T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, no large group of citizens should be required to pay in advance for a project that they oppose, that will have an adverse impact on their lives and livelihoods, and that will almost certainly never be authorized. But that is exactly what has recently been proposed by certain officials of the Clinton Administration. A discussion paper was recently published by these officials suggesting that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) add significantly to its power charges to its customers in its impending rate case. The purpose of these added charges is to provide a slush fund for the removal of four Federal dams from the Snake River, if that removal is ever authorized or ordered. It is only fair to add that the Clinton Administration has stated that the paper does not now reflect Administration policy, but it has nevertheless raised fears that the Administration might some day try to order such a removal without asking Congress either for the authority or the money to do so. This amendment will prevent such an end run. It does not prevent BPA from including fish recovery costs in its rate structure for the next five years, even in greater amounts than the $435 million per year current limit. It will, however, prevent an additional surcharge for possible dam removal. That project, if it should be proposed, should require Congressional authorization, and a debate over funding sources, only as and when this or any later Administration makes such a recommendation.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Crapo of Idaho be added as a cosponsor of S. 1167, a bill to amend the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Act to provide for expanding the scope of the Independent Scientific Review Panel.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Kerry of Massachusetts, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. McConnell be added as cosponsors of S. 386, the Bond Fairness and Protection Act of 1999.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday June 10, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations be permitted to meet on Thursday, June 10, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. for a hearing on the topic of ``Home Health Care: Will the New Payment System & Regulatory Overkill Hurt Our Seniors?''

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday June 10, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 10, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. on S. 798-the PROTECT Act (Promote online transactions to encourage commerce and trade).

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``ESEA: Special Populations'' during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 10, 1999, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 10, 1999, to conduct a hearing on ``Export Control Issues in the Cox Report.''

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. GORTON. Unfortunately, we have been notified of an objection to that request on this side. We cannot agree to it right now. We are going to try to work it out.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is correct. He has explained his amendment with great clarity. It may or may not be seriously contested. We simply are not going to know that until early next week, so I thank him for his graciousness in waiting for a final decision until then. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GORTON. I move to table the Boxer amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GORTON. What is the business before the Senate?

Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only remaining amendments in order to S. 96 be those by Senators Sessions, Gregg, and Inhofe, and that following those amendments the bill be advanced to third reading. I further ask consent that all debate must be concluded today on the Sessions, Gregg, and Inhofe amendments, and if any votes are ordered, they occur in stacked sequence just prior to the passage vote on Tuesday, with 2 minutes for explanation prior to the votes if stacked votes occur. I further ask that following the reading of the bill for the third time, the Senate then proceed to the House companion bill, H.R. 775, and all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 96 be inserted, H.R. 775 be read for a third time, and final passage occur at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, June 15, or immediately after votes on any of the above amendments if such votes are ordered, with paragraph 4 of rule XII being waived. I further ask that following the third reading of S. 96, the bill be placed back on the calendar. Finally, I ask consent that at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, June 15, there be 2 hours equally divided for closing arguments, and following those remarks the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conferences to meet.

Mr. GORTON. This is the Inhofe amendment referred to in my unanimous consent request. It has to do with amnesty for certain regulatory activities in its first part. The second part was suggested by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and is designed to assure that no one lose a home through a mortgage or any other similar kind of loss as a result of a Y2K failure or glitch. The amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. GORTON. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama certainly seems highly reasonable to me. He is, however, correct; a number of proponents and opponents have asked for an opportunity to examine the amendment in a little more detail. That is why the unanimous consent agreement deferred final consideration until Monday. I am reasonably confident it will be accepted by voice vote, and I certainly hope it will.

