Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to make a couple of other points. We also need to move some nominations in the next week. Senator Daschle and I are trying to find a way to get that process moving. A lot of these are not controversial. They are Republican and Democrat, people such as Congressman Tony Hall, who is awaiting confirmation to be Ambassador for the United Nations Agency for Food and Agriculture. A number of these are U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. I urge the majority leader to consider beginning to do packages as we go along so we do not have them all stacked up at the end on Thursday or Friday where one objection, unrelated to the nominations, could deny all these people who have been waiting, some of them a good while, an opportunity to be considered. Also, I am concerned that--I don't know--11 or 12 judges are on the calendar. I think most of them are noncontroversial. But if we have to have a recorded vote, that could run into a lot of time and could really delay some of our work next week. I wanted to make that point to the majority leader and urge him to see if we can begin work together to develop a list, large or small, along the way, rather than just one huge package at the end next week. I yield the floor so Senator Daschle can respond.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I can get the floor back.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to raise one other issue. By law, the Senate must consider a joint resolution regarding the Yucca Mountain facility which has passed the House and has been reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We are quickly approaching a deadline for that legislation, which is also written in the law. It is my hope we can get an indication as to when that resolution will be scheduled as provided under the statute. I remind my colleagues that the law provides an expedited process for that measure, and it will only take 10 hours or less if Members decide not to use all the time, of course. We have offered--in fact, I think both sides have offered--suggestions as to how we might proceed. We do have a suggestion for consent that I have sent over to Senator Daschle as to how to proceed on the resolution so Members will know exactly how we will go forward and what time, when we might actually get to it. It is unclear if that will be accepted, but I just want our colleagues to know we are trying to get some clarification of exactly when we will go to this very important joint resolution dealing with the Yucca Mountain site for nuclear waste disposal. I add that the majority leader had previously stated his intent to proceed to a number of other important issues in July. We have a lot of important work that needs to be done and only 4 weeks in that time. Given the busy schedule, including the prospect of appropriations bills, it would be my hope that the Senate could consider this resolution even next week. I realize that would be contingent upon completing the Defense authorization bill, but I have a good feeling about how the Defense authorization bill may proceed next week. Maybe I am dreaming on this first day of summer to think we could actually finish it a little early, but I am hoping for the very best, and this resolution could possibly even be brought up next week. If not then, we do need to get some indication of when we will proceed. It is governed by law. I ask the leader to consider scheduling this measure and giving advice to colleagues as to when he anticipates this matter will be considered. I yield the floor to Senator Daschle for a response he wants to give.

Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Daschle for his comments. I understand this issue is privileged. It is like conference reports. It does not displace anything; it just temporarily interrupts it, and we can go right back to the pending business. That is why I raise the subject. I want everybody to understand that nobody is trying to shove this in an unfair way. There is a lot of consultation involved on both sides. We want to make sure Members understand how it can proceed and what the issue is and also give Senators who have concerns in opposition full knowledge of what time and how this will come up. That is why I bring it up at this point. I understand and appreciate Senator Daschle's position and the statement he just gave our colleagues. Congressional Baseball Game

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on a final happy note, I observe there was a baseball game last night, really outstanding game to retire the trophy. I am pleased to say the Romping Elephants were able to bring home the victory and retire the trophy. The score was 9 to 2. Why would I bring that up in the Senate since usually it is the younger and more inexperienced House Members who play on these baseball teams? In fact, one of the stars of the game was the Senator from Nevada, John Ensign, who played a sterling game at shortstop and actually got a walk, a hit, scored a run, and I think snagged about eight balls. So it just goes to show that Senators not only are older and more experienced but also perhaps more talented.

