Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in the words of our fearless leader, President Ronald Wilson Reagan, ``Here we go again.'' As we begin the proceedings, Mr. President, the issue is whether the Members of this body will agree to have an open and full debate on this legislation. Each time this legislation has been brought before the Senate, the proponents have offered up one anecdote after another to justify the bill. We have attempted to ensure that, at a minimum, this bill is fully examined and debated. I am particularly concerned about the manner in which the current bill has been rushed through without much time for review. The legislation was introduced on March 15. A couple of weeks later, the Commerce Committee held 2 days of hearings and then a markup a day and a half later. The substitute offered at markup--which was not received until 6 p.m. The preceding evening--contained a number of changes and amendments. None of the changes was ever considered by the committee, at the hearings or before the markup. Now, less than a week after the bill was reported, the bill is up for consideration on the floor. I am not certain what is driving this process. I understand that there may be a desire by some to act in accordance with the House Republicans' Contract With America agenda. However, I did not sign the so-called contract, and as far as I know, neither did any other Senator. The sole purpose of this bill is to erect barriers regarding the use of the civil justice system for redress of injuries caused by dangerous products. However, I would like to remind the supporters of this bill that unlike the judicial systems of other countries, the American judicial system is rooted in democratic principles of individual redress, the right to a jury trial, and reliance on the people to resolve disputes. These were principles established by the Founding Fathers when they proposed the adoption of the 7th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. Surely, issues such as whether to limit access to courts, limit redress remedies, or penalize citizens for merely bringing suits were considered by the Founding Fathers, as well as the judges and State officials that have administered our system of justice for over 200 years. But they decided against such measures, and opted instead to maintain a system that features free access to the courts, common law, and giving the people the ultimate authority to resolve conflicts. The supporters of this bill, however, are seeking to overturn this longstanding American history and judicial precedent. I am, in fact, confounded by the fact that the Senate is even considering this legislation. At the beginning of this Congress, Member after Member came to the floor during consideration of S. 1, the unfunded mandates bill, to declare that this would be the Congress of ``States rights,'' where government would be returned to the people. The Jeffersonian democracy of government was revived. If I heard it once, I heard it a million times, that State and local governments know best how to protect the health and safety of their citizens, and that they do not need Congress telling them what to do. How many times did I hear that the one clear message sent by the voters last November was that the people wanted to get the Federal Government off their backs and out of their pocket? The 10th amendment, lost in the shuffle for many years, was given new light. The majority leader himself, in his opening address to the new Congress, proclaimed: America has reconnected us with the hopes for a nation made free by demanding a Government that is more limited. Reigning in our government will be my mandate, and I hope it will be the purpose and principal accomplishment of the 104th Congress. We do not have all the answers in Washington, DC. Why should we tell Idaho, or the State of South Dakota, or the State of Oregon, or any other State that we are going to pass this Federal law and that we are going to require you to do certain things. The majority leader went on to say: Federalism is an idea that power should be kept close to the people. It is an idea on which our nation was founded. But there are some in Washington--perhaps fewer this year than last--who believe that our States can't be trusted with power. If I have one goal for the 104th Congress, it is this: That we will dust off the 10th Amendment and restore it to its rightful place. Those are the words of the majority leader himself. These words, spoken so eloquently, make it clear why the Congress should stay out of the business of the States. During consideration of the balanced budget amendment, Senator Byrd made a compelling argument with respect to the need and obligation of this body to give thorough deliberation to bills that impact our Nation's constitutional structure. He spoke of the need of Members to carefully read and study legislation. I ask, Mr. President, how many Senators have carefully read this bill? How many are aware of how this bill will affect their constituents? For example, how many Members know that this bill will result in disparate treatment of working-class Americans? How many discrimination against women and children? How many Members know that this bill will make it much more difficult for workers who suffer product-related injuries to recover for their injuries? How many Members are aware of how this bill will affect the comfort level we have in the drugs we buy, and the health and safety devices we use? How many are aware of how it will impact their State laws, judicial order, and constitutions? These are the important questions that must be answered, and deeply debated before we consider passing this bill. The proponents claim that this is a modest bill, one that is different from the House bill, and more reasonable than previous Senate bills. First, Mr. President, this is not an accurate statement. This bill actually has reincorporated many provisions of previous Senate bills that many sponsors of the current bill once opposed. Second, we all know that, if a Senate bill goes to conference with the House bill, House Members will be pushing their version of the bill. The proponents have offered a number of explanations regarding the need for this legislation. However, every claim that has been made about the need for this bill has been refuted. The proponents initially lamented that the legislation was needed because of a liability insurance crisis. The alleged crisis became the impetus for the entire tort reform movement. According to Prof. James Henderson, a major supporter of tort reform, and Prof. Theodore Eisenberg of Cornell University, tort reformers were concerned mostly about convincing the American public that there was a crisis and linking the alleged crisis to product liability. They showed less concern over the reality of the crisis itself. The idea was to tie the product liability system to the crisis in a way that reshaped public opinion. Efforts were forcefully made to link the so-called crisis to basic American activities, such as Little League baseball and the Boy Scouts--almost literally motherhood and apple pie. To quote Professors Henderson and Eisenberg, ``using every technique of modern media- shaping, tort reform groups sought to insure that the public believed that products liability law was the cause of this threat to their way of life.'' This, Mr. President, is according to Prof. James Henderson, a supporter of tort reform. Numerous studies have shown, however, that product liability had nothing to do with the availability or affordability of insurance. In fact, during the midst of the so-called crisis, the director of government affairs for the Risk and Insurance Management Society--an association of corporate risk managers which includes more than 90 percent of the Fortune 1000 companies--himself expressed concern about linking tort reform and the insurance availability crisis. Studies by the GAO, and numerous other studies, have shown that to the extent there was a crisis, it was caused by insurance companies themselves, not product liability. But what is conspicuously missing from this bill, Mr. President, is any requirement that insurance companies submit data to justify the premiums charged to businesses. Former Texas Insurance Commissioner Robert Hunter has stated clearly that unless the insurance problem is resolved, the whole matter concerning legal or transaction costs will not be addressed by this bill. Next, the