Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if the distinguished majority leader will yield to respond to an inquiry, I thought also we would have a vote on the Transportation appropriations conference report at some point in the sequence on Monday.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if I could be heard with regard to the situation as it now exists for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle actually, what has transpired over the past few minutes procedurally is that Senator Daschle has offered the railroad retirement substitute to a House bill. That had to be done to get us on the railroad retirement subject itself. Then, as is in order, I offered an amendment to the substitute. So that will be the issue that can be debated, along with the railroad retirement bill, if Senators so desire. Let me talk about the content of the amendment that was filed on my behalf as well as Senator Murkowski and Senator Brownback and others. Regardless of the merits of the railroad retirement bill, I had hoped that the Senate would stay focused on appropriations conference reports, the defense appropriations bill, and the stimulus package that would create economic growth and jobs creation in this country. I am pleased that now an effort is under way to get a conference negotiation going on the stimulus package. That movement yesterday afternoon affected the decision that was made earlier today not to fight the motion to proceed on the railroad retirement bill. My question is, why we are moving to bills that are not an emergency, not related to appropriations and the stimulus package or even the reinsurance issue? It seems to me we should focus on those urgent and emergency issues that need to be addressed as a result of the events of September 11 and since then, before we go out for the holiday season, for the Christmas period. That has not been the case. Now we are on the railroad retirement issue. There are other issues we believe urgent and need to be addressed and should be addressed. That is why this amendment is the Murkowski energy bill, basically H.R. 4, the House-passed bill, that we believe and have been believing since June needed to be brought up in the Senate. We need a national energy policy. That needs to be broad- based. It needs to address the need for additional production of oil and natural gas. Clean coal technology needs to be moved forward, the use of nuclear power, alternative fuels, transmission line problems, as well as conservation, which is a very important part of this package. We see right now circumstances that really bother me. We are dependent on OPEC oil, Russian oil, and Iraqi oil, approaching now well over 50 percent of our energy needs. It is imported oil, and that is extremely dangerous. Just last week we saw where the OPEC countries were lobbying others, including Russia, to cut their production so that the prices could be driven back up. Unbelievably, or perhaps gratefully, we see that the Russians resisted that and said, no, we are going to continue with our production. Apparently now they have come to some sort of agreement and I guess there will be some reduced production and prices will go up some. But we are on a yo-yo. This past June and the June before that, we saw prices shoot up on gasoline inexplicably and probably unjustifiably in some instances. So we don't have a national energy policy. We were told we would do it later. Then there were the September events and October had other things we were working on. Now we are told we will get to it in January or February. Every day we lose puts us at risk one more day. We should have a full debate about a national energy policy. We are going to have it. This amendment is offered to the underlying bill because this is an issue that needs to be voted on by the Senate. We are going to see who believes energy is something we need to do or whether there is a potential threat there. This is not only a national security issue; it is an economic issue. If you want to help the railroads with some of their problems, let's have a reliable energy policy. Let's reduce the cost of what they take to run the industry if you want to help farmers in America. Let's deal with the cost of the energy they need all the way from producing ammonia to diesel. So this is an economic issue. Remember this: If the OPEC countries decided to cut us off, we would be on our knees economically in less than 30 days. America doesn't depend on anybody else in the world for anything else for our existence but energy. We can not have that. The simple solution, is to have the debate. Let's have the vote. By the way, this doesn't displace the railroad retirement bill. It would be added to it, and so we would have an opportunity to pass a railroad retirement bill, presumably one that might be amended substantively as we go forward, with an energy package. The second part of the amendment I offered also puts a 6-month moratorium on cloning. It doesn't say we won't have it for therapeutic research. It doesn't say what we will do. It says ``time out here.'' We have a lot of serious questions that we need to ask and have answered and think about what we want to do. So it is the energy bill and the 6- month moratorium on cloning. This should make for a good debate. It is long overdue. In the case of energy, in the case of cloning, if we don't do it now, we won't be able to do anything until February or March, and this issue will march forward with uncertainty and concern. Senator Brownback has been advancing the need for us to take some action to have the moratorium. The House acted months ago, overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan manner. We will have the opportunity to do the same here. I urge my colleagues to take time tonight and tomorrow and Monday. Let's talk about these two issues. We should not invoke cloture on this amendment. We should have a vote. We should not stop the debate. We should have a vote on the substance itself, and then we could move to the underlying bill and could get it done. Instead of taking shots at each other, we could actually address three big issues in one swoop. That is why I offered the amendment. It is also to serve notice that if we keep going off track on what we need to do to get out of here, other issues will be brought up. This is the Senate. Wonderful place that it is, no one person and no one party dictates what we can do. Marvelously, any Senator can offer any amendment on any subject he or she wishes at any time. Lots of times it takes 60 votes, but that is the way it works. Therefore, we will have an opportunity now to have a full debate on energy and on cloning as well as railroad retirement. I thank the Chair and my colleagues for the opportunity to briefly describe what we are doing. I am sure Senator Murkowski and members of the Energy Committee will be here to describe what is in this energy package. Senator Brownback is waiting to describe the details of his moratorium. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I believe we have no further requests for time on the motion to proceed. We are ready to vote.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If Senator Daschle will allow me to comment on the remarks he made before I came to the Chamber, I think it is a wise agreement or decision to move the homeland issue over to the appropriations area and allow us to go forward to see if we can find a way to come to agreement on the stimulus package. I didn't hear exactly what was said, but I think this is a good thing to do. We need to do it sooner, not later. If we didn't get started communicating bicamerally and bipartisanly until next week, it would make it even more difficult to get our work done in a reasonable period of time. I believe the parameters of the agreement are out there and pretty obvious. We don't want it to be just a spending program that doesn't contribute in a stimulative way to the economy. You can argue that some spending would have more effect than others. Some of the program is going to have to be aimed at the unemployed and the health needs of the unemployed. We have to also make sure we have provisions in there, whether they are tax or even spending, that will have a quick effect on the economy and a positive effect in encouraging growth. So I think within those parameters, which we all seem to be saying in the same way--although we are accused of not caring about the working families; that is clearly not our intent--we want to make sure people who lost their jobs have the help they need. More importantly, we want to help them get a job. So I think to get started is a positive thing. I am pleased we have found a way to do that. I would be glad to yield for a comment or question to Senator Baucus, but I don't want to delay the majority leader.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask Senator Daschle, is he through?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I would like to ask some questions about the anticipated schedule he just outlined today. One thing he didn't mention was the Education conference report. I understood that some progress had been made in that area. It is one we have been working on all year. Certainly, trying to make a Federal commitment to improving education throughout America with more accountability and better education in general is something we all want to work toward. Did the Senator intend to indicate, by not mentioning it, that it is not likely to happen, or does he have any information on what we might anticipate on the Education conference report?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, if that work is not completed, the majority leader does not anticipate that would interfere with the ability of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations conference committee to complete its work?

Mr. LOTT. With regard to the Defense appropriations bill, that is the only appropriations bill that has not been considered on the floor of the House or the Senate while the other four conferences are continuing to work. I want to clarify when it is the Senator's intention to bring up the Defense appropriations bill. I assume the House is going to begin work on it today and maybe complete action on it by tomorrow. We would then be able to go to it, I presume, Thursday or Friday. What is the majority leader's thinking on the Defense appropriations bill? Obviously, that is a very important bill because it provides the funds that are needed for the defense of our country at a time when, obviously, that is very important. It is being used in that very important engagement in Afghanistan, and it also contains the final $20 billion for aid as a result of the September 11 events. I am just concerned if we do not go to it as soon as is possible, that is the one of two things that will delay our ability to complete our work at least for this session of Congress. Can the majority leader clarify more for the Senators what we might expect on the Defense appropriations bill?

Mr. LOTT. I had hoped Senator Murkowski would be able to be here--I understand he is actually on the way in to the Capitol at this time-- and other members of the Energy Committee who have been very concerned that we have not taken up national energy policy legislation before even now. From what the majority leader is saying, it is his intent not to have an energy bill considered this year--at least he is not going to call one up--but he indicated he would call a bill up after we come into session, presumably January 22, in that 3-week period before the Founders Day recess period. Mr. President, is that what the Senator is saying at this point? He is not making any kind of commitment as to getting a product--I did not hear him indicate what product that might be because the Energy Committee, I do not believe, has actually completed work on the bill. I guess the majority leader's intent would be to rule XIV some bill and call it to the floor under that procedure. Is that what his thinking is? I just want to clarify that as much as possible.

Mr. LOTT. It is of great concern to me and a number of Senators that we are not going to be able to consider an energy policy for our country before the end of the year, especially in view of the fact we see now continuing uncertainty about what is going to be done by the OPEC countries. I have a great deal of concern that we are dependent on Iraqi oil and even Russian oil, although Russia clearly has been helpful in this instance in not cutting the supply which would drive up the prices at a critical time. I think we should have already done an energy bill, and we should do one before we go out. I believe once we actually get on to an energy bill, many portions of it can be handled rather expeditiously. Clearly, there is a disagreement about oil production in ANWR, and we will have to work through that with a vote or votes just to see what happens. While we are being told we are not going to do an energy bill, I understand the majority leader's intent now is to call up the railroad retirement bill which has not been reported from the Finance Committee and clearly is not an emergency, even though it does have support on both sides of the aisle. It is your intention to try to call up the railroad retirement bill today; is that correct?