Mr. LOTT. With that glowing conclusion, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I concur with this agreement, and I will support it. The leadership on both sides of the aisle and the managers of the legislation on both sides of the aisle will support this effort. There is no more important issue for us to deal with right now than to pass the Defense authorization legislation that is necessary for our military men and women to do their job, including the equipment they need, the pay they need, and the quality of life they need, both here and when they are abroad. So we need this Defense authorization bill. We have already passed the supplemental appropriations to pay for some of the costs of the war against terror, particularly with regard to our efforts in Afghanistan but other places also. Now this will do the Defense authorization for the next fiscal year. These bills are never easy. In fact, they are always hard. Year after year, though, under the leadership of Senator Warner and now with Senator Levin, we have done it. We need to do it again. It should be our highest priority. I have urged that this legislation be moved at a time when we can get it done before the July 4 recess. Senator Daschle has called it up in a timely way. Now we see that without this agreement between now and when Senator Daschle would probably have to file cloture and then get cloture sometime next week, the amendments that would be brought up on both sides of the aisle would be, more often than not, nongermane to the Defense bill. Senator Daschle is right, one of the first ones right out of the box I am for. I think we ought to make the cuts in the marriage penalty tax permanent, unequivocally. There are young men and women who are married or want to get married and want to know what they can count on. We ought to do that, and I am looking forward to finding a way to vote on that again as I did last year. Having said that, it is not germane to this bill. There will be other amendments that can be offered on both sides of the aisle that are not germane. They may be good and we need to consider them, and maybe we can find a way to consider them, but we have important work to do. It is not as if this Defense authorization bill does not have more amendments that will need to be considered. There are a couple of big ones that I know of, maybe more than a couple--I would say more like five or six. So we have our work cut out for us to finish this bill on its substance, on relevant amendments, in order to finish this work in a reasonable time on Thursday and hopefully in such a way that we could get an agreement to proceed on the Yucca Mountain issue. I know Senator Reid would just as soon I talked all day and not said that, but we have work to do and then we have work to do after that. I support this effort. I think it is the right thing. I thank Senator Warner for going to Senator Levin. They talked about this and then came to us and suggested this was the right thing to do, and I certainly concur. I commend them for being willing to take that stand. By the way, this is good precedent. We might want to consider managers doing this on other bills when they are basically attacked by nongermane amendments to the underlying bills. If the manager will stand up on both sides of the aisle and say we are going to table this or we are going to make a point of order because it does not relate to this very important issue we are considering, we can move our legislation a lot quicker. There are culprits on both sides, and sometimes I am one of them, but in this case it is the right thing to do and maybe it will set a pattern for us for the rest of the year. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield for two points?

Mr. LOTT. I think Senator Daschle was very careful to say this would not apply to the Defense authorization relevant amendments. There are some that could be offered that they might prefer they not be offered, but they would relate to military hospitals, for instance, as opposed to germane ones, which would clearly be eliminated by a cloture vote. Several of the amendments that have been pending or are being considered, or suggested would be offered, clearly were not relevant or germane. The other thing is, I really was impressed when the Senator referred to a fellow Mississippian, John Stennis, whom I had the honor of succeeding.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry: Do we have an agreement to get the vote at 3 on this issue?

