Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may, I ask what the pending business is in the Senate?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was never asked about the allegations, nor apparently was anyone else in this report conducted by the inspector general. The report alleged that I had tried to punish or to harm in some way two State Department employees for using the dissent channel by blocking their promotions internally. When I questioned the IG about the matter, she admitted that her investigators had not done a very professional job. There was not a shred of evidence within the Department to indicate that I had done anything with regard to this matter. I didn't even know who these people were, nor did anyone on my staff. Had I been given access to those portions of the report as they related to me, I think this mistake would have been caught and it would never have been included in the final report. The inspector general did subsequently apologize to me both personally and in writing. I am grateful to her for that; however, I am not sure that ordinary Foreign Service officers or political appointees would have been given similar treatment, and the damage to their careers and reputations would have already occurred in any event. That is why I believe this amendment is very important. I thank again Senator Helms and Senator Biden and their staffs for helping put this matter together. This way it would at least allow for people who are charged with these matters to have an opportunity to respond, to know what they are being charged with so that corrections can be made. Again, I emphasize that if you are not a well-known individual, you might not get the kind of apology and the corrections that I think ought to be made. That is why I believe this amendment is important. Let me turn, if I can, to a second amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment would transfer the authority for criminal investigations from the State Department Office of Inspector General to the Office of Diplomatic Security in cases of passport fraud and to the Attorney General in cases of other potential criminal offenses. Let me say at the very outset that I realize this is a very controversial amendment. But I would like to take this opportunity to explain to my colleagues why I have decided to discuss this matter today. Based upon a number of inspector general investigations I have reviewed, I question whether the inspector general, who is not a lawyer, should be supervising criminal investigations at all. The original mission of the inspector general was to perform routine audits both to examine financial records and to review the operations of various programs. The inspector general also is charged with inspecting overseas diplomatic missions and domestic bureaus to ensure that the State Department is performing with maximum efficiency and using resources appropriately. Certainly the inspector general can, and should, continue to concentrate in these areas. But criminal investigations are far more complex and sensitive than routine audits and inspections. I think many of my colleagues would be surprised at the type and scope of investigations that the State Department inspector general undertakes, and, frankly, at the number of matters that get referred to the Justice Department for further action which the Justice Department declines to take up. The inspector general currently decides when and who to investigate. There are virtually no checks--none--on the office once it has commenced a criminal investigation. While the State Department inspector general's office is supposed to be a neutral finder of fact, experience shows that historically that office has acted in a highly adversarial manner trying to establish cases that can be referred to the Justice Department. I happen to believe, as an aside, that the inspector general's handling of matters relating to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke unnecessarily delayed the consideration of his nomination to the Senate and at additional taxpayer cost. Let me, however, commend the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for the very thorough but expeditious manner in which he has guided the Foreign Relations Committee deliberations of that particular nomination. I would also like to call to the attention of the Members the final report of the independent counsel appointed to investigate the so- called ``Clinton passport matter,'' which arose in the course of the 1992 Presidential elections. Joseph diGenova, the independent counsel in that case, took the State Department Office of the Inspector General to task for the sloppiness and lack of professionalism with which it conducted the initial investigation of this matter. He concluded by saying that this matter should never have been referred for criminal prosecution, nor should an independent counsel have been appointed. It is not my intention to push this amendment to a final vote. I know the managers of the bill and the members of the Governmental Affairs Committee have some questions about this amendment as it is currently drafted. I respect their judgment tremendously. At the very least, however, I believe there is a need for an independent agency, the General Accounting Office, to take a long and hard and serious look at the practices of the inspector general's office with respect to criminal investigations and assess whether these offices are the appropriate places for criminal matters to be looked at. These offices were set up to conduct and perform certain valuable and important functions. In my view, as with so many other offices, once they get started they go off into areas they lack expertise in and conduct investigations which are questionable, at best. This has happened, with little or no checks and balances. Even under the independent counsel law, I point out, a person is entitled to know what they are