development Foundation and Industrial Park, he was instrumental in the acquisition of the Lockheed-Aerojet office and the recent establishment of the AlliantTech Systems facility. He was named as 1992 Citizen of the Year and the Aerospace Business Center was most appropriately named in his honor. Dr. Segars has served as chair of the University of Mississippi Guardian Society, President of the Medical Alumni Association, and as a member of the Dean's Advisory Committee, University of Mississippi School of Medicine. He also is a member of the Iuka Methodist Church, where he is the Health and Welfare Representative and sits on the Administrative Board. Dr. Segars' latest recognition as Mississippi Family Physician of the Year, by the Mississippi Academy of Family Physicians, could not have been awarded to a man more deserving of this very special recognition. Chosen from among hundreds of family physicians throughout Mississippi, Dr. Segars was nominated by a fellow physician and selected for the position by a panel of his peers. The panel clearly recognized--as have many others--that Dr. Segars' unique brand of personalized care and true concern for his patients has distinguished him as the best physician that Mississippi, and our country, has to offer. In addition to his many professional and civic accomplishments, Dr. Segars also is an extremely successful family man. He and his wife Martha are the proud parents of three children: K. Scott Segars, Jr. M.D., and wife Diane; Mark Segars, Tishomingo County Prosecuting Attorney; and Leigh Segars, an attorney in Florida. Dr. Segars and his wife also have three grandsons: Tyler, Jake, and Thompson. I ask my colleagues to join me today as I congratulate Dr. Kelly S. Segars as the Mississippi Family Practice Physician of the Year and wish him and his family all the best in his future as he continues as a leader in our community. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I thank Dr. Segars for the many things he has done for the town of Iuka, Tishomingo County, the State of Mississippi, and our great Nation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time do we have in the designated time?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will not take that much time, I am certain. I feel a need to respond to Senator Daschle's comments a few minutes ago. Before he leaves the Chamber, I want to say how much I appreciate, and the Senate appreciates, the Senator from Texas. He is going to be leaving this year. Maybe that is one of the reasons he is even more articulate than usual. He is saying what he really feels and thinks and is holding nothing back. As I have said before--and I mean it sincerely--I don't know what we will do without him. We are going to have to create another one, although I am not sure it is possible. On behalf of the taxpayers of this country, and even those who might disagree with him sometimes, I say to the Senator that I appreciate him very much. He has certainly become a legend in this institution. We thank him for all he has done and all we know he is going to do. We hope he is very successful and pays his fair share of the taxes, which we hope to cut as the years go by. Let me come back to what was said earlier. I think it was summed up in a headline this morning about the fact that Senator Daschle was going to make this speech. It says: ``Daschle to Attack Bush Fiscal Policies.'' Unfortunately, that is all it was. It was a litany of complaints, citing certain statistics or certain areas where there might be a concern. My first reaction is, even if you accept all of that as being a problem--and a lot of it is--what is your plan? What do you plan to do about it? What is the legislative agenda? What do you recommend we pass in the 3 weeks or so we have left here? The President has had an agenda. The President sent a budget here, but it was all foreordained that we would come to this point this year when we got no budget resolution on the floor and voted on. I asked, why did we not have a budget resolution? We had one for 27, 28 years in a row. Now, all of a sudden, we will not have one. I was told, it is too hard when the Senate is this closely divided. In 2001, when the Senate was divided 50/50, we wound up passing a budget resolution by a wide margin, including, I think, a dozen Democrats who voted with most, if not all, Republicans. So while every Senator has a right to point out concerns about the economy and the country, I think they ought to be in a position of saying, OK, what are you going to do about it? What is your plan or budget? At the time we had no budget agreement, I made note of the fact that we were going to have some sort of meltdown at the end of the fiscal year; we were not going to have endorsement mechanisms; it was going to be hard to get appropriations bills done because there was no common number agreed to on the total amount. That is what happened. The other thing that really bothers me is, not only is there no real plan from the Senate, in instance after instance the House passed good legislation and the Senate has not taken it up--over 50 bills. I am not talking about bills to create a ``watermelon recognition day''; I am talking about serious legislation, such as welfare reform. Surely we should have taken the next step to help people get off welfare, get training and education, and get what they need to get into a real job and pay taxes. That is the way you help the people and the economy. But welfare reform, the Senate is not going to act on that. We are still now working on homeland security. Part of what we need to do for our