Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. That would be good. I hope we can seal that deal and get it done.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, while the Chaplain is still here, I want to make sure that all of our colleagues are aware that his wonderful helpmate, Mary Jane, has been having some difficulty and is spending some time at Washington Hospital Center. We all know the saying that behind every successful man is a strong and supportive woman. Mary Jane has been a wonderful part of the Senate family for the past 7 years that Lloyd John Ogilvie has been our Chaplain. He comes to minister and to the aid of all of us in our Senate family. I wanted my colleagues and our staffs to know that he, too, sometimes needs our help, our support, and our prayers. So I say to the Chaplain, we certainly are thinking about you and we are going to be saying a prayer for Mary Jane and her speedy recovery and her ability to come back to help the Chaplain in his very important work.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about reports that I have been hearing that indicate that perhaps the Senate may not even consider a budget resolution this year. It is not clear whether we will or we won't, but in the discussions I have had with Senator Daschle, his only response has been: Well, that decision has not been made yet. I must say that is very troubling, and I hope the decision is not made to just defer action completely on the budget resolution this year. If we don't have a budget resolution, I predict that it will lead to legislative chaos for the remainder of the year. When you look at the budget resolution, you see page after page of numbers. I realize it is not very exciting, it is difficult to read, and the debate on the budget resolution, while it is under expedited procedures, leads to highly arcane descriptions of such things as reserve funds, reconciliation procedures, and references to points of order. But, clearly, it is a process that you can go through and you can usually do it in about a week. Yes, it leads to a number of votes, quite often even the very unattractive carousel-type procedure where you vote on amendment after amendment. I wish we could find a way to limit that. Maybe this is the year we can come to some sort of agreement to not have 20 or 30 votes, one right after the other. It makes it very difficult to legislate properly and difficult for Senators to even understand the ramifications of those votes. But that is the way it has been done. I think that in spite of the messy procedure, it will determine whether or not we are able to really govern this year. The budget resolution is not really about numbers in the final analysis; it is about setting priorities and making choices. What will be the position of the Senate on spending for the year? What is the position of the Senate on tax policy? What is the position of the Senate in terms of defense and improving education and health care? Everything sort of depends on having this statement of policy in the budget resolution. Now, in the years we have had the Budget Empowerment Act, since about 1974, the Senate has never failed to act. Two or 3 years ago, we did have a situation where the Senate passed a resolution, the House passed a resolution, and we could not get a conference agreement. But the two bodies agreed on the numbers that would be followed by the Appropriations Committee and we went forward. I was not proud of that. I thought that was an abdication of our responsibility. At least we agreed on numbers and we went forward. The idea we would not even make an effort this year sends a fairly bad signal. I realize there is a time problem here. We have about 5 weeks before the Memorial Day recess. We need to finish the energy bill, and we need to do trade promotion authority and bills associated with that, at least indirectly, such as the Andean trade authority and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. We still have to do supplemental appropriations. We need to do the Defense authorization bill and a budget resolution, and we need to do all that before the Memorial Day recess. The law requires that we do a budget resolution by April 15. More years than not, we do not meet that deadline, but at least we go forward and have a budget resolution. If we do not do this by Memorial Day, then it will be very difficult for the Appropriations Committee to proceed. When we look at the fact we have June, July, and September basically remaining in this legislative year, we will have to get going with Defense--well, with all the appropriations bills. Hopefully, Defense appropriations will be first. We need to make sure we fund that program before anything else because our men and women are so dependent on it. I am very worried about what the situation will be if we do not have a budget resolution. I have been looking at what it could lead to, and I have to say it is going to be a wild-west-type approach. If appropriations bills come up, there are no limits, no points of order to limit spending beyond what a subcommittee may have designated as its numbers. The 60-vote point of order will not apply. The bills could very well collapse of their own weight because there will be so many brilliant ideas of how spending can be added. If I were a subcommittee chairman, regardless of on which aisle I sat, that would be a very difficult situation to manage. The argument might be: It will be hard; we will have to vote on all those amendments. That is true, but we do it year after year. The argument can be made: We are closely divided. Last year we got a budget resolution, and we were divided 50-50. Here are the budget resolutions we passed over the past 6\1/2\ years, including last year when it was 50-50. By the way, when we got to a final vote, it was passed by a wide bipartisan vote. In fact, the Senate passed the budget resolution on April 6, before the April 15 date that is included in the budget law, and it was by a bipartisan vote of 65 to 35. It can be done, it should be done, and every year I served as majority leader, we got it done. Here are the budget resolutions. The evidence is there. I think perhaps what is going on here is just a desire to not have Senators cast these tough votes. That is an abdication of our responsibility. Perhaps the Senate majority leader and the budget chairmen have something different in mind. Maybe they are saying they prefer to just operate under last year's budget resolution. By choosing not to vote on their own, they are, in effect, choosing to continue under the budget resolution we passed last year. Obviously, that would create a number of problems. I support the President's budget. The President came up with a good budget. He does provide a significant increase in the priorities that need to have increases. There is an increase for defense funding. We need a supplemental for defense to pay for what we have already spent, and we need to make sure our military men and women have a decent quality of life, have the weapons they need to do the job, the most modern technology possible, which has saved a lot of lives. We need to move forward on national security. Of course, we realized last year after September 11 that we were vulnerable and we needed to do more with respect to homeland security. There are a lot of hearings occurring now in the Appropriations Committee and other committees of jurisdiction about exactly where this additional spending in homeland security should go. We know we need to do more for port security, airport security, first responders, law enforcement, firemen. Clearly, we are going to have to add significant increases in funds for homeland security. That has been acknowledged and called for on both sides of the aisle. So national defense, homeland security, and economic security are priorities. We need to make sure we are doing