Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent he be allowed an additional 10 minutes so I may address some questions to him.

Mr. LOTT. I thank my colleagues for allowing that. Mr. President, I say to Senator Grassley from Iowa that I appreciate his remarks today, and I appreciate the work he has done in this area. I know he feels very strongly about the need for free trade and having open markets, but also that it be fair trade. I know it is very important to a State such as Iowa, which not only is very much involved in the manufacturing area but particularly in agriculture because we could export a lot more of our agricultural products. So I thank him for the position he takes as a Senator from the great State of Iowa but also as a leader on the Finance Committee, both as former chairman and now as ranking member. I emphasize, once again, the point he made that this Trade Promotion Authority was reported out of the Finance Committee by a vote of 18 to 3, which was a very wide, bipartisan vote. I should note both the majority leader and minority leader voted for that package. Yet this bill has been languishing. The House passed this legislation on December 6 of last year. I think the Senate should have acted last year. It did not. I think it is imperative that we act within the near future. I inquire of Senator Grassley, has he been given any indication as to when this might come to the Senate for full Senate action? Does he know what commitments have been made?

Mr. LOTT. My impression is that after we complete the energy legislation, and presumably the campaign finance reform issue--I guess that could be even after the Easter recess--the next order of business would be the budget resolution. Then Senator Daschle indicated we would go to trade at that point. I am not sure exactly what that means I presume sometime in late April or May. But I do agree we need to act on this legislation. It is very unfortunate we did not move the Andean Trade Promotion Authority, which has also been reported by the House and been reported out by the Finance Committee but has not been cleared by the Senate. The President will be going to Peru this very week. The ambassadors and foreign ministers and Presidents of those countries, the Andean countries, had requested this legislation be passed, and indicated to me it had gone beyond being an issue of trade; it had gotten to be a very serious political problem in those countries. I am wondering about what exactly is the U.S. commitment to opportunity, trade options, and prosperity in those regions. Of the countries which Senator Grassley has listed, more and more countries are trading with these countries in Central and South America. We are really not in there the way we should be. Recently, I had occasion to be in Spain, and I was surprised to find how much involvement Spain has in Central and South America, including, I believe, Spain owning the second largest bank in Central America. That is just one example of what has happened there. These countries have an ever-growing number of free trade agreements. Yet the United States has only three trade agreements. Is that correct?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am also very much worried. It appears that the way this will be brought to the floor, once again, is setting it up in such a way that the Senate may not be able to act. On bill after bill, we have seen that recently. That happened with the stimulus bill. It happened with agriculture. We are not sure what the outcome is going to be on the energy bill. When you bring a bill to the floor, and the substance of that bill is such that we have to write it on the floor of the Senate, that is a problem. But in the case of trade, I also see that we are being told it has to be coupled with trade adjustment assistance. While there is a bipartisan feeling that there needs to be some assistance available in dealing with dislocated workers, at least on the interim basis, it includes, for instance, health care provisions that are going to be extremely controversial. To say that bill has to come to the floor providing COBRA health insurance provisions for trade adjustment assistance in order to get trade promotion authority is to set ourselves up in such a way that it will be very hard--and maybe even impossible --to get this very important legislation through. Does Senator Grassley care to comment on that?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Grassley for his comments. I take this occasion to emphasize that particular point, and serve notice that this could be an area of major concern and a serious problem in producing a result on trade promotion authority. It would be a tragic example if we do not succeed in this area. Once again, that would mean the Senate has failed to do its work, especially after such good bipartisan work has been done in committee. I encourage Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus to continue in the spirit in which they reported this bill from committee to the full Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise on this occasion to wish a happy 90th Anniversary to the Girl Scouts of the USA, and invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing the organization in their 90th year of building character, confidence, and skills necessary for success in girls throughout the country. Founded on March 12, 1912, when Juliette Gordon Low assembled 18 girls from Savannah, GA, Girl Scouts of the USA has grown to a current membership of 3.8 million, making it the largest organization for girls in the world. On March 16, 1950, the Girl Scouts of the USA became the first national organization for girls to be granted a Federal charter by Congress. I am proud to say that Girls Scouts in the State of Mississippi are active and growing stronger every day. I recently visited with Kitty Mauffray, Dorothy Shaw, Ann Billick, Jean Lee, Dr. Mary Cates, and Rowell Saunders, representatives from the Girl Scouts Councils of Mississippi. I am pleased to know that at the present time, with 45,000 girls enrolled, 1 out of 9 girls in Mississippi is a Girl Scout. I am sure that these numbers will continue to grow. I would also like to recognize the Girl Scouts of Mississippi for their commitment to community service. Not only do they routinely visit nursing homes, help to beautify our cities and towns, and work to improve the quality of life for children less fortunate than themselves, but I understand that in the aftermath of September 11, Girl Scouts across Mississippi worked to collect donations and created many cards of sympathy and support for victims of this national tragedy. The Girl Scout Law states that each scout will do her best to ``make the world a better place,'' and I think that these girls have done just that. Girl Scouts of the USA recognizes that girls need leadership skills, self-assurance, and social conscience to become strong women. I offer my sincere congratulations to the Girl Scouts of the USA for fulfilling this need, and wish them the best of luck in the future as they continue to help girls grow strong and instill values that will last a lifetime.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am going to read it because it sort of sums up what a lot of the editorials are saying in these newspapers. It is entitled: ``5th Circuit Fiasco.'' Twelve years ago, the U.S. Senate approved Charles Pickering's nomination for a federal district court judgeship unanimously. This week, it's likely that President Bush's nomination of [Judge] Pickering to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals won't even make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats on the committee, under pressure from liberal interest groups, oppose Pickering. They've either brought into or allowed the grossly distorted picture of Pickering as an unreconstructed, Old South segregationist to go unchallenged. It doesn't matter that Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, a well-known figure in the national Democratic party, led a delegation to Washington last week in support of Pickering and took him letters of support from Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, Lt. Gov. Amy Tuck and former Gov. William Winter, himself a respected leader in national party circles. Madam President, All those people have been leaders in trying to help move our State forward in many ways, including in race relations. Let me continue from the editorial. It doesn't matter that black political and civil rights leaders in