Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before contemplating today's bad news about the Federal debt, let us do that little pop quiz once more. You remember--one question, one answer: Question: How many million dollars are in $1 trillion? While you are arriving at an answer, bear in mind that it was the U.S. Congress that ran up the Federal debt that now exceeds $4.8 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business Tuesday, May 9, the exact Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,853,699,696,611.41. This means that every man, woman, and child in America now owes $18,424.73 computed on a per capita basis. Mr. President, back to the pop quiz: How many million in a trillion? There are a million million in a trillion.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending Product Liability Fairness Act, even though it has been watered down considerably by our Democrat colleagues, is nonetheless needed to remedy the morass of product liability laws plaguing our judicial system today. We have a duty to ensure that Americans are fairly compensated when they are injured by faulty products. But today's legal system has been maneuvered into a position of encouraging many people to file frivolous suits demanding unreasonably high damage awards. I am extremely disappointed that the medical malpractice provisions, approved by the Senate on May 2, were deleted because of threats by the Democrats that they would block passage of the entire bill. Americans are suing each other too often, for too much money and for too little reason. Last year, more than 70,000 product liability lawsuits clogged U.S. courts. And by 1992, lawyer fees accounted for 61 percent of the total amount spent on product liability claims. In so many cases, those who are injured least tend to receive the largest settlements, while many of the most severely injured spend years in the legal system, sometimes never receiving the compensation they deserve. Mr. President, the pending legislation will be a first step toward remedying these problems with the current system by: First, giving manufacturers and consumers certainty as to the rules of the game when it comes to product liability lawsuits; Second, allowing consumers with valid claims to receive fair awards, and receive these awards faster; Third, reducing costs of litigation and insurance premiums, which in turn, will lead to lower prices for consumer products; Fourth, giving consumers with valid claims more time to file complaints against negligent manufacturers; and Fifth, eliminating unwarranted lawsuits which threaten to bankrupt small businesses--the segment of our economy that provides most of the jobs in this country. Mr. President, rather than expound on the problems with the current system, I will share with my colleagues a letter from the plant manager of Butler Manufacturing, a small business in Laurinburg, NC. His letter is similar to many I have received from 99 other small businessmen from my State. It reads: Dear Senator Helms: As you know, Butler Manufacturing has a plant in Laurinburg, North Carolina which employs two hundred workers. We urge your support of S. 565, the Product Liability Fairness Act, which offers some of the reforms needed in the product liability area. Our company spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for product liability insurance and legal fees and our employees devote hundreds of hours of their time to help our attorneys defend unwarranted product liability claims. Many times we settle a claim which we honestly believe has little merit because it is less expensive to settle than to litigate or to expose the Company's assets to punitive damages. Our Company competes in the international market place. To be competitive we cannot bear the cost of product liability insurance, huge punitive damage expense, and large costs to defend unwarranted claims which our competitors do not bear. We believe persons injured by faulty products through no fault of their own ought to be compensated for their out-of- pocket losses. However, current court-made rules allow much greater compensation than is justified and also make it difficult for companies to properly defend themselves. Mr. President, this explains why small businesses--not the Fortune 500 companies--are the ones most threatened if nothing is done to reform the current legal system. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the cost and availability of liability insurance rank No. 5 out of a list of 75 problems facing small businesses today. They are constantly in danger of being pulled into unwarranted lawsuits, where the fear of punitive damages forces them to settle in cases in which they should never have been involved. About half of all small business owners earn about $50,000 a year. However, a Rand Institute study shows that it costs the same small businessman an average of $100,000 to defend against a lawsuit-- regardless of the suit's merit. Thus, defending even a single unwarranted lawsuit costs twice as much as the average small business owner earns in a year. Perhaps the most critical problem for small businesses is something lawyers know as joint and several liability, which permits plaintiffs to recover the full amount of damages from any one of the defendants-- regardless of the amount of fault of the individual defendant. So, even if a small businessman is responsible for only 10 percent of the damage caused the plaintiff, under the current system, that businessman