Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 621, As Modified

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I just was trying my best to give colleagues a summary of State action on Y2K problems. This is pretty well up to date. Seven States have passed Y2K government immunity legislation; that is, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Nevada, Virginia, Oklahoma and Wyoming. Twelve States have killed Y2K government immunity problems: Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. One State has passed the Y2K business immunity bill; that is Texas. Whereas 10 States have killed Y2K business immunity bills: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Washington. Two States have killed the bankers immunity bill, originally the year 2000 computer problem: Arizona and Indiana. Two States have killed the Computer Vendors Immunity Bill; that is California and Georgia. One State has killed the bill to limit class action suits; that is Illinois, the distinguished Presiding Officer's State. And 38 States have miscellaneous pending Y2K bills at this time. I think the distinguished Senator from California wanted to point out an interesting provision in the State of Arizona.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is exactly right. That came out at the hearings. Witnesses have attested to it.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. How could they be entitled to anything, any economic losses under State contract law when it was not contracted for? You see, you just contract to buy the item. If I go into Circuit City, or whatever it is, and get the computer, I don't say: Now, wait a minute, if something goes wrong with this computer here 60 days from now or something else like that and my business is closed down for 90 days or whatever, then I want the loss of customers, the loss of good will, and all these economic losses. I am only contracting for the item. So when you say ``exactly what he is entitled to under State contract law,'' it is saying in the same breath he is not entitled to any economic loss under tort law. Isn't that the case?

Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator had two amendments. Is this one related to the safety and health conditions? Is that the Murkowski amendment? That is the one. OK. No objection.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished Senator from Colorado. This was exactly the intent when we reported this bill out by 11 to 9. Of the nine that was the main concern--that if there were a problem, we have laws to take care of these problems. We have had laws on the books for years. Business was moving. What the Senator is saying here in this particular amendment is that this shouldn't preempt any greater provisions of State law, that the State law would apply. I think it is an excellent amendment. I am glad to accept it.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. I thank the distinguished Senator. The Feinstein and Dodd amendments are now cared for. As listed in the calendar for today, it is correct. We agree.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, has switched with the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli.

Mr. HOLLINGS. When the Senator says ``exactly what he is entitled to under the contract,'' when I go buy a computer from you, under my contract I am not contracting for any economic loss or loss of customers, or wasted moneys for advertising because the business has closed down, or any of the other economic losses. When the Senator says ``exactly under State contract law,'' the contract is only for the item itself. State contract law is not State tort law. I take it that is the difference. ``Exactly what he is entitled to,'' not under State tort law but under State contract law; isn't that the Senator's position?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. I will run right down, trying to save time. It says: But it was a Y2K problem which recently posed a serious threat to my practice, and that is why I am here this morning. As a matter of clarification, although I am a doctor, I am not here to speak on behalf of the American Medical Association. Although I am also a small businessman, I am not here to speak on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. I cannot tell you how these organizations feel about the legislation before the committee. But I can tell you how it would have affected my practice and my business. I am one of the lucky ones. While a potential Y2K failure impacted my practice, the computer vendor that sold me the software system and I were able to reach an out-of-court settlement which was fair and expedient. From what my attorney, Harris Pogust, who is here with me today tells me, I doubt I would have been so lucky had this legislation been in effect. In 1987, I purchased a computer system from Medical Manager, one of the leading medical systems providers in the country. I use a Medical Manager system for tracking surgery, scheduling due dates and billing. The system worked well for me for ten years until the computer finally crashed from lack of sufficient memory. In 1996, I replaced my old system with a new, state of the art pentium system from Medical Manager for $13,000. This was a huge investment for a practice of my size. I remember joking with the computer salesman at the time that this was a big purchase for me, and that I was counting on this system to last as long as the last one did. I remember the salesman telling me that he was sure that I would get at least ten years out of it. He showed me a list of how many of the local customers had used the Medical Manager for longer than ten years. The salesman pointed out the advertising brochure, and so forth. But just one year later, I received a form letter from Medical Manager telling me that the system I had just purchased