Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for a couple minutes.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it was with a great deal of sadness that I learned today that one of the great patriots in America, a man from Illinois, Max Fisher, passed away. Max Fisher has been a great American statesman, a patriot, a public servant, an entrepreneur, and community leader. He lived in Michigan. He has some Illinois roots also. He was born in 1908 to humble beginnings. He built a company that became SPEEDWAY 76. He was the driving force behind the revitalization of the city of Detroit, and he was a close adviser to four U.S. Presidents. I got to know him quite well during the 1990s. I was able to visit with him personally. I got to know his family. I was so impressed with his commitment to his family, his community, his people, and his Nation. He was a great American and a righteous man. We have lost one of our great patriots in America today. I wanted to pay special tribute to Max Fisher and his family on this occasion.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Tuesday, March 8, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., to examine and discuss S. 271, a bill which reforms the regulatory and reporting structure of organizations registered under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Susan Wells at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352. Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Committee on Rules and Administration approved the following rules for the committee. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in today's Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Before he leaves the floor, I thank the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, for his comments and for his leadership in this area. He has been steadfast. He has been involved in the process of moving this bill forward. A process which involves some give and take and some compromise. Surprise, surprise. That is the legislative process. This is not a perfect bill, as he noted. It is not one that I particularly like. I would like to make it a lot stronger, but it is a major step forward. I thank Senator Dodd, and other Senators. Senator Carper has been involved in that process, and colleagues on this side of the aisle. I am pleased that the first substantive bill of the year is one that truly has a chance to make a huge difference in this country, and it is a bipartisan effort. It is one that I predict, when we go through the amendment process and get to the end, will have a large vote in support. I will not be surprised if it gets 70 votes. I hope for that. That would be a positive step. If we can hold the line on amendments that may be offered--some that I would be attracted to, some that Senators such as Senator Dodd would be attracted to--but we worked out an agreement. We should brush back those amendments, discourage a whole raft of amendments being contemplated, and complete our work. The House has indicated they will accept this product--the compromise we came up with. When was the last time you heard of that even being possible? But they have reaffirmed just in the last few days that, yes, if we can complete it the way it is presently structured, they will take it up, pass our bill, and send it to the President. That would be a good way to start this year. I thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the work that has been done. Senator Hatch is here managing the legislation. He has worked on this long and hard, including last year when we had an opportunity that slipped away from us for a variety of reasons. It was tough last year to get much of anything done with all of us preoccupied with the Presidential campaign and our Senate campaigns and the House races. There is no use going back and rehashing why we didn't get it completed. We didn't get the job done. But we can do it now. I thank Senator Hatch for the work he has done on this bill over the years, and Senator Specter for getting it out of the Judiciary Committee in good order. I thank Senator Grassley for his usual dogged determination to not give up on an issue, and he continues to press not only this but the bankruptcy reform issues. I am thankful for the way we are starting off this year. I thank the leadership for working out an agreement to bring this bill to the floor. We could very well have had a filibuster. But Senator Frist, working with Senator Reid, has indicated we are not going to get into that morass. We are going to step up to this issue, we are going to address it and debate it, and we are going to get results. I think that is good. I believe the American people want us to complete action on this legislation and pass the bipartisan compromise this week, if at all possible. There is no reason for this to be dragged out over a long period of time. We know there are a few amendments that are going to be offered. We will debate them. Let us vote and get to the conclusion of this process in the Senate, and send it to the House so they can take it up. Why do we need this bill? Some people would say we have the greatest judicial and jurisprudence system in the world. Things are working fine. Let us just leave it alone. I don't believe things are exactly working just fine. Every system over a period of time needs some adjustment, and if abuses begin to occur, we must step up and stop them. Over the past decade, we have seen a dramatic rise in the number of interstate class actions being filed in State courts, particularly in what are called magnet jurisdictions. I regret to say, and acknowledge, my State is one of the worst abusers. To the credit of our State legislature and our Governor, Haley Barbour, last year in Mississippi we passed tort reform legislation. We have gone from being the center of jackpot justice to being a State that has been praised by legal journals and the Wall Street Journal as having stepped up to the issue and dealt with it in a responsible way. They now describe my State in this way: Mississippi, open for business. Prior to tort reform though, businesses, industry, manufacturers, drugstores, etc. would not come to Mississippi to do business. They were not coming to my State, one of the poorest States in the Nation, because of the abuses that have been occurring in the legal system. But now, we have done our part in Mississippi. We still need to do more, but this is a Federal interstate problem and we in Congress are going to have to help address it. Courts where the class action mechanism is routinely and egregiously abused have been proliferating. In many instances we know the plaintiffs get little or nothing, and