can still be held liable for 100 percent of the damages. The pending bill fixes this problem by holding a defendant liable for the percentage of noneconomic damages for which he or she is responsible. Mr. President, I have many friends who are trial lawyers. They have made some compelling arguments in favor of the current system; however, in this matter, we have had to agree to disagree. For example, trial lawyers argue that: First, limits on punitive damage awards are unnecessary because courts don't frequently award punitive damages; and Second, when they are awarded, punitive damages generally do not amount to very large sums. As every first year law student knows--or should know--there are three kinds of damages awarded in civil lawsuits. The first--economic damages--reimburses an injured person for lost wages, medical care, and out-of-pocket costs incurred as a result of the injury. Second--noneconomic damages--are awarded for things such as pain and suffering, and Finally, there are punitive damages. The purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the injured person, but rather to punish the defendant for his or her negligent behavior. Most of the disagreement in the pending bill surrounds punitive damages. Mr. President, are punitive damages rarely awarded as trial lawyers claim? No. Injured parties routinely request punitive damages in product liability and other tort claims. They do so because they know that's where the big bucks are. Not only are punitive damages routinely requested, the amount of punitive damages awarded is increasing. In Cook County, IL, the average punitive damage award was $6.7 million. In 1984, the average punitive award in San Francisco was $743,000. In North Carolina punitive damages have been awarded only once. Despite this fact, any time a product manufactured in North Carolina ends up in another State, the North Carolina manufacturer can still be hauled into an out-of-State court and sued for outrageous punitive damage amounts. Mr. President, trial lawyers also assert that product liability reforms are unnecessary because so very few lawsuits filed today are product liability cases. They claim that contract disputes and domestic relations cases make up more of the current case load in today's courts. That product liability cases make up a small piece of all tort cases ignores one important and critical point: It only takes one product liability lawsuit to bankrupt a small manufacturing firm. Even if the manufacturer is not found negligent, it still costs that small business a small fortune to defend the lawsuit. Lastly, lawyers argue that product liability reform will not lower liability Over the past 40 years, liability insurance costs have increased 4 times the rate of growth of the national economy. Moreover, for every extra dollar a company pays in product liability insurance, that's a dollar less in an employee's pocket, or a dollar less used to develop new products. In closing, let me return to the letter from the plant manager in Laurinburg, NC. This is a small business pleading for fairness and for an opportunity to compete fairly for business. If this plant, and the other 99 small businesses who've written me, are to prosper, they cannot afford to defend unwarranted claims every time they turn around. We cannot continue to tie the hands of small businesses by forcing them to defend case after case in a legal system that is unfair, inconsistent, and unpredictable. The pending bill does nothing to impede an injured person's right to recover reasonable damages for his or her injuries. Nor does the bill favor any particular industry. It simply weeds out frivolous and unwise lawsuits, making it easier and for injured individuals to obtain the recovery they deserve. product liability--states' rights and one-way preemption

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Dole, is right on target with his legislation to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Action by Congress is long overdue, and I'm delighted to be a principal cosponsor of Senator Dole's legislation. There has been some murmuring during the past few days by those who oppose moving the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Their contention is that this is a sensitive time in the peace process. Fair enough, but I need to be informed as to when no sensitive time in the peace process exists. I remember well a time in 1988 when I offered legislation to move the United States Embassy to Jerusalem. After extensive negotiations with the Department of State--that also was a sensitive time in the peace process--we ended with what I understood to be an agreement to acquire land for an Embassy in Jerusalem. I am sorry to hear that my efforts of 1988 are being used legislation before us today. Mr. President, the mere acquisition of land in Jerusalem is not enough. My purpose then, as now, was to get the United States Embassy to Jerusalem, not to begin real estate negotiations. The point, Mr. President, is this: There is only one nation in this world where the United States mission is not in the capital city, and that is Israel. Jerusalem, the Holy City, was divided by barbed wire for almost two decades. Worshippers were denied access to the Holy places under Jordanian rule in East Jerusalem. In the 28 years during which Israel has presided over a united city of Jerusalem, the rights of Christians, Jews and Moslems have been fully respected. Time and again, the Senate has voted overwhelmingly in favor of recognizing United Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. I commend Senator Dole for his leadership in this and other matters.