had a Y2K problem. Here comes business. This is the practice of the business that is going on here now in June of 1999, 6 months ahead of January 1, 2000. The computer people are moving in and they are saying: Wait a minute, you have got a Y2K problem. I quote again: It was a problem that would make it impossible for me to schedule due dates or handle my administrative tasks--as early as 1999. Medical Manager also offered to fix the problem that they had created--but for $25,000. I was outraged, as I suspect anyone sitting around this table would be. The original system had cost me $15,000 when I purchased it in 1986. The upgraded system cost me $13,000 in 1996. Now, a year later, they wanted another $25,000. They knew when they sold me the $13,000 system that it would need this upgrade--but of course, they didn't tell me. I wrote back to the company that I fully expected them to fix the problem for free, since I had just bought the system from them and I had been promised that it would work long into the future. The company ignored my request, however, and several months later, sent me an estimate for fixing the problem--again, for over $25,000. At this point, I was faced with a truly difficult dilemma. My practice depends on the use of a computer system to track my patients' due dates, surgeries and billings--but I did not have $25,000 to pay for an upgrade. Additionally, I was appalled at the thought of having to pay Medical Manager for a problem that they had created and should have anticipated. If I had to pay that $25,000, that would force me to drop many of my indigent patients that I now treat for free. Since Medical Manager insisted upon charging me for the new system, and because my one-year old system was no longer dependable, I retained an attorney and sued Medical Manager to fix or replace my computer system at their cost. Within two months of filing our action, Medical Manager offered to settle by providing all customers who bought a non-Y2K compliant system from them after 1990 with a free upgrade that makes their systems Y2K compliant by utilizing a software ``patch.'' This witness appeared before the committee attesting to the fact that what really happened is the attorney put it on the Internet. Whoopee for the Internet. And once he got his case on the Internet, some 20,000 purchasers in a similar situation started calling on the phone and filing in. Then on a cost/benefit--business is business--they knew what the law was. They knew they intentionally misled. The salesman had said: Man, this thing will last you more than 10 years, like your last system. In a year it was already on the blink. They wanted to charge $25,000--more than he paid for the first system and the upgrade combined. They got a free upgrade. They paid the lawyers, too. They were tickled to death to get out of this one after it got on the Internet. Let me quote: This settlement gave me what I wanted from Medical Manager--the ability to use my computer system as it was meant to be used. To my great satisfaction, the legal system worked for me and the thousands of other doctors who bought Medical Manager's products since 1990. In fact, since I brought my claim against Medical Manager, I have received numerous telephone calls and letters from doctors across the country who had similar experiences. Reading on and skipping a good part, to conclude: I became a doctor, and a sole practitioner, because I love delivering babies. I give each of my patients my home phone number. I am part of their lives. This Y2K problem could have forced me to give all of that up. It is only because of my lawyer, and the court system, that I can continue to be the doctor that I have been. This bill, and others like it, would take that away from me. Please don't do that. Leave the system as it is. The court worked for me--and it will work for others. It is working all over the country, and, frankly, at a very minimal cost. The consummate sum total of all products--this is product liability matters--of all product liability verdicts does not exceed the $12.1 billion that Pennzoil received in a verdict against Texaco. When business sues business, oh, boy, as Senator Dirksen stood here at this chair and said: Then it gets into money. He said: A billion here and a billion there, and before long it runs into money. This is something to protect the consumers of America. It is very much needed. They are working on it at the State level, and they have plenty of notice. They do not need a bill to say, come January 1st, give them another 90 days. We are going to give them 90 days beginning right now with the debate. And we are going to give them another 60. Happy day. We are giving them more days right now. Just use the law, use your sense, do what business practices are doing all over the country. But there is no question that this thing here is just the footprint of a political exercise by those entities downtown at the Chamber, which I am embarrassed for because I used to be a champion of the Chamber of Commerce. Talk about a businessman's politician, I challenge anybody to meet the record we made bringing business, and continue to bring, to the State of South Carolina. Incidentally, none of them have said anything about Y2K; none of them have said anything about product liability. I remember taking another prospect the other day to Bosch. They make not only all the fuel injectors but all of the antilock brakes for Toyota and Mercedes and a 10-year contract for General Motors. Just going along down the line, I said: By the way, what do you have on product liability? The fellow got insulted. He said: Product liability? He ran over and said: Look here. He showed me a serial number on every one of the antilock brakes. He said: We would know immediately what went wrong. You see, substantive basic tort law brings about due care, brings