Mr. LOTT. And the other one is Agriculture, even though the agricultural law for the country does not expire until next year. This bill came out of committee. Even though it was reported on a voice vote, I think the critical vote was pretty much a party-line vote. There are a lot of problems with this legislation. I do not see that it could be handled quickly with all the different problems that are in this bill. So the majority leader's intent would be to try to go to railroad retirement today and then Agriculture after that, and then go to the Department of Defense appropriations bill after those two?

Mr. LOTT. All of that is building up to one critical question: Where is the stimulus bill? If we really want to help the unemployed in this country with their unemployment benefits and health benefits and to stimulate the economy with some provision that would give a quick jump- start to the economy, including possibly this idea that Senator Domenici has been proposing, which would be a payroll holiday during December which would have a tremendous immediate impact for employees and employers and come at a critical time of the season--it sounds to me as if the Senator's intent is just to shuttle the stimulus bill off to the side with no indication as to when it may come back and, as a matter of fact, if you try to go to railroad retirement and do not get consent, I presume the majority leader would file a motion to proceed. That would be fully debatable. You would file cloture, and there would be a vote on it on Thursday, I presume. Then we would be off the stimulus bill. So the stimulus bill would be not only moved off to the side, it would be completely brushed aside. It looks as if, to me, for the defense of our country and to help the economy of this country, the two bills we ought to be focusing on are, obviously, Defense appropriations, which the Senator has indicated we want to try to do, and the stimulus bill ahead of anything else. I wish to express my concern we should not be doing anything else until we get an agreement worked out on the stimulus bill. I still am an optimist that we can come to an agreement on the stimulus bill that would help the unemployed and help those who need health benefits in this country and provide a boost to the economy in a quick fashion that would provide positive, immediate benefits without long-term negative effects and would actually encourage growth in the economy. So I wanted to express my concern about that, and I hope as the day progresses and we go over into tomorrow we will continue to work to find a way to get that done. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. LOTT. I certainly would be more than delighted to sit down with the members of the Finance Committee in the Senate and the Finance Committee in the House to work on a stimulus package that would provide immediate growth in the economy. As the Senator knows, unfortunately the bill that came out of the Finance Committee came out on a straight party-line vote, and when the bill came to the Senate, an additional $15 billion in spending--I believe that is the right number--had been added for homeland security, which I think is certainly a debatable issue as far as its stimulative effect is concerned. It might be argued some of those funds might be needed at some point, although those funds have not been requested by the administration. There have been no committee hearings, that I know of, that have justified that expenditure. Therefore, to have a negotiation on appropriations is not the way to proceed. We should proceed on the bill that came out of the Finance Committee. There was not a cloture vote. The vote was on a point of order, as I understand it, which does require 60 votes, because this bill in its present form clearly exceeds the budget. I made several efforts, and so has the Senator from South Dakota, I believe, before the recess to see if we could get the negotiations started immediately between the House and the Senate. For a variety of reasons, I guess, that did not happen, partially because it was a continuing demand to have negotiations on this additional $15 billion, which can be added to other bills. I understand it may be offered as an amendment, either in committee or on the floor, to the Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. LOTT. The principles I thought we were proceeding on were: We wanted to have a stimulus package that would have an immediate effect, not one that would have an effect 6 months or 1 year from now; also, it would not have negative long-term effects, such as driving up the deficit significantly and therefore eventually affecting interest rates; and it would have an immediate stimulative effect. We believe adding $15 billion on top of the additional expenditures that were added in the Finance Committee--and I am not sure what the total amount of money was that was added in spending in the Finance Committee, but it probably would put it in the range of $20 billion to $25 billion in additional expenditures, which is not the way to stimulate the economy. Again, it may be argued that at some point it should be considered separately. The President has indicated that when they need additional funds, they will ask for additional funds. The President has specifically said they do not need these additional funds at this time. As I noted a while ago, there have been no hearings on this, but as long as there is an effort to turn this into another major spending bill, that is a problem. We should sit down and negotiate on the bill that came out of the Finance Committee and work out an agreement. That is the way to go, and that is what we are going to insist on. We are ready to do that at any time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gramm and Senator Nickles for their comments and for their knowledge of the legislation. They are on the Finance Commitee, which has jurisdiction in this area. They know the details of what is in the bill. A lot of us have not had the time or are not on the committee of jurisdiction to study it as closely as they have. It is interesting to note that this legislation has been around for at least a year. The Finance Committee could have had hearings and could have marked it up. I think some of the major problems that have been pointed out by the two Senators who just spoke could have been worked out through an amendment process in the Finance Committee. But lo and behold, to the surprise of a lot of people, we are being told now that the Democrats want to set aside the stimulus package and move over to railroad retirement. Where is the emergency? We are at war and we are in a recession. We ought