the right thing with fiscal policy at the Federal Government level so that the economy will grow. We see positive signs, but it is not universal. It is uneven, and it varies from sector to sector, and there are even some regional differences. This year maybe more than ever we need to have a budget resolution that sets some priorities so that we can do what we need to do but not lose control of it when it gets to this Chamber. Let me speak a minute about one of the specifics in the budget resolution that came out of the Senate Budget Committee. I commend Senator Conrad, the chairman of the committee. He could have just said it is not worth the effort, we are not even going to try to get it out of committee. He did make the effort, and they reported out a budget resolution. That signaled to me we were going to be ready to go to the floor with the resolution that came out of the committee. Now you see it, now you don't. I do not quite understand why that change occurred, even after the Budget Committee stepped up, and while it did not pass on a bipartisan vote, it went through within 2 or 3 days of consideration and is now ready for full Senate consideration. My concern is specifically in the defense area. I am worried that the budget that came out of the Budget Committee is soft on defense. While it fully funds the President's defense request for next year, it shortchanges the President's request by $225 billion over the next succeeding 9 years. It is $225 billion short. That means the troops will not get the supplies and armaments they need to prosecute the war on terrorism, and this, we all know, is not a short-term issue; this is something that is going to take months and years as we try to root out terrorism and make sure we can be safe around the world at our embassies and at home. It means that operations and maintenance will suffer. Pilots will not be able to fly the missions they need for training, and upkeep on ships will slow down. It means Secretary Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs will have fewer resources in place to plan for the next step. It will mean we will not have the resources to take action against Saddam Hussein and the ``axis of evil.'' The President has established our priorities, and national defense is tops. The President has called on us to act on the defense bill first. Why in the world would this decision be made not to fully fund the war? I think the response we are going to hear is: We do fully fund the President's request next year, but then we are going to create a reserve fund for defense spending for the future. Unfortunately, the reserve fund is nothing more than a gimmick. If one looks elsewhere in the budget, specifically in the section titled ``Functional Totals,'' one will see that the defense money in the reserve fund is not there for defense. It would be used supposedly to reduce the debt. That certainly is a worthwhile objective, and we should continue to try to find ways to live within a budget and reduce the debt, as we had been doing for the previous 4 years. We have to make some choices now. We should fund defense first, and we should not set up a mechanism that would short the Defense Department by $225 billion. Our world changed on September 11. We know national security and homeland security is going to be important. We are going to have to act on it. We have to be prepared to defend ourselves against attacks internationally and at home. We have to provide support for our allies and friends, such as NATO and Israel. We must repel and deter and, in some instances, take preemptive action to prevent attacks on American citizens. No one in the Senate disagrees we are going to have to do more in national security and it is going to take more than 1 year. This is a long-term commitment. I do want to particularly point out to my colleagues that there is a huge problem in the budget resolution reported by the committee in the defense area. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with the President, and we have in the war on terrorism. We did it repeatedly and courageously after the events of September 11. But slowly we have slipped back into our normal sniping. We will always have legitimate debate. It is about democracy. That is the great thing about America. We can disagree without undermining what needs to be done for our country. When it comes to defense, we cannot short-fund it, and we cannot allow it to slip off into partisan debate. Here is what we need to do in the Senate, and we need to do it before the Memorial Day recess: Pass a budget resolution. What other form of discipline can we possibly have? What more important indicator is there about whether or not we are prepared to govern and make tough choices? Pass a budget resolution, fully fund the President's budget request in both the short and long term, add the $225 billion for defense back into the budget resolution, and eliminate the reserve fund. Pass the defense resolution first. That, Mr. President, is how we stand shoulder to shoulder with the President in this war on terrorism. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if Senator Daschle will yield, I did not object because I think, all things considered, this is a good way to proceed at this time. I, too, would prefer we go ahead and begin consideration of the ANWR amendment with regard to oil exploration in that area of Alaska. But we have other amendments that are pending. Work has continued to be done on those issues this afternoon and perhaps, I assume, some in the morning, even while a process is worked out as to exactly how to proceed with the ANWR amendment. One of the problems I understand--it is a legitimate one--is that the amendment Senator Murkowski would like to offer has some provisions that need to have some scoring done. I think that is legitimate. They want to know what it might cost. I think Members are entitled to know that. I presume he could have offered the amendment and had the scoring done over the weekend, but I think both sides were a little bit hesitant to have it offered and just have it kind of hanging out there, not knowing what the final form would be--whether, if it would be modified, we would get into a fuss over second-degree amendments. So I think this is a good way to go. Hopefully, we will be ready to go back to this on Tuesday, deal with the ANWR provisions, deal with the tax provisions, and finish the amendments we have remaining. I still think it is absolutely essential for our country that we get an energy bill. I understand there is a need to complete our work next week on that issue so we can move on to other issues. We are pressing Senator Daschle to take up other issues, including this border security and the 245(i) immigration issue and the trade legislation--other issues. By doing it this way, we can dispose of a bill that is needed. Border security needs to be dealt with. It has bipartisan support. The administration supports it. We can do that by taking it up tomorrow, being on it Monday, and I hope we can be done with it sometime early on Tuesday, and then go back to ANWR. I have checked this out with the sponsors of the border security bill and with Senator Murkowski and it seems this is agreeable to all parties and this is the way we can get some work done while we work out the process on the other amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to talk a little bit about the energy bill, and then the managers of the election reform will be ready to go and we will take up that important legislation. Mr. President, we need a national energy policy. I think the Congress knows that. I think the American people support that. I know the President of the United States supports that. Right now we see the difficulties with which we are having to deal around the world: The instability in Venezuela with regard to oil supply from that