economy in America is to reassure people that we are going to be safe and we are going to have the protections they need at home. They need to know that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the opportunity to make a decent living are going to be protected. We are into the third week. Senator Daschle filed cloture to cut off a filibuster. Who is filibustering? It is not this side. There have been not more than three substantive amendments that have been given an opportunity to even be considered. Yet homeland security is languishing here in the Senate. Hopefully, we will get it done this week, or next week, or sometime, so we can get it before we go out. We have not made the tax cut permanent. We should do that. The ridiculousness of the uncertainty of not knowing whether the tax cuts are going to be applicable in the years to come--when I go around the country, people say: Explain this to me. How can you do such a thing, have a tax cut and not know for sure whether it is going to be in place down the road? We have not done that. Prescription drugs: We could have had an agreement if we had gotten a prescription drug measure together and debated it and voted on it in the Finance Committee. We could have reported out a bipartisan bill that would have come to the floor and would have passed. We could have a bill probably out of conference now that would help low-income elderly people who do need this help in the future. So in instance after instance, as Senator Gramm pointed out, the Senate has not produced any results. There has been no plan. We have done three appropriations bills. We are on the fourth one. Not one bill will go to the President by the end of the fiscal year. I know it is tough because, as majority leader, year after year I had to wrestle with the appropriations bills. We got them done; usually, one by one we got them through the process. In 1996, we actually got them all done, and I think we got them done very close to the end of the fiscal year. It was harder and harder after that. But how can you complain about what is happening in the economy when you have such uncertainty in the Government--what is going to be available for transportation, education, health and housing? That is all out there with no result. The only proposal I have heard from some Democrats as to what we should do to be helpful within the economy is to spend more--always add more money, no matter what the issue is. Whenever a proposal is made by the President or by Republicans, Democrats say: We will double you or triple you. They think that is the way you create jobs--more Government spending. The Government is what kills jobs in many instances because of the pressure of the tax burden, regulatory burdens, and all the other problems that come out of having these deficits. So their only proposal is: Let's spend more. And they tip-toe around it, but they cannot quite bring themselves to say what they want to do is stop the tax cuts; they want tax increases. We need to be giving more incentives for the economy to grow. Let me talk a bit about what has been done. I will show my colleagues the difference. It has been very difficult, but we have gotten some of the President's very important agenda through both the Senate and the House or into conference. One of the things we could do to help the economy and create more jobs is to have increasing trade. We need to open trade. We need to make sure our companies, our farmers, and ranchers have access to markets all over the world in a truly open and free trade arrangement. We did get that through, although I think it took us 7 weeks to get the trade bill done. It was a long stretch of time, once again, because of the way it was brought up. We also did get an energy bill through the Senate. It is still pending in conference. I think that took us about 4 weeks. We did pass effective tax relief to help Americans keep more of their money to buy what is needed for their children at the beginning of the school year. In fact, while I had my doubts about it at the time, the rebate that was included in the tax cuts in 2001 started hitting in August, September, and October when we were feeling the effects of not only a recession that started in 2000, but also the aftereffects of what happened on September 11. As that money got into consumers' hands, they continued to buy what was needed for their families, and they have been the strongest part of the economy during a critical time. We also had passed--and this is a case where it was bipartisan--tough corporate accountability legislation. There are some other issues we still could do in the waning hours of this session, but I think to just make speeches and be critical of fiscal policies without offering any alternatives is the height of what we should not be doing in the Senate. The emperor has no clothes, Mr. President. The leadership has not passed a budget. It has not passed appropriations bills. The Senate has not passed the prescription drug bill. We have not been able to get any traction on homeland security, and we have not even done pension reform. I would like people to know more about what they can count on with regard to putting money in IRAs or maybe taking money out of IRAs for education and what we are going to do in the future in terms of protecting 401(k)s and how stock options are going to be done. But that has not been brought up, and I am not sure it ever will be. We have the opportunity in the next 3 weeks to do what must be done for our country: We can pass the Defense and military construction appropriations bills to make sure our men and women have what they need to do the job to protect America at home and abroad. We can pass this homeland security bill, create this Department that will bring some focus to our homeland security, and we can help with economic security by controlling spending and by passing such bills out of conference as the energy bill. If we do not deal with the energy needs of this country for the future, if we do not have an energy policy and someday we have a real shortfall, that could have a quick negative effect on our economy. Those are the issues on which we can work in the next 3 weeks. Of course, we are going to need to stand up to our responsibilities and address the Iraq situation also. I think we will do that. We should focus on those issues we can do, where we can find agreement, and quit being critical without offering any alternatives. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Vice Admiral Norbert Robert Ryan, Jr., United States Navy, who will retire on Sunday, December 1, 2002, after 35-years of faithful service to our Nation. Hailing from Mountainhome, PA, Vice Admiral Ryan graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1967. Following graduation he attended flight training and was designated a Naval Aviator in 1968. After completing additional technical training, he spent three years with Patrol Squadron EIGHT conducting antisubmarine warfare patrols during the height of the Cold War. Returning to the Naval Academy from 1972 to 1975, Vice Admiral Ryan helped shape future Navy leaders while serving as a Company Officer and Midshipman Personnel Officer. While at the Academy he concurrently attended graduate school, earning a Master of Science degree in Personnel Administration from George Washington University. In 1975, Vice Admiral Ryan returned to the fleet, commencing a period of nine straight years of sea-duty assignments in which he served on a Carrier Group Commander's staff and flew P-3 Orion aircraft in three different Patrol Squadrons, including service as the Commanding Officer of Patrol Squadron FIVE. From 1984 to 1986, he was assigned as the Operations Officer on the staff of Commander, Patrol Wing ELEVEN and then as Force Operations Officer for Commander, Patrol Wings, Atlantic. After serving two years as the Administrative Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations, Vice Admiral Ryan completed studies at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Senior Officer National Security Program, enroute to command of Patrol Wing TWO. From 1991 to 1993, Vice Admiral Ryan served as Executive Assistant to the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. During the period of 1993- 1995, he was assigned to the Bureau of Naval Personnel, first as Director for Total Force Programming and then as Director for Distribution. Vice Admiral Ryan returned to the fleet as Commander Patrol Wings Pacific/Commander Task Force 12 and then to the Pentagon where he performed superbly as the Navy's Chief of Legislative Affairs, serving in that important post from 1996 to 1999. In November 1999, Vice Admiral Ryan assumed duties as Chief of Naval Personnel/Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Manpower and Personnel. In this position, he distinguished himself through exceptionally meritorious service as he expertly developed and executed a visionary Navy personnel strategy, dynamic assignment system placement improvements, intelligent manpower allocations and many carefully crafted quality of life initiatives. His relentless efforts directly provided an unprecedented level of personnel readiness throughout the Navy. A leader by example, Vice Admiral Ryan fostered creative concepts for taking care of people by applying focused mentoring and one-on-one leadership with the individual Sailor foremost in mind. He was the driving force that positioned the Navy's human resource organization for optimum support of the Service's needs. A true visionary, he supported manpower reform, new Fleet personnel requirements, and innovation in personnel management and manpower preparation for new operational platforms and weapons systems. During his tenure as Chief of Naval Personnel, Vice Admiral Ryan oversaw unprecedented success in quality of life enhancements for all Navy men and women and their families. These enhancements included the establishment and improvement of cost-efficient and extremely effective recruiting and reenlistment incentives, implementation of the Thrift Savings Plan, expansion of life insurance benefits to active duty family members and improvements to the process by which Sailors receive housing allowances. His actions maintained sensitivity to Fleet requirements while being ever mindful of our most vital asset - the Sailor. Vice Admiral Ryan's leadership, intelligent stewardship and exceptional commitment to all naval personnel stand to ensure the success of our Navy well into the 21st Century. He is an individual of uncommon character and his professionalism will be sincerely missed. I ask my colleagues on both side of the aisle to rise with me to thank Vice Admiral Norb Ryan for his honorable service in the United States Navy, and to wish him and his family fair winds and following seas as he closes his distinguished military career. We also wish Norb Ryan and his wife, Judy, success, happiness, and good health as he takes the helm as President of The Retired Officer's Association.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, my time was to begin at 11:40 and we are a couple of minutes before that time. If I can take a moment before I begin with that, I will seek recognition now.