sponsors contended that the bill was needed because of a litigation explosion. Some continue to make this claim, despite ample evidence that there never was, and is not now, any litigation explosion. A recent study by the Rand Corp. found that less than 10 percent of the people who are injured by products ever even consider filing a lawsuit, and only 2 percent actually go forward with filing a suit. According to recent statistics published by the National Center for State Courts, product liability cases are only 4 percent of State tort filings, and a mere thirty six-hundredths of 1 percent of all civil cases. Throughout this debate, there has been an inordinate degree of contempt toward the American jury system. Some have even characterized the system as an open lottery. However, this is part of a well organized misinformation campaign. The evidence unequivocally demonstrates that our Nation's jury system has not run amok. Last June, the New York Times featured a front page story on how juries are growing tougher on plaintiffs. Citing the latest research by Jury Verdicts Research, Inc., the Times states that plaintiffs' success rates in product liability cases have dropped from 59 to 41 percent since 1989. Professors James Henderson and Theodore Eisenberg of Cornell University released a study in 1992, which showed that product liability filings had declined by 44 percent by 1991. They concluded that by ``most measures, product liability has returned to where it was at the beginning of the decade,'' beginning in the 1980's. A 1991 New York University Law Review article by Prof. James Henderson, along with Brooklyn Law School Prof. Aaron Twerski--another major supporter of tort reform--stated that: With sharper focus and fewer distractions, American products liability may be better equipped than ever to provide appropriate incentives for product manufacturers and distributors to act responsibility in the public interest. But the days of wretched excess are over, very probably for the indefinite future. Where is the real litigation explosion, Mr. President? It is in the corporate board rooms. According to Prof. Marc Galanter of the University of Wisconsin Law School, the real litigation explosion in recent years has involved businesses suing each other, not injured persons seeking redress of their rights. He found that business contract filings in Federal courts increased by 232 percent between 1960 and 1988, and by 1988 were the largest category of civil cases in the Federal courts. Reports by the National Law Journal show that since 1989, of the 83 largest civil damage awards nationwide, 73 percent have involved business suits. Between 1987 and 1994, just 76 of the top business verdicts alone have accounted for more than $10 billion. In 1993, the top 13 business verdicts alone amounted to approximately $3 billion. They included: Litton Systems versus Honeywell, a patent infringement dispute--$1.2 billion; Rubicon Petroleum versus Amoco, a breach of contract dispute--$500 million, including $250 million in punitive damages; Amoco Chemical versus Certain Lloyds of London, a breach of contract dispute--$425 million, including $341 million in punitive damages; Avia Development versus American General Realty Investment, a breach of contract--$309 million, including $262 million in punitive damages. Of course, this does not include the greatest verdict of them all--the $10.5 billion awarded in 1985 in the Pennzoil versus Texaco case. According to the testimony of Jonathan Massey, an expert on punitive damages, the total punitive damage awards since 1965 come to only a fraction of the $3 billion punitive award in Pennzoil versus Texaco. However, the proponents of S. 565 refuse to even discuss that businesses themselves might be the primary reason for increasing litigation--which leads me to their new claim that product liability is stifling competitiveness. Like the refutation of the insurance crisis and litigation explosion, it has been clearly proven that product liability has nothing to do with American business competitiveness. According to a survey of 232 risk managers of the largest corporations in the country, product liability for most businesses is less than 1 percent of the final price of products, and has little, if any, impact on larger economic issues, such as market share or jobs. The Office of Technology Assessment conducted an extensive study of the competitiveness of American businesses and did not, among its findings, list product liability as a primary problem or concern. The GAO recently stated that it ``could find no acceptable methodology for relating product liability to competitiveness, and that businesses refuse to release the information needed to conduct such an analysis.'' Mr. President, we should not be debating this bill without having the information necessary to make an informed decision, information that businesses and insurance companies are unwilling to provide. To the extent that American businesses are having competition problems, it has nothing to do with products liability. It could, however, have a lot to do with our Nation's trade and we are even discussing competitiveness after the passage of GATT and NAFTA. It was my understanding that the these were the so-called panacea to our trade dilemma. The fact of the matter, Mr. President, is that if we are going to have a discussion about trade policy, then let us have that debate, and quit wasting time with these nonessential issues. The proponents have had ample time to make their case, and have yet to produce any evidence to justify the passage of this legislation. It is for these reasons that I believe that this legislation must be defeated. It would be irresponsible of us as Members of Congress, to consider a bill that has such serious consequences for American consumers, without, at the very least, requiring the sponsors of such a bill to provide factual data--not anecdotal arguments--to support their claims. Mr. President, as we talk about ``Here we go again,'' and in listening to my distinguished colleague from Washington, he has a very, very reasonable demeanor, and as he pleads how this, after years, has been worked out and is so reasonable, I would not want my colleagues to be misled. First, this is not a more reasonable bill and the distinguished Senator knows it. For the past three Congresses, we have not had caps on punitive damages. But now we do have caps in this particular bill. In the past Congresses, we never had misuse, the failure to follow directions. Now we have a provision in here for misuse. I could go right on down the list. The argument is that years of having this idea turned back is the reason now to come forward; however, the very reasons for having been turned back persist even more strongly. It persists more strongly, Mr. President, because that is the theme of this particular Congress. Whether we like it or not, we have the Contract With America. Whether we like it or not, we have what they call a revolution. And the theme of that revolution and contract, Mr. President, is that the Government here in Washington is the enemy; the Government is not the solution, the Government is the problem. And whether we like it or not, the only way to do it is tear it down and get rid of it and maybe some day rebuild. But for now, get rid of the department of Congress; get rid of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; abolish the Department of Energy; abolish the Department of Education; cut out the revenues, give everybody a tax cut. Of course, we are operating at over a $300 billion annual deficit. We do not have any revenues to cut. But in this pollster exercise behind political reelection, cut the revenues, cut the taxes, increase the deficit, get rid of the departments, and send it all back to the States. That is the very old theme--Jeffersonian. I have never heard so many Republicans fall in love with Jefferson. They all say that the best government is that closest to the people. Get it back there. When it comes to crime, the bill that we passed really should be reduced to block grants. We debated it and we had Republican support for that crime bill. But now, all of a sudden, that same crime bill that we debated for some 3 years before it was passed needs to be block granted to get it away from the Washington bureaucrats. With respect to welfare reform, get that back to the States. The States know better how to handle these things. Housing--get that back