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this resolution has one fault: It is too late in coming. It has been reported out favorably by the Foreign Relations Committee. It is a mistake that we should have corrected a long time ago. Senator Murkowski and I, and others, have for a long time been protesting this travesty in the conduct of U.S. foreign relations. How and when did the United States reach the point in United States- Taiwanese relations that United States foreign policy could preclude a visit to the United States of the highest ranking, democratically elected official of Taiwan? Though I did not often disagree with Ronald Reagan--I did on occasion, and one of those times was when President Reagan's advisers made a regrettable decision which risked jeopardizing our relations with Taiwan by cuddling up to the brutal dictators in Beijing. Since that time, we have been hiding behind a diplomatic screen when demonstrating our commitment and loyalty to the Taiwanese people. Mr. President, at the time President Reagan's advisers made that grievous error, Congress was promised that the United States would continue to ``preserve and promote extensive, close and friendly * * * relations'' with the people on Taiwan. But successive administrations have not lived up to that promise. How in the world could any one consider it close and friendly to require the President of Taiwan to sit in his plane on a runway in Honolulu while it was refueled? I find it hard to imagine that United States relations with Red China would have come to a standstill because of a weekend visit to the United States by Taiwan's President Lee. The President's China policy is in poor shape at this point--even members of his team recognize that. So, how can anyone really believe that allowing President Lee to travel to his alma mater--or to vacation in North Carolina--would send our already precarious relations with Red China plummeting over the edge? Last time I checked, the Mainland Chinese were obviously enjoying their relations with the United States--a small wonder since they are benefiting $30 billion a year from the American taxpayer as a result of United States trade with Red China. Time and again, the U.S. Congress has urged the administration to grant President Lee a visa. We have amended our immigration law so that it now specifically mentions the President of Taiwan. Congress has passed resolution after resolution encouraging the President to allow President Lee into the United States for a visit. All to no avail. But today the delay is over. I hope I will have the privilege of being one of the first to welcome the distinguished President of the Republic of China on Taiwan. He deserves a warm welcome from all of us. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, the skyrocketing Federal debt--which long ago soared into the stratosphere--is in a category somewhat like the weather--everybody talks about it but almost nobody had undertaken the responsibility of trying to do anything about it until immediately following the elections last November. When the 104th Congress convened in January, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a balanced budget amendment. In the Senate only one of the Senate's 54 Republicans opposed the balanced budget amendment; only 13 Democrats supported it. Thus, the balanced budget amendment failed by just one vote. There will be another vote later this year or next year. As of the close of business yesterday, Monday, May 8, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,856,502,980,514.90 or $18,435.37 for every man, woman, and child on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have the honor of presenting to the Senate--and I shall do that in a minute--the distinguished Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Rabin. Recess

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 5 minutes so that Senators may greet our distinguished guest.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, B. Glen Lee retired the other day, and just about everybody who ever had dealings with the gentleman will testify that for 33 years he was a worthy public servant--which is just about the best monument to any public servant. Glen Lee is indeed admired by his fellow citizens. It was Hawthorne who asserted years ago that nobody who needs a monument ever ought to have one. Glen Lee does not need a monument, but he deserves the one he has. Mr. President, B. Glen Lee's career was devoted to his diligent work with and for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He was Deputy Administrator of the USDA's Plant Protection and Quarantine Program--a part of the Department's Health Inspection Service. In that capacity, Mr. Lee served so well that last year he was 1 of 6 winners of the 1994 Executive Excellence Award presented by the Professional Development League. And, Mr. President, in that connection he was singled out for praise for having persuaded the Peoples' Republic of China to allow the entry of United States apples and other produce. Glen Lee was graduated from N.C. State University in 1962 and began his career as an inspector in the Plant Pest Control Division of the Ag Research Division in North Carolina. His retirement rolled around while he was serving as the top plant protection official in the United States. He served the American people well.