Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as I go around the country and around my own State, more and more people are bringing this subject up to me. People are complaining about gasoline prices. They are complaining about their electricity bills or their natural gas bills. Out in the real world people seem to be concerned about it and mad about it, but when I come back here, I don't get the sense of urgency. In fact, there are a lot of people who seem to think all we need to do with our energy problem is provide more incentives to weatherize our houses, which is fine, and provide more money for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, money that we give to low-income individuals to meet their heating and air-conditioning costs. Now, I emphasize that while those are both fine in this bill, they are not an energy policy. The answer to the energy shortage is not for the Federal Government to pay the additional cost of not having an adequate supply. So I commend the Senator for including those provisions in his bill. It is comprehensive. He has more incentives for exploration and conservation, for alternative sources, and for low-income needs. I look forward to us actually getting to the floor and having a full debate and amendments. If we complete this year not having passed a major national energy policy bill, it is going to be a big mistake, a tragedy. I think it is the biggest threat to our future economic prosperity. If we don't do this now, we could be in danger because there won't be the power to run Silicon Valley or new automobile manufacturing plants or anything else. There will be shortages, and that will be a mistake for our future economy. I thank the Senator for yielding. I wanted to engage in a little bit of a discussion about when we are going to take this up.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today's fuel prices are a daily reminder that America is now at the mercy of foreign oil producing nations. America's dependence on foreign oil directly threatens our national security and our freedom. However, before you blame your neighbor's SUV, your local fuel distributors, the oil companies, the automakers, or any of the other usual scapegoats, 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 be much more self-sufficient. America does not have to revert back to the practices of the 1970s. This country is faced with a very serious problem. Our nation's's farmers are being hit hard--due to the cost of home heating bills, farm fuel costs, gasoline, and the impact of the crisis on the fertilizer industry. For obvious reasons, the transportation industry is also seeing a significant hit in air cargo and passenger transportation, intercity bus, trucking, and rail transportation. This in turn affects the tourism industry. Rising oil prices impact more than just energy costs. They are absorbed into a wide variety of goods causing a general increase in consumer prices. This cost increase threatens the engine of the nation's economy, our nation's small businesses. All of this is simply because of the lack of an energy policy. As a result, U.S. crude oil production is down significantly, as consumption continues to rise. America now imports over 56 percent of the oil it consumes--compared to 36 percent at the time of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. At this rate the Department of Energy predicts America will be at least 65 percent dependent on foreign oil by 2020. The National Energy Security Act of 2001, which we are introducing today, seeks an overall goal: To enhance national security by reducing dependence on foreign energy sources while protecting consumers by providing stable supplies at affordable prices. It provides incentives for the use of natural gas--a fuel which can burn cleanly in internal combustion engines, and which is abundant within our own borders-- especially in the Gulf of Mexico. It also calls 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, this measure does not ignore the use of renewable energy resources such as solar power, hydro-power, or wind power. However, Congress must acknowledge that America cannot realistically run only on renewable energy resources. Coal, oil, and natural gas remain our most abundant and affordable fuels, and they can be used in environmentally sound ways. Some 55% 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. This legislation will provide credits for emissions reductions and efficiency improvements. It will also provide a tax credit on investments in qualifying system of continuous emission control installed on existing coal-based units. Congress must provide incentives for independent producers to keep their wells pumping, as well. Tax credits for marginal wells will restore our link to existing oil resources, including many in my home state of Mississippi. These wells are responsible for 50% of U.S. production. 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. 