charged with and given a chance to respond to the allegations raised. Under the Inspector General's investigations, a person is not given those rights. Fundamental due process would seem to insist everyone be given the opportunity to respond to charges leveled against them. I think this is a serious matter. I am hopeful the matter can be corrected without having to go through a legislative route. I think it can be done administratively. I urge the State Department, the Secretary of State, and others to make these corrections. If not, I will come back with this amendment next year. I will offer it in committee and I will offer it on the floor to legislatively deal with this issue. I am anxious to hear other thoughts and ideas on how to correct this problem. I take it seriously when the careers of individuals can be ruined and destroyed by opening up one of these investigations without providing that individual with an opportunity to respond to those charges. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment I offered a few moments ago.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 690.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Delaware. Amendment No. 690

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on Thursday, June 17, 1999 and Friday June 18, 1999, I was not present during Senate action on rollcall vote No. 174, a motion to table Senator McCain's amendment No. 685; rollcall vote No. 175, a motion to table Senator Murkowski's amendment No. 686; and rollcall vote No. 176, H.R. 1664, the Emergency Steel, and Oil and Gas Loan Guarantee Act. Yesterday, I was not present during Senate action on rollcall vote No. 177, Senator Sarbane's amendment to S. 886, the State Department reauthorization bill. During these times, I was in Connecticut attending to matters related to my marriage on June 18, 1999, to Jackie M. Clegg. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted aye in each case.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I voted to invoke cloture. It was a difficult vote. The chairman of the Finance Committee and the Senator from New York deserve a great deal of credit for bringing this up the way they did. I regret we didn't get cloture. I think the bill would have needed work, I must say, before it reached final passage, had cloture been invoked.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to waive the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, commonly known as the Jones Act, to allow Yankee Sailing, LLC to operate the 1959 Holland-built vessel YANKEE. Yankee Sailing LLC is a family-owned business based out of New London, Connecticut that intends to provide 2-4 hour day sails out of the New London and Mystic areas in the summer months. In an effort to provide year-round sailing opportunities, Yankee Sailing LLC also hopes to offer 1-2 week sail training trips along the coast in the fall and winter. The YANKEE is equipped to carry 25-35 daytime passengers and 8- 10 overnight passengers, and does not pose any threat to larger U.S. shipping interests. The YANKEE is a vessel of considerable historical significance having been designed by and built for one of New England's most famous contemporary sailors, the late Irving Johnson. The YANKEE shares a well-established relationship with the Mystic Seaport Museum where the Johnson Collection is housed, and it was also the centerpiece for an Irving Johnson reunion held at the Seaport this past October. The owners request the waiver because while the vessel was originally documented in the United States with a home port of Mystic, CT, it was built in Holland and is, therefore, excluded from coastal trade by the Jones Act. The owners were aware of the Jones Act's restrictions, however, they were unclear as to its applicability with regard to a vessel's size. Their understanding was that the act only pertained to vessels 65 feet in length or greater carrying over six passengers. Yankee Sailing LLC hoped to operate with six passengers to generate revenue until they could receive full certification allowing for larger sailing trips. Due to this confusion regarding the law, Yankee Sailing LLC is unable to provide these small sailing trips and suffers financially as a consequence. Yankee Sailing LLC wishes to provide residents of southeastern Connecticut the opportunity to experience the excitement of sailing and did not willfully violate the Jones Act. The presence of its services will help stimulate the local economy and tourism in a region attempting to promote an economic renaissance. Based upon all of the combined facts, I believe a waiver should be granted for the YANKEE. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to waive the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, commonly known as the Jones Act, to allow Yankee Sailing, LLC to operate the 1959 Holland-built vessel YANKEE. Yankee Sailing LLC is a family-owned business based out of New London, Connecticut that intends to provide 2-4 hour day sails out of the New London and Mystic areas in the summer months. In an effort to provide year-round sailing opportunities, Yankee Sailing LLC also hopes to offer 1-2 week sail training trips along the coast in the fall and winter. The YANKEE is equipped to carry 25-35 daytime passengers and 8- 10 overnight passengers, and does not pose any threat to larger U.S. shipping interests. The YANKEE is a vessel of considerable historical significance having been designed by and built for one of New England's most famous contemporary sailors, the late Irving Johnson. The YANKEE shares a well-established relationship with the Mystic Seaport Museum where the Johnson Collection is housed, and it was also the centerpiece for an Irving Johnson reunion held at the Seaport this past October. The owners request the waiver because while the vessel was originally documented in the United States with a home port of Mystic, CT, it was built in Holland and