the lawyers have gotten massive fees. I can cite example after example in my State where awards have been de minimus or nothing. Jefferson County, MS, in my State is one of the worst, most abused magnet jurisdictions in the country. Far too often innocent local business men and women are joined as defendants in controversies to which they were merely innocent bystanders, all because plaintiffs' lawyers wanted to file the case in Jefferson County for the purpose of getting a bigger fee. Often, the cases have no other relationship to that county or to my State other than this is a good place to go. This is unconscionable. We have an obligation to our constituents to put a stop to it. Before going any further, it is important we take note of the title of this legislation: Class Action Fairness Act. This is not just some random title that Senator Grassley or others came up with. The whole point of the bill is to make the class action mechanism fair for all involved. Some of my colleagues will argue today, I am sure, that the system is already fair. I ask, Is it fair for the plaintiffs in a class action suit to receive nothing, literally nothing, when the lawyers representing them receive $19 million? The citation is Shields et al. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. et al. That is an actual case. Is it fair for the claims of residents of Mississippi, Washington, or Maine to be decided according to Illinois State law? Of course not. These are just two of the many reasons we need class action fairness, and we need it now. Our Nation's judicial system was designed to be the fairest in the world for all litigation, and we have gotten away from that. These abuses have called into question the very fairness of our whole system. It is imperative we act to close these loopholes that have allowed this process to fail in the way that it has. Before I talk about the specifics of what this bill does, let me take a minute to emphasize a few things the bill does not do. We will hear these allegations over the next few days, I am sure. This bill is not a tort reform bill, it is a court reform bill. This bill does not alter in any way substantive law. There may be some here who would want to debate that. However, I made that point at a meeting earlier today and I have gone back and checked it with experts. That is an accurate statement. Contrary to the scare tactics of the plaintiffs' lawyers, this bill does not affect an individual's right to seek redress or damages through the court, and it does not in any way limit damages, either punitive or compensatory. What does it do? First, it expands the jurisdiction of Federal courts over large interstate class actions. Clearly, that is a Federal jurisdictional issue and one we have a right and a real need to get into. Let's be clear. We are only talking about those cases in which the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, in which there are at least 100 plaintiffs, and in which any plaintiff is a citizen of a different State from any defendant. This makes basic sense. Where you have more than 100 class members and where parties to the litigation are from different States, the Federal courts should have jurisdiction. This provides fundamental fairness for all involved. The Framers of our Constitution were concerned about ensuring fairness in cases like this, worried that State courts could be biased in favor of a home State party versus another party who was a resident of a different State. That is the very reason for a Federal diversity jurisdiction. It only makes sense that we close the loopholes that a growing number are abusing and exploiting with the result of creating a system that is having a huge impact in terms of dollar amounts and business and economic development. It is also important to note that this bill does not apply to every class action, only those meeting certain criteria. It is not going to result in our Federal courts being overwhelmed by a large number of class actions. We will hear that accusation this week. And it will not move all class actions to Federal court. In fact, it leaves in State courts a significant number of class actions. It reserves for State courts those cases in which all plaintiffs and defendants are residents of the same State. It reserves for State court those class actions with less than 100 plaintiffs. Likewise, class actions involving an amount in controversy of less than $5 million would remain in the State court as would class actions in which a State government entity is the primary defendant. As a part of the compromise worked out with Senator Feinstein last year, class actions that are brought against a company in its home State and in which two-thirds or more of the class members are also residents of that State would remain in State court. Finally, State courts would retain jurisdiction over class actions involving local controversies where at least two-thirds of the class members and one real defendant are residents of the State where the action is brought. This bill reserves these cases for State court because it is the right thing to do. There are other provisions of importance in this bill, including a consumer class action bill of rights. As many know, part of this section represents a compromise worked out by Senators Schumer, Dodd, and Landrieu last year. Notably, it places limitations on contingency awards for attorneys in coupon settlement cases. By basing these contingency fees on the value of the coupons that are actually redeemed, or the amount of time expended by the attorney, it provides for a far greater protection for plaintiff class members. This provision takes a big step toward addressing the grossly inequitable fee awards to attorneys when class members end up with a coupon. Additionally, by requiring the judge to make a written finding that the benefits to class members substantially outweigh the monetary loss from a settlement, the bill provides an added layer of protection for class members who will suffer a net monetary loss as a result of payment of attorney's fees. Do not get me wrong. I went to law school. I practiced law for a while. Yes, I was on the defense side of the ledger most of the time. But I have to admit reluctantly that my brother-in-law--I am really not related to him by blood; he married my wife's sister--is one of the, shall we say more famous lawyers in this country, Richard Scruggs. He has brought a lot of lawsuits I don't like. On occasion he actually makes a point with some of those lawsuits. I don't want to put him out of business, but I want some reasonable restraint on how these class action suits have been abused. He