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? Millions of Americans are enduring mandated power outages because of lack of power infrastructure or are stuck with bigger heating bills due to increased demand and limited production of energy. America must tap the vast resources we have. If not, those bills are just going to get bigger, and those outages will occur more frequently. America can solve its energy problems but Congress must act in the interests of the entire nation, rather than a select few. America badly needs a comprehensive, but realistic, national energy policy, and we need it now. Mr. President, again, as we have been discussing, today's fuel prices are a daily reminder that America is now at the mercy of foreign oil- producing nations. America's dependence on foreign oil directly threatens our national security and our freedom. We need to think about that and recognize it. The situation we have seen in California is not going to be unique, and it is not just going to apply to the Midwest or the Northeast. This is going to be a national problem. It is going to affect our economy and our future security. When we have the possibility that Iraq can cut off part of our oil supply, and maybe involve other Arab OPEC countries, that is extremely dangerous. Yes, we have SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but only enough for a few days--perhaps a few weeks--at which point we would be on our economic knees and in danger from a security standpoint. A lot of people want to blame something else: Oh, it is your neighbor's SUV; it is your local fuel distributors who are gouging you; or the oil companies are doing it because they want to make more money; or the automobile manufacturers can produce automobiles more fuel efficient. Perhaps they can, and I hope they will continue to make our automobiles better and more fuel efficient all the time, and they have been doing that. There are any number of scapegoats. Before we do that, we should stop and realize America has plenty of energy sources. It is just that we are not using them or getting them out of the ground, and we are not taking advantage of the alternative fuels the way we should. We have the technology. That is why I specifically mention this clean coal technology. I am sure the distinguished Senator from West Virginia could tell you about it. There is a plant over here in Maryland that is using, I guess, a forward-leaning experimental basis--clean coal technology. We should explore that to the greatest extent possible. That is a resource of which we have a large supply. It is all across the board. Yet there are many in this country who say let's just revert back to the 1970s; let's just go with conservation; let's not worry about supply. I think that is a problem. Our Nation's farmers are being hit hard. They are paying higher prices for farm fuel costs, heating bills, gasoline. That is affecting the fertilizer industry. For obvious reasons, the transportation industry is seeing a significant hit in air cargo and passenger transportation, intercity buses, trucking, and rail transportation. It has affected the entire economy already. Indications are--and perhaps the Senator from Alaska has already noted this--that the current oil price situation has already spiked up the CPI by four-tenths of a point. That is huge. But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how that would be happening because of the rising oil prices and the impact they have on energy costs across the board. It is affecting consumer prices, and small businesses are also being hit. All this is simply because of the lack of a national energy policy. We thought we confronted this problem back in the 1970s when we had the long lines at gasoline stations. Remember, I think they had marathon sessions here in the Senate. We took action and we thought that would not happen again. We didn't do enough. America now imports about 56 percent of the oil we consume compared to 36 percent at the time of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. At this rate, the Department of Energy predicts America will be at least 65-percent dependent on foreign oil by 2020. That is extremely dangerous. The National Energy Security Act of 2001, which we are introducing today, seeks an overall goal: To enhance national security by reducing dependence on foreign energy sources while protecting consumers by providing stable supplies at affordable prices. It provides incentives for the use of natural gas--a fuel that certainly burns cleaner than some of the types that we have now--where we have an abundance of it within our own borders, especially in my own area of the Gulf of Mexico. It calls on America to utilize other domestic resources through incentives which encourage the use of marginal oil wells. We have billions of barrels of oil that are available in these marginal wells and certainly up in the Alaska area. There are those who say: No, we can't open up ANWR or some areas on the west coast, areas on the east coast. We could have everything environmentally pure, but we may not be able to have the energy supplies we need to run this country or to heat our homes or fuel our farmers or our economy generally. We should also look at alternative sources such as solar power and hydropower, which is something we rely on in this country. We see a problem up in the Northeast, and because it has been a light year for rain and snow in the Northwest and in States such as Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, they have a potential problem there. Some 55 percent of the electricity generated in the United States comes from these coal-fired, steam-generating plants, as I have indicated. Coal is something we have an abundance of, and with some more tax incentives, we can continue to make progress in coming up with new systems that will provide tremendous rewards for us. I understand the natural gas area we have in the West is as much as 137 trillion cubic feet. It is estimated that we have 16 billion barrels of domestic crude oil in Alaska. None of these facts really should be surprising. We have known it, but we have not been serious about taking advantage of what we have there. We can do all this while protecting the