Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there is a lot I would like to say in response to Senator Daschle's remarks and Senator Hollings' remarks. Some of it would probably be better left unsaid, but I must comment. Regarding amendments, I reiterate what Senator McCain, the manager of the legislation, said. Amendments that are relevant to this bill, germane to this bill, we ought to do that. That is why I left a window in the parliamentary procedure yesterday so we could do that. Unfortunately, the Senator from Massachusetts showed up and stuck in a totally irrelevant amendment, and I felt that that was an abuse of my good-faith effort. But we can still do that. If Senator Dodd, Senator Robb, or some other Senator has an amendment with regard to Y2K, OK, that is the way you legislate. But the idea that we are going to have a political legislative agenda dumped off on this bill, which is a very thinly veiled effort to kill the bill--that is really what is at stake here--any majority leader would be certainly unwilling to agree to that. I offer this to Senators again: If we have relevant amendments, we will be glad to do that. Let me talk for a moment about what this bill does. It seems to be a little bit clouded by the debate. It provides time for plaintiffs and defendants to resolve the Y2K computer problems without litigation-- without litigation. That sounds like a good idea to me. Those who think the solution to the problem in America is more lawsuits, I don't think they have been talking to the real world. I am a lawyer. But the idea that we ought to just have more opportunities to file lawsuits--I understand lawyers are calling the families of the poor victims in Colorado and saying, ``Can we sue somebody for you?'' That makes me sick to my stomach, that in this moment of grief, members of my profession would call and say, ``Let me sue somebody for you.'' No, the answer is not more lawsuits in America. The answer is solutions, opportunities for resolution, sanity, for Heaven's sake. So we would like to have a process here where we don't always have to resort to litigation. Wonderful lawsuits. Great. I don't believe the American people want that. This bill reiterates the plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages and highlights the defendant's opportunity to assist plaintiffs in doing that by providing information and resources. Does that make sense? Why, sure. It is giving them help to solve the problem. This is a unique problem, one we have never had before. Shall we rush to the courts? No. Should we try to find a way to resolve the problem for all concerned? Yes. The bill provides for proportional liability in most cases, with exceptions for fraudulent or intentional conduct, or where the plaintiff has limited assets. Are there legitimate causes for court actions? Yes. I don't have the extensive practice background that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has, but I practiced a little law and I did some corporate work and some public defender work, and I filed some lawsuits because I thought they were necessary. I can remember a medical malpractice case that I thought was justified. Yes, there are cases, but they should be only after other avenues have been pursued where there is fraud or intentional misconduct. This bill protects governmental entities, including municipalities, schools, fire, water sanitation districts from punitive damages. Should there be some general protection for the school districts from being sued? Sure. The bill eliminates punitive damage limits for egregious conduct while providing some protection against runaway punitive damage awards. Do we need some protection here? You see lawsuits out here in some States for $40 million, and it is totally inexplicable and, in my opinion, indefensible. It provides protection for those not directly involved in a Y2K failure. And it is a temporary measure. We are not trying to have product liability reform on this bill or tort reform--although we ought to have both, in my opinion, and the sooner the better. I can't wait until we can get it done. But this is a temporary measure to deal with a temporary, one-time problem. It sunsets January 1, 2002. I want to emphasize that it does not deny the right of anyone to redress their legitimate grievances in court. What is at stake here? What is going on here? Some people don't want this bill at all, pure and simple. To the credit of the Senator from South Carolina, I don't think he has denied that. His goal is to defeat this bill. For every name of people out here in the hall on the business side, I can assure you there is somebody on the other side. But the idea that we are going to resort to the courts to solve all of the problems in America, and the insinuation that this bill is some sinister plot to block legitimate legal action, I just find that wrong. I think it is a good effort. I hope we get it done. But I am willing to stand on this line right here. Those who just voted against cloture can live with it, as far as I am concerned, and they can explain it to their constituents--big businesses, small businesses, farmers, people who are going to get sued if we don't do this, when it is not even necessary. So if this bill dies on this line, it is OK with me, because I think the blame is clear. But I am not going to be a part of shenanigans here, to have an agenda dumped on this bill that would result in killing it. We are not going to keep spinning our wheels. We are going to come up with a legitimate compromise solution, and we are going to vote and move or not--either way. If anybody in this Chamber thinks the solution to the Y2K problem is more lawsuits, I don't believe they have talked to the people in America. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of S. 96, and the last amendment pending to S. 96 be modified with the changes proposed by Senators Dodd, Wyden, Hatch, Feinstein, Bennett, and Senator McCain which I now send to the desk. And I send a cloture motion to the desk to the compromise amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this cloture vote would have occurred, if consent had been granted, on Monday on the so-called compromise worked out among the chairman and Senator Dodd, Senator Feinstein, and others as mentioned above. Let me say, I appreciate the effort of the chairman. I appreciate the effort, the work, and the willingness to try to find an adequate solution by Senator Wyden. And Senator Feinstein has been involved, and a number of others, Senator Dodd, obviously. But in light of this objection, I do not intend to bring this bill back before the Senate until consent can be granted by the Democrats. And if it is predicated on agreement that we open this up for every amendment in the kitchen, then it is over. Or until we get a commitment that we are going to get the votes for cloture and get a reasonable solution to this problem, I think it would be unreasonable for me to waste the Senate's time with any further debate or action on this amendment. We need to do this. We can do it. But I am prepared now--if everybody is ready, we will just say it is over, the trial lawyers won, and we will move on to the next bill. But I am willing to be supportive of Members on both sides of the aisle who, acting in good faith, want to get this done. We should do it. This is a reasonable approach. There is no reason we should use the Y2K computer glitch as an opportunity for a litigation bonanza. I am a lawyer, and everybody in this Chamber knows I have relatives who would be very interested in this. But I am interested in what is fair and what is right. We need to do this. The negotiations have happened. Concessions have been made. But, frankly, I am ready to move on to something else, unless we can get this done. So I do not intend to do anything else until we hear some solution to this problem. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. In light of a briefing that is ongoing, a very important briefing in the secure room with regard to the conflict in Kosovo, I ask that the Senate stand in recess until 4:30 so all Senators can attend this briefing.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent beginning at 9:30 on Friday there be 30 minutes for debate only with respect to the Social Security lockbox issue, and at 10 a.m. a cloture vote occur pursuant to rule XXII.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Internet is nearly a ubiquitous aspect of American life. It goes without saying ``electronic commerce''--e- commerce--has become a central aspect for buying products and services. Only two years ago five million households shopped for some product on the Internet. Last year that number doubled. Now the forecast for this year is that nearly 15 million households will let their keyboards do the work. This is a threefold increase of shoppers in only two years. One can also look at the dollar volume affected, which is predicted to double to $31B this year. Mr. President, city, county and state officials are understandably overwhelmed by this Internet Tsunami--15 million homes spending $31 billion. I have spent time talking with these public officials. I have listened to their views. They are frightened, and they have legitimate concerns about their sales tax base. However, electronic commerce will not end Main Street as we now know it. I am confident public policy will evolve to deal with the new electronic marketplace in a fair and balanced manner. Although the Internet is currently accessed by almost 40 million American homes, less than half are using the Internet for commerce purposes. This tells me there are issues that need to be addressed beyond how the sales tax is treated--issues like encryption, privacy and digital signatures--all necessary components for vibrant Internet commerce. I hope Congress will examine and act on these issues during the 106th Congress, while the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce works on the tax implications. The Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce must complete its report promptly so the information is available to Congress before the moratorium on new Internet taxes ends. Mr. President, the report date does not need to be extended. I am very impressed with Governor Jim Gilmore's leadership of the Commission and his aggressive technology agenda. I commend him for his progress thus far, and I know he will deliver on time a fair and balanced report. Mr. President, let me back up and say a few words about the Commission. This provision was part of the compromise Representative Chris Cox worked out with state and local government associations. His efforts precipitated the legislative process and culminated in the bill becoming law. I want to thank Representative Cox for proposing and fine tuning the Commission. I consulted with him as Congress worked to get this Commission up and running and appreciate his diligence and insight throughout the process. Mr. President, today I also want to commend my friend Jimmy Barksdale for graciously volunteering to step down from the Commission. He and I both agree that the issues surrounding the Internet are too important to let individuals and personal agendas get in the way. Jimmy decided to step aside so the Commission can get beyond the disruptive law suit. Let me say a few words about why I selected Jimmy in the first place--I wanted a Mississippian who could bring Southern common sense and wisdom to the evolving public policy for the Internet. Jimmy knows what it takes to create a new marketplace and he understands the interplay and context for each facet of the telecommunications sector, especially since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 empowered many sectors to compete with each other. I have selected Ms. Delna Jones to fill the vacancy. Ms. Jones is a public official who brings the Commission into a balance between public and private sector interests. Ms. Jones is a county official from Washington County, Oregon, thus ensuring that each layer of local government is now represented. Ms. Jones is from a non-sales tax state which now means all state configurations for income and sales tax approaches are present. Ms. Jones also worked for a telecommunications company and is no stranger to this aspect of the communication world. Ms. Jones will provide the Commission a voice for the 46% of all Internet users who are female. Ms. Jones has