is, therefore, excluded from coastal trade by the Jones Act. The owners were aware of the Jones Act's restrictions, however, they were unclear as to its applicability with regard to a vessel's size. Their understanding was that the act only pertained to vessels 65 feet in length or greater carrying over six passengers. Yankee Sailing LLC hoped to operate with six passengers to generate revenue until they could receive full certification allowing for larger sailing trips. Due to this confusion regarding the law, Yankee Sailing LLC is unable to provide these small sailing trips and suffers financially as a consequence. Yankee Sailing LLC wishes to provide residents of southeastern Connecticut the opportunity to experience the excitement of sailing and did not willfully violate the Jones Act. The presence of its services will help stimulate the local economy and tourism in a region attempting to promote an economic renaissance. Based upon all of the combined facts, I believe a waiver should be granted for the YANKEE. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, sadly, on January 24th of this year, the state of Connecticut lost a resident of upstanding character who had dedicated her career to public service. Mary Elizabeth Montague led an accomplished life for 87 years and our state owes her many thanks for all of her extraordinary contributions. Born in Middletown, Connecticut, Mary Elizabeth established a distinguished record as a public servant. While in Middletown, she worked as a social service investigator for the Family Welfare Association and went on to become the first woman president of the local Parent-Teachers Association. She eventually became the PTA's state district director. Mary Elizabeth's diverse accomplishments led to her appointment as a congressional liaison to the Small Business Administration during the Kennedy Administration. Then, in 1965, she joined Vice President Hubert Humphrey's Capitol Hill staff handling such issues as cities, the arts, and the economy. Upon leaving Vice President Humphrey's office, Mary Elizabeth launched her own public relations firm in 1968. She published numerous editions of ``A Woman's Guide to Washington, D.C.'' and created and published ``On the Hill,'' a monthly magazine about Capitol Hill that was distributed to all congressional offices. In March of 1998, Mary Elizabeth was presented with the Key to Norwalk, Connecticut, her most recent home, for her 30 years of service as a communications consultant. This was only one of the 14 different keys she had received from cities and towns around the state. In addition, Mary Elizabeth was awarded numerous commendations and citations for her dedicated community service. My Connecticut office shared a relationship with Mary Elizabeth for the past 6 years as she tirelessly continued to better the lives of those around her. Her life and work were committed to serving the public good and are testaments to how one person can touch so many people in a positive way. Mary Elizabeth Montague is survived by her three children, Louis, William, and Miriam, four grandchildren, and one great-granddaughter. I offer each of them my heartfelt condolences. I ask to have printed in the Record the full text of the eulogy offered by Mary Elizabeth's daughter, Miriam. I believe her words have truly captured the remarkable spirit of her mother and the outstanding life that she led. The eulogy follows: The Passing of a Great Communicator and a Great Contributor to Life-- Mary Elizabeth Montague Her life was and is a story, each chapter better than the next. She was the central figure in many lives--a daughter, a mother, an advisor, a friend, teacher, a companion, a politician, a writer and a coordinator of events that surrounded her life and all those she touched. She was a woman ahead of her time managing political campaigns, speaking out for the rights of children, concerned for the people instituted by the system, promoting reading and literacy, all in the 50's when women were supposed to be quiet--she spoke. Never shy to give her opinion or back down from her beliefs, she taught us to be strong, independent, and to think for ourselves. As a single parent, she sacrificed and made choices to improve her children's lives and off to Washington we went. There she continued her political endeavors as an administrator, coordinator, and writer. Along the way, she showed us that richness comes in the quality of life you live and in the people you meet along the way. And, oh, the people we met--Presidents, Congressmen, Congresswomen, Senators, Ambassadors, Governors, key figures in national and international politics, actors and actresses, writers and so many more. But all the while, she showed us that even these people were all the same, some with more power or wealth, but none better than the man next door. Most of all, she wanted us to believe in ourselves--that God gave us talents, personality, wit and a mind to grow and share. She taught us laughter and wit with a twinkle in her eye and laughter in her heart. Mary Elizabeth's story has not ended for she will remain in our hearts, our lives, and our souls forever.