Floor Statements

Mr. President, the news has been focusing, and much of the discussion in this Chamber has been on, the threat that Iraq poses. I have listened to some of my colleagues today on the question of what to do about Iraq. Over and over, there is this clarion call for more time: more time for inspectors to do their work; more time to enlist more allies; more time for Saddam Hussein to comply.

With all due respect, I ask them: How much is enough? We have already been at this for 12 years, 12 years since the end of the Persian Gulf war. Do we need 12 more years? One more year?

I would like to flip the question on my colleagues and ask: How much time do we have? Every minute we wait, Saddam Hussein's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and to share them continue. Every minute we wait, the surviving al-Qaida terrorists plot their next attack. We fear it may be a weapon of mass destruction, particularly chemical and biological attack.

Sooner or later, either here or somewhere else in the world, we will run out of time. We ran out of time in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon on September 11. Brave sailors on the USS Cole ran out of time. Our two embassies in Africa ran out of time in 1998. Over 200 innocent victims, mostly Australians, ran out of time in a Bali, Indonesia, nightclub.

How many more attacks must we absorb before we realize that time is not on our side? Where will the next attack be? Will it be against a soft target? Certainly the soft targets are the ones the terrorists say they want to attack. Will it be St. Louis, Kansas City, San Francisco, New York, or someplace in New Hampshire or someplace in South Carolina?

What will it be the next time? More airplanes flown into buildings? Probably not. Truck bombs against sports stadiums? Suicide bombers in crowds? More likely a toxin released in a subway or a skyscraper or at a large public event.

Right now there are people who are sworn enemies of this Nation plotting the next attack. We know their intentions and, unfortunately, we know their capabilities. What we do not know is their next method of attack, although they have a track record of intentional unpredictability.

Will they get their next weapon from Iraq? After 12 years of cat and mouse or rope-a-dope--whatever one wants to call it--we want to call Saddam Hussein's strategy of delay and deception unacceptable.

We cannot wait much longer. We already know too well the true nature of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. He has failed to live up to his obligations under the 1991 cease-fire after the gulf war. Still, some friends on the other side of the aisle plead for more time. I cannot understand why anyone would plead for more time for Saddam Hussein, a man who has been in clear breach of U.N. obligations since 1992.

Specifically, Iraq has been in material breach of U.N. Resolution 687 which was passed in the spring of 1991. That resolution called upon Iraq to ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction, removal or rendering harmless ``under international supervision'' of all ``chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components of all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.''

Some may be unable to understand that Iraq has been in material breach of the U.N. obligation since 1991. Sadly, this is nothing new. This latest round under U.N. Resolution 1441 was Saddam's last chance to get back into compliance.

Dr. Hans Blix reported to the U.N. Security Council on Monday that in large part, Saddam Hussein has failed to get back into compliance. Even the Washington Post editorialized that it is an ``indisputable truth'' that ``Iraq is in material breach'' of 1441. If Iraq is not complying, then it must be lying.

Iraq has not only failed to disarm, it has worked to obstruct and evade international supervision. There are reports Saddam Hussein has tried to infiltrate the U.N. teams; that Iraq has threatened its scientists with death if they cooperate with U.N. inspectors; that Iraqi security agents have posed as scientists to thwart the inspectors' work. Clearly, Iraq is in violation of 1441 for having failed to comprehensively account for missing weapons of mass destruction.

Secretary Colin Powell had it right when he said it makes no sense for the inspectors to stumble around in the dark looking for evidence of noncompliance. It is instead Saddam Hussein's legal obligation to turn the lights on and turn over the goods.

In addition, Saddam Hussein continues to violate U.N. resolutions by firing at coalition aircraft. He refused U.N. inspectors' request for aerial surveillance, and yet some still plead for more time.

We have drawn so many lines in the sand that we are running out of desert, we are running out of sand in which to draw lines.

The American people will not forgive us if another attack comes when we dither with procedures and process in the corridors of the United Nations. What do we say to the victims then? What words of comfort could we possibly give to widows or children who have lost their parents? Can we say: I am sorry, but we had to enlist the support of the French before we could act? What solace would that provide a family mourning a loved one lost forever?

What about our military troops ordered into harm's way? Every moment of delay allows Saddam Hussein to ready himself for battle, and the more ready he is will quickly translate into higher casualties among U.S. and allied forces.