country, our concerns about the Middle East, the threats from Saddam Hussein. We need our own national energy policy. We need our own energy supplies. We need to encourage conservation, alternative fuels. We need the whole package. And we need to do it now. This is a critical time. This is a matter of our economy, it is a matter of the creation of more jobs, and it is national security. So we need to do this. I have not come to the Chamber and really pushed on this legislation. Because of the way it was brought to the floor, which is not through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I thought we were going to have to do a lot of writing of the bill in the Senate. That is what has been happening. That is what has occurred. That is why it took so much time. But we have spent 2 weeks on it now. This is the third week. It is obvious to me we are going over to next week. But I think it is time for the leadership on both sides of the aisle to begin to press for this legislation to be completed. It would be a mistake for the leaders of either party to allow this legislation to collapse after this amount of time, and on this important an issue. It is going to be very easy for Members on both sides of the aisle to say: I don't like it because of this reason; I don't want it for that reason; I don't like this particular provision. I don't care for the electricity section, but I just voted not to strike it because I think we made some improvements. We ought to go to conference and see if we can improve it even more. I think it is time that we bring up the ANWR amendment. Let's have a debate. I am all for it. I think we need it. I think it is a source of supply that we can get safely and in a reliable and affordable way that will help us with our future energy needs. But let's have the debate. Let's get it done. Let's have a vote. Then we still have the tax provisiono. I think Senator Daschle and I are going to have to both be supportive of completing this legislation. I think we are going to have to come to the floor and encourage our managers to make progress and to make more progress than has occurred. If we do not do it, we are not going to finish it next Tuesday or Wednesday; it will be later, and then everything else is moved down the line--border security, the immigration reform known as the 245(i) issue, trade legislation, the cloning issue. We have other work we need to do. So it is approaching that time when we need to begin to be serious about amendments and be serious about getting to final passage. No formal unanimous consent agreement was exchanged or agreed to back when we went out for the Easter recess, but we did exchange some lists prior to that recess so we could get a look at about what number of amendments we were talking. I understand there are about 160 amendments that were indicated by the Democrats, and probably over 100 by the Republicans--260 amendments? Nobody really believes that. We have numerous Senators who have five or six or seven amendments that they want. We are not going to have that. We are not going to leave that. A lot of these amendments are nonrelevant amendments. We could turn this energy bill into a debate over tax policy or over agriculture policy or you name it. But we need to keep it focused on energy. The truth of matter is that I believe on our side of the aisle we are down to 7 to 10 serious amendments. I don't know what the situation is on the other side of the aisle. I know Senator Reid is doing his usual due diligence, and he is working to try to get the list narrowed down. We don't have locked in an agreement on the list. I am worried about what appears to be a slow rolling still going on. Look at what we have done here today. We had a vote on one amendment. This afternoon, we had a couple of quorum calls. We have an amendment pending, and I guess it is possibly going to be modified. I understand we are going to have to have some debate about ethanol. Does anybody think we are going to do that in 30 minutes? Does anybody think we are really going to change what is in this bill on ethanol? Not really. You can debate about whether it is wrong or right, but the fact is the die is cast on that issue. We need to begin to deal with reality in this area. I don't know where these amendments are. But I was very disturbed to hear it suggested yesterday that Republicans are slow rolling this bill when, as a matter of fact, we have been offering amendments. We have been getting votes. We have been working to narrow down our list. We need a little help on the other side if we are going to complete this legislation. I have been encouraging Senator Murkowski to go forward with the ANWR amendment. Let us have the amendment. Let us have the debate. Let us get started. After we complete that, let us move to lock in the amendment list and begin to move toward finishing this bill. In order for that to occur, we will have to make a lot more progress tomorrow, Friday, Monday, and Tuesday than we saw today. Let us quit pointing fingers about who is not doing what. Let us quit thinking about what we might do if this bill doesn't work just to suit our particular desires. Let us get this legislation completed. The Senate has a lot of work before it. We have over 50 bills that have been sent over here from the House of Representatives with which we haven't dealt. If we get to the middle of next week and we have not completed our work on this energy bill, or if we have this energy bill pulled for whatever reason and we have another goose egg on our ledger, shame on us. At this time in our history and what is going on in the world, if the Senate cannot pass an energy policy for our Nation, then I really just have to wonder what we are going to be able to do together in a bipartisan way for our country. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This is not intended to be partisan. I don't want it to be that way. I am saying to everybody it is time now that we begin to move to finish this bill and produce a bill that can go to conference, which hopefully can be worked out, the President can sign it, and then in the future hopefully we will have more national security and economic security than we will have without it. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to have this moment to encourage a result. Maybe we can follow the example of what we are about to see on election reform. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator from Nevada will yield, just for a comment-- and also to agree with him. I want to say to the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, and Senator McConnell, they have been persistent. It would have been very easy to just let this reform effort slide off the end of the table, like so much else has, unfortunately, in the Senate. But they continued to work together. They continued to try to find substantive agreements and also a procedural process to get this done on sort of a second-track process. So I am pleased we have this unanimous consent agreement, and I commend them both. I think we are going to wind up with a product that the Senate can be proud to support. Let me just ask Senator Reid if he will yield to clarify how we proceed. Under the agreement, there were a number of amendments that were identified with time limits. All those amendments will be considered tonight under this unanimous consent agreement, and then tomorrow, at a time we will agree to and announce later, all votes, if any--either on final passage or the amendments--would be stacked? So that would occur in the morning and Senators need to know, if they are interested in these amendments, they will need to come to the Chamber in the next couple of hours to deal with them. Is that correct? Is that your understanding?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could be recognized before we begin, now, under leader time?