to the States. Whatever it is, abolish the entity up here at the Washington level and get it back to the States and the local level. That is the theme of the contract save, Mr. President, this fix--and this is a fix. This is a fix. They ought to get my friend down there who has been fixing it for years, Victor Schwartz. That is who O.J. needs. He has taken a little time to get it fixed, but Victor Schwartz, representing this small little manufacturing entity is fixing it. The chambers of commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, all of those are not interested in injured parties; they are interested in injured pocketbooks. Of course, they are making more profits than they ever made in their lives. That is what we heard on the GATT: Do not worry about it, we are competitive now, and we have to get a mindset for global competition. And do not worry about the pharmaceutical companies which, they pointed out, with truth and distinction, are making their biggest profits. But now, under this bill here, we are told that the pharmaceutical industry cannot produce a drug at all on account of product liability. The chemical industry, the biotechnology industry, all of the industries that have been leading in wealth and corporate profits, they have reached higher ceilings than you have ever seen in the history of this land. But now, to justify this bill, we are told America's industry has gone broke, and we finally have found a real solution here in product liability. If we can only get this Federal fix, can you imagine that? With all of the things going on in this town. The tax cut was given the very same day they had the circus out on the east front, trampling around. After that, they want to finally come and ask, ``Who can do it better than the States and the people that sent us here?" That is a sort of interesting thing to this particular Senator. The people back home are so wise, so studied, so alert, so sensible with the issues of the contract, and the very same people that sent us here to Washington all of a sudden have lost their minds when it comes to product liability. They do not really know how to make a judgment. Of course, they are the only ones who heard the sworn testimony; they are the only ones who are familiar with the facts. But irrespective of the facts, and particularly the English law, the tort system, adopted by the several 50 States over the 200-some year history of this land, all of a sudden we do not single out herein and say automobile accident cases, we do not single out and say, well, there are contract cases exploding. They talked about a litigation explosion. That is where it is, not here. We do not single that out. But we single out this unique fix. And, as I say, here we go again, because nothing has changed. The American Bar Association, Mr. President, appeared and testified against this bill despite this quick fix because they just had summary hearings before our Commerce Committee that reported the bill out, just as we were leaving town, and we were told it was going to be the first thing called. You can bet your boots they will file cloture tomorrow. They do not want to debate this and understand the law. Just a bunch of business Senators on the Commerce Committee with this fix are going to take care of manufacturers. Just at a time that what we really need to do is get the welfare recipients more responsible, we want to make the manufacturer more irresponsible. It is the darnedest experience I have ever seen in a mature group. It shows how controlling pollster politics has become, because if you have been in a recent race back home, they are obviously conducted in accordance with the polls. The candidates have too many things to say grace over, and when it comes to product liability, when the chamber of commerce comes, and the business group comes, and they all seek to see the particular candidates, it shows up in the polls. It makes the candidate say it is a terrible problem and, yes, I am for product liability at the Federal level. Well, how did we start this? We started this under President Ford, and our distinguished President Ford had the good, common sense to realize that it was an onrush of business nonsense, because we have the safest products and we have business booming, and we have, as they talk about, lack of competitiveness. I have foreign industries just diving into my State and saying: We want to come under your product liability law, South Carolina. We love it. One hundred German industries and over 50 Japanese industries have come in--I could go right on down the list. I have worked in the field now almost 40 years, working and bringing industry in. Never once--never once--have I heard a business leader or industrialist say, ``Representative or Governor or Senator, what about this product liability? We are worried about juries and runaway verdicts,'' and that kind of talk that you hear up here at this level. We never heard that, and we do not hear it today. When they had the hearing, it was an actual embarrassment, see the witnesses that they brought in to try to give credence to their hearing. They had some makeshift, unnamed organization, and they came with what? They came with statistics about businesses suing businesses down in Alabama. We could go on over to Texas. We have the business of Pennzoil suing Texaco, and I remember that was a $12 million verdict. That is more than all the product liability verdicts put together over the history of product liability in this land. Add them up. One business verdict, Pennzoil. But the sponsors of the bill started out first saying there was a litigation explosion. Again, we studied it out and we find that actually in tort cases, in civil filings in the courts of the several States over this land, tort only represents 9 percent of all civil filings, and that 4 percent of the 9 percent, or .36, is product liability. The trend, in the State's justice system, it was firmed up again in our hearings, is lowering, going down. There has been one exception that has held constant, and that is the asbestos cases. Other than that, tort filings and product liability are diminishing rather than increasing. They are receding rather than exploding. What has exploded is business suing business--and we will have plenty of time, I am sure, with the amendments we will have at hand, to cite the various verdicts. If they are really worried about money, if businesses are worried about money, they better stop suing each other and keep their contracts. So we had first the litigation explosion. Then they said that they could not get insurance. They were using these little vignettes, anecdotal examples. They use that Little League and some babble, that same nonsense, about the cost of insurance being more than the bats and the uniforms and everything else. I guess kids do get hurt. Mine played in the Little League, but we never had any trouble with the Little League in my town of Columbia, SC, at that time, and later on in Charleston, SC, we have not had any real problem with the Little League. It is a very viable, wonderful group. I guess in certain instances they take out insurance, but they have not been denied on account of product liability. They tried, more recently, to update it into the McDonald's coffee case, saying what a terrible thing, this lady who had been burned by the coffee ought to have known better. She really did not have a claim. I was very much interested, Mr. President, in that treatment given by Newsweek magazine for product liability. In the Newsweek magazine, in the account of the juror in the McDonald's coffee case, she said she thought at first it was a frivolous claim. Thereafter, on listening, she found out there were 700 cases of individuals being burned by the coffee. Of course, the question that this Senator asked was, ``Why?'' It comes to my attention now, of course, if the heat of the water is increased inordinately over the coffee beans, you get more coffee. Money--money--is the answer here. It is the answer in this particular case. The Conference Board questioned 232 particular risk managers. These risk managers overwhelmingly said product liability was less than 1 percent of the cost of the operation. Even the business study showed it was not a litigation explosion. The availability of insurance problem was studied and found to be bad real estate investments they made in the early and mid-1980's. Like our S&L crisis, the savings and loan industry principally