been recognized by the National Federation of Independent Business which tells me she is sensitive to the needs of small business--a key component of our economy. Her background brings a valuable professional richness to the Commission. Senator Gordon Smith both knows and has served with Ms. Jones in Oregon's state legislature. He believes she has the right mix of professional and personal skills to make a meaningful and significant contribution to the Commission. Mr. President, I want the record to be clear. The Commission's imbalance was not created by me, and it is unfortunate that those who did not fulfill the law's mandate were paralyzed and unable to offer a real fix. I have stepped up to the problem and changed one of my selections. Evolving Internet public policy is just too important to be held hostage. I want America to have a vibrant electronic communication and commerce medium for the 21st Century. I also want to challenge the members of the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce to focus and produce recommendations that will assist Congress in making the right public policy for the Internet. Mr. President, today 37 million Americans will click on the Internet for something, perhaps a purchase. They need and deserve the right public policy--a policy this Commission can and will influence. We should not be afraid of this technology shift--the Internet's Tsunami, e-commerce--nor should we ignore the consequences of how America's commerce is or should be structured to ensure the prosperity and vitality of America's 21st Century electronic economy.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, more than 15 years ago, Congress directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to take responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste created by commercial nuclear power plants and our nation's defense programs. Today, there are more than 100,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel that must be dealt with. Over a year has now passed since the DOE was absolutely obligated under the NWPA of 1982 to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from utility sites. Today DOE is no closer in coming up with a solution. This is unacceptable. This is in fact wrong--so say the Federal Courts. The law is clear, and DOE must meet its obligation. If the Department of Energy does not live up to its responsibility, Congress will act. I am encouraged that Congressmen Bliley, Barton, Upton, and the rest of the House of Representatives have begun to address this issue. It is good to see a bipartisan effort for a safe, practical and workable solution for America's spent fuel storage needs. The proper storage of spent fuel is not a partisan issue --it is a safety issue. The solution being advanced is certainly more responsible than just leaving waste at 105 separate power plants in 34 states all across the nation. There are 29 sites which will reach their storage capacity by the end of this year. Where is DOE? Where is the solution? All of America's experience in waste management over the last twenty-five years of improving environmental protection has taught Congress that safe, effective waste handling practices entail using centralized, permitted, and controlled facilities to gather and manage accumulated waste. Mr. President, the management of used nuclear fuel should capitalize on this knowledge and experience. Nearly 100 communities have spent fuel sitting in their ``backyard,'' and it needs to be gathered and accumulated. This lack of a central storage capacity could very possibly cause the closing of several nuclear power plants. These affected plants produce nearly 20% of America's electricity. Closing these plants just does not make sense. Nuclear energy is a significant part of America's energy future, and must remain part of the energy mix. America needs nuclear power to maintain our secure, reliable, and affordable supplies of electricity. Nuclear power, at the same time, allows the nation to directly and effectively address increasingly stringent air quality requirements. Both the House and the Senate passed a bill in the 105th Congress to require the DOE to build this interim storage site in Nevada, but unfortunately this bill didn't complete the legislative process because of time constraints. We ran out of time. I challenge my colleagues in both chambers of the 106th Congress to get this environmental bill done. The citizens, in some 100 communities where fuel is stored today, challenge the Congress to act and get this bill done. The nuclear industry has already committed to the federal government about $15 billion toward building the facility. In fact, the nuclear industry continues to pay about $650 million a year in fees for storage of spent fuel. It is time for the federal government to honor its commitment to the American people and the power community. It is time for the federal government to protect those 100 committees. To ensure that the federal government meets its commitment to states and electricity consumers, the 106th Congress must mandate completion of this program--a program that includes temporary storage, a site for permanent disposal, and a transportation infrastructure to safely move used fuel from plants to the storage facility. Mr. President, this federal foot dragging is unfortunate and unacceptable. Clearly, the only remedy to stopping these continued delays is timely action in the 106th Congress on this legislation. By moving this process, which must also include the work of the Senate, the House's work can be improved. Let's move forward and get this bill done.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the motion to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in view of the latest action in trying to change the subject on this important Y2K bill, I had no alternative but to fill up the tree. I know there will be comments by Senator Daschle and Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy with the idea that we still hope to be able to bring these issues to a conclusion and get an agreement on Y2K, and, if that can be worked out in terms of available amendments, or final vote, we will work through that, hopefully, by tomorrow.