has not been one of the ones who actually wound up having abused lawsuits in the courts, as he winds up getting settlements most of the time. I understand both sides of this equation. I certainly do not want to take away people's right to sue--individuals or even class actions, when they are really a class. That is not what has been happening. There has been an effort to dredge up clients, and it has led to the next area I will talk about, mass actions. There is language in this bill dealing with mass actions. I understand there may be an effort later today or this week to change this section with an amendment that I understand may be offered. But it is vital that we retain the mass action section of the bill without an amendment so that we don't open the door for lawyers to make an end run around what we are trying to do with class actions in this bill. The mass action section was specifically included to prevent plaintiffs' lawyers from making this end run. It will ensure that class action-like cases are covered by the bill's jurisdictional provisions even if the cases are not pleaded as class actions. The amendment that we are hearing may be offered later today is a little sleight of hand. This is a case where you argue that you're only changing one word but, in reality, you fundamentally alter what happens with regard to these mass actions. There are a few States, such as my State--which do not provide a class action device. In those States, plaintiffs' lawyers often bring together hundreds, sometimes thousands of plaintiffs to try their claims jointly without having to meet the class action requirements, and often the claims of the multiple plaintiffs have little to do with each other. There was an instance in my State where you had more plaintiffs in one of these mass actions than you had people in the county, more than the residents in the county. Under the mass action provision, defendants will be able to remove these mass actions to Federal court under the same circumstances in which they will be able to remove class actions. However, a Federal court would only exercise jurisdiction over those claims meeting the $75,000 minimum threshold. To be clear, in order for a Federal court to take jurisdiction over a mass action, under this bill there must be more than 100 plaintiffs, minimal diversity must exist, and the total amount in controversy must exceed $5 million. In other words, the same safeguards that apply to removal of class actions would apply to mass actions. Mass actions cannot be removed to Federal court if they fall into one of four categories: One, if all the claims arise out of an event or occurrence that happened in the State where the action was filed and that resulted in injuries only in that State or contiguous States. That makes sense. The second exception would be, if it is the defendants who seek to have the claims joined for trial; third, if the claims are asserted on behalf of the general public pursuant to a State statute; and, lastly, if the claims have been consolidated or coordinated for pretrial purposes only. Some of my colleagues will oppose this mass actions provision and will want to gut it by making an effort to confuse mass actions with mass torts. I realize we are kind of getting into a legalese discussion, but words make a difference when you are considering a bill such as this. I am very concerned that the real motive is to render this provision meaningless, thereby creating a loophole for the trial lawyers to basically get a class action by another name. Mass torts and mass actions are not the same. The phrase ``mass torts'' refers to a situation in which many persons are injured by the same underlying cause, such as a single explosion, a series of events, or exposure to a particular product. In contrast, the phrase ``mass action'' refers to a specific type of lawsuit in which a large number of plaintiffs seek to have all their claims adjudicated in one combined trial. Mass actions are basically disguised class actions. If we enact the amendment that we are hearing may be offered to alter the mass action section, if we do not keep the mass action section intact, we will be knowingly creating a loophole that would undermine our whole effort in getting some responsible reform. I also understand there is another amendment that will be offered, and it has been referred to as the choice of law amendment. That has a good sound, choice of law. To me, that is another word for shopping around to find the best forum, once again, with no relation to where the incident occurred or where the plaintiffs live, or the defendants, or anything. I have spoken to several of my colleagues about this amendment in the last week or two, and some of them have even said to me: Don't you think we should include this amendment? My answer is no. This is a bad amendment. In my opinion, it is a poison pill. If we accept this choice of law amendment, basically the plaintiffs' lawyers can go to Federal court and say: OK, it is in Federal court, but we want to look at this State law, that State law, or another State law, depending on which one suits our particular cause the best. If this amendment is offered and passes, we would certainly have to go to conference then with the House. It would delay our efforts to get a final bill. And if we could not come up with a solution in conference that did not include this amendment, we would not get a bill. So the phrase ``choice of law'' does sound nice, but the amendment actually would alter very fundamental legal principles. It would require Federal courts to apply one State's laws when adjudicating a nationwide class action. Here is what that means. If a nationwide class action is brought against a Mississippi company, the judge would be forced, under this amendment, to choose one State's law to apply to the whole country. The Mississippi company, which typically conducts business in Mississippi in compliance with Mississippi law and Federal law, would not necessarily have the protection of Mississippi law. Even though the Mississippi law, with which the company complied, differed from, for example, Nebraska law, the judge could potentially choose to apply Nebraska law. So believe me, the proponents of this amendment know exactly what they are doing. If it were adopted, it would perpetuate the forum shopping that has been going on in recent years that has led to one of many areas of abuse. Let me conclude because I know others want to speak. We want to get the process started. It is a compromise bill. It is not perfect. There will be different points of view. I have worked in this area for many years. I have heard all the arguments. I have heard those arguments on the floor of the Senate, in committee rooms, and at the family dinner table. I want people to be able to get justice and redress. But I do not see how anybody can argue that there has not been abuse in the area of class actions and in mass actions. It has certainly been abusive in my own State. What disgusts me the most is the lawyers it has made superwealthy while the claimants got almost nothing. We can do better. This legislation will lead to a better solution. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct its organization meeting for the 109th Congress. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Susan Wells at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I, too, feel inspired and in fact moved to comment on the elections in Iraq and also some other things that I have witnessed during the last 2 days. I felt very emotional as I watched Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday morning, during one of several interviews on television. Specifically, I am speaking of Chris Wallace's interview of our new Secretary of State. It was one of the most impressive interviews I believe I have ever seen in my life. This is obviously a highly talented, qualified, thoughtful, articulate person who has been sworn in to be Secretary of State. I have never seen a more moving interview in my many years in Washington, in fact over 36 years, than I witnessed during the interchange between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Chris Wallace. Actually, I found myself to the point of tears as I listened to what she had to say, and how she said it. I was captivated by how she responded not only to the world given the very important position that she holds in answering those questions, but also on a personal basis by representing what is good in America. This is a lady who came from Birmingham, AL, an African-American, who grew up at a time when Birmingham was segregated and it was difficult for her to get the education, the experience, and the opportunities that she needed for life. She persevered, as did her family, friends, and neighbors, and she has now risen to one of the most important positions in the world that anybody could have. She will be the face of America to the leaders of all of the rest of the world, and it is one that I believe they, as I, will be impressed with. I will read one part of what she had to say in that interview. Interviewer Chris Wallace noted that he would play a clip from earlier this week at the White House when Condoleezza Rice was sworn in as Secretary of State and she referred to her relatives from Alabama who were there in the audience, and he asked his viewers to take a look. Secretary Rice said: They represent generations of Rices and Rays who believed that a day like this might somehow be possible. And then Wallace continued: You have gone from a little girl in the segregated South to being the chief representative of this country to the world. What does that say about the United States? At that point I felt sure that tears would well up in her eyes and she would have difficulty responding, but she kept her composure while she said this: It says that the United States is a place that is living up to its principles, that has had a struggle to do that. I[t] also said in that, Chris, it was Thomas Jefferson who said that the God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time and, of course, didn't himself personally carry that out perfectly. . . . It just shows that democracy, if you have the right principles in place, if you have the right institutions in place, it may take a long time, but eventually the aspirations for one society unified despite race and gender and religion can start to come into being. We still have a lot of work to do in America. I look out and I see that work. But I do believe that in a world where difference is a license to kill, to look across and to see people like me or Al Gonzales or others says that America is trying desperately and, in some sense, succeeding, in living up to those principles. I thought that was a magnificent testament to her life, what she experienced, what others are dealing with, but also what it means about our country and the hope for a lot of young boys and girls who see Condoleezza Rice in the position she is in and recognize that they can succeed, too, in the American dream. I continued to watch television, many different networks, and I started seeing the results of the Iraqi elections. It appears that it was a good election with a good turnout. I don't know what the exact turnout percentages are. Reuters reported it as being perhaps as much as 72 percent, I believe. In some parts of the country it was more than that, I would presume, and in others much less than that, but still an incredible turnout. Maybe it will be 60 percent, maybe it will be 58, maybe it will be 62, but the people of Iraq, under the threat of intimidation or death or future abuse, went into those polling places in huge numbers, stuck their finger in that little bottle of dye, and came out and showed it off proudly. By the way, they are going to have to come to live with their dyed finger the next couple of days. There will not be any hiding. If you voted in Iraq today, your finger will be stained today and tomorrow, but your life will be changed henceforth. Maybe we can learn from them. We didn't have a 60- or 70-percent turnout in our election. I don't know exactly what the turnout was, but I am sure it is much less than that in America where we don't vote if the weather is not good or the traffic is too bad. But in Iraq they walked to the polling places, they put their lives on the line, and they were thrilled to be able to be a part of a historic event, of democracy in action, and they came out and danced in the streets. They said: We are very happy. They also said: Thank you, America. A lot of credit can be passed out. It begins with the people of Iraq for what they did yesterday, to the men and women who are trying to make Iraq safe, their own policemen and national guard, and their own military. But a lot of credit goes to our military men and women who have done a marvelous job on the ground in Iraq. Even yesterday, they were there. They helped provide as much security as they could, but they were not interfering with the voters. They backed away. They left it to the people of Iraq and to their military and police and others. I cannot give enough credit to the young men and women who have been there and their officers and noncoms, all of them, soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast Guard. Obviously, they have all been