Time, regrettably, is not on our side. We know what we have to know to act. Indeed, I believe we would be failing our sworn obligation to defend this Nation if we fail to act in light of all we know about the threats we face in Iraq.

For all of my colleagues who are still asking for more time, I plead with them to read the key findings about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction efforts taken directly from the CIA's unclassified Web site. It was reported there last fall.

We know from U.S. and British intelligence reports that have been made public that since 1991, Iraq has repeatedly been caught redhanded lying about the extent of its missile and weapons of mass destruction programs.

With the defection of Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein al-Kamel, in 1991, as head of the Iraq WMD program, he revealed the extent of the continued illegal operations in the face of sanctions and prohibitions. Baghdad illegally retained proscribed al-Hussein missiles and launchers. It constructed a new test engine for the development of missiles capable of threatening much of the region. And it pursued illegal programs to procure materials for illegal development of longer-range missiles. We know that if Iraq acquires sufficient weapons grade material, it could

make a nuclear weapon within a year and, as the President said last night, from the British Government we know that Baghdad has sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil program that could require it.

Iraq has recalled specialists to work on its nuclear programs. All key aspects of Iraq's biological warfare program are still active, and most elements are larger and more advanced than before the gulf war. Iraq has begun renewed production of chemical warfare. Iraq has mobile laboratories for military use, corroborating reports about the mobile production of biological weapons. Dr. Blix has corroborated much of U.S. and British intelligence citing unresolved disarmament issues and complaining Iraq's cooperation is not active and should not be a game of catch-as-catch-can.

Mr. President, clearly, Iraq is in material breach of its international obligations, and that should serve as a sufficient trigger for forced disarmament by the international community led by the U.S. and its willing allies at the appropriate time.

After 12 years of consistent evasion, I cannot foresee any circumstance in which the Iraqi regime would now change its stripes. Deception is a reflex of Saddam Hussein's government, and it will persist until the regime is gone.

Iraq has had 12 years worth of opportunity to avoid war. And at every turn, it has chosen a course of action that is delivering us again toward hostilities.

I believe that at this point, the only way truly to disarm Iraq is by force.

If France does not want to go along, obviously, that is no excuse for inaction. Multilateralism should not stall us. We took oaths as Members of this body to defend this Nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic, not on the condition that the United Nations and France agree.

President Bush is well within his duty and obligation to defend this Nation by the use of force against Iraq at any time now. The Risks before this Nation and the world demand that he be ready and willing to use military force, with or without universal international support.

This is a moment of truth for our longtime allies of France and Germany. By their action or inaction, will they strengthen or weaken the international laws that protect all our nations and citizens?

Obviously, it is better to have international support than to not have it. But as Colin Powell said, multilaterialism should never be an excuse for inaction.

When I took the oath as a U.S. Senator, I did not swear to defend this Nation against all enemies foreign and domestic--only if the United Nations voted its approval.

I note the remarks of the senior Senator from Delaware yesterday who lamented that never in his career had he heard such disapproval from so many of our allies.

I too am saddened by this situation. I genuinely wish it were not so.

But I disagree with my colleague in assuming that the root cause of our disagreement lies in a faulty U.S. position.

Why is it that so many of my colleagues prefer the judgment of our European allies to that of our own best experts and analysts?

I think there is very little in the historical track record of many of our old European allies that inspires confidence in their ability to identify and deal with threats.

In particular, I find little in France's history to envy with regard to identifying and standing up to threats.

Frankly, I would be worried about our course of action if the French were on board in full. They have a great interest in oil. Thirty percent of the oil out of Iraq goes to a French oil company. That is not grounds to trust them.

It reminds me of when one of my hometown newspapers, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, editorialized in favor of something I had done. I immediately told my staff that I must have taken an incorrect position on the issue.

I have often found during my career that the right thing is often in direct opposition to the professional stone-throwers and nay-sayers.

But in all seriousness, in contrast to many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I believe the root cause of the disagreement between some of our old European allies and the United States lies within more within the realm of political and naked economic interests than with matters of national security.

The irony of the current situation is that American unilateralism may be the last best hope of old Europe, the Middle East and the United Nations--as it has been so many times over the last few decades.