Mr. LOTT. How much time remains on each side?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself some time out of my leader time to comment on this issue. First, this situation has been caused by the fact that we don't have a budget resolution. I think that is very unfortunate. Ordinarily, we try to get a budget resolution by April 15 or as soon thereafter as possible. Usually we get one done by May. Here we are in June. We have not heard anything about when it might come up. Apparently it never will. That presents us problems in terms of what is the aggregate cap, what are the enforcement mechanisms that we are going to use to try to control spending, keep it within some reasonable amount. I also recognize without these caps, some orderly disposition to the subcommittees, it is going be very difficult to hold the line when these various appropriations bills come to the floor. I don't know when that might be. We need to get going on the appropriations bills. Usually in June we do anywhere between two and five appropriations bills. Then in July we usually do anywhere between, I guess, five and as many as nine. Right now I see none anywhere in sight. We have done a supplemental after a very difficult time. It is not clear when we will get going on appropriations. I believe the House is going to pass the Defense appropriations bill and then the military construction appropriations bill before the Fourth of July recess. So that will begin the process. That is good. I think to do this number and this procedure on this bill at this time is a mistake. First, this is the Defense authorization bill. You need some vehicle on which to put this. If not here, then where, somebody might ask. But now that this door is open, we are being advised that we are going to have all kinds of nongermane amendments on the Defense authorization bill. I had been pleading with Senator Daschle to call this issue up. And to his credit, he did. He could have gone to other issues, but he did the right thing and moved to Defense authorization. Now we will be off on a discussion of taxes and Mexican trucks and perhaps an abortion amendment. I am hearing all kinds of things. At some point we will have to get back to Defense authorization itself. That is point No. 1. I believe this is the wrong place to do it. Secondly, while the mechanisms have been improved--there is a firewall in here now, and also some clarification with regard to advanced appropriations--the number, 768, is still a problem. That is about $9 billion above the President's request. Some people maintain-- and I am sure it has been maintained--we are going to have to have more than what was asked for in the original budget as we try to move to a conclusion this year. Somebody even said: ``You are fighting over twosies and threesies here.'' It is $2 billion here, or $3 billion for the supplemental, and $9 billion there. Pretty soon, all those billions add up to real money. So while I understand what we are trying to accomplish, I am concerned about how we go forward from here. I think the number is still too high. I think this is the wrong bill on which to be putting this. It is similar to the debt ceiling. If we are going to do this, probably we need to do it clean. That won't be easy. But a lot of people were shocked that we were able to move the debt ceiling the way we did in a bipartisan vote; 15 or so Democrats voted with most of the Republicans. We didn't do a budget resolution, and I think that is a travesty, but we are going to have to come to some agreement on how we proceed and how we get to a conclusion at the end of this fiscal year. My urgent plea is that we look for a number that is closer to what the President and his advisers have indicated they could accept. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself time under leader time. I know it is time for us to vote, but I will be brief. First of all, I believe we are close to finishing this bill. I understand there are very few remaining issues we would actually have to dispose of even though there were some 41 amendments filed on this legislation: 14 on the Republican side of the aisle, 27 on the Democratic side. I am not sure how many of them are germane or how many would actually have to be offered. I know the manager of the legislation filed 21 of them, and perhaps some of them have been accepted. I don't know how many of those have been worked through. But clearly there were some problems with this legislation that needed to be addressed. It is my hope we can complete this important legislation and get it to conference and then get a bill that we can accept and the President can sign. There is a little bit of revisionist history that has been going on here. You remember last year in December very good work was done by members of the committee on both sides of the aisle, a bill that could probably have whizzed right through here. But over a period of time, the limits on liabilities were taken out, which is a concern of a number of Members on this side, and also the per-company limits were changed, or they were put into place in the legislation at a very low level where Federal funding would actually get to kick in. Those are two of the major problems that still exist. That could have been worked out if we had gone to the bill that was originally offered in committee or over these many months we have been trying to get an agreement of how to proceed. We have been unable to debate this measure at much length, although I said last week that I understood why Senator Daschle filed cloture. We have other issues we need to go on to, but I think in this case cloture may actually