based in the investment in homes, real estate, shopping centers, and what have you-- the insurance companies in their real estate portfolio had similarly used bad judgment. The result was that the cost had gone up, but more recently the availability has been there and everything else of that kind. Then they said we should be more like the European system, the EEC, so we could compete with them. During 1988, 1989, 1990, we found out the European system became more similar to ours, and we put those documents in the record, with joint and several liability moving toward the American system rather than the other way around. Now they say ``compete''--we want Government to compete. If they had listened to our debates with respect to NAFTA and GATT, we would have found out how this Government can compete, because this is what it is: government-to-government competition in international and global trade. Forget David Ricardo and Adam Smith and comparative advantage and free market. We will discuss in this debate where the Japanese approached Alexander Hamilton--incidentally, the approach of using the Government to determine what decisions can be made in the theory of free market, but whether or not it strengthens the economy or whether it weakens the economy. On that governmental approach with business, immediately you say, ``Wait a minute. That is industrial policy.'' Well, you are right. I think after 45 years of trying for free market, free market, free trade, free trade, we finally learned our lesson. We cannot do as we do or do as we say; we have to find out the predominance. The global competition is the Japanese model. The Japanese model has been emulated not only throughout the Pacific rim but by Germany and countries in Europe and particularly now the East European countries. The Japanese have schools. They have instructors in the system, as South Korea has done, Taiwan and Singapore, Malaysia, and the others have done. That is why we just had our Secretary of the Treasury in Bali on an economic summit and monetary conference and they cannot seem to understand why they are not going for free trade, free trade, free trade. This crybaby whining about opening up your markets--the fact is, we are losing our industrial and manufacturing backbone. I was at a conference not many years back with Akio Marita, of Sony, in Japan. He came, and Marita at that time, talking of emerging countries, said that you had to have a strong manufacturing sector if you were going to be a nation-state. Then he went on to say, ``Look, that country that loses its manufacturing power ceases to be a world power.'' And that is what has happened with merry old England. They told the Brits some years back, rather than a nation of brawn we are going to be a nation of brains. Instead of producing products we are going to provide services, ``service economy, service economy.'' We have heard that same chant here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. ``Instead of creating wealth we are going to handle it and be a financial center.'' And England has gone to hell in an economic handbasket. They have two levels of society there. And that is exactly the road your country and my country is on at this present time. So, with respect to competing on product liability, being a deterrent, let me invite you to any State in America, and particularly mine, where you will find foreign entities, as a result of the lack of a competitive trade policy, have come in now and bought up, with gusto, the American entities and are now producing those Japanese cars and other products here in the United States, like gangbusters. They are down right now, with the devaluation of the dollar, into Miami. I read that in the Wall Street Journal, where they are buying it up down there right and left, because the dollar has lost 20 percent of its value against the mark since the first of January. The sponsors of the bill have used every argument that they could possibly think of. And again and again and again the States involved say, ``No, we don't need this.'' Again and again and again that bipartisan group, the American Bar Association, has said, ``No, this is bad legislation.'' And, again and again and again, the Conference of State Supreme Court Justices has come in and testified that, as a group, they oppose this. Then the sponsors come in and say, with a straight face, that what they are trying to do is get uniformity. Now, now, now--uniformity. Uniformity. It is very interesting that this particular bill provides no uniformity; no uniformity when it comes to holding the manufacturer responsible. Oh, yes, we want uniformity for the customer, the consumer, the user of the particular product, but not for the manufacturers themselves. There is no better example of an unfunded mandate than this particular the bill has not given a Federal cause of action, you leave it at the State level, with words of art enunciated by this high and almighty Congress up here that knows best, exactly what to do and what caps there are and what tests there are, all to be interpreted by the 50 supreme courts of the 50 States. And then, if there is a further appeal, up to the U.S. Supreme Court. So what is started, is a surge against lawyers, ``Get rid of the lawyers.'' Now more lawyers are going to be hired under this particular bill just for product liability, which is not a national problem whatever. But they manufacture it and rig it so, even in contradiction to their own theme of trying to give meaning and cause to the 10th amendment that those things not delegated under the Constitution to the Federal Government shall be reserved to the several States. No, no. They do not want this one reserved to the States. In spite of the legislatures, in spite of the attorneys general, in spite of the Supreme Court Justices, in spite of the American Bar Association, and in spite of--oh, heavens above--the list of different groups here that we have who oppose this so-called product liability bill--they, all of a sudden, are being so reasonable. They do not really care what passes. They are going to get into conference with that House crowd and that House crowd has gone amok now. Look at what's going on over there--I mean they can really sell them on voting to cut revenues that they do not have. They have a $300 billion deficit but they say we have to buy the vote, we have to get to the middle class. Unfortunately, I do not speak in a partisan fashion, the President of the United States says the same thing. There are a group of Senators here, in a bipartisan fashion, who say we cannot afford tax cuts. But here it is. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this list of entities be printed in the Record at this particular point.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time and yield time to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield myself sufficient time. The Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, wanted to be heard. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this goes to the heart of our work in the Appropriations Subcommittee of State, Justice, and Commerce whereby we want to support the overall amount of the rescission but to redirect it to less important financial requirements at this particular time. In other words, my amendment would restore current programs that have been found very effective for the NOAA coastal oceans program, $7 million to the NOAA climate and global change research, $1.5 million to the Under Secretary for Technology, and $24 million to the NIST manufacturing extension program for a total of $37.5 million in total restoration. Those restorations are offset by $30 million from the unobligated balances in the NIST construction, $5 million in the unobligated balances in the NOAA construction, and $2.5 million in the unobligated balances of the NOAA contingency fund. All of those construction funds and everything else are to be set aside not to be expended this year. Of course, the distinguished Senator from Texas, completing our series of hearings for next year's appropriations. So we are not turning away in any context our dedication to the various requested construction commitments. But, in a word, what we are saying is let us not go for office buildings but rather for building jobs. Let me go right to the heart of the connection between this amendment and the so-called Contract With America, which I welcome because this is a good tonic to come to town and stir