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, more than 3 years ago I began these daily reports to the Senate making a matter of record the exact Federal debt as of close of business the previous day. As of the close of business Friday, April 28, the exact Federal debt stood at $4,857,682,676,296.70, meaning that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,439.85 as his or her share of the Federal debt. It's important to note, Mr. President, that the United States had an opportunity to begin controlling the Federal debt by implementing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Senate did not seize its first opportunity to control this debt--but there will be another chance during the 104th Congress.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Thursday, May 4, the Federal debt stood at $4,854,832,235,127.63. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,429.03 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it doesn't require one to be a rocket scientist to realize that the U.S. Constitution forbids any President's spending even a dime of Federal tax money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by Congress--both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. So when you hear a politician or an editor or a commentator declare that ``Reagan ran up the Federal debt'' or that ``Bush ran it up,'' bear in mind that the Founding Fathers, two centuries before the Reagan and Bush Presidencies, made it very clear that it is the constitutional duty of Congress to control Federal spending--which they have not for the past 50 years. The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress has created a Federal debt which stood at $4,855,154,897,104.21 as of the close of business Wednesday, May 3. This outrageous debt--which will become the debt of our children and grandchildren--averages out to $18,430.25 on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before contemplating today's bad news about the Federal debt, let's do our little pop quiz once more: Question: How many million dollars are in $1 trillion? While you are arriving at an answer, bear in mind that it was the U.S. Congress that ran up the Federal debt that now exceeds $4.8 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business Tuesday, May 2, the exact Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,859,125,275,200.95. This means that every man, woman and child in America now owes $18,445.32 computed on a per-capita basis. Mr. President, back to the pop quiz: How many million in a trillion? There are a million million in a trillion.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed very briefly as in the morning business. ordered.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, there's an impression that simply will not go away--that the $4.8-plus-trillion Federal debt is a grotesque parallel to the energizer bunny we see, and see, and see on television. The Federal debt keeps going and going and going--up, of course!-- always to the misery of the American taxpayers. So many politicians talk a good game--when, that is, they go home to take--and talk is the operative word--talk about bringing Federal deficits and the Federal debt under control. But, oddly enough, so many of these same politicians regularly voted for one bloated spending bill after another during the 103d Congress. Come to think about it, this may have been a primary factor in the new configuration of U.S. Senators as a result of last November's elections. In any event, Mr. President, as of yesterday, Friday, May 1, at the close of business, the total Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,860,333,100,308.86 or $18,449,91 per person. Res ipsa loquitur.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at noon today, Attorney General Reno made a formal announcement that has dismayed the Cuban people. The Attorney General, speaking for the President, announced that effective immediately the Cubans interdicted at sea will be forcibly returned to face the wrath of Fidel Castro. Mr. President, of course, Mr. Castro has said he will take no punitive action against Cubans forcibly returned to his tyranny. But the Cuban people, many of whom died before firing squads, and others who languished for years as political prisoners in Castro's prisons, learned the hard way the value of Mr. Castro's word. Mr. President, there has been another sad and tragic moment involving the Clinton administration's dealings with the Cuban people. I am already receiving in my office an endless stream of telephone calls and faxes from Cuban-Americans who feel they have again been betrayed by the administration. For more than 35 years, Mr. President, the United States has been a safe haven for Cubans fleeing Castro's repressive Communist dictatorship. Last year, Mr. President, the Clinton administration began a reversal of this policy. Cuban Americans now appropriately fear that the administration has joined hands with the Castro regime in an effort having the continuing effect of enslaving the people of Cuba. Today's announcement, described as the result of secret negotiations between the administration and the Castro regime, is seen as a sign that the United States will now work in partnership with Castro's brutal security apparatus by intercepting and capturing escaping Cuban refugees and turning them over directly to Castro's thugs. How sad it is, Mr. President, that the United States is now viewed as an accomplice in Castro's repression of the Cuban people. Mr. President, if the United States wants to send naval vessels to surround Cuba, it should not be done to cooperate with the Castro regime. It should be done to blockade and strangle his brutal dictatorship once and for all. This development is another reason why Congress must pass the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. In the face of this vacillation, the Congress must reaffirm that United States policy is to isolate and replace Fidel Castro, not to keep the Cuban people imprisoned in Castro's tropical gulag. I ask unanimous consent the full text of the statement issued at noon by the Attorney General, Ms. Reno, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I make such a motion and I move to table the motion. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, was a motion to reconsider the vote on amendment No. 603 made?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, more than 3 years ago I began making daily reports to the Senate making a matter of record the exact Federal debt as of the close of business the previous day. As of the close of business Friday, April 28, the exact Federal debt stood at $4,852,327,350,096.60, meaning that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,419.52 as his or her share of the Federal debt. It is important to note, Mr. President, that the United States had an opportunity to begin controlling the Federal debt by implementing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Senate did not seize their first opportunity to control this debt--but rest assured they will have another chance during the 104th Congress. If Senators do not concentrate on getting a handle on this enormous debt, the voters are not likely to overlook it next year.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, anyone even remotely familiar with the U.S. Constitution knows that no President can spend a dime of Federal tax money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by Congress-- both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. So when you hear a politician or an editor or a commentator declare that ``Reagan ran up the Federal debt'' or that ``Bush ran it up,'' bear in mind that the Founding Fathers, two centuries before the Reagan and Bush Presidencies, made it very clear that it is the constitutional duty of Congress to control Federal spending, which they have not for the past 50 years. The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress has created a Federal debt which stood at $4,876,206,792,345.50 as of the close of business Wednesday, April 26. This outrageous debt--which will be saddled on the backs of our children and grandchildren--averages out to $18,403.01 on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before contemplating today's bad news about the Federal debt, let's have that little pop quiz again: Question: How many million dollars are in $1 trillion? While you are arriving at an answer, remember that it was the U.S. Congress that ran up the Federal debt that now exceeds $4.8 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business Tuesday, April 25, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,842,767,648,608.66-- meaning that every man, woman, and child in America now owes $18,383.23 computed on a per capita basis. Mr. President, again to answer the pop quiz question, How many million in a trillion? There are a million million in a trillion; and you can thank the U.S. Congress for the existing Federal debt exceeding $4.8 trillion.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing Federal debt, which long ago soared into the stratosphere, is in a category like the weather-- everybody talks about it but almost nobody had undertaken the responsibility of trying to do anything about it until immediately following the elections last November. When the 104th Congress convened in January, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a balanced budget amendment. In the Senate only 1 of the Senate's 54 Republicans opposed the balanced budget amendment; only 13 Democrats supported it. Thus, the balanced budget amendment failed by just one vote. There will be another vote later this year or next year. 24, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,839,548,467,525.15 or $18,371.01 for every man, woman, and child on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the impression simply will not go away; the enormous Federal debt greatly resembles that well-known energizer bunny we see, and see, and see on television. The Federal debt keeps going and going and going--always at the expense, of course, of the American taxpayers. A lot of politicians talk a good game--when they go home to campaign about bringing Federal deficits and the Federal debt under control. But so many of these same politicians regularly voted for one bloated spending bill after another during the 103d Congress, which could have been a primary factor in the new configuration of U.S. Senators as a result of last November's elections. In any event, Mr. President, as of yesterday, as of Friday, April 21, at the close of business, the total Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,837,382,183,299.27 or $18,362.79 per person.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Thursday, April 6, the Federal debt stood at $4,872,967,679,626.75. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,497.87 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I hope it has no future.