south Mississippi who have worked with Pickering for decades almost uniformly support his nomination, a fact confirmed when the New York Times--which editorially opposes Pickering's confirmation--sent a reporter to Laurel to look into his relationships with those leaders. It doesn't matter that the American Bar Association, hardly a conservative bastion, has given Pickering its top rating of ``highly qualified.'' Madam President, this is not in the article, but I will say from my standpoint, that I am always concerned that the American Bar Association looks particularly hard to find some improper demeanor on the bench, or some hint of some misunderstanding of the Constitution, or some slight in a racial area regarding Republican nominees. But no, not in this instance, they found Judge Pickering highly qualified, the highest rating they can give a judge. Now reading on from the editorial: What matters is that Pickering is a political and judicial conservative whose nomination happens to come along at a time when the left is looking to send a message to the president that they'll fight him--and win--on appellate court nominees, including Supreme Court choices. No one who has been before him in the 12 years he has been on the federal bench has stepped forward to say that Pickering was anything but fair and unbiased. Those who know Pickering know a man whose deep religious faith--an attribute looked upon with suspicion by some of his opponents--has been the impetus for his active role in racial reconciliation efforts in Mississippi. They also know a man whose personal character and integrity have never been questioned--until now, when the political ends apparently justify the means in some people's minds. When confronted with his support in Mississippi among the people--Democrat and Republican, black and white--who have known him longest and best, opponents have simply said that those opinions don't matter, or even that Pickering has duped the home folks. They know the real Pickering, they say, and he's a right-wing extremist who'll turn back the clock on civil rights by decades. This is sheer political demagoguery, made all the more deplorable because it exploits Mississippi's easy-mark image to smear a man who doesn't deserve it. The only bright side of all this is the way so many politically and racially diverse Mississippians have rallied to Pickering's defense. Barring a political miracle, Pickering's nomination appears doomed. This political mugging will say a lot more about the perpetrators than about their victim. Madam President, this is an editorial from a newspaper that certainly isn't known for endorsements, on a regular basis, of Republicans or conservatives. So I think it sums up very well what has happened here. Now, the larger question is what does it mean for the committee and the Senate? I am not going to let go of this. This is going to stick in my mind for a long time, but I am going to try to look at from a broader perspective. There are still eight nominees pending before the Judiciary Committee that were sent there last May--I think May 8 or 9----

Mr. LOTT. May 9th for the circuit court: men, women, and minorities who have not even had a hearing to date. Now, I realize that the majority changed hands in June, but these were the first nominees sent up. They are some of the best intellectually qualified nominees to come before the Senate in a long time. Judge Pickering who was nominated later on May 25th has endured not one, but two hostile hearings. However, the remaining eight nominees from May 9th have not even their first hearings. Why not? It is true that district judges have moved along a little better. I think there are over 50 court nominees now pending before the Senate. This cannot continue. I went through the same thing when I was majority leader. And there were complaints on the other side. A lot of things were done by the other side to tie up the Senate and make it difficult to get our work done. And that is unfortunate. But I think that we are fixing to see the same thing occur from our side this time. We cannot let stand a plan to deny President Bush his nominees to the federal courts. If they are not qualified by education, by experience, if there are some ethical problems, opposition to them is understandable. Don't move them, don't vote on them, don't confirm them. But if we don't see marked progress in general, and if we don't see an end to the orchestrated character assassinations, the Senate will not be the same for a long time. I don't mean it as a threat. I mean it as a requirement, and, therefore something we should find a way to avoid if possible. It is hard for me to really express the disappointment and the passion I feel about this because I am so disappointed in how this unfair and unfounded episode has turned out. But I could not let this vote go unnoted or without a response this very night. So I wish to begin the process by offering a Sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It is a simple one. It basically cites the statistics of the nominations that are pending, the vacancies. There are 96 current judicial vacancies. It does talk about what has happened in previous administrations. And all it says is: It is the Sense of the Senate that, in the interests of the administration of justice, the Senate Judiciary Committee shall hold hearings on the nominees submitted by the President on May 9, 2001, by May 9, 2002. Isn't a year long enough to at least have a hearing? That is all it says, just a hearing. I do want to take a minute to thank President Bush for nominating a fine jurist in Charles Pickering and for sticking by him. I really appreciated the fact he had a press conference yesterday and commenting how fine a man he is and that he should be confirmed. The President also said it is not about this one man; it is about a quality system of justice in our Federal judiciary. That is what has suffered here. Amendment No. 3028

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I certainly would have no objection to that. That was my understanding. I think we ought to have a full debate. I assume the Democrats are going to vote for the resolution I have offered. If they have something else they want to offer, fine. Let's have a full debate on it. Maybe that will begin a process that will lead to some changes in the way we are doing things. I hope for the best.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this is my 14th year in the Senate. There have been a lot of high moments and low moments in that tenure. I certainly worked very hard, and in my position as majority leader, I learned a lot of lessons. As you go along, sometimes you do things that Senators agree with, and sometimes they do not--on both sides of the aisle. I understand that. But I must say that I feel about as bad about the Senate right now as I have in the years that I have been watching the Senate and that I have been in the Senate. I think the Senate Judiciary Committee just participated in a miscarriage of justice. I am very much concerned about the effect it is going to have on the Senate, and on our relationship on both sides of the aisle. The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted against the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering from Mississippi to move from the Southern District Court of Mississippi to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. They voted against, as I understand, reporting out his nomination unfavorably, and they voted against reporting out his nomination without recommendation. That was not exactly the sequence, or exactly the motion. The fact is they have voted against the nomination of this very fine man. I think for the Judiciary Committee to take the action as they did is very unfortunate and very unfair to a man I have known directly and personally for about 40 years. I know him as an individual. I know his family. I have been in his home. I have been to football games with him. I have been to campground rallies with him, and I know him very well. He certainly is qualified and certainly deserves better treatment than he has received in this process. I think this is a continuation of the politics of personal destruction. I think his character has been smeared. I think a lot of incorrect information and misleading information was put out about the judge. That was wrong. Now a number of Senators are saying: Well, yes, we realize that information is not right but voted against him anyway. As a matter of fact, this judge has