everybody up and get us moving. Many elements of the contract are things that I have worked upon--the unfunded mandates, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which I voted for already three times. I did not vote for it this time because I did not want to repeal my own law that puts Social Security off budget. On that matter, I do not believe that we should just move deficits. Rather, let us eliminate deficits. I did not want to move the Government's deficit from the general Government over to Social Security. So when we were debating the balanced budget amendment, all they had to do is exempt the Social Security funds instead of repealing my section 13301 which says ``Thou shall not use Social Security funds'' in the estimates of the deficit and the debt. That was put in by Senator Heinz and myself back in 1990 and signed into law by President Bush. With respect to the other parts of the contract, the line-item veto, is actually my bill, which was a compromise between the two rescissions initiatives by Senator McCain and Senator Domenici. So there is much with which we can agree. But I thought in coming to town here at this particular session in January that our purpose was to pay the bill, and create jobs--not to adopt a contract which does not in itself create a single job or pay a single bill. It has more to do with symbols than substance, more with procedures than actual production. Now we have an amendment before the body which actually produces jobs. I am convinced, after the hearing we had this morning, that we will get a most sympathetic hearing from our distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gramm of Texas, because the two big elements of misgiving that I have heard expressed about the NIST programs of the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Centers is on the one hand, that this was industrial policy, Government picking winners and losers, and on the other hand, that this was pork, political pork. Let me address the first particular problem. Of course, we make all kinds of industrial policies. This morning, with respect to product liability, we told industry just exactly what it can expect--less care in the manufacturing. Currently, we have the highest degree of care in the United States of America in its manufacturing. But what we did was put in all kinds of gimmicks and hurdles that hamstring the individuals right to a trial by jury and thereby significantly affects industry. But we will not go any further into that. But we get industrial policy when we recommend a minimum wage, when we come forward and say we are going to have parental leave, when we say we are going to have to have plant closing notice, safe machinery, safer working place, Social Security, unemployment compensation, Medicare, Medicaid. You can go right on down the list. When we in a bipartisan fashion, which is the record, adopt those measures, we get into industrial policy. There has been a fetish around town amongst the pollsters putting out their pap about industrial policy, saying ``let the market choose the winners and losers rather than the bureaucrats and politicians in Washington.'' I agree with that. But, while we make industrial policy all the time, my amendment supports an industrial policy chosen by industry. We ensure sound industrial choice by requiring the industry to come with 50 percent of the money at least in their pocket and also to go through a peer review system of the National Academy of Engineering and the overall Government peer review choice. That was brought out in specific by Mary Lou Good, Dr. Good, the undersecretary in charge of technology, a real expert; had been in charge of their research and development over the years and just had a perfect speaking knowledge about the various things to guard against and make sure it was the industry and not the politician choosing the winner and loser, so to speak. And otherwise, we carefully designed the peer review to make sure that the Senator could not call and get a manufacturing center, the Secretary of Commerce could not call and get one, nor could the President, nor the White House minions call over and say, ``We want it.'' In fact, our absolute track record with this program under every administration has been one of just exactly that, of unbiased peer review. I can tell you categorically we did have a little hesitation in the markup of our bill over the past few years because the distinguished chairman on the House side wanted one of these but we never would write it in. We said we are not breaking ranks and starting with these markups on bills and inserting anything like Lawrence Welk's home as one of these manufacturing centers. Otherwise, consider the matter of pork. I must refer to the distinguished former Senator from Wyoming, Senator Wallop. He pointed out in reading an article year before last, or April 2 years ago, how the chairman of the Democratic Party had gone to the West Coast under the Clinton administration. He said, ``Look here.'' I read the article. The chairman of the party is saying categorically the end all and be all of Presidential--and I know the Senator from Mississippi is interested in Presidential elections. The end all and be all of Presidential elections is California. And, according to this article, this administration was going to send out Ron Brown, the Secretary of Commerce, and he was going to pour the projects to the State of California and we were really going to get on the move over here for our party. Well, that there just tackled me from behind because it was not true at all. The Secretary of Commerce could not do it. But it was a tremendous misgiving on the part of Senator Wallop and others on the other side of the aisle, even though 14 Republican Senators and a task force for reconversion had gone on and endorsed this particular program. It took us several days, what we had previously passed almost by unanimous consent took us several days to pass, and then with an overwhelming majority we passed the authorization. So I had to answer up to that matter of pork and make sure that everyone knew that this was as well administered a governmental program on the basis of merit that we have ever had. Another question arose then. The Senator from Texas says, now, ``what is the cutoff date?'' Well, that is a good question because you would think in the global competition, the answer could be given ``when is the cutoff date for Germany, for Japan, for Taiwan?'' And all our competition that has been investing way more than this. They just pour in the research and development, and we are trying to catch up, since we do not have long-term investments here in the United States--it is everything short term with the Wall Street market. It is tough, tough to get these little, small, fledgling industries going because they go to the market seeking credit, but if it takes more than two-, three-, four-quarters, over a year to get a good return, they can put the money elsewhere. This is a quick turnaround society in which we live. And the others go for the long range and can lose some in the short term. Specifically, the Japanese this past year, 1994, took over an additional 1.2 percent of the automobile market, losing, if you please, losing $2.5 billion. Of course, they made it back in the Tokyo market selling cars in Japan. We do not have that kind of policy, and we do not want that kind of policy. And we are not going to have that kind of approach to our problems here. But to try to stay alive in the competition, we very wisely, with the support of the competitiveness council, and President Bush in his address to the joint session of the Congress, agreed to come forward and resolve the National Institute of Standards into the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and on a peer review merit basis to start meeting this kind of competition. We had a very, very thorough hearing about it this morning, and these offsets are not really going to hurt anybody with respect to jobs. In the other rescission bill, we have already knocked $90 million off the advanced technology program. We cannot afford, on these research centers, manufacturing centers, to knock another $24 million off of this. Specifically, in agriculture, when the question was asked, when is the cutoff date? Well, Roosevelt started it in 1933 with price supports and protective quotas, and we still have it. In fact, we have embellished it with advertising and export