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr President, I rise today to lend my strong support to important legislation that will enable millions of individuals with disabilities to achieve greater independence and financial security. The Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 offers Americans with disabilities the opportunity to achieve greater independence and financial security without the threat of losing the important protections provided by health insurance coverage. Mr. President, currently more than 75 percent of all individuals with disabilities are unemployed. Further, less than one-half of one percent of the 7.5 million persons receiving federal disability payments go to work each year. Yet a 1999 Harris Survey determined that 74 percent of Americans with disabilities want to work. However, many individuals with disabilities who work face the significant loss of their health insurance coverage as they surpass certain earning limits. This loss of health coverage often presents an understandable deterrent to employment for many individuals with disabilities. While the great majority of Americans with disabilities would like to work, few can afford to lose the protection provided by their health insurance coverage. Forcing individuals with disabilities to choose between work and health insurance coverage presents a difficult choice no one should be forced to make. S. 331 would provide incentives for persons with disabilities to return to work without losing their access to health insurance. This legislation removes barriers for disabled individuals seeking to find meaningful employment by allowing this vulnerable segment of our population to retain health insurance coverage. By removing the disincentive to work that the loss of health insurance presents to individuals with disabilities, S. 331 opens the door to greater freedom and increased earning for millions of Americans. Mr. President, I am extremely heartened by the strong support the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 has received. In support of this important legislation are the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the ARC, Easter Seals, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the United Cerebral Palsy Association, and the National Education Association. Additionally, more than three-fourths of the Members of the United States Senate presently cosponsor S. 331. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to commend Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, Roth, and Moynihan for the important role they each played in developing the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. Through their tireless efforts, S. 331 will greatly expand the opportunities afforded individuals with disabilities as they enter the workforce and I look forward to its enactment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, few touch the lives of others in so personal a manner as doctors, and this relationship takes on an even more special meaning when the patients are children. Dr. William Wilson Jr. has worked to ensure that young children with severe heart ailments receive the very finest medical care available. He has been instrumental in advancing many of the recent breakthroughs in heart surgery, and it gives me great pleasure to recognize the achievements of this remarkable man as he is awarded the 1999 Norwich Native Son award for his work within the medical profession. The Norwich Native Son award is presented to that native of Norwich, Connecticut who has made significant contributions to his or her field outside of the state of Connecticut. As a pediatric cardiovascular surgeon in Missouri, Dr. Wilson has established himself as a leader within the medical profession and continues to enlighten the field with his knowledge and expertise. His innovative procedures are used throughout the country to educate new generations of doctors helping to ensure that this country remains a leader in medical advances. Born, raised, and educated in Norwich, Dr. Wilson ventured beyond Connecticut's borders to earn his bachelor's degree in biology from Kenyon College. He soon returned to the state to attend the University of Connecticut where he received his doctorate in anatomy and cell biology and, eventually, his medical degree in 1983. Currently making his home in Missouri, he is the Chief of Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery at the Children's Hospital, University Hospital and Clinics in Columbia. It is at the University Hospital and Clinics that Dr. Wilson has changed hundreds of children's lives. Dr. Wilson performs delicate procedures on infants and young children with severe heart defects giving countless children an opportunity for healthy normal lives. Dr. Wilson began performing his advanced heart procedures while serving as the Chief of the Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Division of the Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. Dr. Wilson's breakthrough techniques helped to transform the Medical College of Ohio into the regional leader in performing these surgeries. He has also expanded his work to include heart transplantation, and to date, he has performed this procedure on over 125 adults and children. Dr. Wilson has also distinguished himself internationally through several outreach programs. Twice he has organized mobile surgical teams and traveled to countries where these vital procedures are unavailable to those in need. In 1996, Dr. Wilson journeyed to Peru where he performed surgery on 15 local children. He most recently led a medical mission to the children's hospital in Tbilisi in the Republic of Georgia, where he operated on 11 children. Moreover, he has brought children from other countries to medical facilities in the United States to undergo surgery in modern hospitals. His humanitarian efforts have helped shed light on the over one million children worldwide who suffer from heart ailments and on the desperate need for these procedures in other countries. Mr. President, I take special pride, along with the Wilson family, in recognizing the wonderful accomplishments of Dr. William Wilson. While he may no longer live in Norwich, he has never forgotten the lessons learned from this close-knit community. Dr. William Wilson is being honored for his noble efforts within the medical field by friends and neighbors who fondly remember the spirited young boy who grew up in Norwich and who are so proud of the caring healer he has become. I wish him much success as he continues to leave his mark on the medical community, and I congratulate him for being honored with this most deserved award.