Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, last Friday, President Clinton declared a major disaster for the State of Mississippi, due to damage resulting from severe storms, flooding, and related problems, weather problems that occurred on May 8 and during the days following. This declaration is deeply appreciated by the people of Mississippi and the State of Mississippi because very severe damage has occurred in our State as all of us know who had an opportunity to watch television and read about the devastating floods that occurred all across the gulf coast, from New Orleans to Mobile and beyond. Included in this area of severe weather damage was my State of Mississippi. All of the coast counties and some of those counties that are more inland received severe damage. This declaration makes it possible now for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, led by James Lee Witt, to provide private, individual assistance to those disaster victims who qualify under Federal legislation. The letter also states that additional public assistance may be added at a later date. It is my understanding that the Governor's office and his staff are working with Federal agents at this time in Mississippi, to try to ensure that all possible assistance, emergency and otherwise, is made available to these disaster victims. I commend the Governor and his staff for the fine work they are doing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a copy of the President's letter to our Governor, Kirk Fordice, be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to extend coverage under the Public Safety Officers Benefits Act to employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] and employees of State and local emergency management and civil defense agencies who are killed or disabled in the line of duty. The Public Safety Officers Benefits Act provides benefits to eligible survivors of a public safety officer whose death is the direct result of a traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty. The act also provides benefits to those officers who are permanently and totally disabled as the direct result of a catastrophic personal injury sustained in the line of duty. The act now covers State and local law enforcement officers and fire fighters, Federal law enforcement officers and fire fighters, and Federal, State, and local rescue squads and ambulance crews. However, an employee of a State or local emergency management, or civil defense agency, or an employee of FEMA, who is killed or permanently disabled performing his or her duty in responding to a disaster is not covered under the act. The legislation I am introducing today will remedy this situation by extending the act to those employees. This will ensure that the survivors and family members of an employee killed in the line of duty will receive benefits and that an employee permanently and totally disabled as a result of injury sustained in the line of duty will also receive the benefits of the act. During his confirmation hearing in the last Congress, FEMA Director James Lee Witt said that emergency management and civil defense employees put their lives on the line almost every time they respond to an event. Enactment of this legislation will provide them with some assurance that, should death or disabling injury result from the performance of their duty, their families will receive survivor benefits or they will receive disability benefits. I hope my colleagues will carefully consider this legislation and join me in support of its enactment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me, first of all, compliment the distinguished Senator from Tennessee for bringing this issue to the Senate in the form of this amendment. I think it highlights the frustration that many Members feel at this point in the consideration of this legislation. The Senator from Washington very correctly points out that this may be an amendment on which reasonable scholars, even, could disagree in terms of its impact on this bill before the Senate. I think it speaks to a frustration that we have seen so many amendments adopted now, and have been rejected, that seek to enlarge considerably the subject matter which was first presented to this Senate in this product liability bill. I think it is clear that there is a sound jurisdictional basis for the Congress to legislate in this area under the commerce clause--at least that is my opinion--but it does not necessarily extend to all of the subjects that have been debated on this floor after the bill has been called up. We have now undertaken to fully explore the Federal role in limiting or modifying or writing new rules for professional liability of physicians and others in the health care area, why not insist that there be included a title on architects and engineers who are also professionals and who are held to a higher standard of conduct because they are professionals, but they are not included. Are we going to permit, then, the legislation to proceed and have all other professionals excluded because of this omission? Even lawyers are professionals in the view of most. I mean, they are held to the same high standard of conduct as professionals. So when they breach their duty to provide skilled and thoughtful and professional assistance for pay to some member of society, they are held liable if they breach that duty, under the standards that are written into the law, just as physicians are, or hospitals, or others. So I think what the Senator from Tennessee is pointing out is that we are out into the deep water now