promotion. They got over $1 billion selling California raisins and almonds and California wines and all these other agricultural products. Here, for the poor fellow, working in industry, trying to hold his job, nothing but this babble of free-trade nonsense, whereby we are blaming America's labor for a flawed trade policy. There is no question in my mind; we have the most competitive industry worker, the most productive industrial worker in the entire world, but we have a silly, really nonpolicy of running around and acting like we are still on foreign policy and we have to sacrifice on the kind of relation in the Pacific rim, we have to defend them and we have to continue to give them all our jobs. I can talk at length, but I see others waiting. I do not want to go too long, but I wish my colleagues to understand its fullest importance. That is why I did not want to agree to a time limit right here at the initial part of this particular amendment. If we had, Senator, the same number of manufacturing jobs as we had 25 years ago, we would add 10 million manufacturing jobs. What am I saying? I am saying that in 1970, 25 years ago, 10 percent of the consumption of manufactured products in the United States of America was represented in imports. Now, over 50 percent of the consumption of manufactured products is represented in imports. If we had gone back to the 90 percent that we had of U.S. manufacture of this country's consumption of manufactured products, we would immediately add 10 million jobs. What does that mean? Some of my friends here have talked today about foreign policy. I would like to get to foreign policy. What does it mean? It means that if you cannot have a strong manufacturing sector, said Mr. Morita--former chairman of Sony--in a particular seminar we attended in Chicago years back, if you cannot have a strong manufacturing sector, you cannot be a nation state. And the country that loses its manufacturing power ceases to be a world power. What we are learning already in the WTO, I say to the Senator from Mississippi. We thought we had a consensus on who would be the president of the WTO--like Mickey Kantor would come in and say we are going to have a consensus. Oh, we are in charge. Consensus. Consensus. We got together on a consensus with the Italian as the choice. In fact, the poor fellow now--I happen to like him. They say he is a protectionist. OK, that is common sense to me. We have a high standard of living. We have to protect it. But the gentleman from Italy they said was totally unacceptable. We could not have him. We tried to get the man, Salinas, down in Mexico, and he bombed out. And then we ended up with the Italian, who is now going to be the president of the WTO. The second choice was Korea, and we are sitting around with our so- called consensus. On our most important choice to be made we have already been rolled with WTO. When you lose your economic power, you lose your influence in foreign policy. The foreign policy, Mr. President, of this land is like a three-legged stool. You have as one leg the values of the country; your second leg of military power; and your third leg of economic power. That one leg of values as a nation is strong. We sacrifice to feed the hungry in Somalia and bring democracy to Haiti. No one questions it or our military power, the military leg. We are the superpower. But when it comes around to the economic leg, Mr. President, I can tell you, here and now, that leg over the last 40 years, 45 years, has been fractured due to the special relationship that we had to give. We had to rebuild the capitalist economy the world around in order to contain communism. And bless it, the Marshall plan has worked. We have no misgivings about it. But now, with the fall of the wall, we have an opportunity here to repair that economic leg for America. And this one little initiative here out of all the other initiatives has been the bipartisan move toward production and manufacture and strengthening that economic leg. That is what this particular amendment does. It could not be considered, incidentally, in the subcommittee. We tried, but we could not get a hearing, as the ranking member. Our subcommittee report was read out without a single one Senator on this side of the aisle ever having heard of it. I wanted to have a chance to repair that and say, ``Look, set aside construction funds, money just hanging around not to be used in this fiscal year. Why rescind ongoing programs that we have in the several States on a merit basis that is one of the finest that we have ever got to try to help?" I will speak a little bit further. I see other Senators wanting to be recognized. I have the list of the industries here with respect to what we call the Advanced Technology Coalition, representing 5 million U.S. workers, 3,500 electronic firms, 329,000 engineers, and 13,500 companies in the manufacturing sector. They have endorsed this particular program. And it is really down to the minimal basis, not near what we give to NASA and all its research in space, not near what we have in agriculture, not near what we have in alternative energy and in nuclear endeavors. Here is a fledgling little $300 million program that we are trying to keep alive, and some, I think, unknowingly, have cut it, because over on the other side there is a gentleman--incidentally, from Pennsylvania--who says we ought to not only get rid of this but get rid of the entire Department of Commerce. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Can we temporarily set this aside so the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Pennsylvania could be recognized?

Mr. HOLLINGS. With no amendments to our amendment?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HOLLINGS. And without the time being allocated on our particular unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, right to the point. We are not adding back $26 million of the $24 million, and we are not adding back $14 million, but $7 million on the climate and global change research. I want to correct those figures. I wanted also to include, Mr. President, the point made that it does restore not only the manufacturing extension but the NOAA coastal ocean program, the NOAA climate and global Office, and it shows the United States-Israel Bilateral Science and Technology Agreement continues. Right to the point about growing: We transferred from the Department of Defense at the request of the Republican Coalition for Defense Reconversion. These programs did not grow. It was just really transferred as more applicable to the civilian side than the military side. That is why we have that amount in there. It certainly has not grown just like export promotion in agriculture, which I am sure my distinguished colleague from Mississippi supports, which is over 1 billion bucks. Talking about rescissions--now, just with the atmosphere or environment of frustration of amendments coming and going, I can say categorically, Mr. President, we could not offer an amendment all last week. I tried to. What we had was a fill-up-the-tree kind of approach and we had to take the amendments, and we had no votes. We sat around here for 3 days with no votes on amendments. My amendment has never been considered in subcommittee. Rolled in the Appropriations Committee as if we had considered it. And it only takes from other programs unexpended balances, rather than eliminate viable programs endorsed on both sides of the aisle that are not growing like topsy. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point a letter from the president of the Advanced Technology Coalition, with the encompassing endorsement.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I also ask unanimous consent we print a letter from President Clinton, an endorsement.