Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 863, S. Res. 343.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 373, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 146, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Frist has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1550 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the funding for Satsuma orange frost research will go a long way to nurturing this fledgling industry along the gulf coast. At the beginning of the 20th century, Satsuma orange groves flourished throughout the gulf coast. Indeed, they were running advertisements encouraging people around the country to come down and grow Satsuma oranges. In fact, 18,000 acres of the sweet, easy-to-peel fruit were farmed during the twenties and thirties along the upper gulf coast. However, a period of severe winters around 1940 led to the decline of Satsuma production. Today, fledgling Satsuma groves exist in Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas. Research by Auburn University, one of the finest research institutions in the world, is being conducted to determine how to make this fruit more frost resistant. There are some ideas percolating that may actually do that. This funding will give us the opportunity to revitalize this industry. I am certainly pleased with the overall agricultural spending. We have a lot of emergency assistance for farmers this year because it has been a particularly bad year in some areas of the country, including Alabama. Again, I thank Chairman Cochran for his leadership. He understands this issue; he understands this Senate. He has wrestled with these issues for years, and his leadership will help this bill pass with overwhelming support. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to do unglamorous work called oversight. It is our duty to make sure our governmental agencies are, on a daily basis, spending money wisely and not ripping off the American taxpayer. I believe that is a constitutional duty. I believe we are legitimately criticized in this body for not being more aggressive about that. I have tried to resolve it. I am going to do better. I am going to take some action with regard to what I consider to be poor expenditures of money. I initiated a project in my office I call ``Integrity Watch.'' We examine suspected cases of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. I think that is healthy. I have exposed the enormous costs associated with the building of a new United Nations mission in New York. That building came in at $88 million. It is nothing more than an office space for governmental employees who work at the U.N., and for two-thirds of the year almost half as many people are there. Only half the year will the space be nearly utilized. It came in on a per square foot basis as the most expensive building that this Government has ever built--more expensive than our great Federal courthouses, some of which have been criticized like the one in Boston. It is more expensive per square foot than those great Federal courthouses. Today I alert my colleagues to a problem I have noted. I hope we are not seeing a pattern of abuse of taxpayers. The General Services Administration, the Government's landlord, is responsible for purchasing, leasing, and refurbishing the buildings that house Federal agencies and Departments. My concern is that too often Congress is simply rubber stamping leasing requests of GSA without exercising careful oversight responsibilities. Specifically, I am concerned about the proposed expenditure of Federal funds to lease space for the Department of Transportation and the procedure being used in that process. In 1996, GSA came to Congress to receive authorization to secure a new lease for DOT. The current lease was to expire on March 31 of 2000. The prospectus GSA provided to Congress was very simple. It plainly stated that GSA ``proposes a replacement lease of 1,199,000 to 1,320,000 rentable square feet of space and 145 official inside parking spaces for the Department of Transportation.'' That was basically it. On November 6 of 1997, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which I was a member at that time, approved a resolution authorizing GSA to secure an operating lease for the headquarters. The resolution was just as simple as the prospectus. It was a one-page resolution authorizing GSA to enter into an operating lease not to exceed 20 years for approximately 1.1 million net usable square feet of space plus 145 official parking spaces at an estimated annual cost of $55 million plus escalations. Almost 2 years after GSA was given the go-ahead to procure the lease, the agency issued a 250-page solicitation for offers asking people to make proposals to secure this space for DOT. Buried in this SFO-- Solicitation for Offers--are a number of alarming statements used by GSA in making its decision which may have a profound impact on the cost and the quality of the building, and, more importantly, the expense that we as taxpayers will pay over the next few decades. It strikes me that GSA may well be deliberately ignoring their 1997 mandate, or at least violating the spirit and intent of the congressional authorization. One only needs to review the 250-page SFO to determine that GSA has decided unilaterally to go far beyond what they were authorized to lease by Congress. Specifically, the requirement in the SFO that proposals are to provide a level of quality consistent with ``the highest quality commercial office buildings over 250,000 square feet in Washington, DC.'' I don't believe a Federal office building has to be equal to the highest quality private office space in this city. Federal dollars are paying for the building--taxpayer dollars--and that requirement cannot be justified. Additionally, the congressional authorizing resolution said nothing