environment. I realize this is something you can't apply to every situation, but in the Gulf of Mexico, an area I am familiar with regarding oil and gas exploration--I live right on the gulf. I look out on the Gulf of Mexico. It is a wonderful sight and one of the most peaceful things I do. I sit on my front porch in a rocking chair and look at those gulf waters to my left toward the Alabama State line. Not long ago, there was a natural gas well pumping away and doing fine. A couple of times they had to flare it, and at night it was a beautiful sight. They have done what they wanted to do with that well and have moved on. As Senator Murkowski has said, more and more of these oil and gas rigs are moving to deeper and deeper water. They drill now in such a way that they know what they are going to hit. They know where it is, and they can do it in 2,000, 3,000 feet of water. It is amazing technology. Have we ever had an incident in my home area? No, never have we had an incident with an oilspill at a rig or with natural gas. The most dangerous thing we have is a Chevron refinery. Big ships come in and have to offload on to smaller ships. They bring those smaller ships into the harbor and port and offload them at the refinery. They, too, have been successful in not having incidents that have caused environmental problems, but there is more of a risk bringing in foreign oil from big boats to smaller boats to the dock than there is to drill for oil and gas. Also, the best fishing in the gulf is around the rigs. Ask the people who live there. They will tell you it has been a tremendous boon to fishing. You catch the biggest fish right around the oil rigs off the coast of Louisiana and off the coast of Mississippi. This is a personal example. We can have oil and gas exploration, protect the fish and wildlife, and do it in an environmentally safe way. I hope we will develop this overall policy. We can pick it apart. Some people are going to say: Oh, no, we can't open up ANWR. It is always interesting to me that the people who say we cannot do it are the people who do not live there. The people who live there think we can do it and do it in an environmentally sound way. There will be those who object to that and maybe try to defeat it. Others will say we shouldn't give incentives to get these margin wells in operation. Others will say the Federal Government should not be involved in paying people's utility bills. If we pick it apart piece by piece, we will wind up with nothing or a skeleton, and we will not have a national energy policy. If we do that, I predict, today on this floor, within the next 5 years we are going to have a disastrous energy supply situation in this country. We have an opportunity to do something about it this year in a bipartisan way that will be good for every region of the country and every group that might have an interest in energy policy. I implore my colleagues in the Senate, and I call on this new administration: Let's step up to this. Let's not shrink from our own problems, desires, concerns, or knowledge. One thing that has always bothered me is if you know anything about a subject, if you know anything about energy, in this city you are disqualified; you have to be ignorant to decide what you need to do about the future energy needs of this country. That is a big mistake. We have an opportunity with regard to our children's economic future. From a security and freedom standpoint, we must do this bill. I look forward to bringing it to the floor of the Senate for consideration by all Senators. Mr. 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, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of S. 360 introduced earlier today by myself and a number of other Senators.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank all my colleagues for their cooperation in clearing this resolution. For those Members who may want to speak on the resolution, we are providing time on Monday, February 26, and some additional time on Tuesday, February 27, if necessary. I know that Senator Gramm and Senator Miller, perhaps Senator Reid, Senator Dodd, and others may want to speak on this resolution. I am pleased we have been able to clear this bill honoring Senator Paul Coverdell.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid for making sure Members understand that these Senators would like to speak, including Senator Cleland. I thank Senator Reid, Senator Daschle, and again Senator Dodd for their fairness in being able to work through this. We will continue to work to make sure this whole area is properly attended to.

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from Connecticut that while they are appreciated, his assurances in that regard are not necessary. I remember quite well the speech the Senator from Connecticut gave on the floor after Senator Coverdell's death. I remember it particularly because it was so good and it was so passionate. Second, we all know of the Senator's investment in and his commitment to the Peace Corps, and nobody would ever question that he cares about it, is interested in it, and will continue to be a supporter and guardian. Lastly, the Senator from Connecticut, of all Senators, never has to say to us that he wouldn't be properly respectful of another colleague or a former colleague. The Senator from Connecticut has proven over and over again that when it comes to his colleagues in the Senate, his respect for them as individuals and his respect for them when they leave this institution is unwavering. The Senator didn't have to make that statement. We never doubt it, and he was very courteous in the way he handled it. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, recently we celebrated the fifth anniversary of the passage of the 1996 Telecom Act. This legislation--a comprehensive overhaul of our nation's laws governing communications-- was the product of approximately ten years of hard work by many people. The intent of Congress in passing the Act was to spur competition, promote innovation, and provide new services at lower prices to consumers. I hoped at the time that we passed the Act that it would have a tremendous impact on the economy, and my hopes were realized. Hundreds of thousands of new jobs were created in the communications sector in the first four years after passage of the Act, and this sector has been a major contributor to the nation's real economic growth since the Act's passage. The blueprint of the 1996 Act provided industry and the markets the necessary certainty to foster and encourage investment in the telecommunications sector. This investment has occurred despite significant delays in the Act's implementation on the part of the FCC, and more disturbingly, delays related to the litigation of the Act in the courts. I am encouraged by the birth and growth of the competitive local telecommunications industry. Furthermore, I am pleased that two of the regional Bell companies satisfied the checklist required by section 271 of the Act in several states, thus indicating that these states are fully open to local competition. By opening these particular markets fully to local competition, these Bell companies are now able to offer long distance service in these states. While I am pleased with these positive developments since the passage of the '96 Act, I believe it is time to review the '96 Act to determine whether it needs to be modified to fully achieve its purpose. While competition in many sectors of the telecommunications industry has undoubtedly increased, I believe that the Congress should consider how to create additional incentives for increased competition in those sectors of the telecommunications industry which remain dominated by a small number of competitors. While we have seen the new competitive companies emerging in the marketplace with a particular focus on business clients, perhaps there are measures which would make it more attractive to these new companies to aggressively pursue the market for local service to consumers' homes. Although a few states are now fully open to local competition pursuant to the '96 Act's conditions, we need to do more to make it attractive for additional markets to be opened, especially rural markets. Additional inducements may be necessary to speed the process of opening more and more states for local competition, as it appears the promise of allowing the incumbent local carriers to enter the long distance service market may not be a sufficient motivating factor in many states. I am also concerned, however, that there are significant deficiencies in the enforcement of the '96 Act. While there were encouraging developments in the telecommunications industry resulting from the passage of the Act, I have serious concerns about the health of the new competitive local telecommunications industry and a perception that true competition for incumbent local carriers has not been achieved due to such enforcement failures. For this reason, I believe that the 107th Congress should look closely at these enforcement issues, with a view towards possible tweaks that may be necessary to ensure full implementation of the Act as it was originally envisioned. I was a strong supporter and key sponsor of the '96 Telecom Act, and I believe that its principles remain relevant and solid. However, a bit of fine-tuning may be in order as we learn from our experiences under the first five years of the Act and look forward to a telecommunications sector which thrives under additional competition, innovation, and consumer choice in the years to come.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 559 just received from the House.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I should note that Senators Kennedy and Kerry, I believe, will be prepared to speak on this resolution. This is a resolution designating the U.S. Courthouse in Boston after Congressman John Joseph Moakley. He is an outstanding individual. Senator Dodd and I both had the privilege of serving on the Rules Committee in the House with him the famous Rules Committee--and have known him for, I guess, 25 years. I am delighted and pleased that this bill will name this courthouse after Congressman Moakley.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, the two sides of the aisle are in the process of clearing a resolution, if at all possible, on the energy situation. We are hoping to work through that. If we can do so, we expect it will pass on a voice vote. Therefore, there will be no further votes this week. The Senate will reconvene on Monday, February 26, and following the reading of George Washington's Farewell Address by the junior Senator, appropriately, from Virginia, Mr. Allen, the Senate will then conduct a lengthy period of morning business. On Wednesday of that week, the Senate will be expected to begin consideration of the bankruptcy bill. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. Again, I want to say that we may or may not have a resolution with regard to the energy situation. But the Senate would like to acknowledge there is a problem in this country and commit to taking appropriate and comprehensive actions in dealing with this problem in the weeks ahead. I wish all of my colleagues a very enjoyable Presidents' Day work period. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I propound a unanimous consent request, I want to make some brief comments on the bill that I expect to call up.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill at the desk which honors Senator Paul D. Coverdell by naming the Peace Corps headquarters after our former colleague. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, while I feel the objection is certainly unfortunate, I know that Senator Reid wants to find a way to work through the problem that may exist. I will be glad to work with him and Senator Miller. Senator Miller has been very generous with his time and very committed to this process. I talked with him a couple of times--just yesterday--to try to work through this. It is my expectation we will be able to clear this bill and take it up for consideration. It really is noncontroversial, and I believe it should be passed by unanimous consent. I hope Members who do have a problem, or if there is a procedural problem, will find a way to work through it so we can honor this noble and respected Member. I invite Senator Reid and any others to comment on the process, and if they have any remedy they can suggest, I am anxious to hear from them. I know effort is already underway to do that, and I know they will continue. It will be my intent to file cloture on this matter if it is necessary prior to the recess of the Senate this week. I hope and expect we will not have to do that, but because of the requirements of S. Res. 8, if I have to file cloture, I will have to wait the requisite 12 hours now before filing the cloture on an amendable item, so I will have to begin the process. Rather than leave it in that vein, I prefer we talk and we work this out and find a way to get it cleared and agreed to tomorrow before we leave for the Presidents Day recess.

Mr. LOTT. I understand that.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, many of us in the Senate still greatly miss our distinguished and honorable colleague from Georgia, Paul Coverdell. There are not many days that go by that I do not think about him when I am working in this Chamber and in my office. We really have been grieving and thinking an awful lot about him over the months since his unfortunate early passing away as a result of his problems last year when he had a cerebral hemorrhage. He was an extraordinary public servant. We all wanted to find a way to express our sorrow and to appropriately honor him. In that vein, I wanted to make sure we did not just have a rush to judgment of what we might try to do to honor him--doing it in several little ways but never an appropriate way. After discussion on both sides of the aisle and getting approval of the Democratic leader, I asked four of our colleagues to serve as an informal task force to come up with an appropriate way to honor Senator Coverdell. These four Senators, two from each side of the aisle, were good friends and worked closely with Paul. They had a personal interest in it. I thank Senator Gramm of Texas, Senator DeWine of Ohio, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, and Senator Zell Miller of Georgia for taking the time to think about this, meeting together and coming up with ideas of how to appropriately honor Senator Coverdell. That is how this bill came into being. A lot of ideas were considered. They were discussed with Senator Coverdell's former staff members, family, particularly his wife, and they came up with the suggestion that is included in this bill. I thank Senator Daschle and Senator Reid for being willing to be involved in this process. As a result of their efforts, we now have a bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, the Presiding Officer, Senator Cochran, for the remarks he made a few moments ago on the floor of the Senate with regard to the defense budget, particularly missile defense. He has been very thoughtful in this area. He has been involved for a number of years. He serves as head of a bipartisan group of Senators who have been to Russia on behalf of the Senate, who have met with representatives from the government, the Duma of Russia, when they have been in the United States. To put this in a positive way and note that President Bush intends to go forward with it when it is ready to be deployed and that we be prepared to have a serious discussion about it is fine, but I thank him for the way he has been involved in this issue and express my confidence that as we move forward on this very important defense item for our future, I know he will be involved in that. I feel very good that President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld will approach this matter in an appropriate way, with our defense budget funding but also in the way it is handled with our allies. I look forward to working together in the future on this important issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the outstanding accomplishments of Loretta Fuller Symms. There she is, looking quite natural in the front of this Chamber. This week, she will be retiring after over 20 years of congressional service. Has it been that long? For 14 of those years, she has served in the Senate. I first met Loretta 20 years ago when I was a Member of the House of Representatives and she was working in the office of then-Congressman Steve Symms of Idaho. She would tell you--Steve and I were first elected in 1972 and came 1973--Steve and I have a common bond philosophically but also fraternally in that we were close friends, and