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, I want to once again commend my colleague from Utah. He has given a very insightful legal analysis of what the implications of this proposal are, what the authors of this bill are attempting to do. I will restate, not as eloquently as he has, the fact that the trial bar performs a very valuable service in this country. There is no way in the world the Justice Department, and others, could do all the work the private litigators achieve on behalf of all citizens. But to listen to some talk about this bill, you would think we had just voided all litigation when it came to the Y2K issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, quite to the contrary, it provides for a systematic way for laws to be filed should there be no other means of resolving the difficulties. I commend my colleague from Utah. I also commend Senator McCain, the chairman of the committee and the principal author of this legislation, my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, and the many others who have been involved in putting this piece of legislation together. I also wish to commend the hard work of Senator McCain's staff, Senator Wyden's staff and I wish to particularly recognize my own staff and all the work that they have done. We have now resolved most of the outstanding issues, or we have had votes on a number of them. I understand we will have a final passage vote sometime early this afternoon. We, as a nation, and the world at large are going to meet the new millennium 199 days from today. That is when the clock turns. As many of my colleagues know, Senator Bennett of Utah and I were asked by the leadership of this body--the majority and the minority--to head up a special committee, if you will, to take a good, hard look at the Y2K issue and the full ramifications of it on our National Government, State and local governments, private industry, nonprofits, and the world. We have held, over the last year and several months, some 22 hearings; we have had site visits to nuclear power plants, hospitals, and financial services sectors; we have had staff who have gone overseas to meet with leaders of other countries--all of this, as quickly as we could, to give our colleagues and the country the benefit of an analysis of where we stand with this issue of the year 2000 millennium bug. I am not going to go into all the details of the work. We have had a good committee. I commend my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, who has done a very fine job chairing this committee. We think--we hope--we have provided a valuable service in highlighting and pushing and using the forum of that special committee to urge a greater sense of urgency on the part of the various sectors of our society to get ready for this problem. I think it is fair to say we believe we are in fairly good shape on this issue. Again, I will not go through all the details, but, by and large, most sectors in our society--government at all levels--are doing a good job of remediating the problem, taking the steps that are necessary to fix these computers and to eliminate the potential hazards and harm. There are larger problems offshore. I am not going to go into that at this point. But there has been a lot of work up to this point. One of the things we concluded, in part, is that we ought to come up with some sort of a means by which, if problems do emerge after January 1, we ought to try to fix the problem before we litigate the problem. This is an outrageous thought, but maybe Congress might actually do something in anticipation of a potential problem. We do not normally do that around here. We wait for the problem to hit us. We wait for catastrophes to occur, many of which we cannot predict, obviously, because in many cases we talk about natural disasters or unanticipated events. However, in 199 days, we have a very anticipated event. We have been told by experts, knowledgeable people, during the last 2 years in our hearing cycle--one expert after another--that we have a very serious problem hanging over us potentially, come the change in the millennium date. You could go the traditional route and rush to the courthouse every time a problem emerges--with a handful of law firms, by the way. To speak about the trial bar on this issue, you can count the law firms on one hand, almost, that are involved in this kind of litigation. Let there be no illusion, this isn't your fender-bender, your product liability case, your personal injury case. This is a very specialized area. They would prefer to run to the courthouse for the problem. Those of us who have offered this bill do not rule out the courthouse at all, but we say: Why not a 90-day cooling off period? How about saying you have to take some time to try to fix the problem? As much as we try to anticipate the problem, we cannot guarantee that we have done so. If a problem emerges, why not try to fix the problem? If you cannot fix it, then go to the courthouse. It is not much more complicated than that. This bill lasts 36 months. You would think, to listen to some of my colleagues, we were amending the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, that we were changing the Ten Commandments. This is a 36-month bill for one short window in time, for us to say we want to try to solve the problem and not run to the courthouse for 36 months. Can the trial bar bear that for 36 months? To see if we can't come to some conclusion and avoid the tremendous cost, the business to consumers, and others, as they spend weeks and months, if not years, litigating these problems instead of trying to fix them? That is really what this is all about. We came to some significant compromises here. In fact, this bill ought to have been done on a consent calendar, in my view. It should not have taken a week's time in the Senate to deal with this issue. It is not that complicated. What we have done here is, we have put caps on punitive damages