to be working on the Defense appropriations bill and an economic stimulus package. And yet we are going to delay one until--it appears, I guess, the Defense appropriations bill will not come up before next week. If we move over to this railroad retirement legislation, which many Senators support in concept, it will put the stimulus package on a sidetrack, on the back burner. I think the timing is just not right. We have been through 2\1/2\ months of difficult times. We have dealt with it in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way. It has not been easy, but we found a way to come together, and yet now, when we get to the point of discussing, How do we provide an instant, positive impact on the economy, how do we pass a stimulative package that will have economic growth effects and job creation, we cannot come together. The House acted in a way in which, obviously, many in the Senate do not agree. But the Finance Committee, instead of doing as we have always done in the past, coming together in a bill that has bipartisan votes, overwhelmingly, as we did earlier this year in the tax package, had a totally partisan vote, right down partisan lines, on a package that I guess is around $60 to $65 billion and is $51 billion in expenditures as it is offered. So the Finance Committee reported out a partisan bill and then added $15 billion for so-called homeland security that has not been requested by the President or his administration. There have not been hearings on it. Just voila, it was added to this package. And to make matters worse, now we are being told we should get off this and go to a bill that is clearly not going to help us in the war effort or in stimulating the economy--a railroad retirement bill. Then, after that, we are going to go to an agriculture bill. Supposedly, the Democratic leader will try to do that. And there are going to be objections to that. There are all kinds of problems in that bill. It will take quite some time. And then, and only then, would we go to the Department of Defense appropriations bill? And what happened to the stimulus package? To further the effort to see if we can't come together, I have just been talking about some compromises we could work out. Everybody agrees we need additional unemployment compensation. Nobody wants to block that. The President has recommended and we are prepared to go with 13 weeks of unemployment compensation on top of the 26 weeks that is already in the law. We recognize that for people who have lost their jobs who had insurance coverage but who may have lost their insurance coverage, we have to find a way for them to get that coverage. We are prepared to do that. We are prepared to add to the national emergency grant fund $5 billion for the States to use to provide health insurance coverage or other related assistance. If in fact we have a State where there has not been a significant increase in unemployment, they could use it for other health-related issues. The Governors and the States would like that very much. One of the ways to make sure we have an immediate impact on the economy--next month, not in the next 6 months or a year--is to take a serious look at a proposal by Senator Domenici and Senator Bond and others--an approach that has even been talked about favorably by the ranking Democrat in the House, Congressman Rangel--to have a payroll tax holiday. Say for the next month employees and employers would not have to pay the payroll tax. Substitute that for the rebate checks and for the alternative minimum tax retroactive features. It is about an equal amount of money. It would have an immediate impact on money that workers would have in their pockets and that employers could benefit from, the 6.2 percent they have to pay. It would have an effect next month at Christmastime. If we are really serious, we can come up with alternatives that will stimulate the economy. I challenge Senator Daschle and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's look for some attractive alternatives. I prefer we have a 30-percent bonus for depreciation, but we could compromise at 20 percent if it is there for multiple years--3 years. There is the art of getting this done. After 2\1/2\ months of finding a way to make it happen in case after case, counterterrorism, assistance for cleanup and disaster assistance, with aviation security, while they may not have been perfect at all, we accomplished them and the American people had a very positive reaction. Now, right before Christmas, we are going to start drifting toward not being able to come to a conclusion on an economic growth package. This would be a mistake. While I clearly have a long history of being supportive of the railroad industry, the workers in the railroad industry--I support trying to have a viable railroad industry in this country; I have been supportive of Amtrak even to the criticism of some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle--I think if we start moving into this area in the way that is being suggested, if we try to bring this bill up and basically just push the stimulus off the table, that will be a mistake. I oppose that. I would be willing to work in the Finance Committee to come up with a bill that would get the job done properly, but not this bill and not in this way, and not at the expense of the stimulus package and completing our work in the appropriations area, particularly the Department of Defense. We are at war. We have an economic slowdown bordering at least on a recession. That is what we should focus on. Help our troops in the field and help our workers in their jobs. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding NASA Manager, Kevin P. Power, upon his departure from my staff. Mr. Power was selected as a Congressional Fellow to work in my office because of his knowledge of the aerospace industry, NASA programs, and the John C. Stennis Space Center in my home State of Mississippi. It is a privilege for me to recognize the many outstanding achievements he has provided for the U.S. Senate, NASA, and our great Nation. During his NASA fellowship, Mr. Power worked on legislation affecting NASA and the aerospace industry. He worked hard to ensure that the NASA appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002 included legislative provisions that will support specific programs aimed at fostering the development of a robust U.S. space propulsion industry, which includes rocket engine testing at Stennis Space Center. Specifically, he helped ensure that NASA's rocket engine test facilities are ready to provide continued support for testing under NASA's Space Launch Initiative. Mr. Power also worked to ensure