a part of this. When I have talked to the young troops we have there, they are proud of what they are doing. They feel patriotic about what they have helped to do there. Then, yesterday, they saw this begin to bear fruit. It doesn't mean the Iraqi people are free from terrorism. It doesn't mean everything has been done perfectly. It doesn't mean it is going to be perfect from here on. We don't know yet who won their election. It was a very complicated process. They had to figure out who to vote for or what list of people to vote for, and what number to identify. They still have a long way to go in cultivating their democracy. But for me, it was an inspiration. I was thrilled by what I saw, what I witnessed through the media. Not just one network or one station, all the different ones that were there in the country, showing democracy at work. But also I believe credit has to go to our own Congress and the American people for showing patience and forbearance and giving of their treasure and American blood for a distant place, for people you don't really know. Many wonder, I am sure, sometimes, is it worth it? Why are we there? How long are we going to be there? All those questions come forward. But what struck me again yesterday was how people react to freedom, how people react to democracy, being able to go and cast their vote. It is liberating. The President was right when he talked about the power of freedom and democracy and how it is a flame that is igniting a fire all around the world over the last 20 years. We have gone from about 20 democracies in the world to 118 countries all over the world, in every continent, in places where you would not have thought it would be possible: Mongolia, elections in Ukraine, elections by the Palestinians. There is something very special going on here. I do believe it is contagious and that it will continue to grow, and not only the American people but the people of the world will benefit. The odds of having an attack from people in a country where there is a democracy are much less than those who come from places where there is an oppressive government, dictatorship, or authoritarianism. Democracy is not perfect; it is evolutionary. We know that from what we experienced. But yesterday was a special moment. I hope the American people saw it, felt proud of what they were witnessing and the part we have played in making that day possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the U.S. Congress, Reverend Clergy, fellow Americans, welcome to the U.S. Capitol and the 55th Presidential Inauguration, where in a few moments President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney will reaffirm their solemn oath of obligation to support and defend the Constitution. The inaugural ceremony is a seminal moment in our Nation's history. It is the culmination of a triumphant democratic process that for centuries has placed power in the will of the people, and a unique moment when our leaders stand before the Nation and take an oath to uphold a set of principles chosen by those people. It is a time when all Americans can unite in appreciation of our great Republic, while looking to the future with confidence and vision. This ceremony, like the shining dome of the Capitol above us, is an enduring symbol of America's strength and stability in both challenging and prosperous times. As President Ronald Reagan said in his first inaugural address, ``Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available here than any other place on Earth.'' The price of this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price. Since we last met here, America has been challenged and it has responded to those great tests with strength and steadfast courage of conviction. We responded by continuing to be a beacon of hope that has led so many from the shadow of tyranny into the light of freedom. Today, we honor America. Today, we celebrate the ever expanding opportunities of her people. And today we also honor the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who have sacrificed to guarantee our freedom. (Applause.) They are standing vigil today to spread peace and freedom throughout the world. Since 1789, Americans have gathered in peaceful, dignified ceremonies to reaffirm the authority of our chief executives. So it is in that tradition that we gather here again today looking out over the expanse of greatness that is America to celebrate our Nation, to commemorate its rich history of achievement, to advance the intrepid hopes that reside in the hearts of our citizens, and to give thanks to God for his blessings upon us all. In that spirit, I call now on the Reverend Doctor Luis Leon, who will deliver the invocation. Dr. Leon. Rev. LEON. Let us pray. Most gracious and eternal God, we gather today as a grateful people to enjoy the many blessings You have bestowed on this Nation. We are grateful for Your vision which inspired the Founders of our Nation to create this democratic experiment as one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We are grateful to You that You have brought to these shores a multitude of peoples of many ethnic, religious, and language backgrounds, and yet have fashioned one nation out of so many cultures and traditions. Even as we celebrate this great moment, we remember before You the members of our Armed Forces. We commend them to Your care. Give them courage to carry out their duties and courage to face the perils which beset them and grant them always a sense of Your presence in all that they do. Finally, today, we are especially grateful for this inauguration which marks a new beginning in our journey as a people and a nation. We pray that You will shower the elected leaders of this land, and especially George, our President, and Richard, our Vice President, with Your lifegiving spirit. Fill them with the love of truth and righteousness that they may serve You and this Nation ably and be glad to do Your will. Endow their hearts with Your spirit of wisdom that they may lead us in reviewing the ties of mutual respect which form our civic life so that peace may prevail with righteousness and justice with order. We pray that You will strengthen their resolve as they lead our Nation seeking to serve You in this world, and that this good and generous country may be a blessing to the nations of the world. And may they lead us to become, in the words of Martin Luther King, members of a beloved community, loving our neighbors as ourselves so that all of us may more closely come to fulfill the promise of our Founding Fathers: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All this we ask in Your most holy name. Amen.