been very courageous and has been a moderating force and a leader in trying to bring about reconciliation and bringing people together--not drive them apart, particularly in the area of race relations in our State. I think one thing that strikes me so hard and has hurt me about this is because, once again, I believe this is a slap at Mississippi, my State. I think that some people thought: Oh, well. Good. This is a Federal district judge. He is a known conservative. He is a known Republican. He was selected on the recommendation of Trent Lott and Thad Cochran by President George W. Bush, and he is from Mississippi. This is one we can nail. He surely must have a bad record over his lifetime, being from that State, on race relations. Now, people and members of the media that had earlier been critical of him said: No, no, no. We didn't mean that. We never really said that. We take it back. Maybe he has been OK in this area, but now our complaint is something about his demeanor on the bench that we don't like. But I think, once again, there are people trying to use the ghosts of the past to keep us from rising up and looking toward the future together in a positive way. When you have African Americans, women, and just about every Democrat in the State saying this is a good man and he ought to be confirmed, you ought to begin to ask yourself something. In fact, somebody said: Well, the national NAACP said he shouldn't be confirmed. However, the local people within the NAACP who know him best say he should be confirmed. When asked about that, and about the response of the people who know him best, one of the critic's responses was: well, they were duped. You don't dupe a lot of people when you live in Laurel, MS, on issues such as race relations. Everybody knows everybody. Everybody knows where you were in 1967, where you were in 1980, and where you have been in the 1990s. So I take it personally. I am hurt by the attacks on this fine man. He does feel strongly about his faith. He is a believing Christian. He is an active participant in the church. He was president of the Mississippi Baptist Association. He was president of the Mississippi Gideon Association. Is that a problem? Is that a disqualification? This is the second nomination I have seen this year where it has looked as though if you feel strongly about your faith--your Christian faith--that there is something suspicious about that. Whatever your faith is--I think if you are committed to your faith--it should not be a disqualification from office. One of the things I admire most about Joe Lieberman is that he feels strongly about his faith, and he goes to extra lengths to abide by it, even during the campaign. I remember during the campaign of 2000 when I came into National Airport. The campaign plane of the Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrats was sitting there at the airport on Saturday. Most of us were campaigning like crazy on Saturday. But not Joe Lieberman. He was fulfilling his commitment to his faith. So, all of this bothers me. It is an attack on my State. It is an attack on the nominee's religion. It is an attack on his positions on race, which have been inaccurately portrayed. I think this is a real tragedy I am so sorry to see. I saw a letter in a newspaper just last night from an African American. I think maybe it was a paper in New Jersey. The caption of the letter was ``The Fruit Never Falls Very Far From the Tree''. This was an African American talking about his run for Congress. I guess he was an incumbent House Member, a Democrat, and he was running in the primary. When he got to a particular site, he didn't really have enough equipment to put up his signs. When he started working and scurrying around trying to get it done, Congressman Charles ``Chip'' Pickering showed up. He said: We will help you. Take some of our stuff. He didn't win, but Charles ``Chip'' Pickering went on to win. It is a small thing. But it tells you a lot about a man and about a man's son. Charles Pickering's son worked for me. Chip Pickering is one of the finest young men I have known. He was a missionary behind the Iron Curtain. He was my legislative director, and a great legislator. He not only knew the substance, but he knew the art of the possible. Senator Fritz Hollings can tell you that we got the telecommunications bill passed because of the brilliance of Congressman Chip Pickering, the son of this nominee. This young man has now worked day and night to try to help his dad get through this unfair crucible--now without success. I feel like I failed him. I have tried to understand: Why is this happening? What is happening here? Is it just about this man? I don't think so. No. I think it is a lot bigger than that. I think it is really directed at future Supreme Court nominees. This is a message to the President. You send us a pro-life conservative man of faith for the Supreme Court, and we will take care that he or she does not get confirmed. That is what it is really about. But I also think it is a shot at this man. I think it is a personal shot at me. This is a: ``We will show you; you didn't always move our nominees'' payback. But, as I recall, the Judiciary Committee under the Republicans didn't kill a single nominee during the Clinton years in the committee. We did defeat one of them, but we first reported him out of the committee and then defeated him on the floor with a recorded vote. Yes, there were some that didn't get through the process. There were some that took a long time to get through. But again, I think this is payback. The problem with payback is, where does it ever end? You know: We paid you back. You pay us back. Now we are going to pay you back. Where does it end? Is this the way for the Senate to act? Is this the process which this body should use to confirm judges? Senator Joe Biden, in 1997, said: Hey, these nominees should not be killed in the Judiciary Committee. As he put it, ``Everyone that is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing, and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.'' Where in the Constitution does it say that the Senate Judiciary Committee will decide on the confirmation of nominees? The Constitution says the Senate is to give its advice and consent. That's where Senator Biden was in 1997. I think a week or so ago he kind of hinted at the same sentiment again, particularly when you have straight party-line votes. But I think really, under any conditions, these judicial nominees should come to the floor for a vote. It does not take a whole lot of time. But maybe we need to try to find a way to work something such as that out. But in the meantime, it is obvious that this very fine judge has been treated very badly. I think it is beneath the Senate and its dignity when we do that to nominees. Judge Pickering will not be the loser. He is and will be revered more than ever in my State. Former Governor William Winter came up and talked about him. The sitting attorney general came up and said: We ought to confirm him. So did the sitting Lieutenant Governor. These are all Democrats. Again, this man's stature has gone up, not down, in the State. And this whole process probably greatly enhances his son's stature as a Congressman in the State of Mississippi. His head will be high and he will be a sitting judge. And he will handle himself with dignity and honesty, like he always has. No, he is not the loser. We are the loser. We have lost the services of a good man. And we have demeaned the institution by what has happened in this instance. Every newspaper in our State--every one--has editorialized and run news stories about this, saying this is wrong. And these newspapers are like the news media up here, they are not exactly your basic Republican-leaning organizations. These are Gannett newspapers, Thompson newspapers, the national newspaper chains. And they rip me regularly, as they do most Republicans and most conservatives. But every one of them, including the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, MS, the Sun Herald on the Mississippi gulf coast and the Northeast Mississippi Journal have editorialized about how unfair, unfortunate, and really dastardly this deed has been. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial from the Tupelo Daily Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, notwithstanding that, and after a discussion with Senator Daschle, I will take leader time to make some remarks about the vote just taken in the Judiciary Committee. I yield myself leader time.

