Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. We still have until half past the hour, Mr. President.

Mr. HOLLINGS. What time has expired? I got 15 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Reading one line: The ABA believes that improvements in the tort liability system should continue to be implemented at the state level and not be preempted by broad federal law. So, they are talking about the compromise, and after all this give and take, and it is not quite an orderly bill, but those things that occur in time are compromises--not to mitigate against uniformity in the name of uniformity where they apply punitive damages to one group of States and not to the other group of States, not in the name of small business when they apply to big business where they were sneaked in--oh, no, we will have cloture; you can't offer any amendments. We are steamrolling this thing. Here we go. We are going to have a little handwritten amendment, by the majority leader, sneaked in at the last minute. We saw this occur with the tobacco bill where they sneaked in an amendment that had been before the Agriculture Committee, the Lugar bill, that never was reported out of the Agriculture Committee, but they sneaked that in. Now they want to sneak in an amendment not just to take care of small business but large business. I refer to this morning's headline of the New York Times: ``Don't Amend This Bill, Lott Says,'' and then proceeds to weigh in. So you have a little handwritten amendment here that the majority leader sneaked in--he can really take and amend his own bill, but this is a compromise worked out with the White House. This is a conspiracy in the U.S. Senate. I am not part of that conspiracy. I am for the consumers. I am for safety in America. I can tell you here and now, this is the most egregious conduct I have ever seen. Finally, with respect to the poor stay-at-home moms, because I see my distinguished colleague from Texas, who has got everyone sitting around the kitchen table time and, again, and stay-at-home moms. So the stay- at-home mom can get at the most, $250,000 or double, or less than that, whatever is less. I don't know what she gets when she stays at home and doesn't have any economic damage. Or take the employee at McDonald's, a young woman who gets $15,000 or $17,000 a year working away, just married, taking the Dalkon Shield, totally injured, can't reproduce, her life is ruined. Oh, we are going to be liberal here. We will protect the small business and not the injured party and go right to the heart of the matter and give her twice her economic damage, twice $17,000, or $34,000, and the companies will write that off in a flash. We know it. You know it and I know it. It will just be a cost of doing business. And safety in America is really downgraded. We have the most interesting safe operating businesses in the country as a result of this product liability. There is not an explosion, Mr. President. All the reports before the committee say, wait a minute, there has been an explosion in business suing business--Pennzoil suing Texaco in Texas for a verdict of $12 billion. But, no, that is the consummate verdicts of all the product liability cases put together. There are businesses suing businesses all over. That is fine business. But when the poor injured party comes, and on a contingent basis finds a lawyer willing to take her case, do the investigating, do the trial, appeal work, and win a percentage if successful, oh, that is terrible for the economy in America; it is terrible for international competition. Mr. President, in this global economy American firms contend at home and abroad against competitive foreign firms which operate in America. We have over 100 German plants, and over 50 Japanese plants. We have the BMWs, the Fuji Films, the Hoffman-Laroches--all these industries are coming to South Carolina, and not one is saying anything about product liability. They like what the States are doing, but we find a political problem because we have a representative downtown who is retained to get to the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the conference board, and now the National Federation of Independent Business, saying this is just a small business. Oh, boy, it is not for large injury, I can tell you that. It is not for large injury. It is not for the consumer, Mr. President. The whole setup here is ramroded through. I can personally, just in my handwriting, sneak a little amendment on at the desk, but the rest of us can't because we have cloture. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, again, it is not a national problem, as I have emphasized. From July 1, 1998, I ask unanimous consent that the American Bar Association letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished leader. Mr. President, what I was trying to emphasize was the particular so- called compromise. I know the plea is, wait a minute here, we have been trying and trying and trying and trying, and of course as long as Victor Schwartz and that crowd is paid, they will continue to try. But the fact of the matter is, there is no need. The States object to this particular mode. The Republican contract objects to this particular thing. They are trying to put and retain things back at the States when it comes to crime. They want the particular States to take care of it. When it comes to education, they want to do away with the Department, let the States handle it. They want to do everything else, except when you get with all the lawyers and, namely, the injured parties in America, which are bringing this magnificent safety record. So what happens is that without any demand from the States, but, rather, the opposition of the States--I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures dated last year, October 27, 1997, be printed in the Record with the updated letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures, June 18, 1998.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Sufficient time is 15 minutes. I am almost down to 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 15 minutes prior to the cloture vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair. ``South Carolina's factory workers lowest paid in SoutheastEconomic Grade.'' So, on the one hand, we are ``greedy,'' because we are not giving our jobs to the Sub Sahara Africa bill. And, on the other hand, we are low paying and slovenly because we are not paying them enough as the industry and labor sees it. So the textile manufacturers are caught between a rock and a hard place. There is no question that they are just as competitive as all that get out. But Washington should sober up from this global competition singsong. Specifically, let's go to Oneita, a manufacturing plant in Andrews, SC, that made T-shirts. They had 487 workers. They closed down because they went to Mexico because anybody can make a T-shirt. What happens, as we politicians say, ``Wait a minute.'' Before you open Oneita, you have to have clean air, you have to have clean water, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage, plant-closing notice, parental leave, safe workplace, safe working machinery. All of that goes into the cost of the product. You go down to 58 cents an hour in Mexico and have none of those requirements. So if your competition leaves, you have to leave. So you are losing the jobs. So the stance of the textile industry and the concern over the sub- Sahara bill is not ``greed;'' so-called ``trade'' makes people equal. Trade makes people unemployed. That is what has occurred. We are here to represent the industrial backbone, the manufacturing backbone of this Nation. As Akio Morita said some years back, talking about Third World countries, they have got to develop a strong manufacturing sector in order to become a nation state. And then, looking at me, he said, ``Senator, that world power that ceases to have its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.'' So we have the three-legged stool. On the first leg, the one of values, we are strong; the second leg, the one of military, we are strong; but the third leg over the past 50 years has been fractured economically. It has shortened. And that is the danger to the Nation's economy, and not just to the textile workers of South Carolina. It is a fundamental concern that these excellent jobs and excellent industries receive fair treatment. We have done more than our fair share to spread capitalism in the Pacific rim, into Korea and everywhere else, down to Mexico, over into Europe initially after the Marshall Plan, and now to Africa. But let's see that we contain that industry in America's economic self-interest. I yield the floor and thank the distinguished Chair. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Indiana and the distinguished Senator from Texas raised the question of the sub-Sahara bill. I had heard the expression that ``trade,'' says the Senator from Texas, ``makes people equal,'' and then went on, of course, to say that the sub-Sahara bill should not be blocked by ``greedy special interests''; they shouldn't prevent the passage of the bill; ``special interests,'' namely, of course, the textile industry. What happens, in all candor, is almost like the Community Chest and the United Fund, ``giving at the office,'' doing your fair share. This started way, way back in the 1950s. This particular Senator appeared as Governor back before the International Tariff Commission at the time that Tom Dewey represented the Japanese industry, and chased me around the hearing at that particular time whereby we were concerned that 10 percent of the consumption of textiles and apparels in America was represented by imports. And they had a provision in law under the national security section that you had to find before a President could take action, that there be a finding that the particular product was important to our national security. President Kennedy, when he took office, appointed his Secretaries of State, Labor, Commerce, Defense, and Treasury--Secretary Dillon, at that particular time, Secretary Goldberg, Secretary Dean Rusk, Secretary Hodges, and then, of course, Secretary Freeman from Labor. And we presented the witnesses. The findings were that next to steel textiles was the second most important to national security; that we couldn't send them to war in a Japanese uniform. Since that time, of course, there have been various initiatives whereby we have given more than ``at the office.'' We have given more than our ``fair share,'' so that in the limited time let me categorically state that two-thirds of the clothing in this Chamber this minute is imported. We gradually are going out of business, and more particularly, since NAFTA, have gone out of business. What happens in my State, so as to understand, is that we have lost 24,000 textile and apparel jobs since the enactment of NAFTA in the State of South Carolina. We actually had 1 million apparel workers over the country when President Clinton came in, and we are down now to 781,000 in 1998. We have lost 219,000. Rather than being ``greedy,'' Mr. President--that is what I really want to correct--the textile industry is geared up competitively. You ought to go into one. Incidentally, calling them ``greedy,'' I have been through, I think, 13 of the Milliken plants. There is no bigger Republican than Roger Milliken. So you don't want to go around saying ``greedy'' Republican interests. Let's get away from that connotation, because the truth of the matter is you will find no more competitive industry than Milliken Textiles. They have won the Baldrige Award. They have set the pace for modernization, computerization, mechanization, and otherwise, electronically controlled. You ought to visit those people. They have cut back and downsized, and are extremely competitive, with the industry itself investing over $2 billion a year each year for the past 10 years, and trying to stay competitive and exist as an industry--not ``greedy'' at all. But what really happens is that these jobs are extremely important to our economy. They average around $7 to $10. It is up to $10 now. I am showing you a headline of Thursday, July 9, on breaking news in South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in a phrase, we ought to ``bail this buzzard.'' This bill ought to be killed outright. It is nothing more than a political farce. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia says 10 years; it is 20 years, really. What sustains a 20-year drive is nothing more than political polling. I was elected some 50 years ago, and if I have watched a dismaying trend, it is the lack of really addressing the true needs of a State or the Nation, and instead addressing the needs of the individual politician, as reflected in the political poll. Now, Mr. President, right to the point. We all have heard Shakespeare's comment that Dick the butcher calls out in Henry VI, ``First, we must kill all the lawyers.'' That is in response to the intent of fomenting anarchy, imposing tyranny; and Dick the butcher, like Adolf Hitler himself, wanted to get rid of the lawyers first. Dick the butcher says, ``First, we must kill all the lawyers,'' because he knew that as long as you have lawyers standing for individual rights, you cannot have anarchy; you cannot have tyranny. But ask people about lawyers--until they need one; just like doctors, until they need one-- and they will say get rid of all the lawyers. And over the 20-year period, I have kept my good friend Victor Schwartz in business. Maybe he will go out of business now with this jury-built nonsense called an amendment that we only got on yesterday, and I haven't had a chance-- that is why I have been scurrying around here at the desk--to pick up the thrust of this latest assault. But back to the initial point--we have been taken over by the pollsters. Only the week before last, the House of Representatives, the most central organ of our representative government, the body that controls the purse strings, voted overwhelmingly to do away with tax revenues, some $970 billion--just gut the source to pay the bills--that we are going to spend and spend and spend. They use substitutes now of borrowing from yourself. We passed section 13301 of the Budget Act to forbid it. They disregard it regularly, borrowing so much from Social Security, the highway trust fund, the airport trust fund, the civil service pension fund, the military retirees pension fund, and the Federal Financing Bank--at this point over $111 billion--to bring about talks of surplus. In fact, this year we are spending over $111 billion more than we are taking in--a deficit, if you please. But with all of the jargon around and the news media coverage that is supposed to educate and illuminate and keep us to the truth, politicians have joined in the conspiracy. They babble ``surplus, surplus''-- everywhere they call ``surplus.'' Well, there isn't any surplus. Of course, this bill here is intended strictly to get at the lawyers--not as the distinguished gentleman used the expression of ``in the American tradition.'' ``In the American tradition,'' Heavens above. The American tradition, Mr. President, has been for the States to regulate our torts. They have done so commendably. There isn't any question. All the farcical preambles--they try to really get away from the preambles and just some dribble about interstate commerce. I use the expression ``dribble'' and otherwise, because we know otherwise. The reality, heavens above, is that we have a great economy and booming small businesses. The National Federation of Independent Businesses says small businesses are having the best of times. My staff completed a Lexis-Nexis search for small businesses that couldn't operate on account of product liability. You know what--they couldn't find any large and serious cases against small businesses. But I presume during the debate this legislation's supporters will bring us some, and we will see how many they bring. The fact remains that there isn't a problem. But there is a political interest. There is a political problem. Oh, yes. We have to say we did something--we did something to get rid of the lawyers. We showed those lawyers. And, as a result, they not only voted away the tax system--now here on the Senate side for a nonproblem they come up and talk about the American tradition whereby they ask, and the gentleman says, ``There goes that trial lawyer crowd.'' You are right. They are the ones who have really been keeping the system honest. They haven't succeeded but in 27 percent of the product liability cases. But they still, when they have the clients who have been injured, try to keep the system honest. And what happens is that we have the States here-- not only the trial lawyers but we have the States--and the American Bar Association. So I am very proud to stand here with the State legislature. Don't tell me about the Governors. I have been one of those, just like the Senator from West Virginia. And when we had Democratic Governors, then they voted against this thing right on down the line. Now the Republican Governors, the last time they got together and even bothered to take action was 6 or 7 years ago. They are not really bothered by it. But the State legislatures are bothered by it. We have an update here of June 18, less than a month ago. Here is what they really said when this was proposed, again on this particular bill, before with the amendment, which is to be introduced, I take it, later on. This is from the National Conference of State Legislatures: As you know, product liability legislation, in some form, may come to the Senate floor before Congress adjourns in November. I urge you, on behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures, to vote against any such bill, for the simple reason that this is an issue best resolved by state legislatures. A good deal of lip service is given today to the advantages of our constitutional system of federalism and to the advantages of devolving authority to the states. But, from the point of view of state legislators, this rhetoric belies the reality of an accelerating trend toward concentration of power in Washington. Every year, Congress passes more laws and federal agencies adopt more rules that preempt state authority. Little consideration is given to the cumulative effect of preemption piled upon preemption. Little thought is given to the shrinking policy jurisdiction of state legislatures. Moreover, little consideration is given to whether state legislatures are responsibly exercising their authority. The threat to preempt state product liability law, for example, comes at a time when state legislatures have been particularly active in passing reform bills. As the attached article from the June issue of The States' Advocate shows, over the past ten years, thirty-three product liability reform bills have been enacted in the states. In addition, states have been reforming their tort law generally. As of December 1996, 34 states had revised their rules of joint and several liability and 31 had acted to curb punitive damages. Just as the preemption contemplated by a national products law is unprecedented, so the intrusion on the operation of state courts is both unprecedented and disturbing. National products standards would be grafted onto state law. In a sense, Congress would act as a state legislature to amend selected elements of state law, thus blurring the lines of political accountability in ways that raise several Tenth Amendment issues. Given the Supreme Court's recent interpretation of the Tenth Amendment in Printz v. United States, the legislation might even be unconstitutional. Our constitutional tradition of federalism deserves more than lip service. It's time to vote ``no'' on product liability and similar proposals to unjustifiably preempt state law. That is from the president of the conference and the president-elect of the National Conference of State Legislatures, which now has been updated in a letter to this Senator dated June 18, 1998. Dear Senator Hollings: I write on behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures in opposition to S. 648, a bill that would supplant state liability laws with federal standards. For the National Conference of State Legislatures, this is a simple matter of federalism and states' rights. Tort reform is an issue for state legislatures, not Congress. There is no precedent for such a federal intrusion into such an important area of civil law. Moreover, we regard it as highly inappropriate and perhaps unconstitutional for the state courts to be commandeered as instruments of federal policy in the fashion contemplated by S. 648. The states have made considerable progress in reforming their state law, including product liability law, over the past decade. State legislatures are in a good position to balance the needs of the business community and those of consumers, not just in the abstract but in a way that reflects local values and local economic conditions. This is as the Founders intended it when they established a federal republic rather than a unitary state. The issue then is not finding the right compromise between consumer and business interests in crafting the language of S. 648. The issue is whether we will take a giant step toward nationalizing the civil law, to the detriment of our constitutional system of Federalism. Again, please oppose S. 648. That is from the Conference of State Legislatures, which, of course, is once again over this 20-year period bolstered by the American Bar Association in a letter dated July 1, 1998. Dear Senator: We understand that on July 7, broad federal product liability legislation will be the subject of a cloture vote on the Senate floor. I am writing to you to express the American Bar Association's opposition to S. 648, the bill reported by the Commerce Committee, and S. 2236, the compromise proposal introduced by Senators Gorton and Rockefeller. The ABA believes that improvements in the tort liability system should continue to be implemented at the state level and not be preempted by broad Federal law. S. 648 and S. 2236, which would federalize portions of tort law, would deprive consumers in the United States of the guidance of the well-developed product liability laws of their individual states. This legislation would also deprive the states of their traditional flexibility to refine carefully the product liability laws through their state courts and state legislatures. The ABA has worked extensively to improve our civil justice system, including developing extensive recommendations on punitive damages and on other aspects of the tort liability system for consideration at the state level. Broad federal product liability legislation, however, would constitute an unwise and unnecessary intrusion of major proportion on the long-standing authority of the states to promulgate tort law. Such preemption would cause the whole body of state tort law to become unsettled and create new complexities for the federal system. Unequal results would occur when product liability litigation is combined with other types of law that have differing rules of law. An example of this would be a situation where a product liability claim is joined with a medical malpractice claim. If state tort laws differ from the federal law in areas such as caps on punitive damages, conflicts and uncertainly would likely result; one defendant in an action could well be treated entirely different than another. Having one set of rules to try product liability cases and another set of rules to try other tort cases is not consistent with the sound and equitable administration of justice. The ABA opposes the product seller provisions of section 103 of S. 648 and S. 2236 because those provisions remove the motivation of the only party with direct contact with the consumer, the seller, to ensure that the shelves in American businesses are stocked only with safe products. Seller liability is an effective way of maintaining and improving product safety. Manufacturers traditionally rely on sellers to market their products. Through their purchasing and marketing power, sellers have influenced manufacturers to design and produce safer consumer goods. Ambiguity in the language of S. 648 and S. 2236 may result in unintentionally eliminating grounds for liability which promote safety. For example, the two bills expressly eliminate a product seller's liability for breach of warranty except for breach of express warranties. This Uniform Commercial Code, long regarded as a reasonable, balanced law, holds sellers responsible for breach of implied warranties as well. By their vague and ambiguous language, S. 648 and S. 2236 may result in preempting these long established grounds of liability. We urge you to vote no on federal product liability legislation as it is an unwise and unnecessary intrusion on the long-standing authority of the states to promulgate tort law. Now, Mr. President, we all know the majority crowd and how they came to power in 1995. The election in 1994 said that Contract sounds pretty good, and one of the big things about that Contract was regulation, regulation, regulation. They wanted to diminish regulation. Well, heavens above, as they said in the American Bar Association letter, you have two bills expressly eliminating a product seller's liability and thereby coming and taking the Uniform Commercial Code and standing it on its head. So we surgically are running into the Uniform Commercial Code, tried and true at the State level, and you have the most complex regulatory mess you have ever seen. All in the attempt to diminish litigation, they compound it. Oh, yes, all in essence to protect the 10th amendment. The first vote we had was the particular vote with respect to unfunded mandates upon the States, and what-have-you. And here is an unfunded mandate, constitutional mandate, if you please, because they don't give a Federal cause of action. They come with an unfunded mandate on the States and say we know best up here in the Congress in the light of the most dynamic economy we have ever seen. Where is Mr. Greenspan's statement. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan offered a decidedly upbeat assessment of the Nation's economic health yesterday-- This is dated June 11-- pronouncing the current expansion ``as impressive as any I have witnessed in nearly half a century of daily operation.'' Where is the small business response? Let's get the rebound. This is another quote. ``The rebound in the optimism index, coupled with other national economic indicators, suggests economic growth for this year will be a lot closer to last year's level than many have predicted,'' said National Federation of Independent Business Foundation Chief Economist William Dunkelberg. Far from worrying the expansion has just about played itself out, more and more small business owners feel the best is yet to come. Dunkelberg noted that, ``Small business capital investment remains exceptionally strong.'' On and on, on and on, Mr. President. There is no foundation for claims that trial lawyers are undermining small business entrepreneurs. That is why I say this is a political farce responding to the political poll. It is not responding to the needs of small business. It is not responding to the needs of the States, their inability to handle product liability law. It is in response to the needs of the political poll and the drive of trying to get rid of trial by jury and lawyers. They know, in business, they are in their heyday here, and they are onto a real binge here, having a wonderful time--that they can come in now with this particular Congress ready to do away with the income tax--let's do away with the lawyers and trial by jury. Whoopee. They get Gallup at the White House, and the White House follows the polls too, so they get together on this jury-built thing that is really an embarrassment for a lawyer to read. They have a statute of repose in here for the individual but not for the business, so the individual injured is barred by the statute of repose, but the business he is working for, they can sue for the particular product and get a verdict. I never heard of a more selfish instrument than that presented here, just crassly selfish, trying to do away with trial by juries, the States and lawyers. Pell-mell, in a rush, this body now just writes in such things. And what about tobacco? Here we have been debating for a month one of the most injurious products that everybody agrees upon. Do you know what? This bill says exempt tobacco. The unmitigated gall of the White House and these authors that write this thing--it is just unforgivable to come forth here, now, after 4 weeks and everybody charged up, we are going to do something about the victims of tobacco; how it is habit- forming and everything else of that kind, so many deaths, more than heart attacks, more than cancer, more than all the rest, the injury-- the unmitigated gall to come and have a product liability that exempts tobacco. You would never get my name on such a charade, a political farce as this, all in the name of the political poll. Kill all the lawyers, that is right. Just kill all the lawyers. So we really got it. Small businesses are not asking for it. The States are not asking for it. They are trying to force Federal law upon the States over their objections. I was just amazed when the distinguished Senator from West Virginia started talking about competition with Japan. I cannot keep them out of my State. They are running all over me. We just broke ground for Honda at Timmonsville. We just broke ground for another division of Fuji photographic equipment and the little speed cameras. They make 60,000 a day. This is the fourth increment of Fuji, a $1 billion investment there. There are 58 Japanese plants, 100 German plants--foreign competition? They are buying us up. Yet they find out we cannot compete with the foreigners. I make a habit of visiting these industries. We shake hands, of course, with all, if they will allow us in the plant. I went through the GE plant. Incidentally, they think we are nothing but textiles. Tell them keep on thinking. We lost, since NAFTA, 24,000 textile and apparel jobs in South Carolina. Little South Carolina lost 24,000 textile and apparel jobs. That is from the National Bureau of Labor Statistics as of the end of April this year. And we have had, in May-June, several other closings. So that is the April figure by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We were proud of those jobs. We hate to lose them. But we have these other industries here and they are exporting like gangbusters. I was in that GE plant. I would say of those gas turbines, almost 100 percent are exported. One turbine was ready for delivery at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; another one was ready for delivery to Tokyo, Japan. The same is true for all of these Torrington and other industries. They are in the context of manufacture. I said do you have any problem here with product liability? They almost--well, at Bosch they got insulted. ``What do you mean, product liability?'' They went over there and showed me the antilock brake that they got a contract for from Mercedes, Toyota, and all of General Motors. They said, ``Here is a number. We know it immediately. We never have had product liability. We practice safety, Senator.'' As if I had insulted them with the question. We have a result from these wonderful trial lawyers that nobody wants to talk about. We have the safest society in the entire world. Let's talk about competitiveness. We have Europe. The Pacific Rim-- economically, competitively on the ropes. And here they want to put in a bill to compete with Japan, and Japan is coming here and saying we love it in America. The other States have always had Japanese plants coming. I have yet to have one of them say I can't come because of your product liability and the litigation explosion and all, torts. What is all these silly expressions they have here in these preambles? Here is what they have been referring to ever since last year: that the civil justice system is overcrowded, sluggish, and costly. Mr. President, what is the actual fact? The National Center for State Courts, on State civil filings, their most recent statistics show that product liability cases constitute only 4 percent of all State tort filings, and a mere \36/100\ of 1 percent of all civil cases. Explosion? Come on. Where is the support? They just use this language around here that the distinguished Senator from Washington put in, these preambles here, ``excessive, unpredictable and often arbitrary damage awards.'' What does the Justice Department say here? In a recent report, they validate all the studies and the witnesses who appeared before our committees, and said, ``Juries nationwide have become much tougher on plaintiffs.'' According to the Department of Justice report, ``Plaintiffs prevailed in only 27 percent of the product liability cases that were filed in Federal court between 1994 and 1995.'' In 1992, Professors James Henderson, a supporter of tort reform, and Theodore Eisenberg, of Cornell University, released a study, ``Inside the Quiet Revolution in Products Liability,'' which also found ``notable declines in the number of product liability cases filed, as well as significant decreases in the size of awards.'' The study concludes that: By most measures, product liability has returned to where it was at the beginning of the decade. The study confirmed Professors Henderson and Eisenberg's findings in an earlier study which found: A quiet revolution away from extending the boundaries of products liability and toward placing significant limitations on plaintiffs' rights to recover in tort for product-related injuries. And then the other preamble about all the punitive damages. There is another study. The American Bar Foundation conducted a nationwide study overseen by Dr. Steven Daniels of 25,000 civil jury awards, and it found that punitive damages were only awarded in 4.9 percent of the cases reviewed. Can you imagine that, only 4.9 percent? He stated that the debate over punitive damages ``changed in the eighties as the part of an intense, well-organized and well-financed political campaign by interest groups seeking fundamental reforms in the civil justice system benefiting themselves.'' Did you hear that?--A ``political campaign by interest groups.'' Then the American Bar Foundation went on to state that this ``politicization of the punitive damages debate makes the debate more emotional and manipulative and less reasoned. The reformers appeal to emotions, fear and anxiety in this political effort, while avoiding reason and rational discourse.'' He concluded that punitive damages were not routinely awarded, were awarded in modest amounts, were awarded more often in financial and property harm cases than in product liability cases, which, of course, is like Pennzoil suing Texaco with a $12 billion award in Texas, which was more than all the oil product liability verdicts given cumulatively since the beginning of product liability law. Just add them all up, and you will never get to $12 billion. But there it goes from the American Bar on down. I think there was one particular study that showed there were only 350 punitive damage awards. I want to find out the exact period of time. This is Professor Rustid of the Suffolk University Law School and Professor Thomas Kearney of Northeastern University. The Supreme Court recently referred to this report. This is our U.S. Supreme Court: The most exhaustive study of punitive damages . . . Professors Rustid and Kearney reviewed all product liability awards from 1965 to 1990 in both State and Federal courts. During that time, punitive damages were awarded in only 355 cases --355 cases. That is what we find, as a matter of Federal interest, to violate the tenth amendment, to violate the Republican contract of trying to get Government back to the people, trying to preserve and not have unfunded mandates upon the States. We can go on and on, Mr. President. But what really has happened--and it is why this Senator is somewhat disarmed because I have seen it occur over the past 20 years--Mr. Victor Schwartz with the National Association of Manufacturers has buddied up now with the Chamber of Commerce, my friend, Tom Donahue. He is a fighter, and I respect him. Also, the Business Roundtable and the Conference Board, they seek out the candidates before they even get here. They say, ``We would like to help you, but are you for tort reform?'' ``Of course.'' With respect to the general expression ``tort reform'' and ``torts''--``Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm for tort reform.'' So you see them marching like sheep up to the voting table down in the well voting, by gosh, to stop debate on one of the most heinous bills that has ever been presented in the U.S. Senate, because politically they remember their campaigns and politically they were asked and politically they answered, ``Yes, I'm for reform,'' and they know that if they don't vote that way, some opponent is going to come and say, ``Here is what you said and then flip-flopped.'' They didn't even know the facts of the case. In essence, the jury is fixed. The jury is fixed, Mr. President, before I can get to them, before the National Conference of State Legislatures can get to them, before the American Bar Association can get to them, before the Supreme Court citing the most exhaustive study on punitive damages can get to them. There are no facts to support this particular initiative. This is just jerry-built from the word go. They say, ``Let's remove the seller from strict liability on toxic''--by the way, they have some very dangerous language in here, because some of the lawyers know how to word this language to get rid of the Dalkon Shield cases. Let me quote this particular finding: The difficulty in using the toxic nature of a product as a means of statutorily differentiating between products covered by the statute of repose is highlighted by the following scenario that occurred in an asbestos case brought against Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. In their opening statement, the Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.'s counsel pronounced that their product, Kaylo [K-A-Y-L-O, Kaylo] an insulation product containing 1.5 percent amosite and chrysotile [C-H-R-Y-S-O-T- I-L-E] asbestos was not toxic. OC's counsel relied on the 1964 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that stated that asbestos was not considered toxic because it does not produce systemic poisoning. I can tell you right now, that is trying to get rid of the asbestosis cases and the Dalkon Shield cases, when they give to women $250,000 for the stay-at-home mom. Where have I heard that expression, the ``stay- at-home mom''? Oh, they were so disturbed on tobacco for the stay-at- home mom who doesn't economically win anything. I never heard of the husband paying the wife a salary. Maybe that happens somewhere else. It doesn't happen in South Carolina, I can tell you that. So there is no economic loss. You can come in with a Dalkon Shield case, be injured for life, never be able to reproduce, never have that family, and buy it off for $250,000. That is easy pickings, easy pickings. Let me tell you, Mr. President, this thing is a dangerous measure, as well as a political farce. When they come out with, for example, punitive damages, I go back to that 1978 case. I remind my colleagues of the wonderful result of punitive damages. In 1978, Mr. Mark Robinson in San Diego brought the Pinto case against Ford Motor Co. The verdict--the Presiding Officer is a good trial lawyer--the verdict, I think, was $3.5 million actual damages and $125 million punitive damages. Now, Mr. Robinson had not been able to collect a red cent of that $125 million, but, boy, oh, boy, hasn't that brought safety practices galore, saving lives, saving injury galore over the past 20 years. They had a recall; it was on the radio this morning; Ford Motor just recalled--I know they recalled about 1.5 million about 2 months ago because the wheels were coming off, but they had another recall, here, of how many vehicles involved in this--another 11,200 recalled yesterday. I remember Chrysler, at the end of the year, recalled 1.5 million hatchbacks. We will get in the debate the National Safety Transportation Administration's statistical recalls, but recall upon recall upon recall didn't impoverish the businesses but it sure made safer this society in which we live. I came when we were talking about toxic fumes of the Love Canal up there in Buffalo, NY. We put in the Environmental Protection Agency, the impact statements, and they are a matter of habit now. We look environmentally, and we have the dump costs and everything else that has to take care of in this Congress, I hope before we leave. But it has been a wonderful result, so that environmentally we know now that we are not inhaling the fumes and otherwise on account of the Environmental Protection Agency. We then had the little babies burning up in the cribs--flammable blankets. Since my time, we have instituted a Consumer Product Safety Commission. At one time, J.C. Penney's took me up to their safety lab in New York and showed how, not just blankets, but toys and the various products that they sold, they were testing in this particular lab to make sure, so they put in safety ahead of giving it to the seller and otherwise. So we got the Consumer Product Safety Commission. And right to tobacco. Of course, they haven't won a class action. That was an individual suit down in Florida; all the rest have been turned aside. So when they whine on the floor of the U.S. Senate, ``Why could you give this particular industry immunity from liability? Why are we doing this?''