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch for trying to put in the quorum so I would have an opportunity to make some very brief remarks. I hope everybody understands that was what was going on--to give me a chance to be here and just wrap up some of what needs to be pointed out again before we get to a vote. We have a real problem in the Senate. I think it could be a growing problem. We are very concerned about the nominees who are being moved and those who are not being moved; and, more specifically, the fact that the first eight circuit court judges have not been moved, have not been voted on, and, in fact, have not even had a hearing. I believe that is accurate. The first eight, to go back to May 9, 2001, an outstanding group of nominees, men and women and minorities, have not had any opportunity to make their case, to be voted on in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and be voted on in this Chamber. That is what our resolution says. That is all it says. This is not a quantum leap, saying you have to have a hearing, you have to vote, you have to bring it to the floor, and you have to get it done. But it does say that in the interest of administration of justice, the Judiciary Committee shall hold hearings at least on the nominees submitted by the President on May 9, 2001, by May 9, 2002. That seems like a very small step, to move toward some progress being made and helping to begin to cure some very frayed feelings about the way the Judiciary Committee acted with regard to Judge Pickering. But moving beyond that and moving into the broader sense, one judge will not this session make. But this pattern is a major problem. Conversely, the other resolution just says that the Judiciary Committee should move forward expeditiously on these nominees. Goodness gracious, that is not saying very much, it doesn't appear to me. I hope they will be moving forward expeditiously. But what does it mean? Does it mean they are going to get a hearing? Does it mean it is going to get some actual result? No. That is basically the difference. One resolution says that these outstanding nominees--I will not list their names because I am sure they have been talked about individually and collectively--should at least have a hearing by May 9. The other resolution says it should be considered expeditiously. The point is, though, to highlight this issue, this will not be the last resolution in this area, unless we begin to see some fair progress. There will be others. And they perhaps will be more pointed. But it goes to the much bigger question of how we are going to go through the rest of this session, how these nominees are going to be treated, and, as a matter of fact, how we are going to act on legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote on both sides of the aisle for the resolution that would lead to results and that is the one that calls for hearings by the specified date of May 9, 2002. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The Senator from South Carolina objects?

