Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield the floor?

Mr. LOTT. In an effort to try to facilitate what needs to be done to bring this to a conclusion, I will yield 1 minute to two or three Senators who feel a need to say a few words, but I retain the floor. Then we will move to a third reading immediately after that. Without losing my recognition on the floor, I yield to the Senator from Oregon 1 minute.

Mr. LOTT. I propose to recognize the Senator from Wyoming for 1 minute and then the Senator from Louisiana for 1 minute, and then I am prepared to yield the floor for third reading.

Mr. LOTT. I yield to Senator Landrieu.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, we received this request at approximately 5:28 this afternoon. I will make a couple of points with regard to the legislation, some of it with regard to what Senator McCain was just saying. I understand the Senate bill was reported last night and we were only able to get a copy of the measure earlier today. Senator McCain and others are going through the bill to see exactly what its present condition is. It is obviously in the legislative process. It is different from what the President had requested. It is different from what the House passed. Therefore, we need to make sure we know exactly the present condition of what is in the bill. For instance, the President asked for this supplemental for defense and homeland security, about $27.1 billion. The House-passed bill that we have not yet received is at approximately $29.4 billion. This bill is approximately $31 billion.

Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.

Mr. LOTT. I know in the past my colleagues on the other side insisted we wait on the House appropriations bill in order to provide a defense of germaneness. So that has been the practice; the Senator is correct. I understand we are going to get the House bill later tonight, but it may be, actually, in the morning before we get it. I also understand that no report was filed with the bill, although there is some sort of explanatory statement. Perhaps that will be helpful and maybe that is intended to be in place of the report. That is a concern, too. The consent that was propounded asked for debate and amendment limits before Members even really knew what we would be amending. It puts us in a very difficult position. Having said all of that, certainly this measure is vitally important. I have already been talking to Senator Daschle about what is the best way to go to it, what is the earliest time we could go to it. Even if we took it up and some wanted time later on tonight or tomorrow, it looks to me as if it would take quite some time to get it done. We would not be able to get into conference with the House before we come back from the Memorial Day recess. I am hoping we could go ahead and talk back and forth and try to get agreement that when we come back from the recess, if we don't get some agreement worked out otherwise, it would be the pending business or we would quickly get a process so we could start work on it Monday when we come back or Tuesday, the 4th, and hopefully get agreement relatively quickly, even with amendments, once people know what they are amending, and then be able to get it right on in to the conference with the House. Clearly, we do need to get this done. I must say that it has been a slow process. The request from the administration was slow coming. The bill coming from the House has been slow. Now here we are right up against this recess. It has not been the best way to do it. It is about $4 billion more than what the President asked. I am sure the mix within that $31 billion has been changed. We need to take a look at it. Hurriedly, we have been trying to go through what has been added. Clearly, a lot of it is not national defense or homeland security related: things such as the senior farmer's market nutrition program, money for a national polar orbiting operating environmental satellite system, some amount of money for attorney retention allowance for the District for attorneys that, even though they got a bonus for staying with DC, they subsequently became union members and were not entitled to the bonus. This would say they can keep the bonus. There is U.N. population fund language in here which always causes a fuss. Just looking hurriedly over the amendments on agriculture, justice, commerce, DOD, education, a lot of issues that would not be described in any way as relating to national defense and homeland security, we need a little time to review all this and see what amendments may be necessary. I must say--I know Senator Byrd understands this--I always am very antsy about proceeding without Senator Stevens being around when we are doing appropriations bills. So that is a factor, too.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent--this is a modification of the earlier request--that the Senate would proceed to the House supplemental appropriations bill on Monday, June 3, at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Republican leader so we could get to this bill immediately upon our return.