in an effort to comprehensively reform the civil justice system of the United States, piecemeal, on the floor of the Senate. We have committees that have jurisdiction over some of these areas. The Labor Committee, for example, had a markup session and reported out a bill dealing with malpractice liability and reforms in that area. As I understand it, that was the basis of the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, on medical malpractice, which the Senate has now adopted. I understand the Banking Committee also is considering reporting out legal reform legislation dealing with securities transactions where class action suits are brought against companies or brokerage houses for various alleged acts of negligence or breaches of duty to the general public with respect to the value of securities or the conduct of officers and board members with respect to running the companies in a skilled way, or at least up to that standard that is owed to the investor who might buy stock in that company. There has developed, as I understand it, a sort of cottage industry in some legal circles of bringing these kinds of actions, and now there is a cry for reform and restraint and restrictions on those kinds of actions. The Banking Committee has taken that up. They are considering it, and I understand they are going to report out a bill. If we are going to reform comprehensively the civil justice system of this country, why not await the advice of the Banking Committee on that subject and include that as a title in this bill or some bill? I understand the Judiciary Committee has now before it a proposal by the chairman of that committee, Senator Hatch from Utah, which includes suggestions for other reforms in the civil justice system of the country. My concern, which is reflected in this amendment of the Senator from Tennessee, is that we have gone so far now, we need to stop and say: ``Wait a minute. This is not a civil justice reform bill. It is not all-inclusive,'' and try to narrow the application and the scope of this legislation to something that more narrowly fits the purpose of the bill that was brought to the floor by the Commerce Committee. This bill relates to products liability. While some of us disagree about some of the provisions--we might want to change it, amendments ought to be considered--nonetheless, it had a fairly narrow application that was firmly based upon the commerce clause of the Constitution giving the Congress the power to legislate in this area. Some of these arguments that I have heard have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Federal role in our society. When they were talking about setting the lawyers' fees in certain contingent cases, I thought back to the time when I remember organized professional groups pleading with the Congress to do something about the Federal Trade Commission because they were about to get into the fee schedules of local professional organizations. Do you remember that? Several years ago there was a great hue and cry by the--well, I am not going to name the groups. They might get more attention than they want. But the point is, we were arguing that the Federal Trade Commission did not have anything to do with the setting of fees at the local level by professionals. That was something that was regulated by professional societies, or State laws, or other entities--not the Federal Government. And now here we are being asked to pass judgment on a action maybe. It does not have anything to do with the Federal Government. And the Federal Government should not have anything to do with that. If you want to read and give effect to the Constitution, that separates the Federal role from State governments' roles in these areas. So I am troubled about where we are now. I think at some point we may have an opportunity to consider whether this bill should be modified in a way that puts it more nearly back to where it started and that is dealing with product liability rather than an effort to comprehensively fix or modify every conceivable area of civil justice procedure or substantive law that strikes a Senator in a moment of serious concern that needs to be addressed on this bill, and we have seen those amendments come up now, and I guess we will see many others. So I again compliment the Senator from Tennessee for trying to put in perspective what we are doing here and what we ought not to be doing here. I intend to vote for his amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution that will restore to individuals the fundamental right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs. Although most of us would agree that the Framers of the Constitution intended special protection for the ``free exercise of religion'' when they included it in the Bill of Rights, several judicial rulings, and other acts of governments at all levels, over the years have brought that provision into question and resulted in much confusion. I invite Senators to support this reaffirmation of fundamental, constitutional right.