about GSA securing a lease equal to the highest quality commercial building. They weren't given that commission. I am also concerned about what appears to be the lavish excesses included in the performance specifications. Just for example, the SFO explains that the passenger elevators--this is not a ceremonial building; this is an office building--are to be made of ``premium quality natural stone or terrazzo,'' and that the walls in each passenger elevator are to be ``a combination of premium quality architectural wood paneling, premium quality natural stone, and finished metal.'' I think this shows a real sense of disconnect from the American people, even of arrogance. Most families in the United States work hard to achieve the American dream of building and owning a home but can't afford to place ``premium quality architectural wood paneling'' in their home. Why should their hard-earned tax dollars that are extracted from them be spent so that Government workers can ride up and down these elevators with ``premium quality natural stone'' floors? Additionally, I am concerned that other Government agencies will come to expect this same ``highest quality, best-in-class'' office space in Washington, DC, whether in a leased or renovated Government building. This could have a snowballing effect and create a procurement and budgetary drain on the country. I am also disturbed by GSA's clear statement that price and cost to the Government are significantly less important than the scoring on technical factors. In Alabama, families who are building a home first start with a budget. Once they begin to design a home, if they cannot afford a ``premium quality natural stone or terrazzo'' floor for the dining room, they may be forced to settle for a less expensive alternative. For the majority of families in this country, price and cost are the determining factors in all their decisions when they are building a new home. Why should the Government think it should act differently? It is my belief that among the finalists who can clearly and credibly show that they meet the space and program requirements of the SFO, price and cost should clearly be the determining factor ultimately in making the lease award. To select a building on any other basis than best value seems, to me, quite unjustifiable. In the next few weeks, GSA will make their decision on the location of the Department of Transportation headquarters building. I will be sending a letter to Senator Bob Smith, the outstanding chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I thank Chairman Smith for taking a hard look at the U.N. building, too, in his role as the committee chairman. I will ask him and his committee to work with me to look into the procedures and standards that were passed by Congress in 1997 versus the solicitation for offer being used by GSA today for the Department of Transportation building. I am afraid that under the current system, GSA is working with vague guidelines from Congress, very vague guidelines. In fact, their language, as I noted earlier, was ``$55 million plus escalations.'' That is not a crack in the door. That is a wide-open door, big enough to drive a truck through. I think they are using these vague guidelines, and these guidelines allow them to be free to set their own standards, potentially allowing them to commit to a building of unjustifiable expense. I believe this Congress has a responsibility to our constituents to oversee and ensure all Government leases and all Government expenditures across the board, and that they are awarded to provide the Government the best quality. If we refuse to look at this, I believe we will have failed the taxpayers who will be paying for this bill. We will be potentially burdening them with an exorbitant price tag for simple office space beyond reason and justification. I believe if we allow GSA to proceed with their current plans, we will not have followed through on our requirements of oversight to ensure that these moneys for lease space are properly approved. We want good space for the employees at the Department of Transportation. I hear they are happy where they are. They are not asking to go to a new building or have a new building. We need to be sure that we give them a new 15-year lease, wherever it is, and that it is comparable in price. We ought not to spend a whole bunch of money to get a fancy new building somewhere at much greater expense than what they have if they are happy where they are. This is not a building that is old; it is about 30 years old. We need to look at that. I will be writing the chairman. I think we need to talk more about that.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the assistant majority leader is becoming the conscience of this Senate. It is a thankless task to say no on bills as popular as the Agriculture bill--something that was important for my State. I voted for it and I respect it. I think it is also important if we are going to have any respect for our ultimate budget requirements, the people in our leadership need to stand up and speak out, and I appreciate him doing so. He provides great leadership for us.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Fifteen minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, chairs the Seapower Subcommittee in the Armed Services Committee, of which I am honored to be a member. I likewise appreciate very much her interest in expressing our sympathy to the families of those sailors who were lost.