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will be brief. First of all, I, too, want to thank the managers of the trade legislation. It has taken a lot of time and effort. There have been a number of problems along the way, but the managers have been persistent. I commend Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for their work. A lot of people have been involved and it was the right thing to do. The proof of that is the vote of 66 to 30. A lot of people would have thought 10 days ago that we could not get it done. We have a few barnacles, I am sure, that will be sheared off in conference, and a good bill will come out of conference. I commend the managers for doing good work. With regard to the unanimous consent request, I have a couple of comments. I am glad we were able to work this out. We need to go to the supplemental as soon as possible. This is an urgent supplemental for defense to replace a lot of what has already been spent, and also for homeland security. I was concerned that if we could not get it worked out today or tomorrow, if we came back, other issues might intervene. Senator Daschle has a commitment to try to move the other legislation, S. 625, dealing with hate crimes. This way, we could go to the supplemental appropriations bill--assuming it is over here from the House--and complete it and then go to the next issue. If we don't have a supplemental, for whatever reason, received from the House, we can go to the hate crimes. When the supplemental comes, we can interrupt that, get it done, and then go back to the other issue. There will be a lot of debate about both of these issues. This seems like a fair way to proceed. I want to emphasize the necessity to move as quickly as possible to the Defense authorization bill. The Armed Services Committee reported that bill out a couple weeks ago. We can't get started with our appropriations bills very well without that defense authorization bill. It would make it possible to do the Defense appropriations bill. I am not trying to set up the order. I just want to remind the majority leader that we need to do these defense issues as soon as possible so that we can go on to the appropriations bill so our men and women will know what they can count on in the defense bill. This is a good arrangement at this time. Hopefully, we can complete both of these bills the first week we are back, so we can get the supplemental into conference and get it done and out of conference before the Fourth of July recess. I wanted to make those points. I thank the Chair and I thank Senator Daschle for his cooperation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an exceptional officer in the United States Air Force, an individual that a great many of us have come to know personally over the past few years--Brigadier General Stephen G. Wood. General Wood, who currently serves as Deputy Director of the Air Force Office of Legislative Liaison, was recently nominated for promotion to Major General and selected for assignment as Commander of the Air Warfare Center, Air Combat Command, at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. During his time in Washington, and especially with regard to his work here on Capitol Hill, General Wood personified the Air Force core values of integrity, selfless service and excellence in the many missions the Air Force performs in support of our national security. Many Members and staff have enjoyed the opportunity to meet with him on a variety of Air Force issues and came to deeply appreciate his character and many talents. Today it is my privilege to recognize some of General Wood's many accomplishments, and to commend the superb service he provided the Air Force, the Congress and our Nation. General Wood entered the Air Force through the Reserve Officer Training Corps program at the University of Washington, Seattle. He served in various operational and staff assignments including duty as an F-4D pilot, AT-38 instructor pilot, F-16 weapons instructor and squadron operations officer. A command pilot, the general has more than 3,300 flying hours in the F-4, T-33, AT-38 and F-16, including 49 combat missions during Operation Desert Storm. Throughout his distinguished career, General Wood's exceptional leadership skills were always evident to both superiors and subordinates as he repeatedly proved himself in numerous select command positions. He served as F-16 Operations Officer and Commander of the 10th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Hahn Air Base, Germany; and as Squadron Commander of the 389th Fighter Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. He was subsequently selected as Chief of Joint Training Teams at Headquarters, U.S. Atlantic Command, in Norfolk, Virginia. Following this assignment, General Wood was chosen as Commander of the 8th Operations Group in Kunsan Air Base, South Korea; and later as Commander of the 35th Fighter Wing at Misawa Air Base, Japan. General Wood is best known to us, however, because of his two Air Force assignments involving liaison to the Congress. Many here will remember that from June 1997 until November 1998, General Wood was assigned as Chief, House Liaison Office, of the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. He excelled in this position, bringing qualities of integrity and professionalism that greatly enhanced relations between the Air Force and the Congress. He was selected in May 2000 to return as Deputy Director of Air Force Legislative Liaison for the Secretary of the Air Force. In his many years of working with the Congress, General Wood has provided a clear and credible voice for the Air Force while representing its many programs on the Hill, consistently providing accurate, concise and timely information. His integrity, professionalism and expertise enabled him to develop and maintain an exceptional rapport between the Air Force and the Congress. The key to his success, I believe, was his deep understanding of Congressional processes and priorities and his unflinching advocacy of programs essential to the Air Force and to our nation. I am very pleased that General Wood has been nominated for his second star and I am sure that the Senate will soon concur in that promotion. I offer my sincere congratulations to General Wood for his nomination and for his new assignment as Commander of the Air Warfare Center. On behalf of the Congress and our great Nation, I thank General Wood and his entire family for the commitment and sacrifices that they have made throughout his military career. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in expressing my heartfelt appreciation to General Wood for a job well done. He is a credit to both the Air Force and the United States. We wish our friend the best of luck in his new command.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. I believe we have about 6 or 7 minutes remaining. Five minutes. I yield myself some time under my leader time. That will still leave the final 5 minutes for the chairman and ranking member to speak. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. We have been on this legislation for quite some time. I believe this is the fourth week we have been working on it, at least part of the time. We have had a number of amendments. We have won some, we have lost some, depending on your point of view. It has been a good debate. Senators have had a chance to offer amendments. It is time we bring it to a conclusion. We need trade promotion authority for this President. We needed it for our previous President. I was for it when President Clinton was President. I think it is irresponsible for us not to have this authority to allow our Presidents, our administrations, to negotiate trade agreements that will help America and help our trading partners. I do not want to get into a philosophical argument, but clearly it is the way America needs to go. We need to open markets, not be closing markets or closing our own markets. We can compete in the world trade market. We can produce more goods and more commodities. Our farmers need these markets, and this is the way to do it. The second part of this legislation is the Andean Trade Preference Act. These countries in the northern tier and western side of South America are trying very hard to move toward economic growth, democracy, and freedom. They are doing a great job under very difficult circumstances--Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, and of course Colombia. It is very unfair that we have not already acted on this legislation. We are in an extension of time right now. Clearly, we need to pass this legislation. We need to separate the Andean Trade Preference Act and move it on in an expeditious way. Last but not least is trade adjustment assistance. Different people will argue it is too much, it is not enough, but we have had trade adjustment assistance in the past. We do need to give some assistance to our workers, a bridge to the next job, maybe some training. There are health benefits. You can argue whether this is the best way to do it. The bottom line is, we have done it. We have significant legislation in this area. When you put all of them together, it is time we bring it to a conclusion. If we vote for cloture now, we can finish this bill not later than tomorrow, and it would be a very high note for the Senate to finish up work before we go to the Memorial Day recess. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: We have done a good enough job. We should move to invoke cloture, stop the extraneous amendments, and then move to a conclusion. I yield the floor, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. What is the pending order of business?

Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LOTT. Having been in the same position on how long these votes require, I understand and support what the assistant majority leader stated. We need to bring these votes to a conclusion. I must add, though, in the last vote we did have a Senator who had been involved in a little accident and had to take a little extra time to get here; otherwise, we would not have asked it be held so long. I think it is fair notice that everyone realize we have a lot of work to do. We cannot hold every vote open 20 or more minutes. We will try to cooperate with the democratic leadership in that effort.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, this legislation was just called to my attention. We have not had a chance to review it and to do a hotline on it to see if there are any problems with it. It looks like something we will be able to clear, but at this time we have not had a chance to do that so I object.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, there is a process of doing legislation in the Senate. This was just reported, as I understand it, yesterday. I made the point I had not had a chance to review it at all. I note we should honor, in whatever way possible, men and women who have fallen in the line of duty as law enforcement and public safety officers. But just looking at this preliminarily, it provides Federal grants to States, local governments, and Indian tribes to establish permanent tributes to honor men and women who are killed or disabled while serving as law enforcement or public safety officers. We have had that happen in my home community. Policemen and highway patrolmen have lost their lives. We should honor them. We should do that locally and privately. For the Federal Government to encourage and maybe to participate is worth considering, but there is a principle here. I am not sure it is one that we want to just approve without having a chance to take a closer look at it.