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

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me inquire about the parliamentary situation. Is the energy bill still pending, and is there an amendment pending at this time?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know there is a limited amount of time available, and it has been equally divided, so I would like to speak briefly and use leader time so it will not count against the time that has been reserved.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in very passionate support of the Levin-Bond amendment. I know very good work has been done on this amendment, and it is based on sound science and solid data. It seems to me that is the way to go instead of just picking a number out of the sky, whether it is 32 or 35 or 37 or moving the years up or down. It seems to me it would be wiser to have decisions about the miles-per- gallon requirements done in a responsible way, having been studied by the proper entity and based on science and solid data. Of course, the organization to do that is NHTSA. They have the expertise to analyze the numbers and consider all that should be involved here: the jobs that might be affected, technology, how soon this improved fuel efficiency could be obtained, and safety. Safety is a big issue. I heard Senator Mikulski from Maryland on the radio this morning talking about her concerns about the safety issue, and that was the point she emphasized. That is certainly understandable. The Levin-Bond amendment would be what we would do instead of the Kerry provision which adversely affects employment, safety, and consumer choice. I think the Levin-Bond amendment is a much wiser way to proceed. The National Academy of Sciences CAFE report declared there will be more deaths and injuries if fuel economy standards are raised too fast without proper consideration given to how that is going to be done and what impact it might cause. This amendment, the Levin-Bond amendment, is supported by labor, the UAW, the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Farm Bureau, automobile dealers, and over 40 other organizations, but, more importantly, by real people in the real world, people who do worry about safety, people who do have needs for a van or an SUV or a pickup truck who refuse to be relegated to an automobile such as the one shown in this picture. This type of car may be fine in Boston or Chicago, but it is not fine in Lucedale, MS, or Des Moines, IA, or a lot of other places around this country. People have to drive long distances. They have large families. In my case, when I move my family around now, I have a choice. I have a bigger automobile, an SUV. I worry about safety. And I worry about strapping in the grandchildren properly, making sure they are going to be safe. And I even worry about making sure that third seat is secured properly. I have a choice. I either can take two vehicles, the SUV or the van-- one of them being a bigger one--or I can take three automobiles. How much gas have you saved? This whole area astounds me. Let's talk about what real people do when they have a choice. After all, this is still America. We should be able to make our choices. We should not have the Federal Government saying you are going to drive the purple people eater shown here. I am not picking on this manufacturer. In fact, purposely I wanted to have a car that is hard to identify. This is basically in Europe. And when I was over there, I saw these little cars. I saw people pick them up and set them over into parking spaces. I also was trying to figure out how I was going to get my 6 foot 2\1/2\ inch frame in this automobile. So what do real people do when they have a choice in America? Well, the 10 most fuel-efficient cars account for only 1.5 percent of automobiles sales. Americans value fuel economy, but it ranks far behind other very important competing values, such as safety, comfort, utility, and performance. A recent survey of attributes consumers look for when buying a new automobile found that fuel economy ranks 25th out of the 26 vehicle attributes they were looking for. Automobile makers produce 50 different automobiles that get 30 miles per gallon or better. Anybody can go to a dealer today if they want to and drive home a very fuel-efficient automobile, but small cars make up only 14 percent of the market. Today's light truck gets better gas mileage than a subcompact car from the 1970s. Progress is being made. I do pay attention to it. The SUV I own and drive in the Washington, DC, area is the Honda SUV. It is actually my wife's car. I have to confess that because I always insist on still driving an American-made automobile. But a lot of these automobiles now are made by Honda and Nissan and Hyundai and Toyota. They are international companies, as are our domestic companies. So are all these other companies. I do pay some attention to what I choose to drive and the fuel efficiency that it gets in the District of Columbia. There also is no magic technology. I think progress is being made. But if you had the technology to go immediately to an automobile that got this fuel efficiency number picked out of the sky without sacrificing a lot of other very important factors, such as safety and comfort and the needs of the consumers, you would do that. There are those who say technology is going to make it possible for us to have much more fuel efficiency without reducing the waste and size of the automobile. I have faith in American technology. I think we will get there. We are headed there. That option will be there. But I still don't understand why we should be trying to mandate the laws of physics and require that these things happen. I heard one of the Senators the other day saying that the goal is to use less foreign oil. I agree with that. This is a national security question. That is why this bill is important. I have another alternative. While we do want to encourage conservation and look at alternative fuels, I also don't want us to take actions that basically mandate that in America you have to use less. We have a lot of domestic oil that we can use, natural gas, hydroelectricity, nuclear. We have to have more, not just less. If we conserve and produce more, America can continue to grow. That is what we want. We want a growing economy. If you don't have the energy supply, you are not going to have the economic development you want. CAFE standards have not reduced imported oil. We started to put these standards in place back in the 1970s. Yet as the efficiency has gotten better, the use of foreign oil has not gone down. It has been steadily going up. Now we are dependents for 59 percent of our energy needs supplied by foreign oil. That is a dangerous concept. We should produce more here while we are also conserving. I personally think the CAFE program is a flawed program. I don't think we ought to be issuing these mandates. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Levin-Bond approach. It is the responsible way. It will be based on something done by an entity in the Government that has the responsibility to get it done. I am not even sure right now what may be offered later on today, perhaps by Senators Kerry or McCain or others. If we don't even know what they are going to offer, what science is it based on? I conclude by saying this is the responsible way to go. It will not ignore the issue. It sets up a process based on science, capability, technology. It does take into consideration or will allow consideration of safety. And I don't want every American to have to drive this car. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I would like to bring to your attention today the exemplary work and most commendable public service of one of our country's outstanding military leaders, Colonel Robert S. Hart, Commander, 403d Operations Group. Unfortunately, Colonel Hart's service to his country ended on February 16, 2002 when he unexpectedly passed away. Colonel Hart entered the Air Force in 1973 through the Air Force Reserve Officer's Training Corps program. His early assignments included Williams Air Force Base, AZ, and Charleston Air Force Base, SC, where he finished his active duty career in October 1979. He entered the Air Force as a pilot and continued to fly throughout his career. He joined the Air Force Reserve in July 1980. In 1981 he was the Chief of Standardization for the 300th Military Airlift Squadron, Charleston Air Force Base, SC. From 1992 to 1998 he was the Aircraft Operations Officer for the 701st Airlift Squadron at Charleston Air Force Base. For the first half of 1998 he was the Airlift Operations Officer for the 707th Airlift Squadron also at Charleston Air Force Base; the remainder of 1998 to December 1999, he was the Commander of the 707th Airlift Squadron. He joined the 403d Wing in December 1999, where he was the commander of the 403d Operations Group. As the commander of the 403d Operations Group, he was responsible for the training and mission execution of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, the 815th Airlift Squadron, and the 41st Aerial Port Squadron at Keesler Air Force Base, MS; and, the 96th Aerial Port Squadron at Little Rock Air Force Base, AR. Colonel Hart was born in Abilene, TX. His father and mother, John and Mary Hart, reside in Eastland, TX. Colonel Hart earned a Bachelor of Art's degree in business and administration management at Texas Tech University. He is a graduate of Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College, and Air War College. He held the rating of command pilot with more than 8,850 flight hours. He has flown the following aircraft: T-37B, T-38A, C-141A/B and C-130. His military decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal with one oak leaf cluster; the Aerial Achievement Medal; the Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster; the Joint Meritorious Unit Award; the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with five devices; the Combat Readiness Medal with eight devices; the National Defense Service Medal with one device; the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with one device; the Southwest Asia Service Medal with three devices; the Armed Forces Service Medal; the Humanitarian Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters; the Air Force Longevity Service Award with five devices; the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with two devices; the Air Force Training Ribbon; the Kuwait Liberation (Saudi Government) Medal; and, the Kuwait Liberation (Kuwait) Medal for his service in Operation DESERT SHIELD/STORM. Colonel Hart served his nation for 29 years distinguishing himself while upholding the core values of the U.S. Air Force--Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence In All We Do. He was a true Citizen Soldier, always ready to answer his nation's call. On behalf of a grateful nation, I ask you to join me, my colleagues in the senate and Colonel Hart's many friends and family in saluting this distinguished officer's many years of selfless service to the United States of America. I know our Nation, his wife Karen, and his family are extremely proud of his accomplishments. It is fitting that the U.S. Senate honor him today.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask consent that the pending issue be set aside temporarily so I may make an opening statement on my leader time, without anybody losing their rights.

Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Daschle and Senator Murkowski for allowing me to do this. We are soon going to be proceeding with the amendments on this very important issue. I have said several times, and I believe it and mean it sincerely, that having a national energy policy is one of the two most important things we will try to accomplish this year. After providing adequate needs for the defense of our country and in the war against terrorism, having a national energy policy is the next most important. While a lot of other issues are critical and we need to address them, this is a very serious matter. I focus today on my belief that American dependence on foreign oil directly threatens our national security and our freedom. I think it is even bigger than that. It is also about economic freedom. If we do not address this question in a very broad and comprehensive way, the time will come--maybe even this summer once again--when we will have rolling brownouts, and someday, perhaps, blackouts, as well as gas lines again. We need a comprehensive, broad, national policy to avoid that. If we do not do that, we could get to a situation where, for some reason, foreign oil imports should be cut off or a high percentage should be cut off or we decide we will not continue to be dependent on Iraqi oil, or any number of upheavals could affect us immediately. It could affect not only our lifestyles but affect the economy and the jobs on which people depend. Energy is essential to the creation of jobs, whether in the steel industry, the poultry industry, agriculture, or fisheries on the Gulf of Mexico where I live. I am beginning to think there are people who believe when you flip the switch and the power comes on, it magically appears out of this wire. Somewhere behind that wire are a lot of things we need to have. We need to have transmission lines. We need to have a plant somewhere that is creating that power that is wheeled through those lines. And the energy that fuels that plant has to come from somewhere. In this bill that we are starting off with, I think we have a very bad product. I am not going to belabor the process of how we got here, but it seems to be a continuing, changing process. The Energy Committee didn't act. The Commerce Committee couldn't act on the CAFE standards. The Finance Committee did finally get together and it produced a $15 billion tax incentive package, but there is some concern about whether or not that should be offset or how it would be offset. So there is going to have to be a lot of work done on this bill to make it acceptable. I think in the bill as it starts out, far too much is dependent on conservation and alternative fuels and not wanting to sufficiently address the production side. I think we need both. I am for encouraging conservation with incentives. I am for alternative fuels. I am for renewables. I am for using tax incentives to get these marginal wells back in production. But I also want the other side of that equation. I don't think we can conserve ourselves into an energy policy or, by reducing what we use, not be threatened by this energy area. I hope we will work to come up with a comprehensive package at the end that is worth voting on, to send it on to conference. The Senate has been developing a pattern now of starting off with bad bills or partisan bills. When you do that, you are almost destined to get to a point where you cannot get a result. We have not been able to move forward on energy for a year but now, thank goodness, we are going to have this full debate. I am appreciative of that, although I am very worried about the way it is starting. It smells like a stimulus bill or an agriculture bill in terms of how it is written. Maybe that will not be the case. I, for one, have started out by saying: Let's not focus on the negative. Let's just go forward and do our work. Let's have amendments, let's have votes, let's improve this bill. I may be disappointed in the end and some people will come to me and say: See, I told you so, you can't fix this thing. But I am like Nehemiah in the Bible in building the wall. He believed the wall could be built. The people didn't believe it, but they trusted him and they kept working and kept working and they built the wall. We are trying to build a wall here, and this wall is an energy policy for our country. So I do think there is a problem that affects our national security in the first instance. There are a lot of explanations why we do not have a national energy policy. We can blame a lot of people. There will be those who quickly say: Blame your neighbor's SUV. I have one. I have three grandchildren. I like them to be able to ride in the same vehicle with me. Or blame the oil companies--oh, the polluters. What do they think we are going to drive the economy with without oil and natural gas and coal and nuclear--the whole schmear. Or the automobile makers, it is easy to blame the automobile makers. Unfortunately, we blame the domestic ones more than we do even the international ones--I am not criticizing them because they are putting their plants in America and we are glad to have them. They can help us, perhaps, produce better automobiles that have better fuel economy. I hope it is not done just by cutting them in half, which is what you get when you go in Europe. I can't even get into those things they have over there, or any of the other usual scapegoats. Before we do that, just consider this fact. America is one of the leading energy-producing countries in the world. This country has the technology, alternative resources, and enough oil and natural gas to make itself much more self-sufficient. America does not have to revert back to the practices of the 1970s. The country is faced with a serious problem because previous Congresses and previous administrations--blame everybody--didn't do what needed to be done in this area because it was too hard. These issues are not easy, trying to come up with an agreement that will provide a positive result. Whether it is in the fuel efficiency area, in the production area--every one of them is very difficult to work out to an agreement and compromise that will pass. As a result, crude oil production is down significantly in this country as consumption continues to rise. America now imports 56 percent of the oil it consumes, compared to 36 percent at the time of the 1993 Arab