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now go to a period for morning business with Senators being allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it constantly amazes me, whether the subject is education or business regulation or computer software, that Members in this Chamber know much more about the subject than do those who are in the business. It is the very companies the Senator from California so praises is doing things right that have felt, in order to concentrate on fixing Y2K problems, rather than having run the gauntlet set for them by trial lawyers, that this legislation is necessary. It is simply because they prefer to fix the problem in the real world than to face endless litigation that we are here today. That same group of highly responsible organizations thinks this amendment will actually create more litigation, that it ought to be entitled ``The Free Computer Act of 1999,'' because really the only way to make sure you are not sued will be to replace the computer lock, stock, and barrel, even if it is three generations out of date, even if it is in the attic. So the reasons to oppose this amendment are quite easy to determine. They are that we want the problem fixed, we want the problem fixed in the real world, not for years and years thereafter, after expensive litigation, punitive damages, consequential damages, everything that afflicts our legal system today. I had hoped we would complete the debate and begin the vote at this point. We have, however, taken too much time. There is now a markup of the Senate Appropriations Committee that involves both me and two of the three other Senators on the floor at the present time. In order to not disrupt that markup, I announce that a motion to table will be made immediately after that Appropriations Committee markup has been concluded. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from California is now back on the floor, and we are dealing with her amendment. There was an extensive effort to reach agreement on a form of that amendment. Regrettably those efforts were not successful. There simply is a significant difference of opinion on the policies that it propounds. I intend to speak for a relatively short period of time in opposition to the amendment. I am certain that the Senator from California would like to speak for her amendment. I know the Senator from Connecticut is here, and I know the Senator from California wishes to speak. Shortly after that succession is completed, if there is no one else who wishes to participate in the debate, there will be a motion to table the Boxer amendment. The Boxer amendment requires, as a part of the remediation, that a manufacturer make available to a plaintiff a repair or replacement at cost for any product first introduced after January 1, 1990, and at no charge under the same circumstances for a product first introduced for sale after the end of 1994. The amendment is overwhelmingly too broad. For example, the Internal Revenue Service allows, at most, 5, and in many cases only 3, years in which to write off the cost of products of this nature, determining that is their useful life. If they are used in a business, therefore, they have been depreciated to a zero value in every case--not every case covered by this matter, but in the vast majority of the cases covered by this amendment. In many of these cases, under the second subsection, it simply means that the plaintiff is entitled to absolutely free replacement. That computer, if it is a home computer, may long since have been relegated to the attic, unused. Yet the original manufacturer would have to replace it. In many cases, the new parts would not work. A 1990 computer is not very readily upgradeable. It does not have the speed or the memory of a 1999 computer. Y2K problems are probably the least of the problems with which such a manufacturer is faced. I spoke yesterday on the bill as a whole, the tremendous way in which our lives and technology have been changed by this revolution; 1990 is several generations ago with respect both to hardware and to software. How do we go about doing this? Precisely what products are covered? We simply have a situation in which the amendment is too broad and missing in specificity. We have an attempt to amend a bill that is designed to discourage litigation and to limit litigation that, if adopted, will significantly increase the amount of litigation and the number of causes of action that would take place without any legislation at all. In other words, this amendment would create new causes of action that probably do not exist anywhere under present law. Under those circumstances, while we should certainly encourage remediation and fixes, this might well have exactly the opposite impact. We have all kinds of duties listed in here with respect to manufacturers--and to others, for that matter. It is not only unnecessary to add this new duty and this new potential for causes of action, this proposal is 180 degrees in opposition. Therefore, with regret and sorrow that we were not able to work it out, I must for myself, and I suspect for a majority of the Senate, object to the amendment and trust we will soon have a vote on that subject.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we continue to attempt to negotiate a way in which to deal with the Boxer amendment in a way that we hope can be worked out, Senators Gregg and Sessions then be recognized to offer those amendments, and that the bill be advanced to third reading, substitute the House bill for it and then vote on final passage at 2:15 on Tuesday. We will then begin on Monday, as I have been given to understand it, to do the energy and water appropriations bill, which we may very well be able to complete on Monday. I do find it interesting that the Senator from South Carolina, who successfully, on two occasions, prevented this current bill from coming up at all by filibusters and saw to it that cloture could not be invoked, is now so anxious to finish it. We think this is a very good bill. I said yesterday I hoped that it was stronger, but it is the result of negotiations that have involved Members of both parties. To let the country and the industry look at it over the weekend and to allow both sides on the outside of the Senate to communicate their desires to Senators is a highly appropriate method of dealing with the bill. We will soon propound a unanimous consent proposal to the end that I have just described, and we hope that that unanimous consent will be granted. We will finish most of the debate, I suspect, the debate on all of the amendments to this bill, before this evening, and then go forward with final passage on Tuesday. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is his misfortune, the Senator from Alaska, to not be here on the floor to listen to those eloquent and gracious remarks of the Senator from West Virginia. So I think it falls to me, inadequate as I am, to thank the Senator from West Virginia for those thoughts and to say that it reminds those of us who have not been here quite so long of the magnificence of the personal relationships that are created here by broad-minded Members like the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Alaska over the years, even though I suspect that during many of those 12,000 rollcalls--literally thousands of them--they voted on opposite sides, sometimes with views that were very strongly held. I think it is only the Senator from West Virginia and perhaps the President pro tempore who will cast more votes than Senator Stevens, who I note now is here, and I would rather he speak for himself. But I say, Mr. President, through you to the Senator from Alaska, that I was privileged to hear the eloquent remarks about the Senator from Alaska on this occasion that the Senator from West Virginia made. They do great credit to him, and they do equal credit to the Senator who made them.