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it was my honor, a unique honor and special pleasure to serve in this body as the State colleague of John C. Stennis for 10 years. I deeply appreciated the bond of friendship, respect and trust that developed between us as we worked together to represent the interests of the State of Mississippi, and its citizens, in the U.S. Senate. He had already established a reputation for intelligent leadership in this body when I arrived here, and I considered it my good fortune to be able to learn first hand from him and from his example. We were never rivals. We talked almost every day. He was always friendly and courteous to me, as he was with every other Senator. Although we were members of different political parties, that did not interfere with or detract from our relationship. Our State has had it share of demagogues, as all other States have, and I have deplored their excesses and have been embarrassed by them. But in Senator Stennis we saw a man as pure in heart and deed with less inclination to inflame the passions of the voters with exaggerated and flamboyant rhetoric as any we have ever elected to public office, and I admired him for that. He preferred to win a debate or an election on the basis of the well argued evidence, rather than to prey upon the fears or suspicions or prejudices of the audience. He was the kind of Senator I try to be. During his more than 41 years of service as a U.S. Senator, he was steady, conscientious and extraordinarily successful in every assignment and undertaking. From his earliest days to his last days he gave the full measure of energy and his ability to the service of this body and to his State. He saw that as his duty, and he took that as seriously as anyone who has ever served here. Others have recalled in their speeches the positions of responsibility he held and the legislation he authored and caused to be adopted. There were many of each, and they are persuasive testimony to his effectiveness as a Senator. I will not try to recount all of them. What may not be as easily measured is the influence he had in the Senate by the force of his character. He was the epitome of rectitude, of fairness, of decorum. His selection to be the first chairman of the Senate's Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was an illustration of the view that others in the body had of him, and the confidence they had in him to do what was right and just. That is why he was so admired and appreciated in Mississippi. He got things done that helped our State, and its people, but he was more than an effective Senator. He was totally honest and trustworthy. Mississippi will forever honor the memory of John C. Stennis. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if I could proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I first want to commend the distinguished Democratic leader for his comments about our departed colleague and my good friend, Senator John C. Stennis. Today, there was a very appropriate editorial published in the Clarion-Ledger, in Jackson, MS, describing the effect that Senator Stennis had, by virtue of his service in the Senate, on the State of Mississippi. I commend the editor for such a fine article and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to invite the attention of the Senate to a couple of points that are made in this fine tribute. After talking about many of the things that Senator Stennis did for the State the editorial writer then says: But, all of the political achievements, the things that most politicians are measured by, fall short when it comes to Senator Stennis. Stennis was, above all else, a man of integrity, a true statesman, whose adherence to honor and code of conduct made him legendary in the U.S. Senate, which he loved so dearly. Mr. President, as I was beginning to think about putting this in the Record for the information of Senators, I realized that I sit at the desk that was occupied by Senator Stennis during the time he served in the Senate. As you know, there is a tradition here to put your name in the desk drawer like schoolboys used to. Senator Stennis' name is in this desk drawer which he wrote in there and put the date that he began service, 1947, and a dash, and never did, of course, distinguished Democratic leader pointed out was in 1989. One other aspect of this desk is that not only has it been occupied by many Mississippians over the years, Jefferson Davis, to name one, John Sharp Williams, a very distinguished Senator who had served as Democratic leader in the House before he was elected to the Senate, and then served three terms in the Senate and probably was one of the most respected national figures of his day serving in the Congress. And serving from Mississippi it made our State very proud. But Senator Stennis occupied this desk from 1947--well over 41 years, as the Senators know. But toward the end of his career he lost a leg to cancer, and this desk was located in the rear of the Chamber. So his wheelchair could move right up to the desk. But he never failed to rise and address the Senate even though he was confined to the wheelchair and had only one leg. He had the carpenters put a special place here where a bar could be fitted. There are two holes carved for wooden inserts in this desk to hold that bar. And the bar would rest inside the desk. Most Senators put the rule books of the Senate and a couple of other reference books in the top of their desk. But that had simply a bar there. He would put it there and pull himself up, and with that one leg stand erect to address the Senate because he respected the institution so much, its traditions, and its customs, always pointing out to other Senators that we should be in order; and having a tremendous influence because of his presence in this body. The Senate is much better off because of his service here. The State of Mississippi is truly blessed to have been the State represented in the U.S. Senate by John C. Stennis. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. What is the situation with the time? How much time remains on each side, allocated to individual Senators?