Our President is on the right course. It is not the easy path. But it is the right one. And he deserves the support of this body and the American people.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the Feingold amendment. The Feingold amendment, as my colleagues probably know, deals with Indonesia and makes not too subtle suggestions about evil doings and suggests that we can only work with them in certain circumstances. As one who has traveled frequently to that region, I am very much disturbed by the intent and the apparent direction of this amendment.

It is very clear to the Government of Indonesia and its people that there is a legitimate terrorism threat in that country today. The tragic bombing in Bali, a major international tourist destination and the source of essential revenue in the country, brought the reality of terrorism squarely on the heads of the Indonesian Government. This is a country which, if superimposed geographically on the United States, would extend from San Francisco to Bermuda. It is the fourth largest country in the world, with the largest Muslim population in the world. It is also, unfortunately, home to many elements of al-Qaida and Jamaah Islamiyah, another Islamic terrorist group.

The tragic bombing in Bali, with almost 300 people killed, has brought home to that country the real threat of terrorism, and they are taking that threat seriously.

I have talked with our resources in the area, our embassies. I have talked with neighboring countries that are very much concerned about the future of Indonesia. We believe they are performing a credible and thorough investigation of the bombing. Arrests have been made. But the investigation continues and the Government is committed to arresting all those involved.

Indonesia is a majority Muslim nation. Many of its citizens, regrettably, hear continually from extreme elements within the country that the United States is targeting Muslims and is anti-Islam. This creates a very difficult political climate for the country's moderate Muslim President. She is one who has visited this country. I have met with her on a number of occasions, and I know she understands the importance of our relationship and the importance of their efforts against terrorism.

The country is making an effort now to investigate the terrorists who committed the bombing, to control the terrorism problem, and to strengthen the military.

I ask, Is this the best we can offer in the Senate to encourage cooperation between the two countries, to pursue a warmed-over agenda, to embarrass the military because some activist groups are not satisfied with the results of the tribunals that investigated the outrages in East Timor?

This is a time when we in the United States have to be serious about our relationship with moderate Muslim nations. We need to support the people within these countries who are resisting the extremists. It is a tremendous challenge for them to stand up to extreme voices. We should be supportive. We ought not to be sticking a finger in their eye. We ought not to be gratuitously slapping them in the face.

In the case of Indonesia, we should encourage strengthening those institutions which the Government will rely on to investigate terrorism, apprehend terrorists, and prevent further attacks. In Indonesia, the only institution with that capacity is the military.

I have talked with our Secretary of State and our Secretary of Defense, and I have asked them what we can do to improve our relations with Indonesia to assure they have the strength to resist terrorism and to provide their share of the role in the international battle against terrorism.

What they have said, quite frankly, to bipartisan groups in front of them is to stop congressional interference and slurs on the Indonesia military. Unfortunately, rather than moving in a sensible direction to encourage military-to-military contact, to take actions to raise the standards of their military to levels we are comfortable with and to promote relationships between officers, we would, by adopting this measure, pursue a course that insults the people, strains relations, and will aid the extremist elements in their efforts to demonize the United States.

This may be presented as a harmless amendment, one that can be satisfied easily by us and the Indonesians, but those people are our friends. Our allies in Southeast Asia take note of what we do; they hear our message. What we pass is loud, and it is clear; it resonates. It is not only a bad idea, it is dangerous.

We need to stand up and support our friends, especially in these challenging times. As I have met with friendly nations in Southeast Asia, they have been dumbfounded that we continue to insult, denigrate, and downgrade Indonesia. We should be supporting them.

This amendment is not grounded in legitimate policy concerns but, rather, in an ongoing interest by some to refight the East Timor battle year in and year out, despite the fact that East Timor is now an independent country. It is hollow all the way through.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in defeating this amendment, to send the message that we will support moderate Islam countries, struggling democracies trying to fight terrorism.

I thank the managers and yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I am not speaking on the time on this side. I ask my colleague from Wisconsin if he has visited the area, if he has talked with our officials in the region, if he has talked with the people in governments who support us and who support Indonesia. Has he had the opportunity to find out what the impact of this amendment would be?

Mr. President, in addition to the arguments that the distinguished Senators from Oklahoma and Idaho made about the need to revise the Superfund law, let me simply point out that this amendment would add $100 million more to Superfund spending. You can call it coming from the Superfund trust fund, but it is still spending, and it still scores against the budget. It goes over the agreement that we had with the President.