--because the jurors of America have given them, time and time and time again, immunity. They say, look, the Congress, in its wisdom, has required ``smoking is dangerous to your health'' notification on every one of those packs of cigarettes. It is your assumption of risk. You could have stopped. More people have stopped smoking than have started smoking in America this minute. So the jurors, in their wisdom--but, oh, no, they want to exempt tobacco on the one hand here, and the cases brought by the attorneys general and the trial lawyers have done more to save people from cancer than Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler and the American Cancer Society for the last 30 years that I have been up here. They really have gotten us aware, and more people have stopped smoking, like I say, than are smoking this minute in the United States of America. So when we go to the hearings where we used to have an ashtray and the room was clouded with smoke and my distinguished beloved former chairman, the Senator from Washington, Senator Magnuson, with that cigar right there--we don't have that anymore. But we don't have it not on account of Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler but on account of the trial lawyers. They are the ones who got into the records. They are the ones bringing the truth out. They are the ones bringing the class action suits, bringing about settlements in Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Minnesota, and they continue to bring the cases. They had an orderly process to end all litigation and get a sweetheart deal in the interest of society whereby they would advertise negatively--we can't control their advertising under the first amendment, but they agreed to it--whereby they would have a look-back provision whereby we could come in and control that and fine them if they didn't control it. But instead, that case now is temporarily on hold--tobacco--and these particular authors want to make sure that tobacco, the most injurious of products, is exempted from this so- called product liability bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today, Senators Kerry, Snowe, Stevens, and I are introducing a bill which will address the future of the smallest of this Nation's seven uniformed services, the commissioned officer corps (Corps) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This bill will set a floor on Corps officers of 264 and a ceiling of 299, designate a flag officer as the Director of the Corps, and lift the hiring freeze on NOAA Corps officers. Let me be clear at the outset. Since 1995 when the Administration proposed the disestablishment of the NOAA Corps, I have thought it was a solution in search of a problem. The NOAA Corps is a dedicated and highly skilled group of men and women who have served this Nation consistently and ably for almost two centuries. This uniformed officer corps operates NOAA vessels and planes, provides important scientific and technical services, and carries out programmatic responsibilities throughout the agency. NOAA Corps officers do more than routine work; they maintain an ability to provide a specialized, rapid response in emergencies. The actions of the NOAA ship, RUDE, after the tragic crash of TWA Flight 800 demonstrate the importance of the Corps' work to NOAA and to the Nation. Managed and operated by NOAA Corps officers, the RUDE's sonar capabilities were used to locate crash debris and map the wreckage. In addition, ship officers served as liaison between Navy divers and members of the National Transportation Safety Board. The NOAA officers aboard the RUDE and those on-shore directing charting operations impressed the other myriad agencies who responded to the disaster, even earning the Coast Guard's Public Service Commendation. As one newspaper headline put it, ``Obscure team gains respect at TWA site.'' Corps officers also pilot NOAA aircraft through hurricanes at low altitudes, the only pilots trained with such skills anywhere in the world. The information they collect is essential for projecting the track and strength of hurricanes so that people in the path can prepare. It should be clear to all of us that the NOAA Corps provides a unique and valuable service. Speaking frankly, I do not understand the efforts to disestablish the Corps or let it wither and die through a hiring freeze. None of the studies on converting the Corps to civilian status have shown a significant cost savings. A GAO study showed savings of 2 percent, another study by Arthur Andersen showed a cost increase of 2 percent, and the Hay/Huggins report concluded that costs were essentially the same for the Corps or civilians. It seems to me that there is not a justification for doing away with the Corps based on these studies of cost savings. This is an issue that must be resolved. The Corps has not been permitted to recruit new officers since October 1994, and this methodical, de factor elimination of positions has continued without the oversight of approval of the Congress. While we have been discussing the issue, the natural retirements and attribution of time have been slowly bleeding the strength out of the NOAA Corps. The Corps stands now at 248 members, down 44 percent from its highest level of 439 in 1995. That is why we are introducing the NOAA Corps Continuation Act today. We cannot let the members of this service continue in limbo. NOAA's recently released plan to restructure the Corps is not acceptable. It takes into account neither the reductions in personnel already achieved nor the need for officers to have shore assignments. We need to set a realistic strength level for the Corps, designate a Director of the Corps from within the ranks, and life the hiring freeze. I thank Senator Kerry for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to act swiftly on this legislation so that NOAA can continue to have the Corps' expertise in carrying out the agency's vital missions.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today, Senators Kerry, Snowe, Stevens, and I are introducing a bill which will address the future of the smallest of this Nation's seven uniformed services, the commissioned officer corps (Corps) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This bill will set a floor on Corps officers of 264 and a ceiling of 299, designate a flag officer as the Director of the Corps, and lift the hiring freeze on NOAA Corps officers. Let me be clear at the outset. Since 1995 when the Administration proposed the disestablishment of the NOAA Corps, I have thought it was a solution in search of a problem. The NOAA Corps is a dedicated and highly skilled group of men and women who have served this Nation consistently and ably for almost two centuries. This uniformed officer corps operates NOAA vessels and planes, provides important scientific and technical services, and carries out programmatic responsibilities throughout the agency. NOAA Corps officers do more than routine work; they maintain an ability to provide a specialized, rapid response in emergencies. The actions of the NOAA ship, RUDE, after the tragic crash of TWA Flight 800 demonstrate the importance of the Corps' work to NOAA and to the Nation. Managed and operated by NOAA Corps officers, the RUDE's sonar capabilities were used to locate crash debris and map the wreckage. In addition, ship officers served as liaison between Navy divers and members of the National Transportation Safety Board. The NOAA officers aboard the RUDE and those on-shore directing charting operations impressed the other myriad agencies who responded to the disaster, even earning the Coast Guard's Public Service Commendation. As one newspaper headline put it, ``Obscure team gains respect at TWA site.'' Corps officers also pilot NOAA aircraft through hurricanes at low altitudes, the only pilots trained with such skills anywhere in the world. The information they collect is essential for projecting the track and strength of hurricanes so that people in the path can prepare. It should be clear to all of us that the NOAA Corps provides a unique and valuable service. Speaking frankly, I do not understand the efforts to disestablish the Corps or let it wither and die through a hiring freeze. None of the studies on converting the Corps to civilian status have shown a significant cost savings. A GAO study showed savings of 2 percent, another study by Arthur Andersen showed a cost increase of 2 percent, and the Hay/Huggins report concluded that costs were essentially the same for the Corps or civilians. It seems to me that there is not a justification for doing away with the Corps based on these studies of cost savings. This is an issue that must be resolved. The Corps has not been permitted to recruit new officers since October 1994, and this methodical, de factor elimination of positions has continued without the oversight of approval of the Congress. While we have been discussing the issue, the natural retirements and attribution of time have been slowly bleeding the strength out of the NOAA Corps. The Corps stands now at 248 members, down 44 percent from its highest level of 439 in 1995. That is why we are introducing the NOAA Corps Continuation Act today. We cannot let the members of this service continue in limbo. NOAA's recently released plan to restructure the Corps is not acceptable. It takes into account neither the reductions in personnel already achieved nor the need for officers to have shore assignments. We need to set a realistic strength level for the Corps, designate a Director of the Corps from within the ranks, and life the hiring freeze. I thank Senator Kerry for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to act swiftly on this legislation so that NOAA can continue to have the Corps' expertise in carrying out the agency's vital missions.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I urge this body to confirm Michael J. Copps to be the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development. Mike Copps has been enormously effective as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Basic Industries; the sooner the Senate approves his nomination, the sooner he can go to work to further our nation's economic interests and develop new trade opportunities for American industry. It has been my privilege to know Mike Copps for over 25 years. He served on my staff for 15 years and was my administrative assistant for over a decade. In that time, I came to know and respect Mike; and today there is no one whose judgment I value more highly or in whose abilities I place greater confidence. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I can think of no one better suited to serve as the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development than Michael Copps. Mike is a man of measured judgment and extraordinary maturity, and he possesses a keen, analytical mind. I can state from personal experience that he is the consummate chief of staff--cool and collected, Mike Copps leads by example. In moments of crisis, he was calm. In times of indecision, he was resolute. And he always demonstrated high-minded principle and professionalism. I have been an elected servant of the people over the span of six decades, Mr. Chairman; and in this time, I have seen many people forget the purpose of public service. But Mike Copps never has forsaken his dedication to the public good. His moral compass has never wavered. I can pay no greater tribute to Mike Copps than to say he is a public servant without equal. Truly, this is the greatest accolade one can garner. Perhaps one way to underscore Mike Copps' unique temperament and keen intellect is to explain the origins of my relationship with him. Mike came to my staff in 1970, to help with writing and other tasks. From this humble beginning, he rose in less than five years to be my administrative assistant. Now, I pride myself on my staff, and for someone to rise from a newly hired assistant to chief of staff in the Senate in just five years is highly unusual. But Mike Copps has made a career out of making the unusual seem routine. Just look at what he has accomplished since taking over as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Basic Industries in 1993. His tenure has been one of the busiest and most purposeful in that office's history. DAS Copps has conceived, organized, and successfully achieved public sector-private sector partnerships in the belief that we can succeed in the world of global commerce only through close cooperation between industry and government. This has been the guiding light of his tenure at Commerce: fostering public sector-private sector cooperation to strengthen U.S. industry and benefit U.S. consumers. For example, under Mike Copps' leadership, the Commerce Department's Basic Industries division has administered seven highly innovative Market Development Cooperator Program Awards. This competitive matching grants program provides two private sector dollars for every federal dollar and builds public-private partnerships by providing assistance to non-profit export multipliers. DAS Copps chairs the U.S.-Russia Business Development Committee's Oil and Gas Working Group. The BDC is the principal venue for bilateral discussions on trade between America and Russia. Chairman Copps played an important role in pushing successfully for the removal of the export tax for U.S. companies shipping oil out of Russia and in reducing Russian oil excise taxes. In China, Copps negotiated the terms of reference for working groups in the electrical power, chemical, and automotive industries; developed policy and trade promotion programs for each; and started a broad range of working group activities involving both the private and public sectors. Copps also helped create similar partnerships involving forest products and agribusiness in Russia, energy and agribusiness in the Ukraine, and electrical power in Turkey. To see how effectively Deputy Assistant Secretary Copps has promoted U.S. industries, just look at what he has done for the automotive industry. Under his leadership, the Commerce Department's Office of Automotive Affairs has become the lead agency of the U.S. Government in providing both the expertise for our nation's global automotive negotiations and its trade promotion initiatives. During the past two years, for example, the Office has convened meetings to successfully resolve 23 outstanding Japanese vehicle standards issues. The Office of Automotive Affairs also contributed its expertise and participation to ongoing U.S.-Korean automotive negotiations, an ASEAN automotive trade initiative, and to U.S.-Brazil automotive talks. All these initiatives have helped reinvigorate the U.S. auto industry and have helped it achieve a level playing field and a competitive edge overseas. Mike Copps has been able to compile this impressive record of achievement because he combines a tremendous work ethic, wonderful diplomatic skills, and a rigorous and analytical mind. In addition, he possesses a historical perspective unmatched by anyone I have met in government. Before joining my staff in 1970, he had earned his Ph.D. in history and taught courses at Loyola University for three years. His appreciation for the forces of history and the perspective his studies gave him make Mike Copps especially suited for this job, which requires an understanding not only of economic forces and trade negotiation, but also of America's role in the world and the cultures of our trading partners. Mike Copps possesses all the qualities we admire in our public servants. Professional and grave in matters of the public trust, he is also witty and diplomatic. He values good policies over politics, but he understands the importance of both in the arena of international trade. After working in the Senate, private industry, and the Department of Commerce, he appreciates the concerns and needs of both sectors and knows the compromises necessary to create successful public-private partnerships. Finally, I would note that Mike Copps' dedication begins at home. He is a devoted family man, and I know his wife Beth and his five children are justifiably proud of his service and achievements. Unlike some in Washington, Mike has never forgotten the values and ideals that count the most. I believe his moral compass points him in the right direction so infallibly because it is grounded in the family he treasures above all else. Mr. President, I urge speedy confirmation of Michael J. Copps to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development. We cannot afford to delay action on such an effective and dedicated public servant. nomination of john o'leary to be united states ambassador to chile

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in over 30 years as a U.S. Senator, I have had the opportunity to work with hundreds of Federal employees. Among all of those hard-working public servants, there are a few individuals who stand out for their commitment to doing the best possible job for the American people and who have the skills to get that job done. Today, I would like to recognize one of those individuals on the occasion of his retirement--Dr. Elbert W. ``Joe'' Friday, Jr., former director of the Department of Commerce's National Weather Service. Dr. Friday has given 38 years of outstanding service to this country. Twenty of those years were as a U.S. Air Force Weather Detachment Commander in Saigon, Vietnam, and Nakhon Phanom, Thailand, and as the Director of Environmental and Life Sciences in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. The remaining eighteen years were served in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). During his tenure at NOAA, Joe served as associate administrator for both the National Weather Service and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. As the head of the National Weather Service, Joe has guided the agency through the most significant changes in its 200-year history. Weather service modernization has required the implementation of powerful new observational technologies, updated information and forecast systems, and a streamlined organizational structure. When complete, it will yield revolutionary advancements in our national public weather warning and forecast system. In fact, in recent years we have already begun to document dramatic improvements in the accuracy and timeliness of the Service's forecasts of weather events. For example, the Weather Service has lengthened the warning time for tornadoes from 6 minutes back in 1994 to 10 minutes today. That may not seem like a huge accomplishment, but it can mean the difference between life and death for individuals who are caught in a tornado's deadly path. Under Dr. Friday's leadership, we have also seen substantial improvements in the accuracy of predicting hurricane landfall, allowing local managers to make better and less costly evacuation plans and emergency preparations. In 1989, an anxious nation watched as Hurricane Hugo moved relentlessly towards the Southeastern coast. As we waited, there was one person, Joe Friday, that I could count on to answer my questions and provide accurate information for tracking the storm. During weather service modernization when local communities in every region raised concerns about the closing of weather stations and the placement of radars, one person, Joe Friday, sorted through the rumors, listened, and gave us straight information. In recent years, budgetary difficulties have provided Joe with some of his greatest challenges. However, he succeeded in protecting the National Hurricane Center and other essential programs from sweeping cutbacks that would have hampered the ability of the Weather Service to do its job. Last year, Joe moved over to NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, where he is responsible for environmental research and technology programs like Sea Grant and Climate and Global Change. These programs are critical for addressing such diverse issues as global warming, climate prediction, El Nino events, red tides, and Pfiesteria. I am sure that many at NOAA would echo my view when I say that I regret not being able to entice Dr. Friday to stay longer in his new position. Throughout his career, Joe Friday has shared credit for successes, but never blamed others for problems or difficulties. He is a rare mix of gifted scientist, decorated soldier, and eloquent speaker--a charismatic man who leads by example and has inspired a generation of men and women at the National Weather Service. His strong leadership, clear vision, loyalty, and concern for his colleagues were instrumental in creating an effective team of professionals. His simple but powerful philosophy has always been that, as a public servant, his responsibility is to provide the highest level of products and services to the people of the United States and the world. In all his endeavors, he has supplied endless energy, sound judgment, keen intelligence, and a sense of humor to the government he is so proud to serve. It was no surprise to anyone when he was awarded the 1993 Federal Executive of the Year, an outstanding and well deserved recognition for his contributions. I am confident that I speak for many of my colleagues when I express admiration and thanks to Joe for his invaluable contributions to the United States of America and to the global scientific community. He has our best wishes and deepest gratitude for his accomplishments in his 38 years of Federal Service.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleagues, Senator Grassley, Senator Reid, and Senator D'Amato in introducing legislation which would repeal provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 pertaining to the establishment of annual caps of $1,500 on all outpatient rehabilitation services except those furnished in a hospital outpatient department. The ``Reinstatement of the Medicare Rehabilitation Benefit Act of 1998'' that we introduce today is made necessary because of the negative impact these provisions will have on Medicare beneficiaries who require therapy services. Senior citizens suffering from medical conditions common to the elderly such as stroke, hip fracture, and coronary artery disease will not be able to obtain the rehabilitative care they need to resume normal activities of daily living because of this arbitrarily imposed cap. This is especially true in South Carolina, which has a significant number of Medicare recipients who live in rural areas. A patient who has met the $1,500 cap will have no choice but to seek care in a hospital outpatient department, not only at a much greater distance but also at a substantially higher cost. The ``Reinstatement of the Medicare Rehabilitation Benefit Act'' would also repeal the provision combining speech-language pathology and physical therapy services under the same $1,500 cap. These are two very separate and distinct functions, and there is no rational basis for including them under one cap. As my constituent, Beth Fleming of Anderson, South Carolina, said recently, and I agree, ``Patients should not have to choose between walking and talking.'' I urge my distinguished colleagues to join Senator Grassley, Senator Reid, Senator D'Amato and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in tribute to the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. It is indeed fitting that we dedicate the 1999 Defense Authorization Bill in his honor. Senator Thurmond has a long and distinguished record of service both in the military and in the Congress. He was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in 1924 and has since served this nation, and the military, in positions of increasing responsibility. During World War II he served in both Europe and Pacific. Afterwards he rose to the rank of Major General in the Army Reserve. During his many years in the Senate he toiled to insure that our military maintained the readiness necessary to defend our great nation. In recent years he has served as Chairman of the Army Services Committee and rightfully earned a place in Senate history as one of the greatest Chairmen of this important Committee. During these years the Committee has faced many challenges in shaping a defense bill that met the needs of a military in a world in change. His great experience in military, national and international matters has made the difference in providing for the nation's defense. Senator Thurmond has been a personal inspiration during my years in the Senate. I have always appreciated his guidance. Together, we have worked in harmony for the good of the great state of South Carolina and the Nation. Again, I congratulate him!