that is where I first met Loretta. She moved to the Washington area from Coeur d'Alene, ID, a beautiful area. What a sacrifice to move from Coeur d'Alene, ID, to come to Washington. Thank goodness she did, and we have all been much better off because of her outstanding congressional career. In 1987, the very wise Senator Bob Dole, my predecessor as Republican leader, chose Loretta to be the Republican representative in the Sergeant at Arms Office. Over the next 9 years, she filled a number of roles within that organization. It was during that time that I was first elected to the Senate, and Loretta was very helpful to me and my staff in opening my offices here in Washington and in Mississippi. I remember she had a post, more or less, in the back of the Chamber, and I quite often would stop by to ask her what in the world was happening because the rules here are quite different from what I had been used to in the House. Of course, I was concerned about a number of things that I found difficult to manage and to deal with over here, but she was very helpful. She has always brought professional business practices to the Senate operations. As director of Capitol facilities, she restructured the department establishing career ladders, formalizing job descriptions, instituting reading programs, and starting computer classes and other training programs for our employees. Working with the Secretary of the Senate, she contributed to the management and oversight of the Senate page program, serving as adviser, mentor, and sometime surrogate parent to the high school students who participate in the program. She was a driving force in the opening of Webster Hall, the building that functions both as a dormitory and as a site for the Senate page school. I was pleased to appoint Loretta as Deputy Sergeant at Arms in 1996, the post she will serve until Friday. In that role, she has done a magnificent job. In fact, I was not sure I could give these remarks this morning because I still would like to ask her to change her mind: don't do this; at least stay until we complete the new extension on the east front of the Capitol. It wouldn't be but another 2 or 3 years perhaps. Steve would understand. I have made that plea to no avail. I guess, come Friday, she will be moving on to a different and exciting life, I am sure. She has demonstrated an unmatched dedication to the institution of the Senate and its traditions. She understands them. She helps them and protects them. She contributed in large part to the restoration of the Senate Chamber in its current majesty, an area I have felt strongly about, but she made sure we paid attention to history and that it was done with good taste. The Chamber looks better today than it did 5 years ago. Loretta has ably handled the huge and demanding responsibility of overseeing the daily operations of the Sergeant at Arms organization and its 750 employees. I know our Sergeant at Arms, Jim Ziglar, has been worried about this Friday and this day and how she would ever be replaced. A good choice has been made as a successor, but still I do not think we could ever truly replace Loretta and the job she has done. In her duties as a representative of the Senate, Loretta has assisted Presidents, Vice Presidents, and foreign heads of state as they made official visits here. She has led the Senate as we walked through the Capitol Building over to the House side for joint sessions. I always thought we got more than our due share of notice, probably because Loretta was leading the pack. We will surely notice her absence next week and for a long time to come, but I know Loretta is happy to exchange foreign dignitaries' visits for more visits with her 10 grandchildren. It is hard to believe she has 10, and here I am working only on my second one. We are sad when one of our Senate family leaves us, but at the same time, we could not be happier for her. I know her husband, Steve Symms, is going to be happier, too. As Loretta moves on to new challenges, I say thank you on the Senate's behalf and on my own behalf. The words are inadequate to express our appreciation for the kind of person you are and the job you have done. We all wish you the very best in your next career as grandmother and as keeper of Steve Symms, which will be a challenge. We all appreciate you. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the very fine statement made by the junior Senator from Virginia, certainly a very experienced leader, having served in the House of Representatives and having been Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and already a very active participant in what is happening in the Senate and in our Government. I had a feeling he would probably be suggesting tax relief is a good idea. Virginia has a strong opinion on that going back just a few years. I thank him very much for his statement.