The current bill funds Superfund activities and cleanup at $1.273 billion for fiscal year 2003. This is what the administration requested, and that is what is needed.

The Superfund cleanups are adequately funded.

Does my colleague from Oklahoma wish to add anything further?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, that was a very enlightening speech, but I wonder how long the Senator wishes to speak. There are several others who want to speak. I understand it is only for 3 minutes; therefore, I will not object.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Minnesota will yield.

I commend the Senators from Minnesota for their tribute to our colleague, to Paul Wellstone and to Sheila Wellstone, Senator and Mrs. Wellstone.

We know what a priority this is for them and for the people of Minnesota. We commend their devotion. I know I speak for my colleagues in the Chamber when I say we want to do everything we can to help ensure that the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center for Community Building serves as a successful living memorial to the two fine friends we have lost.

In order to do this, we have, working with my distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Maryland, increased the appropriations in this bill from $3 million to $5 million. I assure the Senators that Senator Mikulski and I will work together with our counterparts in the House to achieve full funding, $10 million, for the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center. This is something which we understand is very important, and they have our commitment to work very hard to see that those dollars are made available.

I thank the Chair and my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. President, the administration's New Source Review, or NSR review, will benefit the environment. Right now companies face an average delay of 8 months, sometimes as long as 18 months, to get an NSR permit. Therefore, many companies avoid the process altogether. That means that there are environmental losses because companies stick with old, outdated technologies instead of the most modern, efficient pollution control measures.

There is a specific example. EPA has done a plantwide application limits, or PALS, test and the results are striking. Many companies have multiple emissions from many different sources, including big to extremely small pipes. If you tried to do it under the existing framework, you would have to have a permit for each one. As a facility wants to upgrade or modernize, they have go through a time-consuming process but PALS allows a plant to calculate its total emissions from all sources. As long as they stay below the plantwide total, they can do it.

A striking example is at the DaimlerChrysler plant in Newark, DE, where they make Dodge Durango trucks. They needed to upgrade their process. They did it. PALS allowed them to make over 90 changes.

The environment was benefited. An amazing thing happened. With the new flexibility, the plant was able to cut pollution in its painting process, cut smog-forming volatile organic compounds and hazardous plant pollutants. Plant managers cut 400 tons of air pollution from the clean air process and cut paint odors by 50 percent.

We have auto assembly plants in Missouri. We make light trucks and vans. I would love for my constituents to breathe cleaner air because of the PALS program reforms. That is why the Clinton administration's EPA, led by Carol Browner, supported the NSR reforms. We should and I urge support for the Inhofe amendment and the defeat of the Edwards amendment.

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

Mr. President, we have before us, although not under lively debate, an amendment by the Senator from North Carolina with reference to the New Source Review air program. This is a very important program that we have debated extensively in the Environment and Public Works Committee. There have been many hearings on this issue and, frankly, the issue has been resolved. But unfortunately, it has become an example of the polarized, confrontational, contentious nature of the environmental debate. I wish it were not this way.

I believe the administration's New Source Review reforms are good for the environment, good for energy security, and good for the economy.

I will not go into all the details here because I know there are many other Senators wishing to speak. So I will await further discussions when they have had their say.

I think it is important--I want to lay down a marker--for my colleagues to understand that the EPA's New Source Review reforms--what we call the NSR reforms--will improve air quality and benefit the environment. EPA has already done the environmental analysis. It shows that four of the five provisions in the final rule will reduce air pollution. That is correct. I said ``will reduce air pollution.'' The other provision will have no significant effect on air quality.

NSR will no longer stand as a barrier to facilities installing state- of-the-art pollution control technology. Anybody who has been around Washington very long knows the law of unintended consequences. We do things we think are going to help, and they turn out to be a hindrance.

The New Source Review, as it has worked, has been a hindrance because companies cannot make routine improvements and upgrades to their facilities to make them operate more efficiently, take less energy, burn less fuel, emit less pollution or polluting substances, anywhere from volatile organic compounds to the other emissions from powerplants. They do that because the New Source Review says that anytime you want to do anything significant on a major plant, you have to go through the whole process. It takes a very long time, and you are required to make very significant upgrades beyond what the available dollars in the company would sustain.