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to speak regarding a technology/ NOAA amendment for myself, and Senators Thurmond, Bingaman, Breaux, Glenn, Graham, Leahy, Levin, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Lieberman, Kerrey, Murray, Pell, Rockefeller, and Sarbanes. There are many rescissions in the Commerce, Justice and State chapter of this bill which I am not pleased with. There are four particular rescissions in the Commerce Department section of the committee reported bill which my amendment would restore--the National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Program, the Office of the Under Secretary of Technology, the NOAA Climate and Global Change Research Program, and the NOAA Coastal Ocean Program. These rescissions total $37.5 million and my amendment proposes $37.5 million in alternative rescissions in their place. My amendment is fully offset, dollar for dollar. offsets The offsets in this amendment are quite simple, and they are all from other Commerce Department appropriations accounts. We propose rescinding $30 million from the unobligated balances in the NIST construction account. There are currently $195 million to such unobligated balances. Most of this amount is set to go on contract. But several projects have been held up due to environmental concerns and delays, and this rescission should have little impact on the agency being able to move ahead with modernization of its priority laboratories. This account has never been authorized, and there should be no reason why this rescission is not acceptable to the managers of the bill. Second, we have recommended two rescissions of prior year unobligated balances from NOAA. We have recommended rescinding $5 million of unobligated balances from NOAA's construction account. Since fiscal year 1992 Congress has appropriated over $9 million for above standard costs for a construction costs for this facility are the responsibility of GSA. The construction of this facility has been held up by a number of environmental and community concerns. Finally, we have proposed rescinding $2.5 million of prior year recoveries within the GOES Satellite contingency fund. This is a one- time appropriation account that Warren Rudman and I established in 1991 to ensure the GOES Satellite Program continued. The program got back on track, and the first GOES-next satellite is now in orbit--these unobligated funds are no longer needed. So each offset is based on good financial management. We have identified prior year appropriations that are not required or not needed at this time. Our proposed restorations, however, continue priority NOAA and technology programs that should not be cut. restorations Our amendment provides restoration of appropriations for four programs: Technology programs: With respect to the Commerce technology and competitiveness programs. The committee bill rescinds $26.5 million from the NIST Manufacturing Extension Program--from Manufacturing Technology Centers--and it rescinds $1.5 million from the Office of the Under Secretary of Technology, Mary Good. No. 1, Office of the Under Secretary for Technology: I find it hard to believe that this Senate would want to cut Under Secretary Mary Good's office. She is the finest Under Secretary for Technology we have had. She is the kind of leader that we had in mind when the Congress passed the 1988 Trade Act. This cut would make her either lay off her staff or terminate valuable projects, like the Commerce Department's share of the United States/Israel Science and Technology Agreement. When I was chairman, we annually exceeded the Bush and Reagan budget requests for this office. I was requested to do so by Republican members of this committee, and I was happy to do so. Further, I cannot understand why we would want to prevent the Under Secretary of Technology from following through participating in a technology and science agreement with our allies, the Israelis. So, first, our amendment restores funding for her office and prevents any reduction to the U.S./Israeli science and technology agreement. No. 2, Manufacturing extension: Second, the House bill and the committee-reported bill currently cuts the NIST Manufacturing Technology Centers by $26.5 million. Our amendment would restore $24 million of this program, and leave a rescission of $3.1 million. The Manufacturing Extension Program now supports 44 centers in 32 States. Most were started with defense conversion [TRP] funds but have now been transferred onto NIST's budget. These centers provide hands-on technical support to small to medium-sized manufacturers to help them upgrade equipment, improve production processes and save jobs. They are cost-shared with States and are competitively awarded. This is a merit- based program--neither the President nor the Secretary of Commerce, nor members of Commerce--can earmark these centers. Each center is tailored to the industrial characteristics and needs of the area in which it is located. So the center in Philadelphia, is different from the center in Albuquerque, NM, which is different again from the manufacturing extension center in Rolla, MO. Now there are two specific impacts from the rescission proposed in the committee reported bill. First, NIST will not be adding as many new centers as we intended when I fought for these funds in conference last year. And I should note that NIST informs me that they expect applications to come in from many States. Second, some of the 37 centers that were started with Defense appropriations will have to begin phasing out operations--because NIST will lack the funding to take over the Federal portion of their operational support. This is an effective program that has always been bipartisan. I remember when former Vice President Dan Quayle traveled to the Great Lakes Manufacturing Center in Cleveland, OH. He praised their work and was particularly impressed with their role in keeping an automotive part manufacturer in business. General Motors told the small firm to cut costs or they would contract with a Mexican firm. The NIST manufacturing center designed machinery to automate and modernize the firm's operations--and the company prospered and added even more jobs in Cleveland. In fact, there is a picture of the Vice President in the entrance to that Great Lakes Manufacturing Center.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi should understand, this does not add back. It does not add back one red cent. It is offset within the same budget for unexpended construction funds that are sitting there. I am here going along with the original premise and the continuing premise of rescissions. That is the basic premise. This amendment is in conformance. It does not add back. It readjusts allocations under the same budget from construction--whether you are going to build office buildings or you are going to start building jobs. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I support the amendment to reduce funding for Radio Free Europe and to restore $40.5 million for programs cut in this bill before us. Specifically, this amendment would restore: $26 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; $14.4 million for the Community Services Program for Older Americans. Mr. President, for many years, I have been a supporter of the continued operation of Radio Free Europe. Every year as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, I supported the Board for International Broadcasting's appropriations. But, now I look at this rescission bill and I look at the reductions that are proposed for programs like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, programs to prevent the use of illegal narcotics, and programs that serve the elderly and children--all programs that serve Americans here at home--and I can no longer support the appropriations for the radios. Programs for Americans here at home should and must have a higher priority. I have listened to the attacks on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, on support for National Public Radio and Public Television. The other side has argued that taxpayer funds should not be used to support public radio and television. I disagree. Public radio and television are among the finest investments made by this Government. They are an investment in the education of our people. But, if the other side is arguing against taxpayer support for public radio for Americans, how can they justify taxpayer support for Radio Free Europe. And, in this bill that the Appropriations Committee reported they have even proposed supplemental funding for Radio Free Europe while they are proposing rescissions in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That simply doesn't make sense. One of President Clinton's first reinventing government proposals was to phase out Radio Free Europe and to consolidate it with the Voice of America. This country spends over $320 million per year for the Voice of America's operations and facilities, and almost $230 million per year for Radio Free Europe. We did not phase-out Radio Free Europe. They conducted an impressive lobbying campaign to continue their existence, and the