that adherence to past legislative provisions affecting land remote sensing data buys are being met to continue the stimulation of a private sector remote sensing industry without competition from the U.S. Government. Mr. Power graduated from the University of New Orleans, where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering, prior to beginning his engineering career with the U.S. Navy in Annapolis, MD, as a civilian engineer working on submarine acoustics. He transitioned to an aerospace career as a contract engineer supporting Space Shuttle launches at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida and then joined NASA shortly after the Shuttle's return to flight following the Challenger disaster. As a project engineer with NASA, he supported various propulsion development programs at Stennis Space Center, including the Air Force's New Launch System, NASA's Advanced Solid Rocket Motor, the NASA/Air Force National Aerospace Plane, and the NASA X-33 Aerospike Engine. During this time he attended Florida Tech, where he received a Master of Science in Management degree and eventually transitioned to a job with more responsibilities as a NASA project manager for Boeing's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle and NASA's Rocket Based Combined Cycle test facility. Mr. President, Mr. Power is married to the former Susan Foreman of Crowley, LA. They have two children, a 7-year-old-son Brandon and a 5- year-old daughter Madison, and are expecting their third child next year in March. Mr. Power will return to NASA Stennis Space Center to continue his endeavors in the area of rocket propulsion testing. I will truly miss his experience and assistance he has provided to me, and I wish him all the very best as he helps NASA advance its efforts in the areas of space propulsion and remote sensing in the 21st century.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do want to comment on a couple of issues. First of all, I want to talk about the job security stimulus package. Before I do that, I want to talk about the aviation security package that is being considered now in conference. My point has been all along there is plenty of room for disagreement, but there is also plenty of room for agreement. We need to get this done. We knew we had to get this done before this past Monday when we had the crash, very unfortunately, in New York again. We cannot help but have such sympathy and concern and feeling for the people of New York who have been hit hard again. There are no indications as to exactly what caused that accident, but it did once again cause people to be sensitive and nervous about the safety of flying. We in the Congress need to put aside our ideological or even regional disagreements because some of it is a little bit regional. In some parts of the country our airports are all small, regional airports, not the super big ones. We have a little different view of the world than they might have in Chicago or New York or Los Angeles. We ought to put that aside and get this job done. I believe I see movement now, that both sides are beginning to say there is a way we can get this package agreed to. First of all, there is a misperception. We are going to federalize aviation security, period. There is a matter of degrees perhaps, but we are going to require perimeter protection. We are going to require there be a safe and a good screening provision at all of our airports. We are going to require there be an additional check at the gate. We are going to require cockpit safety. We are going to have sky marshals, and the Federal Government is going to require it and provide the money through a fee system that will be paid for by tickets. We are going to say this is what our requirements are, these are the guidelines, this is the management. We are going to make this happen. The House added several provisions that were good, and we had some good ones in the Senate, by the way, that are not in the House provisions. We ought to take the good ones from both of those bills. The House added some provisions we did not have only because they acted 3 weeks after we did and they found some additional problems and some additional things that could be done which they included in their package. Let's take those. I believe Senator Hollings, as well as Senator McCain and Senator Hutchison, are prepared to do that. Then it boils down to this question of how do you deal with the screeners themselves. I believe from discussions I have had today with those who are involved, they are beginning to come up with a way that would allow us to move immediately to some changes but give some options, some flexibility, to the administration and to the individual airports. What they want in Billings may be different from what we want in Biloxi and Gulfport, MS. What they want at LaGuardia may surely be different than what they want in Rapid City, SD. Give some options. In some places, they may want and have the ability to do local law enforcement. The next place maybe a private company has been doing a good job or they have the capability to do a good job. In other areas they may need to go to a federalized system. I do not know all the parameters of what is being discussed, but in my conversations today with Senator Hollings and Congressman Young, the chairman in the House, Senator McCain and Senator Hutchison, I believe they have narrowed it down to where we can get this done. So I would urge our conferees and the leadership of those conferees, in a bipartisan way, in a nonpartisan way, to get an agreement. It is doable today and the Senate could vote tomorrow. That would be such a tremendous indication to the American people we are serious, that we are continuing our efforts as we have over the past 2 months to get the job done for America. Forget the philosophy, the party, the region, any of that other stuff we quite often get tangled up with. It would be so important to send this bill to the President's desk the weekend before the Thanksgiving holidays. Will it guarantee there will be immediate safety within the limits of human endeavor? No. But it would be a positive sign that would be well received, and it is the right thing to do. I think that kind of attitude also applies to this job security or stimulus bill, as it is quite often referred to. On this bill we have kind of fallen back to our old ways. We have the House position. We have the Senate position. We have the Republican position. We have the Democrat position. We have the spending position. We have lots of wonderful ideas. We have the tax cut provisions. What we have is such a hodgepodge and such a weighted bill now that it is