delay it a day. If we get cloture, it could take us sometime into tomorrow. It looks to me as if there is only four, maybe five amendments that actually would have to be debated and considered and voted on. I think we could probably get an agreement on the number of amendments and get a time limit and actually get votes on those amendments, perhaps not. But they are certainly relevant even though I am not sure whether they would be germane postcloture. I know Senator McConnell has two or three, Senator Gramm has one, Senator Brownback one; there may be two or three on that side. But I believe we could work this out and actually get the legislation completed today. I continue to hope that would be the result, and if cloture is not invoked, I will try to get a consent that we just take up these three or four amendments and move to conclusion. So, obviously, we would like to get this work done, but it still has some problems and some amendments that really do need to be considered. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle in reestablishing the Senate NATO Observer Group. When we first established the SNOG in April 1997, I emphasized that the Senate be in on the ground floor of the NATO enlargement process. Because it was bipartisan, the SNOG cut across party lines as well as committee jurisdictions, and ensured that the Senate would be heard both during the NATO enlargement process and after the decisions were taken in Madrid. Today, by reestablishing the SNOG, we are ensuring that the Senate will be fully informed prior to the next round of enlargement this November in Prague and in its consideration of ratification. On June 15, 2001, President Bush gave an historic speech in Warsaw, Poland at which he said that ``all of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between, should have the same chance for security and freedom, and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe, as Europe's old democracies.'' His audience, the Poles, understood what he was talking about. Less than two decades ago, they suffered under the oppressive weight of the Soviet Union. Today, they enjoy freedom, protected by their membership in NATO. As the Senate considers the expansion of NATO to include other Eastern European countries, we should remember the words of the President. We must also act deliberately, examining the qualifications of each candidate country and the commitments that their accession to NATO entails. It is for that purpose that we are reestablishing the SNOG. The other Republican Senators on the SNOG will be Wayne Allard of Colorado, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Don Nickles of Oklahoma, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Ted Stevens of Alaska, George Voinovich of Ohio, and John Warner of Virginia.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader yield? I want to clarify again that the majority leader does not anticipate recorded votes on Monday, even though we will be in session for debate and for, I guess, amendments to be offered; is that correct?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I can continue, I certainly understand and support the decision to identify certain dates for a variety of reasons when Senators are aware there will not be votes, but I emphasize again, as the majority leader has, it does not mean we cannot be in session and get a lot of work done. Also, I understand why Senator Daschle feels a necessity to file cloture. Obviously, we discourage each other from doing that, but in order to move forward after a reasonable period of time--I have done it many times on this terrorism insurance issue, while there are some other amendments, hopefully germane amendments, that will and can be offered and debated and considered, in order to get to the Defense authorization bill and complete our work before the Fourth of July recess, we need to complete this bill in a reasonable period of time--Tuesday or Wednesday--and then go right to Defense authorization. I commend the Senator for making that decision. There are a lot of other bills Senators on both sides are pushing the majority leader to do, meritorious or otherwise. This is very important. I encourage Senators on both sides of the aisle, when we get to the Defense authorization bill, let's not use this as a grab bag. We have lots we need to do in this area. We are talking about a pay raise for our military men and women. We are talking about quality-of-life issues. We are talking about basic decisions about the future of our defense for our country. There will be plenty other opportunities to offer unrelated, nongermane amendments. I believe Senator Warner and Senator Levin will be ready to go. There will be disagreements and heated debate on some of the amendments. Some will take time. I believe the managers are ready to go and will make good progress on it and be assured we can get it done without it being very messy. I appreciate the decision Senator Daschle has made. I think it is the right thing for the Senate, for the military, and for our country.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to make one other point, if I can be recognized in my own right, before Senator Warner leaves. Senator Daschle and I have also been talking about ways to move forward on nominations. Hopefully, we are coming up with a process that will allow us to make good progress across the board on nominations in the next couple of weeks. I am looking forward to continuing work on that also.