about safety, brings about sound products. It is working in America. And here comes a bunch of pollster politicians and a downtown group, greedy as they are, trying to ruin small business, that is going to have a problem. Here is what the Washington Post, which is usually on the other side of trial lawyers and everything else of that kind, said: The Senate is considering a bill to limit litigation stemming from the Year 2000 computer problem. The current version, a compromise reached by Sens. John McCain and Ron Wyden, would cap punitive damages for Y2K-related lawsuits and require that they be preceded by a period during which defendants could fix the problems that otherwise would give rise to the litigation. Cutting down on frivolous lawsuits is certainly a worthy goal, and we are sympathetic to litigation reform proposals. But this bill, though better than earlier versions, still has fundamental flaws. Specifically, it removes a key incentive for companies to fix problems before the turn of the year, and it also responds to a problem whose scope is at this stage unknown. Nobody knows just how bad the Y2K problem is going to be or how many suits it will provide. Also unclear is to what extent these suits will be merely high-tech ambulance chasing or, conversely, how many will respond to serious failures by businesses to ensure their own readiness. In light of all this uncertainty, it seems premature to give relief to potential defendants. The bill is partly intended to prevent resources that should be used to cure Y2K problems from being diverted to litigation, but giving companies prospective relief could end up discouraging them from fixing those same problems. The fear of significant liability is a powerful incentive for companies to make sure that their products are Y2K compliant and that they can meet the terms of the contracts they have entered. To cap damages in this one area would encourage risk taking rather than costly remedial work by companies that might or might not be vulnerable to suits. The better approach would be to wait until the implications of the problem for the legal system are better understood. Liability legislation for the Y2K problem can await the Y2K. That is the message of Business Week. It was very interesting that they reached the same conclusion. I quote from that March 1 article: Other industries are following suit. It went on to talk about the 2000. Through the Automotive Industry Action Group, General Motors and other carmakers have set Mar. 31 deadlines for vendors to become Y2K-compliant. There is the Pinto case. They know what is coming down the road. They run good business. If I was on the board of General Motors, I would say right on. We are not waiting for political fixes of tort law by politicians looking for silicon contributions. In March, members of the Grocery Manufacturers of America will meet with their counterparts from the Food Marketing Institute to launch similar efforts. Other companies are sending a warning to laggards and shifting business to the tech-savvy. ``Y2K can be a great opportunity to clean up and modernize the supply chain,'' says Roland S. Boreham, Jr., chairman of the board of Baldor Electric Co. in Fort Smith, Arkansas. There you go. They look upon it as a wonderful business opportunity, the Y2K problem. They, in essence, are saying, come on. Let's have the problem. Let's find out who is efficient, who can really supply us. Let's find out who can become compliant in time. You still have 6 more months. But politicians are coming up here, we have to get there and identify. We have to get those contributions. We have to get with the Chamber of Commerce and Victor Swartz at the NAM and that crowd and show them that we are good boys, and we are going to be on their voting charts that they will publish when I run for reelection and everything else. They have a political problem. It is not a Y2K problem. Business says, right on with the Y2K problem. We can clean up the supply chain, find out who is not really compliant and everything else early on here in 1999. We are not waiting for January 1, 2000. Right to the point, this particular legislation changes 200 years of tried and true tort law, all for a special group that has the unmitigated gall to come in and say all this about punitive damages, lotteries, trial lawyers, frivolous lawsuits, and everything else. Nothing is going to be frivolous after January. We have talked it to death already this year. They have published the business articles about it. Everybody has known about it. Every case, come January 1, ought to be punitive, I can tell you that, because they ought to know about it. My particular power company group has already met and they have tested to make sure it works. My State of South Carolina was just cited, by July 1 the entire State system will be ready and going. So everybody is doing it. What we see and hear at the Washington level with the McCain-Wyden amendment is, sit back, rest on your fanny, don't do anything. We are going to take care of you, because on the one hand we are going to provide a time that will put you out of business waiting the 90 days, because you are a small businessman and you have to do business. And then after the 90 days, we are going to say, by the way, the part was made in Malaysia, so you have the wrong party. Now, that is the game in this particular McCain-Wyden-Dodd amendment. It should be defeated outright. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman is correct, the Senator has had sufficient time now during the negotiations over the past 4 weeks to consider, after hearings before our committee, all the different ramifications and contentions by the parties. It is the intent of Members on this side of the aisle to expedite the vote on this particular measure whereby we will have only amendments that are germane to the particular issue, and that they be limited and there be no delaying conduct and action. I must address immediately some of the comments made by my distinguished colleague from Arizona with respect to trial lawyers, with respect to punitive damages, the lottery, and various other things that go without contest up here in Washington because they look good on a poll. If we were to poll the States' attorneys general or the Governors, they wouldn't be here at all. The State tort law has taken care of product liability, according to the American Bar Association, in a very efficient manner over the many years. In fact, we have the safest of all societies in America as a result of product liability. That is the subject at hand, of course--product liability--namely, the computerization, the software, the glitch or the Y2K problem that could occur January 1, 2000. Everybody is on notice for January 1, 2000. All of these measures before the Senate--the McCain-Wyden-Dodd amendment--say January 1, if we have a glitch, we should first talk about it for 2 or 3 months. We have 6 months right now. We have had 30 years. The computer industry, the software industry, has appeared before the committee. They have known about this problem for the past 30 years. Ross Perot says it is easy to fix; just take the year 1972; everything conforms in the year 2000 with the year 1972, and we have a fix. There are other sinister drives, motives, and intents behind this particular measure that must be surfaced at the very outset. This is not a product liability problem for the computer industry. They know and have warned everybody, and everybody is making tests. For example, the best of the best, some 2,000 leading industries, are named in March in Business Week. The market, of course, has taken care of the problem. It is a nonproblem, as far as Y2K, as far as computerization, as far as the product itself. There is another problem with respect to the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and that crowd coming in here and trying to diminish the rights of consumers, the protection for consumers, of all Americans. March 1 in Business Week, an article tells a story about Lloyd Davis, in his Golden Plains Agricultural Technologies, Colby, KS, business. He needs $71,000 to get his particular system Y2K-compliant. He has a problem. He can borrow up to $39,000, but he has not been able to borrow the rest of it. We are not talking about an injured party in an auto collision who has a bad back and brings a frivolous suit--nobody can tell whether the back is bad or not until after the verdict--and then walks away. That has happened in America several times. But these are substantial small businesses. I am quoting now from the article: Multinationals such as General Motors, McDonald's, Nike, and Deere, are making the first quarter--or the second at the latest--the deadline for partners and vendors to prove they're bug free. A recent survey says that 69 percent of the 2,000 largest companies will stop doing business with companies that can't pass muster. Mr. President, 2,000 companies of the blue chip corporations in America here are coming forward and saying--already, 2 months ago, 3 months ago--if you are not compliant by the end of this month, June at the latest, we are going to have to find another supplier. We cannot play around. We have to do business. We are going to others: Cutting thousands of companies out of the supply chain might strain supply lines and could even crimp output. But most CEOs figure it will be cheaper in the long run to avoid bugs in the first place. Some small outfits are already losing key customers. In the past year, Prudential Insurance Co. has cut nine suppliers from its ``critical'' list of more than 3,000 core vendors, and it continues to look for weak links, says Irene Deck, Vice President for Information Systems at the company. And Citibank Vice President, Ray Apte, ``cuts have already been made.'' Mr. President, you are talking about frivolous lawsuits. Not with all this warning, with all the record made and public hearings here in the Government itself and the Congress, with all the chances to cure all the glitches. We have had chance upon chance upon chance and effort upon effort. The most recent one here, of course, was just a couple of weeks ago in the Washington Post: Banking regulators worried about the year 2000 readiness of a big ATM service company in the west have just ordered it to get in shape by June 30 or face possible contract cancellations by its 750 bank customers. The point is, business is not telling business let's work it out in 90 days, like the law that they propose. Business is telling business: Blam, you either get with it, business is business, or we are going to cut you off. As an old-time trial lawyer, the punitive damages they are talking about is only for willful neglect. By January 1, 6 months from now, we have this big debate, we have the best of minds, we have the best of witnesses, we have the best of software experts coming, everything else--we have the best of business leadership saying: Get with it or we are going to cut you off. If they have not gotten with it by January 1, that is willful neglect. All cases after January 1, under the record being made here in 1999 in the National Government, ought to indicate if there ever were an indication of willful neglect, willful misconduct, it would be now on Y2K. No, this is not really about business because business cannot wait around. Incidentally, the claimants are not frivolous--which is a remarkable thing, how they can tie people in. The National Federation of Independent Business ought to be standing here with me in this well, because the average computer for these small businesses, I would say, is around $20,000. These are not people willy-nilly looking for a lawsuit. They are