not going to happen. What we need to do is go back to the beginning. We all agreed there should be a package to stimulate economic growth and job security. The President, Republicans, Democrats, the House, the Senate, we all said, yes, we need to get this done. Will it be a magic wave of the wand to make sure we have that growth? No. But it could be helpful. We agreed we wanted it to be a targeted bill, one that would have some immediate positive effect on growth, not 6 months from now, not a year from now, but right now. When we started off, I thought everybody agreed on that provision. We also said we do not want to do something that is going to be negative in the long term. We do not want to do something that gobbles up a big swath of money, taking us deeper into deficit spending after 3 years of having balanced budgets and surpluses, and cause interest rates in the long term to go back up. We all agreed we did not want to do that, and we all agreed we wanted to do it in a way that would have an immediate stimulative effect. We kind of lost sight of that. I do not want to be too critical of the House bill, but a lot of what they would do would take effect over a period of years. I like that, personally, but that is not quite exactly what we had talked about when we started. In the Finance Committee we got carried away with a lot of spending. There are not many people going to be able to convince anybody that it is going to have an immediate stimulative effect. It may be justifiable. It may be something I would be for in the normal course of events. But it does not meet the criteria we started out talking about. I have never heard so many good ideas in my life. Oh, my goodness, yes, let's do this, let's do that. Every House Member has a different idea of what we could do to help this sector or that sector of the economy. It wouldn't cost too much, it would only be a billion here and a billion there and, as Everett Dirksen would say, soon it adds up to real money. That is what we have come to. We need to go back to the beginning and do specifically what we said we would do. We have to do the human need things. We have to provide more unemployment compensation. We are going to do that. The Democrats need to understand we understand that. We are going to do that. We can argue over exactly how you do it, but it is going to be 13 weeks additional unemployment compensation. The conferees, I am sure, will argue about how that would apply to the States and what criteria have to be met before that happens, and they will work it out. It is a 15- minute discussion, truthfully. We are going to make sure people who lost their jobs are going to have health insurance coverage. There are about three different good plans out there to be considered. We do not like creating a new mandatory health program in COBRA. We don't like that because we think, while it might start off well intentioned and small, it will explode to a massive program. But there are some other options suggested by the centrist group, suggested by the President, suggested by Chuck Grassley, the ranking member of the committee. We can work through that. But the important point is we are going to get that done. We have to get that done. We are going to have rebates for the low-income workers who did not get the rebate in the earlier round this year. I personally think that is not a good idea. I didn't like it earlier, to tell you the truth, because I doubt the positive impact that it really has in terms of a stimulus in the economy. I think a lot of people will save it, pay down their credit cards. The argument is, maybe the lower income people will need it and spend it at Christmastime and all that. Maybe it will work. But there is no use debating that because that is agreed to. We are going to do that. The President has agreed to that. Democrats want it, Republicans agree to it, so why are we fussing around about it? It is a done deal. Those are the three things the Democrats say they care about the most. Republicans say we understand and we are going to have to do those three things. We are going to have to allow the tax committee workers to work out the details. But I trust them. Senator Daschle and I have talked about this. I have talked to the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus from Montana, and Chuck Grassley. I have faith they are going to work this out. On our side of the aisle, we would argue that while that is the right thing to do, it is the human thing to do, it is not really that stimulative in terms of getting more than a dollar back for a dollar invested. So we need to do that which will have an immediate and dramatic impact on the economy. Yes, we do talk about tax relief. We talk about individual tax rate cuts. We talk about the importance of the accelerated depreciation for companies to write off the cost of their equipment faster. By the way, I think Democrats agree to that, too. The difference is the Democrats say we want to do it at 10 percent over 2 years. Republicans say we want a 30-percent bonus over 3 years. Is there a middle ground in there anywhere? Does anybody see it? Of course. So if we agree on the basic principle, then we have to work through the percentages and number of years. We can do that. I do think--I have always thought--the alternative minimum tax is counterproductive, counterstimulative, and does undermine the capital formation we need to have invested in the economy. It may not be the perfect answer. Maybe there is another good idea out there. I think Senator Domenici has an interesting idea with regard to the December holiday on the payroll tax. I am not saying that should be in there. It is not one that was considered, I don't think, by the committee, but maybe there is another brilliant idea out there somewhere. I think we ought to go for those basics, though, and get this job done and try not to do any damage, try to have some positive effect, and get it done. Others have suggested we need additional spending, homeland security. A lot of what is in that bill we may eventually do. We may need to do it at some point. It hasn't been requested by the administration and hasn't even been analyzed by the committees of jurisdiction, authorization or appropriations. To come in here and attach that to the stimulus and say this is going to stimulate growth in the economy because it would spend money somewhere down the line doesn't meet the basic principles with which we started. Some of the features to which I was most attracted I understand have even been taken out. So I think we need to do it. There has been discussion that Senator Daschle legitimately does not want to have to