The incremental continuing improvements, day by day or actually month by month or even year by year, cannot be made because of NSR. If you change it the way the EPA Administrator has proposed, NSR will no longer stand as a barrier to facilities installing state-of-the-art pollution control technology.

The NSR reforms that EPA has proposed will actually cut emissions of tens of thousands of tons per year of volatile organic compounds. NSR reforms will reduce ground level ozone and smog. The NSR reforms will also cut hazardous air pollutants and ozone-depleting substances. Our families will suffer fewer cases of premature mortality, asthma, and other respiratory diseases.

I would say further that EPA's NSR reforms are good for the Nation's energy security. Why? Simply because they will allow facilities to install modern technologies which use energy more efficiently. We all ought to be able to agree on that. Using energy efficiently conserves energy and reduces the polluting byproducts of energy production. The facilities will be able to reduce their energy consumption, reduce their dependence on foreign energy sources, and reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy supplies.

What is wrong with that? In our current troubled times, we should not stand in the way of any proposal which reduces our dependence on foreign and Middle Eastern oil. I would also say that the EPA NSR reforms are good for the economy. Companies would now be able to make rapid changes to meet their changing business climates without getting bogged down in time-consuming Government redtape.

The reforms will continue to protect the environment while giving companies the flexibility they need to get new products to the market quickly. We have all of the elements that should go into a forward- looking environmental program. We have made great progress, but we have also developed glitches in our system, and anybody who has thought about the system knows that we need to make it more efficient. We need to rationalize it. We need to give it flexibility so environmental improvements can be made with the least hassle.

I am talking about environmental improvements. That is what this NSR proposal does. It allows not only energy conservation, improved economic performance, but environmental progress as well. What is wrong with that?

I have yet to hear what is the objection to providing better environmental performance in a way that is flexible, that encourages companies to move forward. This is such a good idea that the last administration supported it. Yes, Mr. President, you heard me right. The last administration supported it. This was one of their proposals. The reforms EPA finalized this winter were actually proposed in 1996 during the Clinton administration by EPA Administrator Carol Browner. I thought it was a good idea then; I think it is a good idea now. The only change is there is a new administration, with a different President.

I hope this is not the reason behind some of my colleagues seeking to raise the issue and challenge it. If it was a good idea in the Clinton administration, does it become a bad idea in the Bush administration? I don't think so.

I think we are on the right track with what the Clinton administration started. The NSR reforms are good for the environment, they are good for energy security, and they are good for the economy.

I urge my colleagues to reject the Edwards amendment. I look forward--if there is further debate--to responding so that we can deal with this amendment in a timely manner.

I yield the floor and, seeing none of my colleagues wishing to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Edwards amendment be temporarily set aside to recur at the hour of 1:30 today, with the majority leader or his designee recognized when the Senate resumes consideration of the amendment; further, I ask that Senator Dodd now be recognized in order to offer an amendment related to IDEA, and that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendment until Senator Gregg or his designee is recognized.

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

Mr. President, I thank the minority whip for his explanation. I can assure the Senator that on this side we want to accommodate Senators from both sides of the aisle. We are here in a week when many Senators had other things to do and we need to move forward. It is critically important that we get these appropriations bills passed because we will be getting close to halfway through the year before these bills can be implemented. I know wherever we can make accommodations, we will do so, and the Senator from Nevada has been very gracious in working with us. I know the Senator from Kentucky will work with him.

With that, I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to share some memories with my colleagues. As I watched what is going on in this body, I was trying to think of something. I have seen this before. It is sort of a deja vu all over again. I was thinking back to maybe 14 or 15 years ago when my son was playing T-ball. You remember T-ball? That is the kids' game.

The kindergarteners played T-ball. They had a lot of fun. But in one game we had a problem because after the other side was out, they had their outs and they were finished, they wouldn't put down their bats and go out in the field. They didn't want to play the game. They thought that once they had been at bat they were going to stay at bat, even though their side was out and it was time for them to leave.

The more I thought about it, the more I thought maybe that is what is happening in the Senate today. We had an election and the people of America sent some new Republicans, a new Democrat or two, to Washington, and they established a 51-to-48-plus-1 majority. I mean, 51 is more than 48. It is more than 48 plus 1. It seems to me it would be common math, it would be reasonable politics, it would be just common civility, to say once you have a majority and the people of America have voted for members of the Republican Party to be the leadership, to be the majority party in the Senate, it ought to move forward.