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do not know if the other side has had an opportunity to speak. I know they have had an exchange of questions. I need 3 or 4 minutes, if I may, and I will use my leader time for that purpose. I enjoyed Senator Nickles' remarks, and I associate myself with them. I agree with him, and I certainly hope we can prevail in not adding this amendment to this legislation. It would be a further blow to the legislation that has certain problems now. We need to get the trade legislation done and not further encumber it with other issues such as this one. One can argue about the steel legacy costs one way or the other, and I am sure we could get a pretty good debate here. I personally think we should not go down that trail, certainly not on this legislation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I did not intend to use my leader time for any purpose today other than to honor a true American hero: Ronald Reagan. We just had a fantastic ceremony in the Rotunda of the Capitol presenting Mrs. Reagan the Congressional Gold Medal for President Reagan and for Nancy Reagan. It was a beautiful ceremony attended by Republicans and Democrats. I think we all agree that he was an unusual President and a great President. He did make us proud again. Democrats were there, and they said, while we may not agree with him philosophically, we agree that he did a great number of good things during his time as President, and I am glad we honored him and Mrs. Reagan this afternoon. President Reagan lifted our country when we had a lot of despair, morale was low, and freedom was kind of under attack. He banished that. He rose above it. He made us proud again, and he led the way in getting rid of the ``blame America first'' crowd. He said: That is poisoning the American spirit; let's not do that. Much to my outrage today, I have heard a chorus reminding me of that ``blame America first'' that I thought President Reagan had helped us put on the ash heap of history and get rid of once and for all. I think there is nothing more despicable--and that is a tame word compared to what I really feel--in American politics than for someone to insinuate the President of the United States knew that an attack on our country was imminent and did nothing to stop it. Now, there is a lot of revisionist history, people insinuating that President Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor. I do not know all the facts of what went on then, but I do not believe that. I would never believe that. I have to say, does anybody really think that this President, or any President of either party, at any time, would know that we were going to be attacked and not take necessary actions to try to deal with it? I do not believe the American people really think that. I know it is not accurate. The President, Members of Congress, the Intelligence Committee, leadership, we get threat assessments daily. They come in every day, and they get to be pretty depressing if you get to reading them. When getting the briefings every day, you have to assess them: Are they serious, not serious? Should we take actions? Do we put out a notice? What do we do with them? I get nervous that we put too much in the press. We tell the terrorists, who may not have an idea of where we are vulnerable: Oh, by the way, why don't you try this? Why don't you come after our ports? I worry a tramp steamer will come into the Port of Baltimore loaded with explosives and blow half of Baltimore away. I worry about my hometown. These are serious threats. We have a lot of work to do. I have an expectation that we need to ask our law enforcement agencies--the INS, the Customs Service, the FBI, the CIA--how did this happen? Why didn't we know more? Should we have gone to a higher alert? CIA, were you talking to the FBI? We found out we had laws that made it hard for that to happen. We have taken action to make sure they hand off and communicate and use each other's resources. I have no doubt in my mind the FBI needs a lot of reform. I don't think they are up to date with technology and other problems. But Director Mueller is trying to correct that. Maybe they knew something in Phoenix they didn't know in Washington. Is there a way to integrate everything? A couple of days ago, the Director said we will have a superoffice to bring in this information and make sure we look at it all and see if there is a pattern. I think we should ask questions. We have an Intelligence Committee, House and Senate, meeting; Senator Graham, Senator Shelby, and the House side will get into this. By the way, I think the FBI and CIA should not delay turning over information. They should cooperate. It should not be about blaming someone. We could say it goes back to the Church Commission in the 1970s. That is when we did damage to the intelligence communities. Or it was during the Clinton administration. The important thing is not how we get there, but what we are going to do. What are we doing about it today? What actions do we take to make sure the intelligence information is properly accumulated and evaluated and we can take action? Someone deserves a medal for the fact we have not been hit again since September 11. I have been worried thinking something was going to happen. Why hasn't it happened? Because the INS and the Justice Department, the FBI, picked up people. They have taken certain threats seriously. They picked up mules delivering information. Probably there are commendations in order for the last 6 months, but I am worried about what will happen next. It could happen tomorrow. Then we will say it was the Bush administration, when we need to put more resources into it. We need to help our first responders. The Intelligence Committee voted to add $1 billion to the intelligence funding. We are still exposed. When we have terrorists, suicide bombers as in Israel, willing to blow themselves up to kill innocent men, women, and children, it is hard to prevent it. When we hear the noise and daily threat assessments, it is worse, and we do not know which should be taken seriously. To talk as if our enemy is George W. Bush instead of Osama bin Laden is not right. We get partisan and political sometimes around here talking about a delayed bill or stimulus bill, but in the fight against terrorism we have risen above that, for the most part. Congressman Gephardt said yesterday, this has to be bipartisan, nonpartisan. I am disturbed by this attack today that I think is uncalled for. It is very malicious in its sound. I hope we will stop that. Let's not go down that course. Let's keep the pattern of working together. Let's not start impugning the motives of the President of the United States. Was there anyone here that did not realize we were threatened a year ago by the possibility of an airliner being taken hostage? Hijacked? Who among us thought they might actually use it as a missile to fly into a building? I got a lot of briefings. Is it my fault? Should I have known more? We should knock down the rhetoric. Yes, it is a political season, an election year. But this is serious. We should not be doing this. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to take a moment to recognize the public service of John A. Moran, who resigned from the Federal Maritime Commission on April 15 to return to private life. While I want to congratulate John on his recent move, I also want to acknowledge and thank him for his service at the FMC. John was born and raised in a port and shipbuilding community, something I consider a good start for any young man. I live in a port and shipbuilding community, and there is no better way to understand the importance of the maritime industry to the Nation's economy that to grow up in the presence of the businesses and people that daily bring the goods of our trading partners to our door and carry America's products to the world. While John was born in Hampton Roads, Virginia, not Mississippi, he is redeemed somewhat in my eyes by the fact that his parents and family are good Mississippians. John developed an interest in maritime law at Washington and Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Virginia. This interest was encouraged during the year he clerked for the Honorable Richard B. Kellam in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Judge Kellam shared with John his own love and enthusiasm for Admiralty Law and encouraged John to continue to maritime studies at Tulane University School of Law in New Orleans, Louisiana. I first met John when he served as Republican Counsel to the Merchant Marine Subcommittee and the National Ocean Policy Study of the Senate's Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. He came to this position after serving in the House of Representatives as Republican Counsel to the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Counsel and as Legislative Counsel to Virginia's Senator John Warner. While working for the Commerce Committee, John worked on issues as varied as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a review of the Shipping Act of 1984, cargo preference, the Jones Act, vessel safety and Coast Guard programs, the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, seafood safety and inspection, ocean driftnet legislation, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. John worked with Committee members from states as diverse as Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Virginia. I always was impressed with John's knowledge and experience, and with is effort to make sure that the concerns of all of the Republican members of the Committee were understood and addressed. John left the Commerce Committee in 1995, first working for the government and public affairs firm of Alcalde & Fay, and then for the American Waterways Operators, the trade association representing the United States tug, towboat, and barge industry. In 1998, Congress was nearing completion of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (OSRA). As I described it at the time, OSRA truly was a paradigm shift in the conduct of the ocean liner business and its regulations by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). Along with other members of the Commerce Committee who worked for over four years on OSRA, I wanted to ensure that there were Commissioners at the FMC who understood that Congress wanted to foster a more competitive and efficient ocean transport system by placing greater reliance on the marketplace. I thought of John and his interest and experience in maritime matters. John's experience and philosophy made him the right choice to help the FMC implement OSRA. Confirmed by the Senate in October, 1998, John's efforts during the past three and a half years, especially his contributions during the FMC's rulemaking, helped establish the foundation making the paradigm shift possible. John worked closely with Chairman Harold Creel and the other commissioners, the staff of the FMC, the carriers, shippers, and transportation intermediaries to implement OSRA as Congress intended. I am pleased to report that, under the Commission's administration, the reforms are working much as Congress hoped. John should be proud of his work and the contribution he made during his tenure as a Commissioner. I congratulate John for his exemplary career at the FMC and salute his contributions to the maritime industry. He is to be commended for the productive use of his insights and talents and appreciated for his years of public service. As he returns to private life, where he will continue working on the maritime issues he loves, I wish John, his wife Medina, and their two children fair winds and following seas.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I reserve the right to object, Mr. President. I believe the agreement was we would have it equally divided; we could go back and forth. So after 5 minutes I would like to then have an opportunity to speak out of our time on this side.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. What is the pending business?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. I send a cloture motion to the desk.