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank Senator Reid for making sure I have this opportunity to express myself before we go to a vote on this important issue. I do think we need to move this legislation forward. I have met with individuals, insurance companies, the construction industry, hotels, and others. As Senator Reid has pointed out, they are concerned about the growing problem in this area in terms of coverage. I wish we could have moved it earlier. There have been a lot of efforts on both sides to make it happen. We were not successful. Now we do have it on the floor. Obviously, there are going to be some important amendments that will be offered to change some of the provisions in the legislation. But I think this is one of the most important ones. The liability provisions in this legislation, or lack thereof, is a critical point. I am very much concerned about jurisdiction and venue, where these actions might occur arising out of terrorism. I would be very concerned about the preemption of State causes of action provisions that would be included. But the most important point is, how would you deal with the punitive damages issue? I have real concerns and problems with punitive damages coming out of the U.S. Treasury as a result of an action involving a terrorist attack. So I hope we can find a way to resolve the problem. Senator McConnell has been very diligent in staying behind this and working to find an appropriate solution. I think he has come up with one, and this is the key part of it. It says that to the extent punitive damages are permitted by applicable State law, punitive damages may be recovered against a defendant in a civil action involving an act of terrorism only if ``the harm to the plaintiff was caused by a criminal act or course of conduct for which the defendant was convicted under Federal or State criminal law, including a conviction based on a guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere.'' This is the right solution. This is a fair solution. It does not set a precedent saying that there can be no punitive damages; it just says it can only occur under these conditions that were outlined where there was a criminal act or course of conduct that led to the situation where a terrorist could make this kind of attack or hit. The President has made it clear that if we do not deal with this appropriately, he will not sign this legislation. So rather than trying to find a time to deal with it later, or to deal with it in conference, or, in effect, try to call either side's bluff, this is the right solution. It does not set the precedent; it does provide for damages under these certain circumstances where there has been neglect or egregious action that led to the terrorist attack. So I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell proposal that I have cosponsored, and oppose the motion to table this important issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, today I rise to salute Stephen Matthew Nalley from Starkville, MS, for his outstanding achievement in this year's national spelling bee. Stephen finished in second place after spelling words such as ``altricial,'' ``muliebral'' and ``sericeous.'' He endured ten rounds, defeating 248 other spellers between the ages of 9 through 15. The Louisville Courier-Journal started the national spelling bee in 1925 with only 9 contestants. Scripps Howard News Service assumed sponsorship in 1941. This year Steven and 249 other participants helped celebrate the 75th Annual Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee held here in Washington, D.C. Steven was born with a particular type of autism that impairs social interaction and contributes to repetitive behavior patterns. Fortunately, he has been able to work with his disability and use it to his advantage. Quoting his mother, Barbara Nalley, ``He's mildly autistic, but he's channeled that into his spelling.'' Steven's accomplishment serves as a reminder to us all that we can accomplish astonishing things when we are willing to put in great time and effort for them. Steven's approach to adversity is to not back down, but rather to fight until he has conquered all obstacles and achieved his objective. I find this attribute of his remarkably inspiring. Not only am I highly impressed with Steven's workmanship as an outstanding speller, but he also is a straight A student and a member of his school's honor society. He exemplifies a hard working young man and is a great asset for Mississippi. I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating Steven on his tremendous accomplishment and wishing him the best in all of his future endeavors. Congratulations, Steven.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, since age 17 Mrs. Kathy Ireland has been blessed to have assembled an illustrious career as an actress, supermodel, and vocalist. Her numerous talents have afforded her the opportunity to be regularly featured on the covers of such prestigious magazines as Cosmopolitan, People, Glamour, McCalls, and Redbook. Likewise, her inherent capabilities have provided her with the good fortune to appear as a special guest on nationally renowned television programs such as The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, The Today Show, Oprah, Entertainment Tonight, and Access Hollywood. This abundance of accolades has established Mrs. Ireland as a public figure of world-wide fame and recognition. My purpose here today is not to recognize Mrs. Ireland for her extreme number of personal achievements, impressive as they are, but rather to expand on the manner in which she uses the fame and recognition gained from such accomplishments as a medium by which to make charitable contributions to our local and national communities. As I will bring to your attention in the