not looking for a punitive damage lottery and all of that kind of nonsense that they make fun of here and try to stir up the emotions and say we have those old trial lawyers. The truth of the matter is, these small business people have to get on and do business. They have no time to get a lawyer and wait the 90 days and come back around after 90 days, then file a pleading, and then on and on. Then under their particular bill, on joint and several--I cannot tell where the parts are made, but I guarantee the majority of the parts of the computers are made outside of the United States. If I cannot get joint and several, where am I going? To India, where a lot of the parts in computerization are made? Am I going to Malaysia to bring my suit? I am a small businessman. Oh, no, they have to get joint and several out of here. Why? On account of product liability, the Chamber of Commerce on account of Tom Donahue and Victor Schwartz. I have been here for 20 some years in the Federal Government proudly standing on the side of the American Bar Association, the Association of State Supreme Court Justices, the State legislators. They met and they back us up every time, because this is a problem at the local level that has long since been solved in tort law, in verdicts made there. But otherwise, long since, here, there is evidence upon evidence of businesses saying we cannot wait around for lawsuits and lawyers and punitive damages and everything else of that kind. We have to get on with it. But Silicon Valley has the money. People are falling over pell-mell. I wish we could have passed campaign financing reform because we are going to talk money out here on the floor, which is when this legislation really gets any kind of impetus or attention. Everybody wants Silicon Valley contributions. I do, too. But I cannot see changing 200 years of tort law in order to get it. Most advisedly, if General Motors came up here to the National Government and said: Look, we are going to put out a new model come the first of the year, and it might have some glitches. So, if we find any glitches in our 2000 year's model, what we need to do is get together with anybody who has a glitch, and let's talk to them for 2 or 3 months. I don't know what they are supposed to do with the car during that time because it will not work. But that is the law they want to pass: let's talk about it for 90 days. How fanciful and nonsensical this whole move is. Thereafter, bring your lawsuit. By the way, everybody has known about this particular problem for years on end, every business magazine and everything else. But let's not have any punitive damages or willful misconduct. Let's not have any joint and several liability. General Motors would say: Senator, how about changing 200 years of the State tort law for me because I am going to put out a new model? You would run General Motors out of town. You would not listen to them at all. But General Motors is not up here making those kinds of contributions. Silicon valley is. Oh, boy, we can bring the records here and show just exactly what the issue is. Everybody wants to show I am a friend of technology. They do not have to talk to this Senator about technology. I authored the Advanced Technology Program. I authored the Advanced Technology Business Partnership Act. I have been working with the young computerization people and technology people for 20-some years at least. So don't tell me about technology and being a friend of technology. What they are is a friend of campaign contributions. So, you have the money marrying up with the manifest intent of the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Business. The reason I can correlate them so easily is I had to face them last year in the campaign. Of course the Chamber of Commerce endorsed my opponent because I was such a sorry Senator. Then in February they gave me the Enterprise Award for the year 1998, since I had done such a good job. They do not have any shame. That is the bunch with the most gall I ever met to come around, take the fellow they opposed, and then give him an award for doing such an outstanding job; the very reason, such a sorry job, why they opposed him. But that is the kind of shenanigans we have going on and giving it an official recognition here. Do not let me leave out the insurance companies. The insurance companies out there right now are at a hearing, Mr. President, before your subcommittee and mine: ``No fault.'' But they have a different name for it. It has not worked. They have tried it in Connecticut, they have tried it in Georgia, they have tried it in Nevada, but it has not worked, and they canceled it out. We do not need a hearing. We have the actual experience in the States. But the insurance companies, at every turn, are in here driving to change the laws here, there and yonder for money, to increase their profits. I have been at the State level and have been a sort of States rights Senator. I have been defending insurance at the State level, saying it has been regulated. They have come with Y2K; they have come with product liability; they have come with auto choice. They call it no fault. They want a little tidbit here and a little tidbit there. Let's federalize interstate commerce--if any business is an interstate commerce--and let's federalize the insurance industry in the United States and set the rules for all 50 States, and then they will not have to qualify it. I bring these things out because they are most important, for the simple reason that the trial lawyers, for example, and punitive damages--both--do a wonderful job for America. Let's go back to the leading case: the Pinto case back in 1978. There is an outstanding attorney in California named Mark Robinson. He got a verdict for $3.5 million actual damages and $125 million punitive damages. He never collected a red cent of the