All the time I have been here, once we have had an election we have shifted power, if there has been a shift in power. A year and a half ago when one of our Members switched and we lost the majority, I handed over the gavel immediately to my ranking member and she became the Chair. That is because this is a democracy. That is how this is supposed to work. We are supposed to have reasonable rules.

But today I am reminded of that T-ball game when the side that was out, they had lost but wouldn't put down their bats and go out in the field. Guess what. The game can't go on. Everybody is a loser.

This is not a T-ball game. This is time to handle the business of this Nation. The people of America voted for us. They voted for Republicans and Democrats. They voted for House Members and Senate Members because they expected us to come to Washington and be serious about doing the people's business.

One of the defining marks of democracies in the modern day is that there is a peaceful transition of power. The winners take over and lead. The losers relinquish their leadership and join in the governmental efforts. That is the rule in democracies throughout the world.

Here is the U.S. Senate sticking out like a sore thumb, an exception to the principle that when there is an election and there is a change of power, the winning side takes over. This is truly regrettable when we have so much business to be done. We have all the business that did not get done last year. Unfortunately, I believe the leadership last year would not let us go to a budget.

They wouldn't let us pass appropriations bills. As a result, we are now funding 11 of the 13 appropriations bills for the jurisdictional functions of the Federal Government based on a continuing resolution. Things have changed. We need more money for these functions. We need to pass appropriations bills. We are ready to move on appropriations bills, but we can't set up a committee. We can't get the committee set up until we pass a resolution and find out who is on the committee.

This is a serious failure to live up to our responsibility, to do the work the people of America have a right to expect us to do. The longer we wait, the more difficult the appropriations process is going to be, and the more difficult it will be for us to do this year's work, which is to do the 2004 appropriations bills.

There are a lot of things we really shouldn't even have to bother with on the floor. The T-ball team is not just keeping the bats. They are saying some of our people who have assumed new leadership positions can't even get into leadership offices.

This is a new day. This is 2003. There was an election in November of 2002. The people in the United States by their votes said you as Republicans should move forward. We can't do that. We can't do that until we get cooperation.

This is a body that operates on common decency, respect, and civility. It works on unanimous consent. Obviously, we can't get unanimous consent. We haven't so far. There are a lot of arguments in the negotiations. But the fact is we need to get on to the people's business. I can tell you, I know our majority leader, Bill Frist. He is a man who is more than willing to make decent provisions for the minority, and he will do that. But nothing we say is good enough. We can't move forward in this circumstance.

I think that is a real tragedy. We have a lot of work to do this year. We need to confirm judges to make sure our judiciary works. We need to pass an energy bill. We are looking at possible hostilities in the Middle East where we face potentially a cutoff of some of our supply of petroleum. What are we going to do about it? We haven't had an energy policy for 9 or 10 years. Our energy policy bill last year was blocked. This year wouldn't it be nice if we allowed the Energy Committee to work on a bipartisan basis and report a bill out to the floor, then vote on it, send it over to the House, work in conference, and bring it back to vote it up or down? We ought to be doing that. But we haven't done that.

There are some who suggest maybe the Democratic Party lost the election because they were obstructionist. I happen to think that is true. I happen to think that was one of the most telling arguments in campaigns in which I participated. People of America don't want to see obstruction, roadblocks, and red tape. There are others who say, Well, maybe the Democrats lost because they weren't confrontational enough and they weren't obstructionist. It looks like those people have won the day, or at least they are calling the shots. I believe many of my Democratic colleagues would feel the way I do. They know the election is over. They know we have some very important work to do this year. We have to do the basic appropriations to get the Government operating and to fund programs. We need to do an energy bill. We have to do a highway bill this year.

If you are worried about where we are going to get stimulus, as some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, we need stimulus to make sure we have a highway bill that continues funding of the vitally important construction on our Nation's highways. That is one of the most important bills we are going to have to pass this year. But we can't do it when we can't even get the Senate organized.

I am very discouraged. I am very discouraged that we have run into this problem. I hope the people who are listening or watching back home will call, write, or e-mail. I guess you can't write anymore. You can't write us here. You can write to our offices in our States, call, and send faxes and messages, and tell those of us who are in the Senate it is time for us to get to work.