Mr. LOTT. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Honorable William H. Rehnquist. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce one of today's most popularly acclaimed mezzo-sopranos, Ms. Susan Graham of Texas, to sing ``Bless This House.'' (Performance by Ms. Susan Graham.)

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Susan. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me now in welcoming the senior Senator from Connecticut, the Honorable Christopher J. Dodd. (Applause.)

Mr. LOTT. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome internationally acclaimed mezzo-soprano, Ms. Denyce Graves, to perform ``American Anthem.'' (Performance by Ms. Denyce Graves.)

Mr. LOTT. That sets the tone for what we are about to do. Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to introduce the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Honorable William H. Rehnquist, who will administer the Presidential oath of office. Justice Rehnquist.

Mr. LOTT. At this time, I would like to present a unique performance combining the U.S. Marine Band, the Navy Sea Chanters, and the Army of Herald Trumpets, performing ``God of our Fathers.'' (Musical performance.)

Mr. LOTT. Please stand as Pastor KirbyJon Caldwell will deliver the benediction, and then please remain standing for the national anthem, which will be led by TSgt Bradley Bennett from the U.S. Air Force Band. Following the national anthem, please remain in place while the official party departs the platform. Pastor Caldwell. Rev. CALDWELL. Thank you, Senator Lott. Let us pray, please. O Lord God Almighty, the supply and supplier of faith and freedom, how excellent is Your name in all the Earth. You are great and gratefully to be praised. O God, as we conclude this 55th inaugural ceremony, we conclude it with an attitude of thanksgiving. Thank You for protecting America's borders. After all, as the Psalmist reminds us, unless You, O God, guard the territory, our efforts will be in vain. Thank You for our armed service personnel. And it is with unswerving thanksgiving that we pause to remember the persons who have made the ultimate sacrifice to help ensure America's safety. Thank You, O God, for surrounding our personnel, their families, their friends, and our allies with Your favor and Your faithfulness. Deploy Your host from Heaven so that Your will for America will be performed on Earth as it is already perfected in Heaven. I confess that Your face will shine upon the United States of America, granting us social peace and economic prosperity, particularly for the weary and the poor. I also confess, O God, that each American's latter days will be better than their former days. Let it be unto us according to Your words. Rally the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Independents around Your common good so that America will truly become one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, justice, and equal opportunity for all, including the least, the last, and the lost. Bless every elected official right now. O God, I declare Your blessings to shower upon our President, George W. Bush. Bless him, his family, and his administration. I once again declare that no weapon against them shall prosper. God, forgive us for becoming so ensnarled in petty partisan politics that we miss Your glory and forget our purpose. Deliver us from the evil one, from evil itself, and from the mere appearance of evil. Give us clean hearts so that we might have clean agendas, clean priorities and programs, and even clean financial statements. And now unto You, O God, the one who always has been and always will be the one King of Kings and the true power broker, we glorify and honor You. Respecting persons of all faiths, I humbly submit this prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, realizing that I have the 5-minute allocation, I make a parliamentary inquiry about where we are. If there are no further speakers, is the Chair going to be prepared to put the question so that there would be a recorded vote?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think the case has been made. I think this was an unfortunate procedure. This process which we have been through was an inauspicious and unfortunate beginning of our session. I hope it does not have a lasting negative impact. But the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, made her case, others have responded, and I don't think it merits any further response. I, therefore, think we should be prepared to vote. I yield the floor.