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I call this body's attention to Hugh M. McIntosh's special contribution to the performing arts in the nation's Capital. Hugh has worked long and hard to foster the growth and appreciation of the arts, particularly through his service as a Trustee of the Ford's Theatre Society. The Society is the not-for-profit organization that brings new musicals, American classics, and other live entertainment to that historic stage. After the assassination of President Lincoln, Ford's Theatre was used as an office and warehouse until an act of Congress initiated the Theatre's restoration, which was completed in 1968. This year's Gala for the President celebrated these 30 years of memorable performances illuminating the character and vibrancy of American life. As a partner in the law firm of Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., Hugh McIntosh has guided Ford's governing board and staff through legal thickets, including contract negotiations with playwrights and agents, strategic planning, development of ethical guidelines, and day-to-day legal questions. Hugh has worked closely with Frankie Hewitt, the Ford Theatre Society's founder and producing artistic director, and with the National Park Service, which administers the Theatre as a public museum. Hugh is a discerning theater-goer, and his love of ``a good show'' has fueled his enthusiasm for contributing backstage at Ford's. He is a strong supporter of education and outreach programs that invites a diverse audience to Ford's and aim to foster a greater appreciation of the performing arts in the Washington area. But as valuable as Hugh's legal expertise has been to Ford's Theatre, his greatest contribution has been to bring wisdom, a sense of perspective, and quiet humor to the complex issues facing the Theatre's performing artists and playwrights. It is these special qualities, in fact, which will assure Hugh's success in the new direction his life is about to take. This fall, Hugh will begin studying theology at the Harvard School of Divinity. If Hugh is called to pastoral service, he may find many friends from Ford's Theatre in his pews. At its June meeting, the Ford Theatre Society's Board of Trustees honored Hugh McIntosh with a resolution thanking him for his invaluable service to the Theatre. Mr. President, I ask that the text of this resolution be printed in the Record. The text of the resolution follows: A Resolution of the Ford's Theatre Society Whereas Hugh M. McIntosh, Esq. has faithfully pursued the interests of the Ford's Theatre Society as a Trustee; and Whereas Mr. McIntosh has diligently rendered complex issues comprehensible to the Board of Trustees and its Executive Committee; and Whereas Mr. McIntosh's gentle humor and patience have been invaluable in many situations and occasions; and Whereas Mr. McIntosh has energetically marshaled the resources of many talented colleagues in serving Ford's Theatre; and Whereas Mr. McIntosh has determined that he must now pursue another field of study, work and service; Therefore be it Resolved, that the Trustees of the Ford's Theatre Society offer Mr. McIntosh their profound appreciation for his work; and The Trustees express their gratitude to the firm of Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., for its dedication to the interests of Ford's Theatre, and furthermore The Trustees wish Mr. McIntosh all success in his new endeavors. (signed) Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Mrs. Fritz Hollings, Vice Chairman. Mrs. Paul Laxalt, Secretary. Ronald H. Walker, Treasurer. Frankie Hewitt, Executive Producer. June 16, 1998.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, our country's relationship with the People's Republic of China is currently receiving a great deal of attention. One aspect of that relationship which is not getting enough attention is shipping. The United States has an open door to Chinese shipping. Chinese companies can call at any U.S. port. They do not need any government agency to approve their schedule, their ships, or changes to those deployments. They can open branch offices anywhere in the U.S. that they wish. They can provide vessel agency services to their own vessels. This U.S. policy has allowed Chinese shipping companies to be quite free and successful. COSCO, for example, which is owned by the People's Republic of China, is by far the largest ocean carrier in the U.S.-China trade and is a major carrier in other U.S. trades. The Chinese government wants the most favorable treatment for COSCO here in the U.S.; yet it continues to deny U.S. carriers operating in China the opportunities and privileges Chinese carriers receive here. Not only does Chinese shipping policy seek to control the trade rather than allow market forces to operate, but restrictions are becoming increasingly problematic. This lack of reciprocity is unfair. For example, access to ostensibly open ports in China is now solely at the discretion of the Chinese Ministry of Communications. While American carriers must endure long waits for an uncertain approval of whether and where they can operate, Chinese carriers are free to call at U.S. ports without having to face such conditions. Recent Chinese regulations make this process even more burdensome and contain the potential for huge penalties. U.S. carriers face restrictions on a host of normal commercial activities in China that Chinese carriers don't face here. For example, branch offices are restricted or prohibited. U.S. carriers cannot even provide normal vessel agency services to their own ships. This results in a considerably higher cost base for U.S. carriers versus their Chinese competitors. The Federal Maritime Commission and the Administration have been working on and encouraging a resolution of these problems, but insufficient progress has been made. Therefore, I have written to the FMC to encourage it to use the full range of its authority to investigate these matters. What is additionally very troubling to me--and what should be very troubling to the Chinese government if they value the government-to- government negotiation process as a way to resolve differences--is the recent turn of events in the maritime bilateral negotiations between our governments. In December of last year some progress was made. An agreement was reached on some of the outstanding issues. The U.S. government has fulfilled its promises by the FMC giving COSCO an exemption from some of the Controlled Carrier Act restrictions. But the Chinese government has not yet honored its commitments, even though it had agreed to act simultaneously with the U.S. government. The Administration recognizes this. The FMC recognizes this. The Congress recognizes this. China's relationship with the U.S. is undermined when it fails to fulfill its promises. Our willingness to treat China favorably is undermined if the Chinese government's promises are illusory. Not only do I urge the FMC to investigate and take appropriate action in these maritime issues, but I urge the State Department to convey to the Chinese government the damaging effect of its current maritime posture on improved trade relations. Both our countries' trade relations are benefited by a liberalized shipping environment. An unbalanced lack of reciprocity cannot be sustained. Mr. President, I ask that my letters to Secretary Slater at the Department of Transportation and Chairman Creel at the Federal Maritime Commission be printed in the Record. The letters follow: U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Washington, DC, June 16, 1998. Hon. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing with regard to the recent trend toward maritime protectionism in the People's Republic of China. Your Department, particularly the Maritime Administration, has been actively engaged in negotiations with the Chinese to eliminate many of the restrictions faced by U.S. carriers in China. It is my understanding that, unfortunately, progress has been slow. I find particularly troubling the fact that the Chinese have failed to implement a gentlemen's agreement arrived at last December with your acting Maritime Administrator, John Graykowski. I am attaching a letter which I have sent to Harold Creel, Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), asking the FMC to investigate this matter. I am certain you will agree that if the Chinese restrictions enumerated in this letter are not addressed through bilateral consultation, the FMC should act to impose countervailing sanctions on Chinese carriers doing business in the United States. Hopefully, a resolution can be reached before such steps are necessary. I trust that resolving these China maritime issues will be among the Maritime Administration's highest priorities. The Department and the Maritime Administration have my full support in your continuing efforts to eliminate restrictions which hinder the competitiveness of U.S. carriers in China. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely, Ernest F. Hollings, Ranking Democrat.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me harken how we began June a year ago and explain my objection to the procedure. With respect to a year ago, what really occurred was that the tobacco companies were spending a goodly fortune defending class actions and individual causes of action due to tobacco smoking causing certain injury and death. These are very responsible companies. They have very responsible boards of directors. Right to the point, they had the urge to try to regain credibility for their overall operation. Philip Morris, for example, sells not only tobacco cigarettes but, of course, it is into Kraft foods and many other allied endeavors. R.J. Reynolds down in North Carolina is in the Ritz cracker business, plus other different businesses. They were getting pilloried, so to speak, in the courtrooms of America. They were successful. They weren't losing. They had won every case. There was not a jury verdict against a tobacco company. But looking at the bottom line, as good businessmen and operators, they were spending around $500 million to $600 million a year in legal fees. This crowd up here in Washington is worried about trial lawyers. If you really want to get taken to the cleaners, get one of these corporate lawyers. I suggest to the distinguished Chair that if he ever gets into trouble, for gosh sakes, don't get General Motors's lawyer or IBM's lawyer. You had better get a real lawyer who is used to getting in the courtrooms. This crowd sort of works with themselves on billable hours. That is the ailment that has taken over. The billable hours, the defenses, and all were costing them about $500 million to $600 million. More than anything else, it was depressing their stock. The lawyers themselves had not won any cases. They were moving with the States' attorneys general. So, with the States' attorneys general, they got together. They had been meeting on opposite sides of the table in courtrooms all over America. As I understand it, they got together on an agreed settlement. The agreed settlement would, No. 1, increase taxes. The reason I emphasize this, Mr. President, is if you go home and turn on your television or listen to the radio, the ``scoundrel Congress'' up here is the one that is trying to increase taxes on poor America, middle America, and whatever America. There is no suggestion that this idea came from the tobacco companies, the ones who are paying for the advertising, and in a luxurious amount. But this is the reality. The idea of increasing taxes originated with the tobacco companies themselves, in the so-called Global Tobacco Settlement. I worked with the defense appropriations bill. And that amounts to $250 billion. When I heard on TV and then later read in the newspaper $368 billion, I still thought it was a mistake--$368 billion. I said, ``Where in the world would they get all of that money?'' Well, if you reasoned out 25 years and so much per year as it goes up, yes, you can get to that amount, or get to $1.10, as the present Commerce Committee bill now envisions. You get around $500 billion. But the real initiative of raising taxes was by the companies themselves--not the squealing, crying, moaning, and groaning on national TV about, ``This terrible Congress is going awry.'' Not so. They came up and said, ``All right, we will put this money up, and for you States and States' attorneys general, what we will do is, we will pay in a good 40 percent of it to the States to take care of the Medicaid costs, the health costs, and everything, as an incidence, a result, of tobacco smoking and ailments and death that was caused by tobacco smoking.'' So that would take care of the States. The States' attorneys general got together and agreed on that. Another part of the agreement, of course, was to try to control tobacco smoking and discourage young people from smoking. The children, instead of getting Joe Camel, were getting the adverse ads, the warnings, not just on the pack of cigarettes but on national TV--how injurious to health it could be. We found out in the early 1970s that these negative-type ads worked. We tried it before. I don't know whether the price increase would work. They say in downtown London, where they have a pack of cigarettes at $4.30 and up, it has not worked with respect to deterring children from starting to smoke. But in any event, it was good intent, a good purpose, and a good provision that they would do it, and do it in all honesty and sincerity. In fact, to back up their pledge, they hit on the unique ``look-back provision.'' I had never heard of that before in all the years I have been up here. But they had a look-back provision whereby they said, ``We will measure it each year with the diminution of tobacco smoking with respect to children,'' and if they don't comply with a certain percentage decrease each year, they will pay more multimillion-dollar, almost billion dollars, or maybe over a billion dollars, in penalties, penalizing themselves. There was not any question about the sincerity of the purpose. They had it all worked out. The White House agreed to it. The health community was in conference from time to time on this particular agreement. And it was announced. The first thing that hit this Senator when it was announced was not only the $368 billion, an enormous amount, but what is in there for the man who is making a living-- namely, the tobacco farmer. When the Pilgrims landed here in the earliest of days, they found the Indians, who were smoking tobacco. Are we now going to really have prohibition? No. We tried that once before with alcoholic beverages, and it