oil embargo. We had long gas lines and we had huge debates in the Congress, particularly in the Senate, over what to do about our energy needs. We acted as if we thought maybe we had done enough. Obviously it didn't work because our dependence on foreign oil had gone up. At the rate it is going, the Energy Department predicts America will be at least 65-percent dependent on foreign oil by 2020. That alarms me and I bet it does most Senators--and most Americans, when you think about it--when we are dependent on oil that comes from some very dangerous parts of the world, in many cases, or some cases very unstable governments. We cannot continue down this path. This bill has to be passed so that will not be what happens. We need a national energy policy that will enhance national security by reducing this dependence on foreign energy sources. We need a policy that provides incentives for the use of natural gas--a fuel which can burn cleanly in internal combustion engines and which is abundant within our borders, especially the Gulf of Mexico, right in front of my house where I live. It is out there. Some of it is being taken out of the gulf now. A lot more could be done, but we have a huge battle to try to make use of areas such as the Destin Dome in the Gulf of Mexico, which I think is at least 100 miles from the shoreline. There is no need, no reason we should not pursue that. Natural gas is not oil, for one thing. You don't spill it. We should also call on America to utilize other domestic resources through incentives which encourage the use of marginal oil wells and the billions of barrels of oil we have in Alaska. Likewise, we should not ignore the use of renewable energy resources such as solar power, hydropower, or wind power. Can we get a substantial percentage of our needs out of that area? I doubt it, although I think hydropower can produce significant amounts. Maybe we can get some help from solar or wind. I doubt if we will ever exceed 3 or 4 or 5 percent, but that is not small potatoes. Let's do that, too. However, Congress must acknowledge that America cannot realistically run only on renewable energy resources. We must be realistic and provide a bridge to our energy future. Despite the most advanced technology and ingenuity, tomorrow's energy sources will not answer the energy needs of today. Coal, oil, and natural gas remain our most abundant and affordable fuels, and they can be used in environmentally sound ways. My State doesn't produce a lot of coal. We have some lignite, and we are beginning to make use of it. But I believe clean coal technology is out there. I believe we can use coal and use it in a much cleaner way. We need to have encouragement to do that. Some 55 percent of the electricity generated in the United States comes from coal-fired, steam generating plants. Coal can make a significant contribution to U.S. energy security if the environmental challenges of coal-fired plants can be met. Congress should enact legislation which will provide credits for emissions reductions and efficiency improvements. We are going to have that in this bill. Some are in it and I hope there will be even more. Congress must also provide incentives for independent producers to keep their wells pumping. Tax credits for marginal wells will restore our link to existing resources, including many in my own home State of Mississippi. We are not a big oil producing State, but we do have some oil and the wells are pumping now. The wells are marginal, but they can produce five barrels a day which can make a difference. These wells are responsible for 50 percent of the U.S. production. We should give even more incentives to keep that percentage at least in place. We also need to increase the availability of domestic natural gas, which is the clean alternative for coal in electric power plants. Federal land out West may contain as much as 137 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Similarly there is Federal land in Alaska which is estimated to contain 16 billion barrels of domestic crude oil. None of these facts should be surprising. There has to be a solution to this problem. Some would say that all we need to do is improve energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption. Is that the way we do things in America? No. In America we make things better--more efficient and better. Are we saying you have to learn to live with less and that we can't have it as we did? That is not the American spirit. We can produce more. We can be more energy efficient. We can do all of it if we make up our minds to do it. While there is a place for energy efficiency incentives in developing a natural energy policy, we must not starve our economy of the energy it needs to maintain and improve our standard of living. In the long run, a national energy policy that looks at all realistic sources of energy must be developed. This is not the 1970s. America has better technology, more efficient and cleaner automobiles, as well as more energy options. The question is, How long will we forgo these options and be held hostage to nations abroad or extremists at home who do not want us to do what can and should be done? America must tap the vast resources we have. America can solve its energy problems but Congress must act in the interests of the entire Nation, rather than a select few, or with a defeatist attitude. Providing families the security and freedom they deserve depends upon stable, reliable, clean, and affordable energy. America badly needs a comprehensive, but realistic, national energy policy, and we need it now. I say again that while I might object to the content of the bill we are beginning with and the process used to get here, we are on it. So let us make our opening statements. Let us get the amendments started. Let us see if we can't produce a bill that we can send to conference and get this job done. The President of the United States wants us to do this. He knows we have to do it. He raised it in a meeting just yesterday. He didn't say you have to do it this way or that way. I know he wants us to get access to oil in ANWR and other places in this country. I know he wants us to have a realistic CAFE standard. But he is not saying you have to do it my way to get it done. Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski, let's roll. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) would vote ``no.''