for small business. We do not think you ought to wipe out a small business because you file a lawsuit against them, because they have a computer glitch problem. These punitive damage caps apply only to businesses that employ 50 people or less. We have directors' and officers' liabilities--again, no ceilings here on punitive damages at all. The trial bar begged for those things. That is included. That is in our bill. We have proportionate liability here. This is the great stumbling block, I guess, for some in this 36-month bill. For 36 months we are going to have proportional liability--this cataclysmic event that is occurring here for 36 months--where we say that if, in a normal case, you are guilty of involvement in some problem, you are responsible for that percentage of the problem you caused--that is a radical idea-- except, however, that is not the case if in fact you had an intentional, willful action on the part of the defendant. Under those circumstances, there is no proportional liability; it is joint and several. So we protect the plaintiff that may have been severely hurt as a result of this problem. That is basically the sum and substance of this legislation--for 36 months. This is an important industry, the high-technology community. It is changing the economy of our Nation and the world in which we live. The United States is on the cutting edge. We are leading the world. Ten or fifteen years ago, all we talked about was the Japanese and the Pacific rim. The United States could not compete in high technology. We had lost it forever. Well, there were bright people in this country who had other thoughts. As a result of their ingenuity and hard work, they changed the nature of how the world looks to leadership in high technology. Today the United States is the leader. These leaders champion ideas that are incubated in basements and garages, these technology leaders are often young people who are coming out with little or no money in their own pockets but a good idea. They are changing how you and I live. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds to wrap up.

Mr. DODD. These industries are critical to the 21st century economy of this country. I do not think we ought to allow some big appetites and a handful of law firms to go out there and try and do damage unnecessarily to these people. If you have to get to a courthouse, you get to the courthouse. But, for 36 months in this country, let us take time out and try and solve the problem. This bill that Senator McCain, Senator Wyden, myself and others have authored, we think buys us this short window of time to resolve these difficulties. I hope this afternoon, when final passage occurs, my colleagues will vote for the 21st century future and not for a handful of law firms that want to litigate forever.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will entitle each deceased veteran to an official headstone or grave marker in recognition of that veteran's contribution to this nation. Currently the VA provides a headstone or grave marker upon request only if the veteran's grave is unmarked. This provision dates back to the Civil War when this nation wanted to ensure that none of its soldiers was buried in an unmarked grave. Of course, in this day and age, a grave rarely goes unmarked, and the official headstone or marker instead serves specifically to recognize a deceased veteran's service. Unfortunately, this provision has not changed with the times. When families go ahead and purchase a private headstone, as nearly every family does these days, they bar themselves from receiving the government headstone or marker. On the other hand, some families who happen to be aware of this provision request the official headstone or marker prior to placing a private marker. As a result, the grave of their veteran bears both the private marker and the government marker. All deceased veterans deserve to have their service recognized, not just those whose families make their requests prior to purchasing a private marker. The Department of Veterans Affairs is well aware of this anomaly. VA officials receive thousands of complaints each year from families who are upset about this law's arbitrary effect. A constituent of mine, Thomas Guzzo, first brought this matter to my attention last year. His late father, Agostino Guzzo, served in the Philippines and was honorably discharged from the Army in 1947. Today, Agostino Guzzo is interred in a mausoleum at Cedar Hill Cemetery in Hartford, but the mausoleum bears no reference to his service because of the current law. Like so many families, the Guzzo family bought its own marker and subsequently found that it could not request an official VA marker. Thomas Guzzo then contacted me, and I attempted to straighten out what I thought to be a bureaucratic mix-up. I was surprised to realize that Thomas Guzzo's difficulties resulted not from some glitch in the system, but rather from the law itself. In the end, I wrote to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding Thomas Guzzo's very reasonable request. The Secretary responded that his hands were tied as a result of the obscure law. Furthermore, the Secretary's response indicated that, even if a grave marker could be provided for Thomas Guzzo, that marker could not be placed on a cemetery bench or tree that would be dedicated to the elder Guzzo. The law prevented the Department from providing a marker for placement anywhere but the grave site and thus prevents families from recognizing their veteran's service as they wish. This bill is a modest means of solving a massive problem. It has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office at less than three million dollars per year. That is a small price to pay to recognize our deceased veterans and put their families at ease. If a family wishes to dedicate a tree or bench to their deceased veteran, this bill allows the family to place the marker on those memorials. We should give these markers to the families when they request them, and we should allow each family to recognize their deceased veteran in their own way. This bill allows the Department of Veterans Affairs to better serve veterans and their families. I stand with thousands of veterans' families and look forward to the day when this bill's changes will be written into law.