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, first of all, let me say putting the sign of McDonald's on the floor of the Senate and suggesting this program is designed to subsidize McDonald's, or any other particular firm, is an outrageous distortion of this program. Let me read to you a memo written by the Poultry and Export Council about the McDonald's issue. It says in part: Yes, our Council has used MPP to help McDonalds sell more American chicken--but not to promote McDonalds. The facts are that McDonalds franchises in other countries are foreign owned and operated. They are under no obligation to buy U.S. poultry or eggs and can readily find lower priced (and lower quality) product in Thailand, Malaysia or elsewhere. But by allowing McDonalds to apply for and receive matching funds under MPP, requires their franchisees to be entirely supplied with U.S. products. The point is, we are NOT promoting McDonalds, we are getting McDonalds to advertise U.S. chicken and eggs. And it has been quite effective. In fact, the state of Arkansas has likely benefited more from this activity than any other state. The point is this: The market promotion funds are made available almost 97 percent to non-profit and related U.S. trade associations, including state departments of agriculture. The National Cattlemen's Association says these funds have helped them break into the market in Japan, in Korea, and build market share. We have seen the funds used in other countries for the same purpose, to try to overcome barriers to U.S. trade. The program has helped farmers, it has created jobs in America, and it has benefited every community. I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, to print a copy of a letter from the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports in the Record, which shows a listing of all of the agriculture and farm commodity groups in America that benefit from this program because they can sell what they produce more effectively with this program's promotion money in overseas markets when they have to combat the unfair and competitive subsidies from other countries.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, let me give one example. The European Community this year is going to spend $89 million just promoting wine exports and subsidizing wine exports, a lot of that into the U.S. This entire program is $85.5 million, and the sponsors of this amendment are trying to knock out every dollar of it. We are not going to have any funds left to help combat the unfair and heavily subsidized trading practices of foreign countries if you take away this tool. I am hoping that we can increase the funding. It used to be $200 million a year, and because of cuts in this and other programs, we had to downsize the program. It is now only $85.5 million, and they are trying to take away that. The President and the administration requested additional funds to help companies, to help farm groups and State departments of agriculture deal with these competitors, to increase their market share. The administration asked for an increase from $85.5 million to $110 million, and this committee recommended it, the Appropriations Committee agreed to it, and we ought to approve it. I am hoping the Senate will reject this amendment. I yield whatever time remains to the Senator from the State of Washington.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, is there time left in opposition to the amendment?

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to table the amendment offered by Senators Bryan and Bumpers and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I question the ruling of the Chair on the request for the seconds.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I object.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I am happy to point out that in this part of the bill, there were several changes in the funding that the House had included in its legislation. There are a number of buildings and facilities and accounts. If I remember, this is in the Agricultural Research Service part of the bill. I am operating on memory now. I was watching the television monitor when I this facility in Iowa. My recollection is that the House rescinded funds for this project and we rejected this proposal and instead took funds not needed for another project. The House bill also recommended funding for a number of projects in the Cooperative State Research Service buildings and facilities account be rescinded, and we decided not to go along with any of them as a class. The reason for it is, No. 1, I do not think the administration requested those rescissions. No. 2, to go back through all of the CSRS buildings and facilities projects halfway through the year and try to pick out a few to cancel, in effect, or rescind funds at this time in the year, would have imposed quite a task on the committee in terms of reevaluating all projects in that bill. We looked at the overall approach as one where, first of all, the administration's request for rescissions totaling $142 million in the Public Law 480 accounts struck us as something that we should recommend for approval. The House recommended only a $20 million reduction in funding for title III. Our recommendation is for a $142 million reduction, which is what the administration requested. We tried to make an independent judgment based on the facts as we understood them. Our committee had already looked at this proposal for the research facility in Iowa and decided it was meritorious. The committee had agreed, the Senate had agreed, the House had agreed, and the President had signed the bill appropriating the funds for it. We decided not to go back and make a second guess at whether or not the House was justified in its decision. We decided to leave it for a discussion with the House in conference. We will review that in conference. I will be interested in hearing what the arguments are. I have consulted with Senator Grassley of Iowa. He told me he strongly recommended the continuation of this funding, and I agreed with him. So that is, in a nutshell, the process by which I reviewed that account and decided to recommend to the Appropriations Committee that we not agree with the House on that rescission.

Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator will yield, I do recall that we are recommending more outlay savings than the House, by far. Almost three times as much in outlay savings will be realized from the recommendations under the agriculture and related agencies title of this bill than will be achieved if the Senate had gone along with all of the recommendations of the House. So we have differences of opinion. They recommended a rescission of all of the funds appropriated for the Farmers' Home Section 515 rural rental housing program. We decided not to do that. We refused to go along with that. The administration did not request a rescission of those funds, and we thought that it would be unfair to stop in the middle of the year and eliminate all the money that was going to be available for that rural housing program. It is important in many parts of the country. So I will say to my distinguished friend from Arizona, he can go through this bill and pick and choose and isolate and identify specific areas where we disagreed with the House. We did not rubberstamp what the House has suggested. We seriously and carefully considered every provision in the House bill, however. But we came to some different conclusions. We think we brought our best efforts to bear on that challenge and, in a responsible way, made recommendations to the full committee on appropriations.

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me join those who have expressed their good wishes to Senator Heflin on this occasion. One of the coincidences of my service with him here in the Senate is that when we were first elected in 1978 and came to the Senate that following January, we were assigned to the same committees--he on the Democratic side, of course, and I on the Republican side. We were assigned to the Ethics Committee, the Judiciary Committee and the Agriculture Committee. So on all three assignments we served together. It did not take long to come to know him as a person of much intelligence and great commitment, with a conscientious sense of duty to the people who sent him here to represent their interests as effectively as he possibly could. And effective he was during debates on agriculture legislation, where I can remember his taking on one of the more experienced, able and articulate Members on our side, Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, in a tough debate on the peanut program. It was one of the finest discussions of a legislative issue that I have ever heard, before or since. Each argued very persuasively from different points of view about this issue that was before the committee. Howell Heflin did an exceptionally good job, and he won. It was a close vote. He may get to do that again this year. So he ought to dust off his yellow legal pad. He had written out the remarks he was going to make, in his own handwriting, page after page after page, on a yellow legal pad. I hope you can find it if you need it. Mr. President, in the Ethics Committee, some very difficult decisions came before that committee, and he was our chairman. He was a freshman member but was selected to be the chairman. As a brandnew Member of the Senate, that is quite an interesting honor and an indication of the esteem in which he was quickly held by those who had the responsibility for making those decisions. On the Judiciary Committee, his wisdom and his experience were brought to bear very quickly on all of the matters that came before that committee. But above all, I came to respect him and appreciate him as a friend, someone who is congenial, courteous, very much a gentleman, and someone who appreciated the Senate and its role. served in the U.S. Senate. I heard him one day on the floor--or maybe it was in committee--say that his uncle had been called ``Cotton Tom Heflin'' because he was such a strong proponent of the cotton interests in agriculture legislation. He started calling me ``Cotton Thad'' because I was taking up for cotton farmers, too. We are going to miss Howell Heflin very much. The Senate is going to miss Howell Heflin very much. We are going to, I think, appreciate more as time goes on, the mark he has made here. I join others in wishing him well and expressing my affection for him on this occasion. We truly regret his decision not to seek reelection next year.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, it is my sad duty to advise the Senate that Arthur Winstead, former Congressman of Mississippi, died last night at the age of 91. William Arthur Winstead represented the 3d Congressional District of Mississippi from 1943 to 1965. During his 22 years of service in Congress, he was firmly loyal to his constituents and his principles. In an ironic twist of history, in spite of his conservatism, he was the first Mississippi Congressman in this century to be defeated by a Republican. Reflecting the changing nature of politics in the South, he subsequently became a strong supporter of several Republican candidates. I was flattered and honored that I had the privilege to become his friend. It was only about 2 weeks ago that he called to talk about his impressions of our efforts to bring about changes in the Washington Government. He was very proud of the role the members of our State's delegation were playing in this period of transition. Prior to entering Congress, Arthur Winstead served his community as a teacher and subsequently as county superintendent of schools for Neshoba County. During the administration of the late Gov. John Bell Williams, he served as commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Public Welfare. Arthur Winstead was a personal friend of mine and a friend of many throughout Mississippi. I offer my personal condolences to his wife and family. In honoring his memory, we honor a good and dedicated man who served with distinction in Congress with a deep sense of public duty and principle. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

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