negotiate a package on the floor of the Senate and then go do another one in conference and then maybe do a third one with the administration. Let's skip all that. We are not going to get a result here in the Senate as we are now set up. This is partisan, political. It is not bipartisan. It is not in the spirit in which we have been working in the last 2 months. We need to take a timeout and say, all right, let's skip all these hurdles and let's go right to the end game. Let's get the right people in the room and say: Get this job done. I trust the people who would be involved. I trust Charlie Rangel. I trust Bill Thompson and Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley. They are the experts. They have done it before. Last year I negotiated on a bill involving the CBI enhancement and the African free trade bill with Charlie Rangel and Bill Archer, and we got it done. A lot of people said it would never happen: You will never make that happen; it is impossible. Max Baucus was involved in that effort, and others. We got it done. So I think the idea we would go ahead and go to this, the conference effort after these two votes this afternoon, is the right thing to do. The American people, would they be hearing the Senate is deadlocked? No, that is not what they would hear. What they would see and what they would hear is the Congress once again is going to the bottom line to come together on the right thing for America. Yes, they stated their partisan political positions and they were beginning to drift back to their old ways, but then they said no, we pulled back from the brink and brinkmanship and said we are going to go to negotiations that will get us a package. As we are headed right now, none of this is going to pass. We are stalled out here. We could have 20 or 25 votes by Friday and have nothing but blood all over the place and partisanship to the maximum degree. Is that what the American people want? No. Do they want us to find a way to come together and get a result? Yes. Is it going to immediately provide this great boost to the economy? I don't know. It may not. But psychologically it would help and substantively I believe it could help. So when we have these two votes, I hope, and I call on my colleagues, let's not make this an emergency designation. This is a stimulus package. Let's not waive the points of order. Let's go to negotiation. Let's get it started. Let's get it started tonight. I want to say--and I don't want to get him in trouble--Senator Daschle has been very reasonable and I think willing to pursue this type of approach. So have all the other players. That is what we have to have. It is a bold move. It does take leadership. But why are we here? To stake out positions? To prevail in partisan battle? There will be another day for that. I hope it is a long time off. Let's continue to do business the way we have done in the past, the way we have dealt with each other, the way we have met with each other, the way we have tried to bridge the partisan and the political gap because of the tragedies with which we have had to deal. We have that opportunity here once again. Let's keep it going. I think we can be successful if we use that approach. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, who has control of the time on this side?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the professional dedication, vision and public service of Dr. Fred Saalfeld who is retiring from the Senior Executive Service, SES, where he serves as Executive Director and Technical Director of the U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research, ONR. It is a privilege for me to recognize the many outstanding achievements he has provided the Office of Naval Research, the Navy, and our great Nation. In times of adversity and challenge, America has always been blessed with men and women who have stepped forward to fight our battles and serve our country. Dr. Fred Saalfeld is such a man, much like those Founding Fathers who were patriot scientists and dedicated public servants. I wish we had more like him. The foundation of his professional career was laid at Southeast Missouri State University where he earned a B.S. degree cum laude with majors in Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics in 1957 and was a standout intercollegiate basketball player as well. Fred Saalfeld matriculated to Iowa State University, where he earned his M.S. in 1959 and Ph.D. in 1961, majoring in Physical Chemistry, with minors in Inorganic Chemistry and Mathematics. Dr. Saalfeld joined the Naval Research Laboratory, NRL, in 1962, where he conducted and directed research in physical chemistry. From 1963 to 1976, he headed the Mass Spectrometry Section and later, the Physical Chemistry Branch. His research led to innovations in atmospheric monitoring and life support now widely used in nuclear submarines, firefighting gear, spacecraft and other equipment using recirculated air. In 1976, he was selected as Superintendent of the NRL Chemistry Division, where he directed programs involving approximately 250 chemists and a $16 million budget. Dr. Saalfeld was selected as Chief Scientist and Scientific Director at the ONR Branch Office in London for the period 1979 to 1980. He returned to NRL from this special assignment. By 1982, he was Associate Director of Research for Material Sciences and Component Technology, involving over 600 scientists and a $90 million budget. Dr. Saalfeld was appointed Director of ONR's Research Department in 1982 and Associate Director of ONR in 1985. He was responsible for the Navy's $220 million contract research program mostly aimed at basic research in American universities. From 1987 until 1993, Dr. Saalfeld was Director of ONR, responsible for the Navy's basic research and NRL. In 1993, he was appointed Technical Director of ONR and Deputy Chief of Naval Research. The title changed to Executive Director and Technical Director in 1998. As such, Dr. Saalfeld became responsible for the Navy and Marine Corps science and technology program. In effect, Dr. Saalfeld was the Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Naval Research, a ``Department of Navy Corporation,'' including a budget of nearly $2 billion and oversight of three international offices and the renowned national laboratory, the Naval Research Laboratory. Dr. Saalfeld became a charter member of the Senior Executive Service, SES, under President Carter. President Reagan named him to the Presidential Meritorious Executive Rank in 1986, named to the Presidential Distinguished Executive Rank by President Bush in 1989, and Presidential Distinguished Executive Rank for a second time by President Clinton in 1996. Dr. Saalfeld has been awarded Department of the Navy Meritorious, Superior and Distinguished Civilian Service Awards, and the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award. In addition, Dr. Saalfeld has been recognized with the Captain Robert Dexter Conrad Award, the Navy's highest award for scientific achievement. He has won the Southeast Missouri State University Alumni Merit Award in 1988, been recognized by Washington Technology as one of the area's top technologists in 1989, and selected by the Federal Executive Institute as Federal Executive of the Year in 1991. During his long and exemplary career, Dr. Saalfeld authored and co- authored more than 500 research papers, reports and presentations. He is active in scientific societies, including the Society for Applied Spectroscopy, the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and the American Chemical Society. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, served as Secretary of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and served as President of the Chemical Society of Washington. I could go on and on about the contributions made by Dr. Saalfeld throughout his long and distinguished career. There are almost too many to recount. I have in mind not only his professional, technical and scientific attainments and achievements, but also the courage with which he faces personal challenges, and the easy grace with which he wins friends. For Dr. Fred Saalfeld considers the entire community of military personnel, civilian employees and contractors who serve at ONR headquarters, at the NRL, and ONR offices and facilities throughout the world to be his family. He supported their research, provided opportunities to exercise initiative in diverse scientific fields, and championed their achievements. But most importantly, he has been friend, counselor, and mentor to many hundreds of people in the Navy and scientific communities. Dr. Saalfeld's most lasting legacy may not be his own discoveries, and may not even those that took place under his direction and supervision, although that record would be a great legacy for any person. His most lasting legacy may be achievements in science and technology that take place in the future, realized by scientists encouraged to serve the Navy and their country by following the example of Dr. Fred Saalfeld. Dr. Saalfeld has spent four decades ensuring our nation and its naval forces have been equipped with technological supremacy to ensure victory over America's enemies. As America enters the 21st Century and faces new and unsettling changes, the scientific discoveries and technological achievements Dr. Saalfeld has nurtured will continue to ensure our strength and freedom. There are many impressive scientists and leaders in technological innovation in America. It is a feature that keeps America a global leader and a prosperous, secure society. There are few who have dedicated their lives to ensuring that we make necessary investments to guarantee future leadership. Fred Saalfeld is one who has exhibited this dedication. In the university and federal research community, Dr. Saalfeld is a living legend and the ``soul of federal research investment.'' We in the Senate wish Dr. Saalfeld all the best in his future endeavors, with fair winds and following seas as he sets off to address new challenges and makes even more contributions to this land of liberty. May God continue to bless Fred Saalfeld, his loving wife Liz, and the United States of America.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, many cities and towns across our country are experiencing conflicts between railroads, motor vehicles, and people for the use of limited and increasingly congested space in downtown areas. High density highway-rail grade crossings, even properly marked and gated ones, increase the risk of fatal accidents. Many rail lines cut downtown areas in half while serving few, if any, rail customers in the downtown area. Rail traffic can cut off one side of a town to vital emergency services, including fire, police, ambulance, and hospital services. Downtown rail corridors can hamper economic development by restricting access to bisected areas. Sadly, since September 11, we now must be concerned about freight trains carrying hazardous materials through the middle of densely populated areas being targets of terrorist actions. These problems exist in small and large cities and towns across the Nation. While TEA-21 provides some flexibility in the use of the Highway Trust Fund to enable States to address some of these concerns, it is primarily focused on solving transportation problems by building or modifying roads, including road overpasses and underpasses, as it should be. However, in many situations, this highway-rail conflict cannot, or should not, be fixed by cutting off or modifying a roadway. The answer is often to relocate the rail line. To address this need I introduced S. 948, the Community Rail Line Relocation Assistance Act of 2001. The bill would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to provide grants to States and communities to relocate a rail line where this solution makes the most sense. In those cases where the best solution is to build a railroad tunnel, underpass, or overpass, or even reroute the rail line around the downtown area, this bill will enable these cities and towns to afford to undertake such a significant infrastructure project. The bill does not tap the Highway Trust Fund. Instead, the rail line relocation grant program would compete for appropriations on an annual basis. S. 948 is supported by the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities, the Association of American Railroads, the Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, the Railway Progress Institute, the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association, and the Rail Supply and Service Coalition. The Senate may soon consider other legislation to authorize funding to increase security for Amtrak, other modes of transportation, and our nation's ports. I ask my Senate colleagues to consider the needs of their own States, to cosponsor S. 948, and to support inclusion of this provision in the next transportation authorization bill to be considered by the Senate. So far, working with representatives of our Nation's cities, I have identified 40 cities in 23 States that are concerned about rail crossing problems and for which rail line relocation may be the solution, I am sure there will be several more such cities that will be identified in the weeks to come. I ask unanimous consent that the list of these cities be printed in the Record.