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will entitle each deceased veteran to an official headstone or grave marker in recognition of that veteran's contribution to this nation. Currently the VA provides a headstone or grave marker upon request only if the veteran's grave is unmarked. This provision dates back to the Civil War when this nation wanted to ensure that none of its soldiers was buried in an unmarked grave. Of course, in this day and age, a grave rarely goes unmarked, and the official headstone or marker instead serves specifically to recognize a deceased veteran's service. Unfortunately, this provision has not changed with the times. When families go ahead and purchase a private headstone, as nearly every family does these days, they bar themselves from receiving the government headstone or marker. On the other hand, some families who happen to be aware of this provision request the official headstone or marker prior to placing a private marker. As a result, the grave of their veteran bears both the private marker and the government marker. All deceased veterans deserve to have their service recognized, not just those whose families make their requests prior to purchasing a private marker. The Department of Veterans Affairs is well aware of this anomaly. VA officials receive thousands of complaints each year from families who are upset about this law's arbitrary effect. A constituent of mine, Thomas Guzzo, first brought this matter to my attention last year. His late father, Agostino Guzzo, served in the Philippines and was honorably discharged from the Army in 1947. Today, Agostino Guzzo is interred in a mausoleum at Cedar Hill Cemetery in Hartford, but the mausoleum bears no reference to his service because of the current law. Like so many families, the Guzzo family bought its own marker and subsequently found that it could not request an official VA marker. Thomas Guzzo then contacted me, and I attempted to straighten out what I thought to be a bureaucratic mix-up. I was surprised to realize that Thomas Guzzo's difficulties resulted not from some glitch in the system, but rather from the law itself. In the end, I wrote to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding Thomas Guzzo's very reasonable request. The Secretary responded that his hands were tied as a result of the obscure law. Furthermore, the Secretary's response indicated that, even if a grave marker could be provided for Thomas Guzzo, that marker could not be placed on a cemetery bench or tree that would be dedicated to the elder Guzzo. The law prevented the Department from providing a marker for placement anywhere but the grave site and thus prevents families from recognizing their veteran's service as they wish. This bill is a modest means of solving a massive problem. It has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office at less than three million dollars per year. That is a small price to pay to recognize our deceased veterans and put their families at ease. If a family wishes to dedicate a tree or bench to their deceased veteran, this bill allows the family to place the marker on those memorials. We should give these markers to the families when they request them, and we should allow each family to recognize their deceased veteran in their own way. This bill allows the Department of Veterans Affairs to better serve veterans and their families. I stand with thousands of veterans' families and look forward to the day when this bill's changes will be written into law.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. The Senator from Alabama said it. Look, this is one of those issues where we have legislators, as Senators, who are constantly trying to find compromise. Reaching a 100-vote consensus, I guess, is the ideal representation of that. But occasionally there is just a division here. You have to make a choice on where you are going to go with this. This is a 36-month bill to deal with a very specific, real problem. I just left a hearing this morning on the medical industry. We are not talking about personal injuries here, but to give you some idea, there are some serious problems in terms of compliance we are seeing across the country. You have to decide here whether or not you want to expand litigation, which is a legitimate point. There are those who think the only way to deal with this is to rush to court. I respect that. I disagree with it, but respect it. Or do you decide for 36 months we are going to try to fix the problem to try to reduce the race to the courthouse? Those of us who are in support of this bill come down on that side. The only way you are going to do it is to have some uniform standards across the country. We all know, as a practical matter--any first-year lawyer would tell you--you would run to the State that has the easiest laws and get into court. If you disagree, you ought to vote for the Edwards amendment. If you think we ought to fix the problem, we think you should reject it so we can solve this over the next 36 months. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Let me give a factual example to make the case. Assume you have two identical computer systems, system A and system B, sold by the same manufacturer. They prove to be defective and cause economic damages of $100 million and lost profits to each purchaser, A and B. System A crashed because of defective wiring, while system B crashed because of the Y2K bug. If Congress enacts the proposal suggested by my colleague from Massachusetts, that would allow no recovery of economic damages in tort cases. Purchaser B in the example would be able to sue for economic losses under the Y2K legislation while purchaser A would not. There is no justification for such a result. In effect, the net result of the Y2K bill would be to expand liability in Y2K cases. Indeed, it would create an incentive for plaintiff's lawyers to look for any Y2K problem and then make that the predicate for legislation, exactly the opposite of the policy aim of the legislation. In the faulty wire case, you only get economic damages and you have to apply State law. Under the Y2K legislation as proposed by my colleague from Massachusetts, you are expanding this. We are not trying to expand law here; we are trying to at least follow a similar pattern. So there is a fundamental difference: the defective wire in one case, the defective Y2K problem in the other. You end up with completely different results and encourage, of course, groping around, looking for Y2K issues, rather than defective wire which may be the cause of the problem. I don't think that is the intent of our colleagues who are generally supportive of the very proposal we have before the Senate. That does expand existing law.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, again, I listened to the debate on the Kerry amendment. Again, as I stated earlier, I went down the various points of the proposal. The amendment basically is designed to open up the McCain legislation to the kinds of unbridled litigation that can occur in this area. As I said earlier, we have not argued that we have crafted a perfect bill. It is our fervent hope that this legislation will become unnecessary, because the problems that many anticipate we hope will not occur. But if they do occur, if, as some claim, we are going to face serious problems in this country, then we think it is the wiser course of action for Congress to enact legislation that would encourage the resolution of the Y2K problem. That is what we have attempted to do with this bill. We have had to compromise it, because it asks for compromise. Senator Wyden, our distinguished colleague from Oregon, is responsible for at least 11 or 12 changes, that I know of, in this bill from its original crafting. I worked on three or four of the ones dealing with the punitive damages and directors' and officers' liability in the States in this bill. We have compromised slightly. But every day you have to move the goal post to serve yet another constituency. We would like to have a bill that everyone would support. It would be wonderful to have a piece of legislation that 100 Senators would get behind. But candidly, you have a handful--really just a handful--of law firms that are opposed to this, it is a total misstatement to suggest that the trial bar in general is opposed to this bill. It is a couple of law firms in this country that are opposed to this bill. That is the fact of the matter. Because of a couple of law firms, we have an amendment that I am confident these law firms are very attracted to, like, and support for the obvious reasons. It basically makes this bill meaningless or worse; it actually expands an area of the law that didn't exist prior to the consideration of this bill. It is one thing if you want to change the bill. It is another matter to take existing law and create yet new opportunities. That is what the Kerry amendment does. When you allow State law to obviate contract law, you are not only disagreeing with our bill but you are disagreeing with existing law. For Members to come in and support this amendment, understand that if it carries and ends up being adopted, it will encourage the adoption of it. Then we are not only not dealing with the Y2K problem, we are expanding areas of litigation that do not presently exist. Whatever disagreements you have with the underlying bill, if you want to vote against that bill, fine; but don't expand areas of litigation. With all due respect to my colleague from Massachusetts, clearly his amendment does that. I think it would be a tragedy, as we are trying to shut down and reduce the proliferation of litigation, that we find we are expanding those opportunities. Again, a lot of compromise has been involved in this and a lot of time and a lot of effort to bring it to this point. Again, I have a great deal of respect for those who disagree with this work product. They have a different point of view--one that I disagree with, but I respect. To come in and to somehow suggest that we are improving this legislation and that we are in fact minimizing the possibility of further litigation with the adoption of the Kerry amendment is just not the case. You are expanding the opportunities for litigation. For those reasons, the high-tech communities of this country feel strongly about this amendment, and for good reason. When the amendment comes up for a final vote, I urge my colleagues to reject it and to let us move along and try to pass this legislation, and send a message that we care about this issue and want to minimize the problems the Y2K issue can present. I do not know if there is any more time. I know there is some talk about other Members who wish to come over. I urge them to do this. This has been going on for 6 hours now. We have 21 other amendments to consider. My hope is that we can get this completed fairly quickly and at least have one or two votes today before we adjourn. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. How much time remains on all sides?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we are getting arcane. If a contract is illegal, it is not a contract. Just to say we have a contract, if there is no consent, if all the principles necessary for it to be a valid contract are missing, if a contract is inherently illegal, two people who engage in a contract for illegal purposes is not a contract to be protected under State law.

Mr. DODD. May I address----