Mr LOTT

Mr LOTT. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate has approved Judge Keith Starrett's nomination today to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi. I was pleased when the President nominated Judge Starrett to be a U.S. District Court Judge because he is one of the most experienced and respected trial court judges in the Mississippi State court system. I know that his lovely wife Barbara and his entire family are very proud of Judge Starrett as he marks this important milestone in his career and prepares to serve our state and nation in this new role. Judge Starrett is a bright light in the Mississippi legal community. He holds an undergraduate degree from Mississippi State University and a J.D. degree from the University of Mississippi School of Law. Additionally, as a sitting trial court judge he has completed a number of courses at the National Judicial College which have added to the knowledge base which he will bring to the federal bench. Judge Starrett engaged in the general practice of law for 17 years in Pike County and also served as an Assistant District Attorney, gaining broad experience in the law that such practice areas provide. He was appointed to a vacant State circuit court judgeship in 1992, and he was elected to continue in this position in 1994, 1998, and 2002. During his 12 years on the bench, Judge Starrett has earned a strong reputation as a fair and outstanding trial judge presiding over both civil and criminal cases. One of Judge Starrett's most important accomplishments in his judicial career is the leadership he provided in establishing the first felony level drug court in Mississippi in his State judicial district. This court was used as a model for the creation of other drug courts in the State. Judge Starrett's expertise and involvement in this area has been a key driving force as Mississippi works to implement a drug court system for the entire State, and he has written and spoken extensively on this topic. These special courts are better able to address the issues of justice and rehabilitation for those charged with crimes involving drugs, and I commend Judge Starrett for the groundbreaking work he has done in this area. Judge Starrett has also found time to serve his community and profession in many other ways. He helped to found Mission Pike County, a racial and denominational reconciliation organization and Southwest Mississippi Child Protection, a child advocacy group in Lincoln and Pike Counties. He is a leader in his church and the legal community in Mississippi, and he has been recognized with awards such as the 2003 Judicial Excellence Award given by the Mississippi Bar Association. It is no surprise that the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously found Judge Keith Starrett to be Well-Qualified to serve as a U.S. District Court Judge. The vacant seat which Judge Starrett has been confirmed to fill has been designated a judicial emergency, and I am pleased that the Senate has acted to prevent justice from being delayed any further for the parties whose cases are pending in the Southern District of Mississippi. I congratulate Judge Starrett on his confirmation, and I look forward to his serving as a federal judge for many years to come.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for yielding me this time. When we look back on the results of this year, the legislation that had the greatest impact, this will be the bill we will refer to and remember. This is the most important achievement of this session of Congress. I give credit to the chairman of the Finance Committee, and the ranking Member, Senator Baucus of Montana. They were diligent and hung in there. They were determined we would get this result. Yes, we had to go a little overtime, but here we are. We will get it done today. They deserve an awful lot of credit. Also we should give credit to Congressman Thomas, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House. This is very complicated legislation, but he worked with these two Senators and they produced a very important product. I could not fathom the idea that we might leave here and not complete legislation that will stop the fees that were being put on American products as a result of the WTO ruling on our domestic tax provisions. That import fee was going up 1 percent a month. It was up to 12 percent and going to 13 percent. How in the world could we not complete legislation that would deal with this alleged subsidy and take that money that was saved by eliminating some provisions and move it into other areas in manufacturing and small business in a way to create jobs? It was important we complete this legislation. We got it done. We will comply with the WTO ruling, but we will take that money that was going into the questionable provisions and move it into areas that will create jobs for the American people. We will keep more jobs here. This is a very significant achievement. At long last we repeal the 4.3-cent-per-gallon diesel fuel tax that railroads and barges have had to pay. This is not about one railroad or just a barge company; all the other parts of the economy that have been paying that 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax had been released from having to pay it or send it to an infrastructure trust fund. This was a question of fairness. Once again, it is in an area where we can create more jobs. The railroad industry is saying in the next few months they will create thousands of new jobs. This is a critical provision. I thank Senator Grassley particularly for working with me to make sure this provision to repeal that tax over a period of 3 years would be included in this bill. The bill also improves the tax treatment for shipbuilding. Unfortunately, shipbuilding companies have to pay the tax on the entire amount of a ship even though they do not get the money sometimes for 3 or 4 years down the road. Incremental funding is how you should pay your taxes. There are important timber provisions in the legislation. We should encourage the planting of more trees as well as responsible harvesting of trees. There are three different provisions that will help the timber industry in this country. It also includes income averaging for farmers and fishermen. Others have that opportunity; why shouldn't farmers and fishermen? This will be very helpful. The tobacco buyout provision is included. This is a provision I opposed, and I do oppose it now, but the conferees, working with the Senators from the States that were affected, came up with the best possible of the solutions they could have reached; therefore, I was willing to support what they came up with because I thought it was as fair as you could get for all involved. We have tax incentives for United States-flag shipping companies, short-line railroads, energy provisions that will produce more energy, critical improvements for small businesses, small subchapter S reform and expensing. This is a big achievement. I commend those involved and tell the American people this will help the economy of our country.