Mr. LOTT. I want to make sure. There are others who might object as did the Senator from South Carolina so the record is complete.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina withhold?

Mr. LOTT. That would be fine.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 295, H.R. 3009, the Andean trade legislation; further, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table; finally, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. LOTT. The majority leader is recognized under a reservation?

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object to that additional request, the request would not include the UC with regard to Andean trade; it would be strictly with regard to ANWR?

Mr. LOTT. Let me assure Senator Daschle, under my reservation, I would like for us to get a vote on ANWR included in the energy bill and move to completion of the energy bill as soon as possible thereafter, too. Beyond that, I have urged the manager of this legislation, on our side of the aisle, to move to the ANWR issue as early as possible when we come back. I hope that would be, hopefully, even Tuesday, but of course we will have to dispose of a couple of pending issues because we do not want that to still be pending at the end of the week. We would like to finish the energy bill the week we come back because I know we need to go to the budget resolution and the trade bill. My encouragement to the managers is we do ANWR earlier in the week so we can then do the tax provision which, I presume, would be last, and we would be prepared to go to the final passage of the bill. At this time I object to that addition.

Mr. LOTT. I objected to the request with regard to ANWR. Now, did Senator Graham want to speak on the Andean trade issue, or will he speak on it after the reservations?

Mr. LOTT. After the objection?

Mr. LOTT. One other issue. I really am bothered by the fact we are going to be leaving town and have not extended the debt ceiling. The Treasury Department has indicated they may or likely will have to take action around April 1 to deal with the fact that the debt ceiling may have been reached, and that they would do a number of things, as other administrations have done, possibly even dip into the pension fund to carry us over. Senator Daschle and I talked about the need to move this before we left, to move it clean and move it for a year, but we have not been able to get that cleared. I think the Senate would look much better, and it would have been a wise thing for us to do to move the debt ceiling extension. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 168, H.R. 6, and that all after the enacting clause be stricken; further I ask that the text of a Senate bill which is at the desk, which is in the debt limit extension, be inserted in lieu thereof; further I ask that the bill be read a third time and passed, with a motion to reconsider laid upon the table.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I see several of the interested parties are here, and I do want to propound unanimous consent requests on a couple of issues. I had hoped we would be able to reach agreement to move on the debt ceiling before the Senate went out of session. It appears that we are not going to be able to do that. I think we should. Also, I had the impression we were going to try to do the Andean trade bill before we left. The President is on his way to Mexico, and he is going to Peru. The Andean countries feel very strongly about this issue and have said it is not only a trade issue, but has become a very serious political issue. I would like for us to do these two things, and I will propound unanimous consent requests on both. Is there a preference as to which one I do first? I will propound the Andean request first.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I think that is the wise thing to do. I appreciate the cooperation on that; is that a unanimous consent request?

Mr. LOTT. We would have no objection to that. So it is 12:50.