All of last year I waited to bring an appropriations bill to the floor under the good leadership of my colleague and friend who was chairman at the time. I am still waiting to bring an appropriations bill to the floor. It is a bipartisan bill. It is one we have worked on. We will work on it together, and it will be a bill which we hope reflects the

interests of people on both sides of this aisle. But we can't do it until the other side lets us move forward.

A lot of people do not understand the Senate is a deliberative body. It requires unanimous consent. Most of the time I have been here, we have been a deliberative and decent body. We are a decent body, and we will move forward. But now we have become the world's greatest dilatory body. We can't get anything moving until the other side lets us.

We need a stimulus bill. I will address that later.

I think the President has put forth a good plan to help families. A typical family of four with two wage earners with a combined income of $39,000 would receive a total of $1,100 in tax relief. The Council of Economic Advisers said the plan would create 2.1 million jobs over the next 3 years.

As one who has spent a lot of time since I have been here working for small business, I can tell you this is a bill small business needs. We in the Small Business Committee have long urged an increase in the amount of expenses a small business can do from $25,000 to $75,000. So the smallest of the small businesses under $300,000-plus revenue can write off immediately and they don't have to go through depreciation and write off against immediate income capital expenditures up to $75,000.

Second, by bringing the reduction in individual rates forward, you are benefiting small business. Twenty-three million small businesses are taxed as individuals. They are set up either as proprietorships, partnerships, or subchapter S corporations. So those 23 million small businesses are taxed at the individual rate. Putting this money back into their pockets will give them the money to hire workers, to invest and to expand and grow their business.

That is an argument for the day when we actually can get to work in the Senate and we can have committees. God bless the committee system. Have them work and have them put out bills. They have to put them out on a bipartisan basis. We will bring them to the floor, and we will debate them and discuss them and work on them on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately and regrettably, that can't happen until this gridlock is broken.

I call upon my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to recognize the tremendous needs. These are more compelling needs than in previous years because we didn't get our work done last year. Let us get over this gridlock--this deadlock. Let us get going with the business of the Senate.

I urge all our colleagues to come together and work on this. I hope we can do so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in 1998, the Senate passed the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act, which I strongly supported. This landmark legislation set the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, on a new course, one that most Members of this body would agree is the right one. Today, the IRS is much more focused on customer service and education to achieve compliance with the Nation's tax laws.

It takes more than a new law, however, to change the way an agency fulfills its mission. It takes talented people committed to those reforms in order to turn the words in the statute into reality. We all know the role that former Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti played in restructuring the agency, and I commend him again for his invaluable service to the IRS and the Nation.

Today, I rise to recognize one of Mr. Rossotti's key aides, Jerry Songy, who is retiring after 34 years of dedication to agency. In early 1998, Jerry was selected to lead an organizational modernization effort that was intended to transform the IRS into a more customer-focused organization. Jerry's contributions to this business-process reengineering effort have greatly improved the delivery of products and services to all of America's taxpayers, and small businesses and the self-employed taxpayers in particular.

In addition to serving as Executive Director, Modernization Design, Jerry was instrumental in the design of the Small Business/Self- Employed, SB/SE, operating division, which serves approximately 45 million small businesses and self-employed taxpayers. He was also a driving force in the creation of the Taxpayer Education and Communication, TEC, section and has led the SB/SE division in its outreach and education efforts to small business and self-employed taxpayers. As the former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I had the pleasure of working with Jerry in that capacity.

Through his efforts, the IRS has created innovative web site applications, multilingual CDs, and a series of web cast programs to assist taxpayers with their tax filing and payment responsibilities. The IRS has partnered with tax practitioner and payroll organizations, trade and professional organizations, educational institutions, and corporate America on joint tax education initiatives. In short, our constituents are seeing the tangible benefits of Jerry's hard work on behalf of small enterprises across the nation.

Jerry was born and raised in New Orleans, LA and graduated from Loyola University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting. He has two sons, three grandchildren, and will be joined in retirement by his wife, Lea, who also has had a distinguished career with the IRS.

On behalf of the 45 million small businesses and self-employed taxpayers throughout the country that have benefitted from his hard work and dedication, I commend Jerry Songy for his exemplary contributions to public service.