administration backed down. It agreed to reduce the Radios, but not to end their operation. But, times are changing. The world has changed. The cold war has ended. Many of the nations in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union had developed their own media and radio stations, and without jamming, they now had access to the BBC, CNN, Sky Television, and other Western media. Just last week the Washington Post carried an article discussing Russia since the fall of communism. While the article bemoaned the outbreak of organized crime, it also noted that Russia has developed a vigorous, and free mass media. And, as everyone can see from this rescission bill, times have changed here at home too. We have before us a $13 billion rescission bill. We are cutting programs that Americans rely on. Mr. President, in the budget game, in the appropriations business, we are continually involved in a process of setting priorities--of determining what is more important than something else. And, when I look at the programs that Senator Harkin, Senator Leahy, and Senator Reid have suggested in this amendment, for this Senator, there is no contest. They clearly are higher priority than continuing radio stations for Europe. There is no one in this room that does not think the Older Americans Act Community Service Employment Program has been a success. The average participant is a 68-year-old woman who has just lost her husband and has little or no work history outside the home. There are both elderly men and elderly women in the program, but this is the typical situation. All of the participants are low income by definition. This program provides a grant to nonprofit organizations to train participants and to place them in jobs. Initially, the program supports them at the minimum wage. For those who have good work skills, it moves them into full-time, unsubsidized employment. For the others, it provides either formal or on-the-job training to prepare for employment. n any case, the work done by these seniors in libraries, home health agencies, child care centers, and other public, nonprofit, and private jobs is an absolute boon to the community and to the taxpayer. It would be pennywise and pound foolish to send these low-income senior citizens to the welfare line instead of letting them do work that is needed for the minimum wage. Furthermore, we are talking in committee about getting people off of welfare and into work, and here on the Senate floor we are cutting a program that does just that. Mr. President, 16,000 elderly people are being supported at the minimum wage nationwide through the Community Service Employment for Older Americans Program. There are 900 in South Carolina alone, and we will cut 106 if this amendment fails. The dignity of these elderly people is certainly more important than overextending our past commitment to taxpayer-funded European radio. Mr. President, Senator Helms, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Snowe have proposed a major reorganization of our international affairs agencies. They are, at this time, considering major reductions in international affairs agencies. Their proposed organization chart for the reinvented Department of State includes an ``America Desk.'' Well, it is clear to me that time has run out for Radio Free Europe, and we could well help their reorganization effort at this time. Clearly, Radio Free Europe no longer can pass the ``America Desk'' review. I commend Senators Harkin, Leahy, and Reid for bringing this amendment to the Senate. Phasing out Radio Free Europe is a tough decision to make. But, it is far preferable to the other reductions that have been proposed in this rescission bill. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Frank AuCoin, South Carolina's small-business person of the year for 1995. He is owner and president of Sign It Quick, a computerized sign- making company based in Charleston. Success has not simply knocked on the door for Frank. He has done it the old fashion way--by working hard. He is a self-made businessman whose sign-making chain now boasts nine franchises in South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee. The chain generated nearly $4 million in sales just last year. While Frank and his wife, Teresa, were operating a chain of bookstores in South Carolina and Georgia in the early 1970's, they realized the potential of the sign-making business when they could not get their signs made quickly enough. So they started making their own. By the late 1980's when the technology became available to generate computer-aided signs, Frank realized that he could start a business to create and mass-produce signs easily. In 1987, Frank and his wife invested their life savings into the concept of a computer-generated sign-making company and Sign It Quick was born. Mr. President, I am delighted to commend Frank AuCoin's many successes as a small businessman. When he opened his first store he created the world's largest sign--one that was the length of five football fields. Since then, he has created signs for two Super Bowls, the Hard Rock Cafe chain, Euro-Disney, and Donald Trump. Recently, the Post and Courier in my hometown of Charleston, reported that Frank was South Carolina's small-business person of the year. Now he is competing for the national honor from the U.S. Small Business Administration this month. I hope he wins. I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Post and Courier, Mar. 18, 1995] Sign It Quick Owner Is 1995 SBA Honoree Frank AuCoin, owner and president of Charleston-based Sign It Quick, has been named South Carolina's small-business person of the year for 1995. The honor was announced Friday by its sponsor, the U.S. Small Business Administration. ``I'm really happy for the city of Charleston because this is the first time a company from here was ever in the running for this,'' AuCoin said. Sign It Quick is a computerized sign-making company that operates nine franchises in South Carolina, Florida and Tennessee. The company, formed in 1987, is headquartered at 5101 Dorchester Road in Charleston Heights. Sign It Quick has 60 employees. Companywide sales were $3.7 million last year. Coincidentally, South Carolina's small- business person of the year for 1994 was a Sign It Quick franchise owner, Julie Wetherell of Columbia. The SBA will recognize its top small-business honorees next month in Washington, D.C. Companies represent each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands/Puerto Rico. The national small-business person of 1995 will be picked from the 53 business owners. Also, AuCoin will be honored at a luncheon in Columbia May 4. SBA bases its selections on factors such as innovations, staying power, employee growth and sales increases.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering the nomination of Mr. Robert Pitofsky to serve on the Federal Trade Commission [FTC]. The President has indicated his intention to name Mr. Pitofsky as Chairman of the FTC, if he is confirmed. Having previously served as a Commissioner and staff member, Mr. Pitofsky certainly understands the FTC's goals and duties. The Commission's two primary functions are first, to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices, and second, to ensure the operation of an efficient and competitive market-place. The Commission administers a number of Federal statutes, including the Federal Trade Commission Act--which provides the Commission its consumer protection authority-- and the Sherman, Clayton, and Robinson-Patman antitrust statutes, as well as the Fair Credit Reporting, Fair Debt Collection Practices, and Truth in Lending Acts. A few of the specific duties include safeguarding the public from false advertisement of goods and services, telemarketing fraud, unfair pricing of products, unfair mergers and acquisitions, illegal boycotts, and other unfair methods of competition. As we enter the 21st century, and a new era of global trade, the FTC undoubtedly will continue to face many challenges in fulfilling its responsibilities. Mr. Pitofsky will, if confirmed, chair the Commission at a time when Federal agencies are facing the possibility of severe budget reductions. Mr. Pitofsky is aware of the tremendous challenges confronting the FTC. He is committed to the principles and goals of the Commission, and is prepared to take on the responsibilities of the FTC Chairman. I urge my colleagues to approve his nomination. nomination of dr. jackson