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Daschle for his comments. While there are some similarities between the two bills--McCain- Feingold, which passed the Senate, and Shays-Meehan, which has passed the House--there are some fundamental differences between the two bills. Normally, what you do under the circumstances is go to conference. But this week we have had to review what was actually in the bill that passed the House. We have now received the conference report. The Senators did just return yesterday--or even this morning. There are discussions among those who are interested in getting a result, not trying to create a problem. If we went right to it at this point, I am sure there would be Senators on both sides who would feel inclined to offer amendments, and it could take considerable time. We had indicated we would try to wrap up election reform as soon as possible--hopefully today--and that we would get on energy and stay on energy as long as it took to get that completed. I think giving us a little time for discussions to take place between the interested Senators would be constructive and would allow us to go forward with election reform and even get started on the energy bill, recognizing that the majority leader could interject this at any point along the way. There is no need and no desire to delay this indefinitely. I think a little time--a couple days--would be constructive. Maybe we can find a way to do it in an acceptable way and quicker by doing that. I appreciate the patience of the majority leader. I have found from past experience that sometimes patience gives great rewards; other times, it does no good at all. I hope this time it will be positive in its result.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, for the knowledge of Senators, this is the same language for unemployment insurance extension that we had passed earlier. There is no change. I wanted to make that clear.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Daschle for his opening statement. I see a lot in his remarks that should give us encouragement and hope that we can come together and achieve things that need to be done this year in the Congress for the American people. Regardless of party, regardless of past difficulties, we should try to find a way to work together. There's a common word between what Senator Daschle said and what I will be saying, if you look at what we have in our remarks and the thrust of those remarks. That word is ``security.'' We need to pay close attention this year more than ever to that issue, that word. We need strong national security. We need to make sure that our men and women have the tools, the weapons, whatever they need to deal with the threat of terrorism and with threatened democracy wherever we may find it in the world. We also need to have personal security for our people here at home. Last year brought so many startling things to our attention. Never before had we been attacked here at home like we were last year. And so, this year working on homeland security, working on personal security, we have to find a way to protect American people. Surely that's one of the obligations that we have as a Congress, to at least be safe and secure here at home. The only way we can look after our national security and personal security is to have economic security. We've got to make sure that America is strong, that our economy is growing, that jobs are being created, that Americans have the opportunity to get a job, a good paying job, and to keep that job. And when they have a problem, on a temporary basis, that there's something there for them, that there will be unemployment compensation. But we don't want them just to have a check for tomorrow. We want a job for the future. Both of them are important. But we've got to look at economic security this year. We've got to take some actions in the Congress, by restraint, perhaps, by encouragement in other ways, so that we can have a stimulus to the economy, so there is some commonality in the themes of what's been said here today. I think we've gotten off to a good start this morning. The President called the bipartisan, bicameral congressional leadership to the White house, and we met for 35 minutes, started right on time, ended right on time. He talked to us about what's happening around the world, our threats abroad and at home and what we needed to do with the economy. He listened to us. He extended a hand of cooperation. I believe that this President has changed the tone in Washington. He has tried to work with the Congress. We have produced a bipartisan vote, House and Senate, for major tax reform and tax relief for the American people last year. We did come together on the most fundamental education reform in 35 years. A lot of people thought the Thursday before we got the conference agreement it couldn't happen, but it did happen. And we came together--Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, President Bush. We got an agreement the America people liked. I think that President Bush is going to be persistent in calling on us to do our work, to work through the procedure, the process. But to do our work, to produce the things we need for our country. Last year we had a tremendous period of cooperation and bipartisanship. And then we kind of lost it there at the end. Maybe-- maybe we were tired. The issues were different. Maybe we got to thinking about politics again. We kind of lost our ability to come together on an economic stimulus package. We didn't produce an energy bill. We didn't do trade. We didn't do agriculture. And we left a lot of nominations on the calendar. That was last year. Now let's do it. Let's get this job done. And each one of those-- those issues--were mentioned by Senator Daschle in his remarks, today. Right now we're working to see if we can come up with some substance and a process and a procedure so that we can, in fact, consider and hopefully get a result on the economic security package, and we're working on what the substance might be and what the procedures may be. Right now we're working in a bipartisan way with three Senators, McConnell, Dodd, Bond, and others--Senator Dodd as chairman of the Rules Committee. They've come together on election reform. Now, is it perfect? Would we all like it just like it is? Not necessarily. Will some amendments be offered? Surely. But there's a case where when it looked like it was going to be a partisan shootout, they've come together. And so this afternoon we're working to see if we can identify amendments and come up with a procedure to do this bill, perhaps in short order. Boy, wouldn't that stun people? The House has acted. Let's act in the Senate. Let's do it in a bipartisan way. So, I'm encouraged. It is a new year. We have a window of opportunity. The President is doing his part. We're working to see if we can move some of these things that have stalled out. We should do that, and I will do all I can to try to encourage that and foster that. It'll take, again, working together and a little trust here and there, but there is a period here when we can accomplish, I think, a good deal for the country. As we look back on last year and the horrors of September, we've been doing a lot. We've come together. I think we've changed. We changed for a while last year. Could we build on that attitude this year? You know, the American people's attitude toward the Congress in terms of a favorable rating went up to the highest its ever been. Why was that? It's because the American people saw us working together and doing what ought to be done. Rising above party. Now, over the last couple of months, those numbers have started coming back down. I would like to drive them back up. When you talk pure politics I've been on both sides. I've been in the majority and the minority. I've been in situations where we gained seats, held our own, lost seats. But I've figured out something. When we do our work, when we produce results, if you're in a leadership position, it pays positive dividends. People like it when they see us doing what we ought to be doing. So we should look at the courage and the sacrifice of those who gave their lives last year, the families that have endured a terrible time here over the past four months--the courage of the firefighters, the policemen, the calm of Mayor Giuliani. Now there's a guy who rose above politics. I saw people cheering for him, chanting his name when they could have been chanting Senator Daschle's and mine. No, they were chanting Giuliani when we went to see Ground Zero. He rose to the occasion. When we look at the loyal support from overseas, the leadership of the President, when we look at how we did come together, then I think we can and should be able to learn from that and rise above just the normal things we get into here. Our soldiers are fighting overseas right now. They're fighting for freedom. They're counting on us to give them the help they need. It would help if we could show this is a different time and a different place and we all learn something from September. Next Tuesday, President Bush is going to deliver his State of the Union Address. I think the Congress will be wanting to hear what his agenda is, will listen very carefully to it. I believe he'll call for the country and the American people to come together and support him and follow him. Yes, there's a legislative process and this very morning he said, I think we need a stimulus package. I understand the Senate has got a unique set of rules. You've got to deal with the process. You deal with the process but let's get this job done. He'll give us an agenda, and I believe the American people and the majority of the Senate of both parties, a large number in the Senate, will support what he wants to do in economic security, energy security, national security. I do think that we need to pay attention to the economy. There are signs that, well, yes, maybe it's improving but we're not quite sure exactly if it's improving