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am concerned that we as a Congress have not been as effective in our oversight responsibility as we should. I want to share some remarks on that subject in a minute. The distinguished assistant majority leader made some remarks about our failure to identify, prosecute, and hold to account individuals who have committed terrorist acts against American service men and women and citizens. That is an important issue. In fact, we have not been effective at it. I remember when the attack was made on the Sudan pharmacy, the pill factory there. I remember the attack made on the facility in Afghanistan not long after that. The committee on which I serve had a hearing where the Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh; former Director of the CIA under President Clinton, Mr. Woolsey; and Jean Kirkpatrick discussed that event. Prior to that time, I had publicly stated that I did not believe President Clinton had utilized these attacks to distract attention from the domestic problems he was having at home. People were suggesting it was a ``wag the dog'' syndrome--an attack that may not have been justified but helped distract public attention from his own troubles. I said no about that. But I must admit after having heard at that hearing these distinguished Americans discuss how that attack was conducted that I was very troubled. I really did not believe it made a lot of sense to just lob missiles into a factory and hope that was justified factually; that it was a factory that may have had something to do with it; and, who would be injured. That kind of thing was very troubling, and certainly had no realistic impact or potential to hurt Bin Laden who may have been involved in that. In fact, he is under indictment now for terrorist acts. Then in Afghanistan, we just shot off some missiles. We don't know whether or not anybody was hurt. That is all it was. So we retaliated. We had done something. We didn't really do anything. That is the fact. We really did not do anything. Nobody involved in that terrorist act that we know of to this day has been held to account because of it. We have to be prepared to work hard to identify who was involved in those activities, and to do everything we can to arrest them and bring them into custody, and, if not and if they resist, to be able to take them out wherever they may be. That is just the plain fact of it. Bin Laden, for example, has openly declared war on the United States. The attack on this vessel--the U.S.S. Cole--was more than just a terrorist attack. It was an act of war. We have every right, and we have a duty as any great nation does to defend itself and its ability to send its ships on the open seas, and to enter port in which it should be safe. We have every right, and we have a duty to respond to that. If we don't do so, who will be next? Who else will be hurt? I left the memorial service at Norfolk just today. It was a very moving ceremony with all of those sailors standing on the Eisenhower. When the Chief of Naval Operations for the Atlantic finished his speech, he said, ``Remember the Cole.'' When the ceremony was over, one of those sailors on that great aircraft carrier yelled ``Remember the Cole.'' It is our responsibility to remember those 17 who are no longer with us and the ones who are injured. We cannot allow this kind of activity time and time and time again, as Senator Nickles said, to be carried out and nothing happen. I am glad he talked about that. We need to do better.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will just add that I know how deeply Senator Warner feels about this. I am very appreciative that he submitted this resolution. Senator Warner served in both the Marines and the Navy, serving as Secretary of the Navy, and now serves as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He and a substantial delegation of Senators and Congressmen attended the services today for those sailors we lost on the Cole. We need to remember the Cole, and we need to remember the hundreds of thousands of service men and women who are serving us around the globe who cannot be fully protected where they are. I think this is an important resolution today. It is appropriate that this Senate pauses to remember them.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 378, submitted by Senator Warner for himself and others.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the minority leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 723, S. 2508 and it be considered under the following terms: 30 minutes for debate on the bill equally divided in the usual form; the only amendments in order be a substitute amendment No. 4303, submitted by Senator Campbell. Further, I ask unanimous consent that a Feingold amendment be in order to the substitute relative to non-Indian water users and limited to 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that following the above debate time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Feingold amendment; further, the substitute amendment then be agreed to, as amended, if amended, the bill then be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no further intervening action or debate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on today's Executive Calendar: No. 659, John E. McLaughlin, of Pennsylvania, to be Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. I further ask unanimous consent the nomination be confirmed, the motion to consider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the committee amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Frist has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 760, S. 1639.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to sent to the desk a bill entitled, ``The Consumer and Employee Arbitration Bill of Rights.'' This bill begins the multi-year legislative process necessary to improve the Federal Arbitration Act so that it will be a cost-effective means of resolving disputes. This bill of rights will provide procedural protections to consumers and employees to ensure that their claims will be resolved under due process of law, in a speedy and cost effective manner. Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. It has served us as well for three-quarters of a century. Under the Act, if the parties agree to a contract affecting interstate commerce that contains a clause requiring arbitration, the clause will be enforceable in court. In short, the Federal Arbitration Act allows parties to a contract to agree not to take their disputes to court, but to resolve any dispute arising from that contract before a neutral decision-maker, generally selected by a non-profit arbitration organization. The parties can generally present evidence and be represented by counsel. And the decision-makers will apply the relevant state law in resolving the dispute. Arbitration is generally quicker and less expensive than going to court. In recent years, there have been some cases where the arbitration process has not worked well, but thousands of disputes have been fairly and effectively settled by arbitrators. Such a system is even more important because of skyrocketing legal costs where attorneys require large contingent fees. Accordingly, I have opposed piecemeal legislative changes to the act. Instead, I believe the time has come for a comprehensive review of how arbitration works and what we can do to enhance its effectiveness. The approach of reforming arbitration, rather than abandoning the arbitration process provides several benefits. Arbitration is one of the best means of dispute resolution and one that most consumers and employees can afford. Consumers and employees generally cannot afford a team of lawyers to represent them. And their claims are often not big enough so that a lawyer would take the case on a 25 percent or even a 50 percent contingent fee. Thus, the consumer or employee is faced with having to pay a lawyer's hourly rate for his claim. If he can afford to pay the hourly rate, he must decide whether it makes financial sense to pay a lawyer several thousand dollars to litigate a claim in court for a broken television that cost $700 new. If this is what consumers and employees are left with, many will have no choice but to drop their claim. This is not right. It is not fair. This is where arbitration can give the consumer or employee a cost effective forum to assert their claim. Thus, before we make exceptions to the Federal Arbitration Act for some of the most well to do corporations in our society, I think it is our duty to consider how we can improve the system for those less financially able. A letter I recently received from the National Arbitration Forum contained some interesting comments about the importance of arbitration: the ABA has calculated that 100 million Americans are locked out of court by high legal costs, and that most lawyers will not begin a lawsuit worth less than $20,000, while arbitration serves as an accessible forum for dispute resolution; consumer class actions increasingly generate little more than coupons for consumers, while contractual arbitration gives a consumer the ability to get his or her case before a neutral party at a reasonable price and in a reasonable amount of time; a recent Roper Study indicates that 59 percent of Americans would choose arbitration over a lawsuit to resolve a claim for money. Thus, the benefits for customers and employees are readily apparent. Can we improve this system? Yes, but we must take a balanced approach. Further, arbitration promotes the freedom of parties to make contracts. I was recently contacted by Professor Stephen Ware of the Cumberland School of Law, who reminded us that the promotion of contractual freedom regarding arbitration has long been a primary goal of the Federal Arbitration Act. In any contract, the parties agree to all the terms and clauses included in the contract document. This includes the arbitration clause. This is basic contract law, and the basic principle upon which the Federal Arbitration Act has been supported for 75 years. But this is not always the case. In certain situations, consumers or employees are not treated fairly. That is what the Consumer and Employee Arbitration Bill of Rights is designed to correct. The bill will maintain the cost benefits of binding arbitration, but would grant several specific ``due process'' rights to consumers and employees. The bill is based on the consumer and employee due process protocols of the American Arbitration Association and have broad support. The bill provides the following rights: No. 1, notice--Under the bill an arbitration clause, to be enforceable, would have to have a heading in large, bold print, would have to state whether arbitration is binding or optional, identify a source that the consumer or employee could contact for more information, and state that a consumer could opt out to small claims court. This will ensure that consumers who receive credit card notices in the mail will not miss an arbitration clause because it is printed in fine print. Further, it will give consumers and employees a means to obtain more information on how to resolve any disputes. Finally, the clause would explain that if a consumer's claims could otherwise be brought in small claims court, he is free to do so. Small claims court, unlike regular trial court, provides another inexpensive and quick means of dispute resolution. No. 2, independent selection of arbitrators--The bill will grant consumers and employees the right to have potential arbitrators disclose relevant information concerning their business ties and employment. All parties to the arbitration will have an equal voice in selecting a neutral arbitrator. This ensures that the large company who sold a consumer a product will not select the arbitrator itself, because the consumer or the employee with a grievance will have the right to nominate potential arbitrators too. As a result, the final arbitrator selected will have to have the explicit approval of both parties to