punitive damages. When the Senator from Arizona gets up here and talks about the punitive damages lottery, the American Bar Association said less than 4 percent of all tort cases result in a punitive damage verdict, and half of those are reversed again on appeals. So we are talking about less than 2 percent. He is up here describing it as ``just roll the dice and we can get a lot of money and we have a lottery coming.'' What has that punitive damage verdict done? Go over, as I have done, to the National Safety Transportation Board and you will find out that in the last 4 years--Mr. President, I want you to listen to this statistic--they have had 73,854,669 vehicle recalls. There were some last week. Chrysler was recalling some cars. Another one had something to do with the ignition; it was causing fires. Another one had something else wrong with it. We are constantly getting the recalls. Why? Not because they love safety, but because of the punitive damage lottery and the trial lawyers; they are going to get them. On a cost-benefit basis, in the Pinto case, they said do not worry about it, we can kill a few, let the gas tank explode and let them die; but the cost of those deaths is not near as much as the profit we make on selling the car. On cost-benefit, as a result of trial lawyers, we have had, just in the last 4 years, 73 million recalls. That has promoted tremendous safety in America, has saved thousands of lives, millions of injuries, I can tell you that. If they want to give a good Government award to anybody with respect to bringing about safety in America, find Mark Robinson in San Diego and give him the award, because I am proud of him and America is proud of him. The trouble is, they are being derided and rebuked and defamed in the National Congress because we have a bunch of Congressmen and Senators who have never been in a courtroom, never tried a case, do not understand that people do not have time for frivolous lawsuits. Trial lawyers know they take on all the expenses, they take on all the time and effort for the discovery, for the interrogatories, for all the motions, all the appearances, thereupon the trial and thereupon--this is what they call a lottery--get all 12 jurors by the greater weight of the preponderance of evidence, take the case on appeal and get a verdict from the Supreme Court, and then they get that fee they all talk about now in the tobacco cases. The trial lawyers have done more than Koop and Kessler. I have been up here working with them on cancer. I have received national awards, I can say immodestly. I helped and worked and got a center for this particular disease, but I can tell you advisedly, after 32-some years, these trial lawyers on smoking, on lung cancer, on heart attacks, saving lives, preventing cancer deaths, have done way more than Koop and Kessler, because we used to meet out here and nobody would pay attention to Koop and nobody would pay attention to Kessler. When the trial lawyers then started bringing the cases and getting these settlements, it was not the fees that they got but, more or less, the good that they brought to our society. Let's give them the good Government award this morning. I want to clear the air here because we have just run into all of this lottery stuff and spurious suits and frivolous suits. This case involves small business folks who have put $20,000 or more into a computer, and they are trying, like the doctor who appeared before the committee, their dead-level best to get some results because they are not waiting, of course, until January 1, 2000. We had the testimony of Dr. Robert Courtney on February 9, 1999, before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The good doctor was from Atlantic County, NJ. I had never met him before, but he gave an outstanding recount. I ask unanimous consent that his statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the Chairman's support and would point out that past and present cancer research demonstrate that these telemedicine techniques would be beneficial to military populations. this telehealth program will replicate the success of the South Carolina model in New York. Once validation of this has been accomplished, a much broader application can be made to other types of cancers at military sites throughout the nation.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the distinguished Chairman.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President I would like the attention of my colleagues to point out a fine program worthy of funding in the Defense Appropriations bill. the South Carolina-New York Cancer Prevention and Telehealth Program design will build on the successful prostate cancer prevention, research, and telemedicine protocol which has already been established at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) through the support of the Department of Defense. The current protocol will be expanded to employ real-time, state-of-the-art telemedicine training and technology to prevent, detect, and diagnose prostate cancer in our men in uniform. The program will utilize expertise of leading medical institutions such as MUSC and Sloan Kettering Memorial Cancer Center to provide our military servicemen with treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Keller Army Community Hospital at the US Military Academy at West Point, and the Beaufort Naval Hospital.