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

Mr. LOTT. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to the motion to recommit with instructions.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to recommit the bill with instructions to report back forthwith, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the presence of the absent Members, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LOTT. I object.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I advise Members that in about 10 minutes we intend to have a recorded vote. I give Members notice that a vote is impending. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is my distinct honor to support this resolution submitted today by Senator McConnell assigning the Henry Clay Desk in the Senate Chamber to the senior Senator from Kentucky. This resolution will ensure that the Henry Clay Desk will forever stay within the family of Kentucky Senators. The Senate has a proud tradition of passing this type of resolution. During the 94th Congress, for example, the Senate adopted a resolution assigning the Daniel Webster Desk to the senior Senator from New Hampshire. And, during the 104th Congress, the Senate agreed to a resolution ensuring that the Jefferson Davis Desk would forever reside with the senior Senator from Mississippi. Let me take a brief moment to reflect on the life and legacy of Henry Clay. Henry Clay began his political career in the Kentucky House of Representatives in 1803, at age 27, and remained in public service until his death in 1852. During Clay's long and distinguished career, he served his state and his nation in a wide range of capacities including speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and, of course, as a U.S. Senator for fifteen years. Clay also served President John Quincy Adams as Secretary of State for four years, and received his party's nomination for President in 1824, 1832, and 1844. Henry Clay's ability to facilitate compromise was quickly recognized in Washington, and he became well-known as a highly-skilled negotiator. This skill, coupled with his knack for convincing and persuasive speech, made Clay the ideal appointment in 1814 to help negotiate the Treaty of Ghent that concluded the war with Great Britain. And, during Clay's quest to save the Union in 1820, he earned his reputation as ``The Great Compromiser'' by helping broker the Missouri Compromise. His leadership, however, did not end there. He also went on to play a significant role in crafting the Compromise of 1850. Henry Clay's lifetime of public service is indeed worthy of recognition. He will always be a role model for public servants because of his dedication to the people of Kentucky and to our great Nation, and lives on his history as one of the greatest Senators of all time. In fact, Henry Clay's portrait is displayed just off the Senate floor to honor his designation in 1957, as one of history's ``Five Outstanding Senators.'' Clay certainly deserves today's honor of committing his former desk to Senator McConnell and to the senior Senators from Kentucky who will follow. Mr. President, let me say today that I think Senator McConnell is following in the footsteps of Henry Clay. He has done a tremendous job representing the good people of Kentucky for the past 15 years. And, on a personal level, I would like to say that I have developed a genuine appreciation for Senator McConnell's courage, his political insight, and his keen and candid advice on a wide range of subjects. I value him as a friend, a confidant, and an advisor, and look forward to many more years of service with him here in this chamber. Mr. President, I am proud today to support this resolution submitted by Senator McConnell. It is his strong desire to maintain the heirloom of the Clay desk in the family of Kentucky Senators for the years to come. I urge the Senate to adopt this resolution and ask that it be included in the collection of the Standing Orders of the Senate.