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate has the opportunity to move one step closer to correcting an extreme disappointment of the 106th Congress. S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000, which passed the Senate unanimously on September 7, 2000, but never made it across the finish line in the House of Representatives, has been reintroduced this Congress as S. 235, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001. This legislation is the result of months of extraordinary bipartisan effort by Senators John McCain, Patty Murray, Slade Gorton, Jeff Bingaman and Pete Domenici. Significant contributions to the legislation were also made by Senators John Breaux, Fritz Hollings, Sam Brownback, Ron Wyden, John Kerry, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Byron Dorgan. I also feel some ownership of this effort. I serve on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which prepared the bill for the Senate's consideration, and my home state of Mississippi hosts many, many miles of pipelines. These issues are extremely important to me. S. 235 is an excellent bill. It is probably the most significant rewrite of our pipeline safety laws in more than a decade. It is a tough bill. It comes on the heels of horrific accidents in Bellingham, Washington, Carlsbad, New Mexico, and in locations in Texas, that resulted in the deaths of a total of 17 people. The authors of this bill were determined to put the necessary specific requirements into the pipeline safety statutes that would prevent these kinds of accidents from happening in the future. They were successful. The bill represents a watershed change in the types of requirements on pipeline operators for inspection, pipeline facility monitoring and testing, employee training, disclosure of information, enforcement, research and development, management and accountability. It is as comprehensive, tough, and complete as to be expected of a bill that emerged from a thorough process of hearings, both here and in the field, data gathering, and working with the Administration, States and local groups. It is the kind of legislative work product to be expected from the experience, independence and determination of the Senators who worked on S. 235. The pipeline industry had no choice but to submit to this legislation. Last year it received the affirmative vote of more than three fourths of the Congress--all of the Senate and just under two-thirds of the House. It received the written praise of Secretary Slater and the Vice President Gore. Now, at a time when there is no question that this country is in dire need of a sound energy policy, the Senate has the opportunity to address one very important component of that policy--pipelines. Today's fuel prices are a daily reminder that America is now at the mercy of foreign oil producing nations. However, before you blame your neighbor's SUV, your local fuel distributors, the oil companies, the automakers, or any of the other usual scapegoats, 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 gas to be much more self-sufficient. America does not have to revert back to the practices of the 1970s. The goal of the soon to be introduced energy policy legislation is to reduce the dependence on foreign sources by 50 percent by 2010. This goal can be accomplished, and with the accomplishment of this goal will be an increased need for the use of pipelines--safe pipelines. There is no question that this bill would make much needed improvements in pipeline safety. There will be time in the coming months to debate energy policy. Let's keep this bill clean and focus on pipeline safety.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I look forward to the debate the Senator from Minnesota was discussing. I agree; just because we should and will have a civil debate doesn't mean we should not have that debate and lay out our differences of opinion very aggressively and passionately. I look forward to doing that. The good news today, while there is a lot of gloom and doom in certain corners, is that tax relief is on the way for working Americans. They deserve it. We have a tax surplus, $5.6 trillion in overpayment by the American people. Now, we will argue over exactly how that $5.6 trillion tax surplus should be used. We agree that Social Security should be set aside, put in a lockbox. If you listened to the campaign debate last year, you would have thought Vice President Gore came up with that idea. He needs to check with Senator Domenici and others who actually came up with the idea of having a lockbox on Social Security. We should continue to pay down the debt in an orderly way, as was suggested by Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, over a period of years, and we can eliminate it earlier than was indicated. We ought to do that on a steady basis. We can have additional investment in areas where we really need it--in education, in health care, even in defense. To the President's credit, he is saying in the defense area, let's take a look and see what our needs may be in defense; let's look and see if there might be someplace where we can save some money in defense while we clearly are going to have to do more in terms of having readiness and modernization and quality of life for our men and women in the military. We need to assess what we are going to need in the future. He is going about it in an orderly fashion. That is a good idea. There is no question that working Americans need some tax relief. You talk about breaks for the wealthy. What about the single educated young woman making $30,000 a year in the 28-percent bracket? That is not rich. We have these brackets now that force people into higher and higher brackets at very low income levels. That is fundamentally unfair. We are talking about tax relief for all Americans across the board. It is very fair to do it that way. I thought we had fundamental agreement last year that we need to do something about reducing the marriage penalty. The President proposes that we double the child tax credit. I don't believe there are a lot of Democrats who are going to speak against that. He encourages more use of charitable contributions without being first penalized with taxes when you take some of your savings and put it into charity. He has a whole package of good ideas, and it is