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the heroism of Officer Perrin Love, a private in the Charleston Police Department. Officer Love died a tragic death last Saturday morning, when he was accidentally shot by his partner while pursuing an armed suspect. Hard-working, dedicated, and courageous, Police Officer Perrin Love was a credit to the Force and the City of Charleston. All who knew him liked and respected him, and though he was only a rookie, everyone on the Charleston Police Force believed he had a bright future as a law enforcement officer. Officer Love graduated first in his class from the Police Academy in Portland, Oregon, and had earned high marks for his performance on the Charleston Force. He earned his first stripe earlier than most new officers on the Charleston Force. Public service and devotion to duty were the hallmarks of Perrin Love's life. Before becoming a police officer, he served with distinction in the United States Navy. As the Charleston Post and Courier wrote in its memorial to Officer Love: ``Officer Perrin `Ricky' Love was doing exactly what he wanted when he died Friday. He was wearing a uniform, serving the public, and enforcing laws he believed in.'' Mr. President, men and women like Officer Love are a credit to their families, to their uniforms, and to this nation. Law officers like Perrin Love always give me hope for our future. These brave souls continue to patrol our cities, enforce our laws, and protect our lives and property at great risk, asking nothing in return except the privilege to wear their uniforms and the knowledge that they have the hard-won respect of their neighbors and their peers. According to his fellow officers, Officer Love embodied all the qualities one wants in an officer of the law: he was brave and dedicated to serving his fellow citizens and the law, but he also loved his community and worked hard to establish good relations with everyone on his beat. His tragic death is a blow to his family, to his fellow officers, and to the City of Charleston. I join all the people of Charleston in mourning his passing and expressing my most sincere condolences to his sister, Jennifer Love, and his parents, Joshua and Nancy Love. I hope the knowledge that the entire community laments the loss of such an honorable and admirable man as Officer Love will be of some small comfort to them in their time of grief.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to support S. 247, the Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act. This legislation represents a first step towards providing a viable competitor to cable in the multichannel video programming marketplace. Significantly, S. 247 permits direct-to- home satellite providers to transmit local broadcast signals into local markets, and eliminates the 90 day waiting period for existing cable subscribers who wish to switch to satellite service. These critical changes in the law will substantially help satellite providers compete with their cable counterparts. I also support, for the most part, the inclusion in S. 247 of the floor amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, Amendment No. 372. This amendment is identical to the text of the committee reported amendment to S. 303, the Satellite Television Act of 1999, which was reported favorably by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Senate Report No. 106-51. With one reservation, which I will explain shortly, I am pleased that the work product of the Commerce Committee will be included in the Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act, S. 247, as passed by the Senate. As reported by our committee, S. 303 complements S. 247 by removing additional statutory impediments that thwart the ability of direct-to- home satellite service providers to compete with cable television. S. 303 authorizes direct-to-home satellite service providers to offer their subscribers local television station broadcasts, but requires those providers to comply with the must-carry and retransmission consent rules that apply to cable television operators. In addition, S. 303 requires the Federal Communications Commission to use the Individual Location Longely-Rice Methodology to better determine who should be receiving distant network signals and who should not. Finally, the legislation requires the FCC to implement a waiver process to give consumers with unsatisfactory local television reception a timely process in which to have their concerns addressed. While I support moving S. 247, as amended, out of the Senate, I must note one concern with the legislation. I oppose provisions in S. 303 that sanction the illegal behavior of direct broadcast satellite service providers. Those provisions permanently grandfathered the transmission of distant network signals to subscribers residing outside of their local station's Grade A contour, but within the Grade B contour, regardless of whether those subscribers are actually able to receive the signals of their local stations. My opposition to this approach is explained in greater detail in the minority views filed with the Committee Report. In brief, I will say that the provisions I opposed put the legislation squarely in the position of sanctioning illegal behavior. As a law and order man, that is not an approach I am willing to support. Otherwise, I am extremely pleased that the Senate has been able to act so quickly on this important issue. By passing legislation so early in the 106th Congress, we have gone a long way toward ensuring greater competition in the video programming marketplace.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. It says: Hollywood is also a fat target. Oliver Stone's lyric depiction of random murder (rabidly viewed by the Columbine killers) to stylish slaughter in ``The Matrix,'' violence is the main course on our entertainment menu. I ask unanimous consent that a Time magazine article, again this month, entitled ``Bang, You're Dead,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Reading one sentence: Sift through teen movies of the past 10 years, and you could create a hindsight game plan for Littleton. Another interesting article, ``Gunning for Hollywood,'' appeared in U.S. News & World Report on May 10. I ask unanimous consent that the column by John Leo be printed in the Record.