corrupted the entire society and crime went through the roof. So we learned the hard lesson and repealed that 18th amendment. Certainly with respect to tobacco smoking and everything else of that kind, we realize there are certain realistic considerations: One, that we are not going to have an embargo or prohibit the production itself; two, that when it comes to advertising, there is that First Amendment right and we are not going to be able to force-feed--the companies have to agree with respect to the limitation on advertising or the agreement to negatively advertise against smoking, those kinds of things, and then the allocation of the money to have to come about with respect to the matter of the States, and not only that, but with respect to the health community. Necessarily, we all want to increase the research out at the National Institutes of Health on the injurious effect of tobacco smoking. I have had hearings over 30-some years now with the doctors out there at the Cancer Institute, not only on how cancer is caused but how a pack-a-day smoker can rejuvenate the health of his lungs after 5 years and really recover from it if he stops. I might add, Mr. President, that more people have stopped smoking than are smoking today. I repeat: There are more people who have stopped smoking than are smoking today. So when they get to the victims and the matter of habit forming and addictiveness and everything else, that is a jury question that the jurors of America have never gone along with. They have never gone along with it until this recent verdict down here of a little six-man jury in Florida, and we don't know what will happen with that on appeal. But that is a pretty solid record. We have Senators running up and down knocking over the chairs and desks saying, ``Why give this industry immunity?'' Well, Mr. President, the jurors of America, far more savvy with respect to the actual facts before them, have given the tobacco companies immunity--not the distinguished Presiding Officer, not this Senator from South Carolina, but over the many, many years, the jurors, the people of America, have given them immunity because for 33 years we have had an advertisement that they are injurious to your health. Now, I looked in that global tobacco settlement, and I said wait a minute--something is wrong here. We don't have any provision in there for a large segment of the economy of South Carolina. We have over 2,000 tobacco farms in South Carolina involving some 40,000 jobs with the warehousemen, the equipment dealers and everything else of that kind, with a $1 billion impact on the communities, veritable tobacco towns. If you want to start Tobacco Road, which we have seen in the Depression, pass this title XV that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Ford, wants to strike. I commend his leadership on this score because he has been in the forefront looking out for an important segment of our society and important communities in my State and his and in the several surrounding States. How they could get together on an agreement and not even consider tobacco farmers is beyond me. But we were told immediately, oh, no, no, no, no, don't worry about that; we will take care of the farmers. I wondered in October when the distinguished Senator from Indiana put in the Lugar, what he called transition bill, which is a bankruptcy act-- an elimination bill is what it was because in just a 3-year period bam, bam, bam, the farmers would be gone. Nothing for the warehousemen, nothing for the fertilizer dealer, nothing for the community with respect to the bank making the loan or the automobile loan, nothing for various other parts of the society itself, the families to adjust and take care of themselves. Under the leadership of Senator Ford, the LEAF Act was developed when we saw this particular Indiana initiative. I remember recently seeing where the Attorney General of Indiana, who, incidentally, was in on the original agreement, said, ``We had no idea of taking care of the farmer.'' Well, that is not what they told us. Everybody said, on both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan fashion, ``Of course, we have got to take care of the farmer,'' and the White House, along with the Congress itself, said, ``Yes, we have got to take care of the farmer.'' So the LEAF Act was developed in a studied fashion with respect not only to the holder of the particular quota but the actual farmer who farmed the crop. It took care of the warehousemen. It took care of the fertilizer and equipment dealer. It took care of the communities. And we put it out at the very beginning of the year as an amendment, the LEAF Act. Of course, when the distinguished Senator from Arizona, the chairman of our Commerce Committee, came to me, he said, ``Now, the majority leader has suggested that our committee put out the tobacco agreement as a commerce bill. And I would like it to be bipartisan.'' I told Senator McCain I would like it to be bipartisan also, but, of course, we had to take care of the farmer. Well, that is the first time I really began to doubt about this ``take care of the farmer'' because the distinguished chairman of the committee turned to me and he said, ``No, we can't put that on.'' I was wondering why. That was the first time I had ever heard that nobody wanted to take care of the farmer. When he told me that, I said, ``Well, it's going to be very partisan, because I am not going to stand by and let this go through committee, without bringing up this important segment of the economy.'' Yes, we are trying to stop little children from smoking. Yes, we are trying to take care of those who have been injured from smoking. Yes, we are trying to get research. And, yes, we are trying to control the advertising. But everybody, from the word go in June of last year, said, ``We are going to take care of the farmer,'' and the LEAF Act did. The Senator from Arizona said no, he didn't think he could do that. Several days later, he came back and said, ``Yes, you are right, we ought to make it bipartisan, and we will take care of the farmer.'' As a result, we spent a marathon session with the staffs of all the Senators involved on both sides of the aisle in the Commerce Committee, the White House, Dr. Koop, Dr. Kessler, and the various entities against children smoking, checking back and forth. There is no question that the distinguished Senator from Arizona did an outstanding job to get a bill that we could all agree upon by a vote of 19 to 1. We did agree on the tobacco bill, and it included the LEAF Act. As we were ready to bring this bill to the floor, we were given notice that what we ought to do in order to get this bill passed was not to spend too much time with respect to amendments; let's see what amendments are going to carry immediate and recognizable weight and see if we can't agree to put those on now, cut the time involved, because the leader wants to handle this in a couple of days, at the most 3 days, and we have to get together with the White House. We don't want to put in a bill without knowing that it will be approved. So we did. We had five sessions with the White House--Senator McCain and Senator Mack on that side of the aisle and Senator Kerrey and myself on our side of the aisle. We kept meeting with them, and I kept checking with them to guarantee the LEAF Act was intact. I kept asking everybody--not to worry, they told me. We had those five sessions, the last one being in my own office here in the Nation's Capital. At 4 o'clock it broke up, and about an hour or so later, about 6 o'clock, I heard a rumor about the Lugar bill. I said, ``Come on, somebody is way off. They might want to put it on, but it can't be on our Commerce bill.'' They said, ``No; that's what the leader is going to do.'' I said, ``How does that occur?'' The bill itself, which is title XV, had one hearing, according to the best check I have made on it. It had one hearing last fall and has not had any hearings since that time, has not had any markup, no committee report, no report out of the committee. It was just an individual Senator's bill--we all will agree, one of the most respected Senators and one of the most powerful in that he is the chairman of our Agriculture Committee. I knew if there was any real intent or force behind it or interest, that he long since would have had that bill reported out of his committee and we could have studied it, and if there had been any differences with the LEAF Act, they could have been reconciled. But, Mr. President, it was the most dastardly procedure I have ever seen when the majority leader stood up and said, ``Oh, no, I'm putting the Lugar bill on your committee bill.'' I said, ``You can't do that without the committee.'' He said, ``Well, the committee is on here; we have a majority.'' I said, ``You can't have a majority without the distinguished Senator from Arizona.'' The Senator from Arizona and I had traveled together to Florence, SC. We notified every quota holder, every equipment dealer, and we had around 2,500 or 3,000 who met in the hockey arena there. We both made our little pitches. The Congressmen made their talks. We answered questions for over an hour's time, and we met with the press for over a half-hour and reaffirmed again and again our support for the LEAF Act. We explained it, why it was there, how it was worded, the difference between burley tobacco and flue-cured tobacco and why we worded different things. Because of this effort, and the Senator's sincerity, I just couldn't believe anyone could make representations then changing the tobacco bill, putting the bill just summarily on another bill. I am not sure that the committee met, but you have to take the majority leader's word. He said they met and that they voted, 11 Senators; it was under the rules. That is the procedure that I object to. If for no other reason, this ought to be voted down. We ought not to sanction this kind of conduct on the working arrangements. Everybody is talking about the confrontational nature and how the club is breaking up and how we are just all politics. We have to trust each other, Mr. President, and we can't endanger that trust by having an understanding throughout 10 days of a heated markup, through five separate sessions with the White House, through a gathering of our tobacco farmers in our backyard, and being assured again and again in explaining the bill was it, and then to put this up and fix the vote on the other side of the aisle. That is what I understand has occurred. That is my first and foremost reason for opposing the Lugar amendment. My foremost reason was to take care of the farmers. My foremost reason now is to take care of the Senate. If that is the way we are going to conduct business, so be it. We can all play that game, with rule and ruin and trickery and everything else of that kind. Let me show you exactly where we are now and take stock with respect to this Lugar amendment. What we have done with this kind of handling of the bill is, we have added on the payments to the States of 40 percent. Of course, that is $5.76 billion. We have added on the marriage penalty of $3.1 billion and the Coverdell drug provision--that is $2 billion--for a total of $10.86 billion. The cost of the Lugar amendment, title XV--to be stricken, I hope--is $6.4 billion. That is a sum total of $17.26 billion the first year, whereas a total estimation for the first year in the bill we have before us--and I raise it for the Senators to see-- this S. 1415 allocates $14.4 billion to the National Tobacco Trust Fund, but we have already spent $17.26 billion. Unless you strike--I wish this was a session of the Budget Committee, because we could have a budget point of order. This is totally without the budget, but it has gotten to be a habit where it is getting into all committees now. If you go along with title XV, you have then expended $2.86 billion--$2,860,000,000--more than what the bill will bring in. Yet, the tobacco companies are talking about how they are being devastated. They haven't seen anything yet. If they don't adopt this amendment and go forward with ideas on the House side, they will learn just exactly what has happened. But, of course, the tobacco companies said, ``Let the Senator from South Carolina talk along, because here under Senator Lugar's proposal there's a real winner for us companies,'' because in 1999 Senator Lugar's plan cuts the price support for tobacco by 25 percent, from $1.68 a pound to $1.22 a pound. ``This equates to a savings for us tobacco companies''--now I am posturing myself so you will understand it. If I am a tobacco company, I love this title XV, because the first year I really make $987 million, just out a billion bucks. So I am a billion bucks to the good with this Lugar amendment. And then in 2000, this proposal cuts the price support by another 10 percent, from $1.22 a pound to $1.10 a pound. ``This equates to a savings to us tobacco companies now. We are in business. And we know how to get amendments passed--sneak them on at the last minute. Don't ever debate them. Don't ever have a committee report it out one way or the other. Just forget about the bill last year, but get the majority leader to sneak the bill on''--$1.276 billion. And then in the year 2001--a 3-year program--what happens in that third year? This proposal cuts the price support by another 10 percent, from $1.10 to 99 cents a pound. This equates to a savings by the company of another $1,543,500,000. So the total savings--total savings, Mr. President--by the tobacco companies on this title XV, if it is not stricken over the next 3 years, is $3,804,500,000. I did not realize it was that much-- $3,804,500,000. Of course, that leaves nothing for health care, not a thing for public health, nothing for health research or anything else of that kind. To come in with this at the last minute and take all this money is like when they used to organize the insurance companies when I was Governor down there in South Carolina. And they had one company-- Capital Life was looking for a new slogan, and they finally came up with the winning slogan, after considering all their friends' suggestions. They said, ``Capital Life will surely pay if the small print on the back doesn't take it away.'' I know that is exactly what has happened. They said that we are going to have all this money to do the various programs--health care, research, and what-have-you, moneys for the attorneys general, and everything else like that--and the tobacco companies, with a last minute strike, come up with $3,804,500,000, and the farmers are left high and dry. If you want to see the Tobacco Road that we had during the days of the