a very fair proposal because it is across-the-board rate cuts. There is another benefit here. We are not just talking about the fairness in the Tax Code; we are talking about the need for some economic growth incentives. Look at what President Kennedy did, what President Reagan did, and how much their tax relief was as a percentage of GDP. As a matter of fact, President Bush's proposals are actually below what the Kennedy-Johnson package provided for way back in the 1960s. In each case, we had economic growth; we had an increase of revenue coming into the Federal Government. The problem was, in the 1980s, we had an insatiable spending appetite by the Democratically-controlled Congress that kept pushing up spending. Unfortunately, we could not convince President Reagan to veto more of those bills. I hope President George W. Bush will press aggressively for his proposal on tax relief. I know he is doing it. He is going today to have an event with a young woman in business to show how this tax relief would help her. As a matter of fact, we checked on a lady who was here a couple years ago, expressing concern about Government mandates and regulations and taxes, named Harriet Cane from the Sweetlife, a small restaurant in Marietta, GA. She had eight employees. She was struggling to make ends meet. She was doing more and more herself. She did the mopping, the preparation. Well, we checked with her to see how she is doing. Guess what. She is out of business. She said: What drove me out of business was a lot of things, but Government mandates and regulations and taxes contributed mightily to it. When she heard what President Bush is talking about, she said: That certainly would have helped me. For the young entrepreneur, this tax relief will be very positive. There is a fundamental difference. There are people here who think that any money we can take from people to bring to Washington, we have the brilliance on how it should be spent. I have a fundamental faith in the people to decide what they should do with their own money that they worked hard to earn. Now they are paying 28 percent, 15 percent, 33 percent, 36.5 percent. When you add it all up, you still have people in this country paying 40, 50 percent of everything they earn for taxes, to bring it to Washington so the brilliant Members of Congress and the bureaucrats can decide how they think it should be spent. I don't agree with that. I think the family can decide how to best spend money for their children's needs, whether it is buying clothes or a refrigerator, a different car, or a tutor for education. The same thing is true in education. States such as Minnesota put a lot of money into education. Other States don't put as much into education. Quality education is not consistent across this country, between States and within States, including my own State. My State has put a high priority on education. We are beginning to make progress. We are going to be paying teachers more. Our universities have been competing more aggressively for research money in physics, acoustics, and polymerscience. I still believe education should be run at the local level and decisions should be made there. I think we should have a program that leaves no child behind; we should improve reading, but we should also improve math and science skills. The Federal Government can help with that. By the way, not everybody even agrees with that. My predecessor--a Democrat, I might add--in the House and in the Senate thought there was a great concern about the Federal dollar and Federal control following the Federal dollar. I don't agree. I think we have a role to play in early childhood education and elementary and secondary and in higher education. We have been doing a better job in higher education than in elementary and secondary. I think money should be given to the States and the localities, local education administrators and teachers and parents, with flexibility so they can decide how to spend it. People in Washington don't like it. They want to tell you to spend it here, there, or somewhere else. Pascagoula, MS, might have different needs from Pittsburgh, PA. We may need more teachers, or maybe we need more remedial reading programs, or maybe we need to fix a leaky roof. But the Federal Government doesn't know what the priority is. We are going to have a good debate. I look forward to it. When I check with my constituents, the people working, paying taxes, pulling the load, people out in the forests who are being told, ``By the way, you can't cut trees anymore and you can't have roads to get to those trees,'' and people working in the shipyards or oil refineries, they are wondering what will happen. They don't have to have a national energy crisis. The problem is we haven't been producing more energy because we want to shut down our resources--coal, oil. Let's debate education and energy policy and we will get a result. I believe the American people will be better off when we get those done. If we don't have a budget plan of how to use this tax surplus, it will be spent by the Washington Government. That is a mistake. I think the working people deserve help. Should we be concerned about low- income needs? Yes. We should address that in a variety of ways, and we are going to do that. Yes, I think it is time to get on with the debate. I commend the President for what he proposed. He will bring it up to the Congress Thursday. We will have a chance to study it. I am pleased that he said let's make the income tax cuts retroactive to the first of the year. I think that will be even more positive for the economy.