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to announce that in accordance with Title V of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the committee has updated the senate regulations on senatorial suite selection effective October 7, 2004. Based on the committee's review of the 1992 regulations which allow members up to 24 hours to select a Senatorial office suite, the Committee on Rules and Administration has concluded that its regulations should be updated to facilitate the speedy and smooth transition of assigning Senatorial office space. This update includes changing the allowable time for suite selection from 24 hours to eight hours. The Committee on Rules and Administration has also streamlined the process for the submission of office layout plans to the Architect of the Capitol. The timeframe for submitting such layouts to the Architect of the Capitol has been amended from two weeks to one week. The amended regulations, as adopted appear below: Committee on Rules and Administration, United States Senate regulations on senatorial suite selection Adopted by the Committee on Rules and Administration, September 20, 1988, Amended June 17, 1992, Amended October 7, 2004 The following policy will be in effect for suite selection by Senators following the general elections in November: 1. As in the past, seniority will determine the order of selection of suites. 2. Suite selection will begin promptly after the election. 3. The only opportunity for suite selection by each Senator will occur when he or she is contacted by the Rules Committee. 4. Selection will consist of only those suites available at the time of contact by the Rules Committee. 5. Senators shall inform the Rules Committee of the decision on suite selection within 8 business hours (9 a.m.-6 p.m. Monday through Friday) after contact by the Rules Committee. Failure to respond within 8 business hours will be deemed a decision not to move, unless an extension beyond the 8 business hours is approved by the Chairman of the Rules Committee. 6. Senators shall submit an approved office layout to the Office of the Architect of the Capitol within one week after a suite is assigned. (This action is critical because reconfiguration of partitions, telephones, and computer terminals are dependent upon the office layout.) 7. Senators shall be expected to begin moving into the newly-assigned suite not later than two days after notification that the suite is ready for occupancy. 8. In considering whether to move, Senators should take into consideration the following requirements: a. Modular furniture will not be moved. If a Senator with an office containing modular furniture selects a suite without modular furniture, traditional furniture will be assigned. In cases where modular furniture is in place, changes in suite configurations should be kept to a minimum. b. A Senator's computer equipment will move to the new suite. The central processing unit will be initially installed in the location where the previous occupant's CPU was located. c. If a Senator from a ``large'' state elects to move, the extra space due that state may not be contiguous. Committees will not be forced to relocate in order to provide contiguous space. The Rules Committee will seek to locate the extra space in a contiguous area, but it may not be possible with most suite choices. It should also be understood that the Rules Committee will not know where the extra space due a ``large'' state will be located until after all 100 Senators have selected a suite. Then and only then will it be possible for the extra space to be assigned. 9. Senators from California will be assigned the two largest suites in the Hart Building as they become available. The choice between the two suites is to be made by the California Senators. These offices will then be permanently removed from the pool of available suites for assignment. 10. Every effort will be made to expedite moves, including the employment of temporary staff. However, the reconfiguration of partitions, furniture, telephones, and computer terminals requires seven to ten days. It is also desirable to repaint while the suite is vacant. 11. Each Senator (returning and newly-elected) will be informed of this policy immediately after the general election in November.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, since September 11, 2001, outstanding members of our Senate family have stepped forward to deal with the many challenges this institution has faced. One such leader is Harry Green, who I appointed to be the Senate Postmaster in January 1997. I have known Harry Green all my life. I rise today to wish Harry the very best as he plans to retire yet again at the end of October and return to our native State of Mississippi. Harry began his career in 1961 with the United States Postal Service in Pascagoula, MS. After only 10 years, he was promoted into a supervisory role which led to his becoming the postmaster in Pascagoula. In 1985 he was transferred to Lafayette, LA, where he served as postmaster there until his retirement in 1992. After I became majority leader, I coaxed Harry out of retirement in 1997 to become the postmaster of the United States Senate. During his tenure with the Senate Post Office, he has been faced with two significant biological/chemical challenges, anthrax in October 2001 and ricin in February 2004. Because of Harry's experience and demeanor, both attacks on the Senate were met with calm leadership and competent direction and stability. After the 2001 anthrax incident, Harry led the Senate Post Office team in a collaborative effort with U.S. Postal Service representatives to ensure the delivery of mail in a safe and timely manner. He and his team have received accolades for their performance and responsiveness in combating these threats to the Senate mail service. Harry also has proven himself an outstanding steward of appropriated funds. By utilizing existing resources and without compromising customer service, he has improved the quality of the Senate Post Office's service, in normal times as well as during crises, while still managing to spend about 58 percent less than other similar government agencies. I wish Harry well as he plans his retirement as postmaster of the Senate and leaves the Washington, DC area to be closer to his family. Harry has a lovely bride, Ilone, of 42 years, four children and five grandchildren. His post-retirement plans are to return to Pascagoula and its picturesque view of the Gulf of Mexico where he can enjoy full- time his hobbies of boating and watching SEC football and NASCAR racing. We will all miss Harry's excellent leadership, gentle nature and good humor here in the U.S. Senate. Harry, I will see you, riding our bicycles on the beach.