the dispute. This means the arbitrator will be a neutral party with no allegiance to either the seller or the consumer. No. 3, choice of law--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to have the arbitrator governed by the substantive law that would apply under conflicts of laws principles applicable in the forum in which the consumer resided at the time the contract was entered into. This means that the substantive contract law that would apply in a court where the consumer or employee resides at the time of making the contract will apply in the arbitration. Thus, in a dispute arising from the purchase of a product by an Alabama consumer from an Illinois company, a court would have to determine whether Alabama or Illinois law applied by looking to the language of the contract and to the place the contract was entered into. The bill ensures that an arbitrator will use the same conflict of laws principles that a court would in determining whether Alabama or Illinois law will govern the arbitration proceedings. No. 4, representation--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to be represented by counsel at his own expense. Thus, if the claim involves complicated legal issues, the consumer or employee is free to have his lawyer represent him in the arbitration. Such representation should be substantially less expensive than a trial in court because of the more abbreviated and expedited process of arbitration. No. 5, hearing--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to a fair hearing in a forum that is reasonably convenient to the consumer or employee. This would prevent a large company from requiring a consumer or employee to travel across the country to arbitrate his claim and to expend more in travel costs than his claim may be worth. No. 6, evidence--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to conduct discovery and to present evidence. This ensures that the arbitrator will have all the facts before him prior to making a decision. No. 7, cross examination--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to cross-examine witnesses presented by the other party at the hearing. This allows a party to test the statements of the other party's witnesses and be sure that the evidence before the arbitrator is correct. No. 8, record--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to hire a stenographer or tape record the hearing to produce a record. This right is key to proving later that the arbitration proceeding was fair. No. 9, timely resolution--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to have an arbitration proceeding to be completed promptly so that they do not have to wait for a year or more to have their claim resolved. Under the bill a defendant must file an answer within 30 days of the filing of the complaint. The arbitrator has 90 days after the answer to hold a hearing. The arbitrator must render a final decision within 30 days after the hearing. Extensions are available in extraordinary circumstances. No. 10, written decision--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to a written decision by the arbitrator explaining the resolution of the case and his reasons therefor. If the consumer or employee takes a claim to arbitration, he deserves to have an explanation of why he won or lost. No. 11, expenses--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to have an arbitrator provide for reimbursement of arbitration fees in the interests of justice and the reduction, deferral, or waiver of arbitration fees in cases of extreme hardship. It does little good to take a claim to arbitration if the consumer or employee cannot even afford the arbitration fee. This provision ensures that the arbitrator can waive or reduce the fee or make the company reimburse the consumer or employee for a fee if the interests of justice so require. No. 12, small claims opt out--The bill grants consumers and employees the right to opt out of arbitration into small claims court if that court has jurisdiction over the claim and the claim does not exceed $50,000. The bill also provides an effective mechanism for consumers and employees to enforce these rights. At any time, if a consumer or employee believes that the other party violated his rights, he may ask and the arbitrator may award a penalty up to the amount of the claim plus attorneys fees. For example, if the company fails to provide discovery to the employee, the employee can make a motion for fees. The amount of fee award is limited, as it is in court, to the amount of cost incurred by the employee in trying to obtain the information from the company. This principle is taken from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. After the decision, if the losing party believes that the rights granted to him by the Act have been violated, he may file a petition with the Federal district court. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that his rights were violated, it may order a new arbitrator appointed. Thus, if a consumer or employee has an arbitrator that is unfair and this causes him to lose the case, the consumer or employee can obtain another arbitrator. Mr. President, this bill is the first step to creating a constructive dialog on arbitration reform. This bill of rights will ensure that those who can least afford to go to court can go to a less expensive arbitrator and be treated fairly. It will ensure that every arbitration carried out under the Federal Arbitration Act is completed fairly, promptly, and economically. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that consumers and employees who agree in a contract to arbitrate their claims will be afforded due process of law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand Senator Roberts was seeking to speak. Perhaps with that exception? The two of you could talk about that, perhaps.