next few minutes, Mrs. Ireland's personal accomplishments pale in comparison to the number of ways in which she gives back to our communities, both local and Nation wide. I was made aware of Mrs. Ireland's benevolent character just recently, as it was brought to my attention that she was responsible for sending an eighteen wheeler filled with enough food to feed 1600 needy families for two weeks to Monroe County in my home State of Mississippi. This is the second consecutive year Mrs. Ireland has sent the Holiday Food Truck to aid Mississippians in need. In 2000, the truck was dispersed to the northwest region of Mississippi, also known as the Mississippi Delta. A philanthropic concert entitled ``Stars Over Mississippi'' is held biannually for the purpose of raising funds to be allocated towards increasing the educational opportunities available to the children of Mississippi. Mrs. Ireland has further benefitted my State by selflessly devoting her time to perform in many of these concerts. Mrs. Ireland has also asserted herself as a benevolent benefactress of the state of Mississippi, by donating many thousands of dollars worth of children's furniture, on behalf of Mary and Sam Haskell, to Sela Ward's Hope Village Orphanage located in Meridian, MS. It should be duly noted that Mrs. Ireland's generosity, patronage, and charity is not limited to benefitting communities located in my home State of Mississippi. Examples of Mrs. Ireland's commitment to community service on a national scale include currently serving as Ambassador of both Women's Health Issues and the National Women's Cancer Research Alliance on behalf of the Entertainment Industry Foundation. Mrs. Ireland also holds the title of National Chair of Family Services and Parenting for the Athletes and Entertainers For Kids non-profit organization. As chairperson she personally sees to it that AEFK's mission of empowering our youth through mentoring partnerships and positive experiences is achieved. Mrs. Ireland also joins with an organization called Feed The Children each holiday season, in supervising the dissemination of over 170,000 pounds of clothing, food, and toys to needy children nationwide. Mrs. Ireland is a long-standing supporter of the Special Olympics, and has played an integral role in the establishment and continued development and success of the Dream Foundation, which provides terminally ill adults with the resources necessary to fulfill a special dream or be granted a final wish. Despite her responsibilities associated with being a loving wife, devoted mother of two, Sunday school teacher, clothes designer, supermodel, actress, and vocalist, Mrs. Ireland expresses and executes an unequivocal desire to champion the causes of others. I take great personal pride and gain tremendous fulfillment in recognizing Mrs. Kathy Ireland before you on the Senate floor this day, and encourage all Americans possessing the will, desire, and resources to do so, to live according to her example.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have been working with the interested Senators on this issue of cloning, trying to see if we can get a unanimous consent agreement. We are continuing to do that. With regard to the terrorism insurance bill, if we don't get an agreement on cloning, it is my hope that we can get an agreement to proceed with the terrorism issue. There are a couple of points that need to be clarified, and we are discussing those now. We will, hopefully, get an agreement on one, or perhaps both, of those issues. We will continue to work on that.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, I will be brief and I will not object. I think we should go ahead and get an agreement to proceed on this bill because there has been a lot of effort over a long period of time to try to work out some substance, some process for considering it, the numbers of amendments that would be offered. Having been through all of that, I think it is time we just go forward. We could not get an agreement to limit amendments anyway. I believe there are going to be a lot of amendments that relate to the subject matter that will be offered and we will have a good debate. I do want to make two observations. There was a bipartisan bill. There was a bill, I had the impression, that had been worked out with Senator Sarbanes, I thought Senator Dodd, and Senator Gramm at the committee level, although it was not reported out, that would have had some limits on liability, but all of a sudden it disappeared from the committee itself, went to some other venue, and it came up with the substance as it is now. I do not think that is the way business should be done around here, and every time it is done that way, which was the case, in my opinion, on the energy bill and on an agriculture bill, you get into a great big fracas and have a lot of trouble. But I think the issue is important. I am sure there are very strong feelings for it and some against it. But I emphasize the point that Senator McConnell made a moment ago. We need this legislation passed because of the confidence it will provide to this sector of the economy. But it will not be signed into law without some limits on liabilities. We cannot and we will not--and the President will not--allow the plaintiff's lawyers of this country to get this kind of access to the Treasury of the United States of America. I think everybody needs to understand that. We should do this. We are going forward. But in the end we are not going to have a bill without limits on liabilities. With that, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself time under my leader time that has been reserved.