enough. We see States struggling with their budgets. We had a recession coming on going back to last March. It was clearly exacerbated by September 11. Are there some things we could do to at least sort of fill the interim here to help those who are unemployed but also to give incentive to small businessmen and women to create some more jobs, to have the economy grow? We may not need it, but what if we do? What if we say let's wait and see and we wake up 6 months, 9 months, a year from now and say oh, my goodness this recession is not ending like it should? We can give some incentives that would be positive. I think we ought to try and find a way to do it. There are going to be people who try and find a way to do nothing. We can have gridlock. I don't want that. I think we ought to find a way to get a result to produce an economic stimulus package that is stimulative, not one that raises taxes, not one that's just more spending but one that actually will contribute to the creation of jobs. So I think that's something we should focus on here in the next few days. And I'm willing to work with Senator Daschle and see if we can do that. As a part of our economic security, we need a trade bill. I can understand that there will be features of the trade debate that need to be discussed. There will be amendments. But we passed a bill out of the Finance Committee 6 weeks ago or so on a large bipartisan vote. I voted for it. Senator Daschle voted for it. Let's get it up. Let's get it passed. Let's get to the President the authority he needs to expand the opportunity for trade. I think it will help our farmers. I think it will help out small businessmen and women. I think it will help our neighbors. When I look to Central and South America, I see millions upon millions of people that could benefit from the trade, the products, the commodities that we could provide them. Let's pursue that. That would help our farmers. We need a farm bill, no question about it. I was very unhappy with the way we ended on the farm bill. Maybe we had to do that. Maybe we had to wring out the politics a little bit so we can then really produce a farm bill. I would call upon Senator Harkin and the leaders on both sides of the aisle to see if we can find a way to improve the bill that's pending, get a bipartisan bill, but get it into conference and get something that hopefully won't take too long, that hopefully will not hurt agriculture in the future, that the President can sign so that our men and women in the businesses and all the people who depend on agriculture--including the consumer--some certainty as what they could expect. Again it won't be perfect but just the knowledge that it's coming and what they'll be able to do would be very positive. I've been complaining about the energy situation for years. I really don't understand why in America we can't have a national energy policy. I don't understand why we are dependent for 59.6 percent of our energy needs on foreign oil. Some people say, oh, you guys, all you want is just more opportunity to drill. That's not so. I do think we could get more oil of our own. I'm from an area where there's a lot of natural gas--clean--and I think it can be made accessible to the American people if we can get it out of the ground or from under the gulf or wherever it may be and develop a transmission or grid system to get it where it needs to be. I think we need to use coal. I think we ought to pursue clean coal technology. I think we ought to promote conservation, encourage alternative fuels. I don't think we ought to believe that we're really going to conserve ourselves out of the need for energy. We're going to need it. And even though there may be tremendous opportunities technologically for the future and we should pursue those, I don't think that we're going to be able to produce 20 percent or 25 percent of our energy needs from alternative fuels or things that we don't now have for years. Let's be realistic but let's do it. We went through the fiasco in the late 1970s of gas lines. We passed legislation. We tried to use alternative and find alternative fuels. A lot of them didn't work out. I was willing to try some of them. As I recall, coal gasification was one. I don't know if that ever quite worked. Maybe we've learned more since then and we can go into that area. But let's just do it. The day is coming when our energy needs are going to be a huge problem. It's going to be a national security problem, an economic problem. If just one oil producing country had a problem and cut us off, 25 percent of the world's oil needs would disappear. I don't like that. I'm looking for alternatives. We've got a lot of products in Mississippi we could use, maybe in a different way like wood chips. We've got derivatives from cotton products. If there's some way we can burn that or convert it as a form of power, we ought to try it. I think we should go forwards. Senator Daschle has committed to me and to the American people that we're going to go to this bill in early February, and we should not let it be taken down by a filibuster one side or the other. Let's get it done. We'll find a way to do it, I believe. Nothing will be more important this year than what we do in national security defense. The President is going to ask for increased funds. I think he's going to be in a mood to introduce reform of our defense capabilities. I think that's needed. We need to continue to have multinational support. When I look at the support we have gotten from countries all around the world--Britain, Australia, Italy, Germany, New Zealand, Russia, Canada, Turkey, Jordan, Poland, Japan, and countries we never before could have counted as allies. Look at what has happened with Russia. Who would have believed a year ago we would be doing the things we're doing with Russia today. Very few people. But we still have a lot of challenges there. And we see opportunities with other countries. Is there some hope in some of those countries that have harbored terrorists but now are saying maybe we don't want to do that anymore. The President has been willing to step up and say mutual assured destruction is a relic of the past. Europeans say, oh, my goodness, he can't say that. What will the Russians say. They say we don't agree but we understand. We will work with America. America is not our enemy anymore. That's an incredible development. So I think this is going to be an area that's going to take a lot of time and thought from all of us. And there will be nothing more important. I think we should build on what we did in education. We haven't yet succeeded in reaching a situation where we'll leave no child behind. We need to go back and look at other education reform. I think the Disabilities and Education Act will require reforming. I think the system is being abused by many people who should not be on the program and therefore is taking away from others who do need additional help. We can work through that. I call on Senator Daschle and the Democrats to work with us on these nominations. This President is entitled to his nominees unless there's a huge problem. We've got nominees on the calendar here that got held up for a variety of reasons. We had Senators who were concerned about certain bills, so they objected to moving nominations. But we don't have an Ambassador to the Philippines. We have a nominee on the calendar. It's been reported out of the committee. We've got troops going into the Philippines. We don't have an Ambassador. The position of the person who is in charge of nuclear safety is empty, yet the nominee is on the calendar. There's 50 such nominations on the Senate calendar. Let's try again. Let's move those nominees, particularly for the President's administration. It is his administration. Surely Assistant Secretary, Solicitor's General, Inspector's General, Ambassadors should be confirmed. And the judges, I'm not going to go through the litany here. The fact is we've got a lot of people who are not being treated fairly. I don't understand why Miguel Estrada has not been moved. He's an immigrant from Honduras. He's well educated and is an outstanding attorney but hasn't even had a hearing. We ought to move not only the district judges but the circuit judges. Let's move judicial nominees if there are not problems. Let's pick up the speed. I know the President would appreciate that. The President deserves that. We can do better. There will be those we want to fight over. We'll have a vote on them. We'll have a debate on them, but let's at least do it. My impression is we have about 50 on the calendar and about a hundred in committees--150 judges and administration officials. I think we need to go back and take a deep breath and get that job done. From my discussions with this President, I can tell you: He is as determined to pull this country out of this economic recession as he has been to put an end to the terrorist threat. It was 100 years ago that President Teddy Roosevelt uttered that quip we all remember: ``Speak softly and carry a big stick.'' One thing I have found out about President Bush is that he does speak softly, but he carries a heavy agenda because the needs of our country are great and the expectations of the American people are great. But our opportunities for accomplishment are great, too. And frankly, our chances as a government institution are great at showing the American people how men and women of good will can meet halfway and then when they disagree, take a fair vote to see whose argument will prevail, complete their work on that matter, and move on to the next priority. That's all we on the Republican side of the aisle can ask. Let's begin today. Let's get some agreements on how we'll proceed on these to important bills. Let's continue next week when we hear the President's State of the Union Address. Let's see how much we can do in the next 3 months. I believe that American people want that. And I know they would appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.