Depression, with the dust and the filth and the desperation and the despair, keep the Lugar amendment in here, and not Senator Ford's LEAF amendment, and we are goners--we are goners. There is no question in my mind. Now, there has been some confusion. The tobacco companies, like to put the spin that we in the Congress are raising taxes when it was their idea just a year ago--no Congressman was at the table; no Senator was at the table--it was the tobacco companies at the table that came out with this scheme, and now they are putting the twist on that we are raising taxes. They are the ones who raised the tax. Now they are trying to put on here the twist that the farmers are going to be taken care of, and at the last minute put on the Lugar amendment, fix the vote, and leave them high and dry. I do not like it. And you can tell by the tone of my voice it should not be liked. I have been around. I have worked with everybody throughout the years here and have had good bipartisan support. We handled the Telecommunications Act, got 95 votes for it. I handled Gramm-Rudman- Hollings on this side of the aisle on 14 votes up and down, and got a majority of the Democrats, over the objection of the leader at that time and the chairman of the Budget Committee. But we got the majority of Democrats to support that particular budget initiative. I have had success over the years working in a bipartisan fashion. This is in the most treacherous fashion I can possibly think of, to take a matter that had not completed the hearings--yet to be reported, yet to have a vote on, no committee report to read or study, no conversation on the contrary--all conversation, all representations: ``Don't worry, the LEAF Act is fine.'' We go down, even before the farmers, and tell them that, and everything else like that, and then go along at the last minute with this ambush. This is ambushing my farmers, Mr. President. And we will have more to say about it. But I think that the Record ought to show exactly what has occurred here. We have a studied bill. We have the tobacco farmers taken care of with respect through the payments that are made now on the average yield for those in flue-cured tobacco, for the quota holders, because the existing system is eliminated. What we have is a system of permits to do away with the quotas. And, incidentally, they wanted to argue--and you are going to hear this ad infinitum--that with all the other farm programs gone, why should we support this? This is the one crop that has had its production limited. And it is a very sensitive crop, and it was here when we landed over 200-some years ago. So we have been handling it over the years in a clean, responsible, productive fashion. And we have created the communities, we have created the fertilizer dealers, we have created the warehouses and the warehousing, as well as the farmers. So in order to be sure that we do not just turn them over to welfare and say that in 2 years they can come and get retraining, we must not abandon them. Incidentally, Mr. President, let me talk about that retraining just one moment. We had down in my backyard the Oneida knitting mills that made nothing but little T-shirts. Anybody could make them, but at one time they had 487 there. The age average was 47 years. They were a very productive company, complying, if you please, with all the requirements--clean air, clean water, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage, safe working place, safe machinery, plant closing notice, parental leave, on and on and on --that Republicans and Democrats said before you open up you have to comply with. That goes into the cost of production. So the plant moved to Mexico, for 58 cents an hour and none of those requirements. So Washington is so keen on how to get things done, they say: ``Retrain, global economy, global competition. We're moving into the age of technology, retrain, skills.'' Well, don't tell this Senator about it. I am the author of the Advanced Technology Program. I am the author of the manufacturing extension centers known as Hollings Centers. I fought to keep those programs going. I instituted technical colleges and special schools back 38 years ago in my own home State. So I am appreciative of technology and its needs. But assume the 487 are immediately retrained the Washington way tomorrow morning, and you have 487 computer operators. Are you going to hire the 47-year-old computer operator or the 21-year-old computer operator? It is quite obvious, Mr. President, that their community of Andrews will be high and dry and out of luck. And that has happened all over the U.S. since NAFTA was passed. And we have lost a fell sum of 24,000 textile and apparel jobs in my State alone. So that next sum, while we have gotten in the BMWs, the Fujis, the Hoffmann-La Roches, and the Hondas--and we are proud of it--the net loss is this, that we have lost 12,400 jobs since NAFTA was passed. Now we are coming up with a very ``wise,'' as they would call it, ``assault,'' I call it, upon the tobacco farmer to put him out of business in a studied fashion over 3 years: take all the money and run with it, devastate the health program and the research program, and the several States are not going to get their money and everything else. And yet it is on there and it hasn't been discussed. I see now the distinguished Senator from Indiana is with us and I am delighted to hear from him. I yield the floor. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor to the Ford amendment striking title XV.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I have done it. I have lost that.

Mr. HOLLINGS. As has this attorney.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly.

Mr. HOLLINGS. No question about it. I see the distinguished managers of the bill. Let me yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming is correct; we have a responsibility. In meetings and almost marathon sessions around the clock with all Senators, 20 of us--1 finally disagreed and voted against us in the Commerce Committee--the distinguished Senator from Arizona, our chairman, made sure that everyone was factored in: That we certainly considered the health groups; Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler were there. We considered the attorneys general. We seem to forget these agreements, and so forth, were made by the attorneys general in consultation with the White House, the health community, and the tobacco companies. We forget the fact, of course, that the tobacco companies--this thing has gotten all out of kilter--agreed to tax themselves. There was not a single Congressman and there was not a Senator at the table last June. They taxed themselves. Now we are running around, we are going to save victims, and everything else of that kind. But let me get back to the Senator from Wyoming, because he is right, we have a responsibility. The 20 of us on the committee complied with that responsibility with respect to lawyers' fees that we would be engaged in, and the money would come to the Federal Government. Yes; as U.S. Senators, we are definitely responsible. You will find that section, of course, on page 437 of the bill-- ``Attorneys' fees and expenses,'' and the criteria used, and everything else, on arbitration. We have in a responsible fashion outlined the responsibility. There is none of this 25 percent--none of it. Absolutely, they are looking at settlements made by the several States--I think Florida, Texas, Mississippi, and now Minnesota I think is the last one. But we are not the Governor of Minnesota or Florida. We have not, as attorney general of Texas or Mississippi, anything to do with that. We could not legislate on it. We believe, as the Senator does on that side of the aisle, in the 10th amendment, those things not outlined in the Constitution as responsibilities of the Federal Government are reserved to the States. While we have one wayward former attorney general who didn't want to do anything, we have some outstanding attorneys general who have done more--we are going to prove it--to save people from cancer than Dr. Koop and Kessler combined. I will get to that. But I want the Senator from Wyoming to know that we have done just that. We have acted in a responsible fashion. It is arbitration. Incidentally, since I mentioned Florida, they ought to be ashamed of themselves and take down that sign. Our distinguished President, take down that sign that is absolutely false. Rodham, I don't know him--Hugh Rodham, Hillary Clinton's brother. They put that up because they want to project partisan politics into this and Hugh Rodham as a part of the litigation team--absolutely ludicrous. But they put a sign up there and then ``drink with the Devil.'' They have all kinds of expressions. They are running around on the floor of the U.S. Senate with all the pejorative terms of ``corruption,'' ``greedy,'' ``predatory,'' ``raising taxes,'' ``slam dunk,'' ``outrage,'' ``sultans of smoke.'' Oh, boy, they are having a heyday. Oh, boy, aren't they having a heyday. Aren't they having a heyday--a total smokescreen--with respect to what the actual fact is. Incidentally, you are looking at a lawyer who practiced for 20 years, and never by the hour. And let me identify myself as a defendant's lawyer as well as a plaintiff's lawyer. I represented the South Carolina Electric and Gas on their bus system, passenger bus. If you want to defend cases, defend the suits brought by passengers on a city transit system. And I can tell you here and now that about the middle of November, maybe even a little bit earlier, the Christmas club starts. Nobody who gets on a bus wants to catch their arm in the door, slip down in the aisle, fall down the steps. The bus is jerking off everywhere. And they got all of these little suits. The corporate lawyers, the regular defendant lawyers, are lazy. I said that to the chief counsel of the electric and gas company because I was suing them as a plaintiff and making money doing it. I said, ``Well, tell them to come in and try the cases.'' But they settle them all out because they are busy and they don't want to bring the cases. So I lined them all up and saved that particular corporation millions of dollars, and I am proud of that. I am proud to stand here when the Senator from Texas says they ought to be ashamed. We had this nonsense. We have already voted on it. Sixty percent of the Senators, according to the Senator from Texas, ought to be ashamed--making all this thing up here of what has been going on now for years. It has to do, Mr. President, with lawyers. We see it at every particular turn and the political opportunism that has come about as a result of an outstanding job done by lawyers. What really happened--and the Senator from Alabama said he was one who was approached and did nothing and is proud of it. Well, if every other attorney general had done that and waited for others to prove the new theory, as he said--and it was a new theory; nobody had ever won a jury verdict--nothing would ever have happened and we would not be here. If you look in the Congressional Record from January to June of last year, you will not see an expression of children smoking in the Congressional Record. Nobody was concerned about it. I have been here almost 32 years, and I have worked with the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, won national awards and everything else of that kind. Other than putting up the notification asking for more research and everything else, we were not stopping smoking. This whole thing is going on here brought about by trial lawyers. It is going to eliminate a lot of cases, a lot of cancer deaths, as a result of smoking. But, yes, they had the ingenious approach of a class action, the trial lawyers did, over the past several years, culminating in the agreement last June. They said: We are going to continue to bring these class actions even though we have not won one, and we think we have some of the company's records here that the jury would take notice of and change their mind and give us a verdict. The attorneys general were approached by these particular trial lawyers, and they all joined in. I will cite later on, one attorney general had to defend his life, had to hide the witnesses, had to really withstand a lawsuit of hourly pay, hourly wages--hourly, hourly, hourly. Oh, my heavens. Twenty years I practiced law, and if I didn't do something for the client, I did not get paid. And if I brought a case on a contingent basis and lost, I lost it; the client paid nothing. That is a wonderful thing in America for middle America and the poor Americans. If you can think up a better system, think it up, because it has worked over the years. And, yes, our business leadership doesn't like it. They call it frivolous suits. What trial lawyer has time for a frivolous suit? He doesn't get anything if it is frivolous; it is going to get thrown out. So the proof of the pudding on frivolous suits is to try them and win, and the lawyers will quit bringing those kinds of cases if they are frivolous. We don't have time for frivolous suits, sham claims, and those kinds of things that they talk about. We bring good cases. We bring good cases, and we make a mark. That is exactly what has happened here with respect to this case. They went to the attorneys general, and the attorneys general finally got together with the companies. And the companies are saying: Well, we are winning these cases but it is costing us $500- to $600 million in lawyer's fees. Now we want to control lawyer's fees. They never have, over here, worried about really making money--this crowd over on the other side of the aisle. I have never seen a more sham performance than they are worried about anybody making money. Otherwise, I have been up here, and if there is an outrage, it is this billable hour crowd where ``I don't know the law so I charge you as a client so much per hour to go up in the library on the weekend.'' It is my call, and if I can stay ignorant long enough and go up more weekends, I get more money. That is the crowd that ought to be controlled. The Senators around here have been involved in various hearings now that owe all kinds of millions in billable hours to downtown lawyers to come and look at their records and everything else of that kind. That is the outrage that bothers this particular Senator, not the lawyers who really brought the case and did something. And none of it is 25 percent. The truth be out and the fact is--and charge me for this; it is going in the Congressional Record--8 percent is what is going in with respect to these cases in Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Minnesota. But they throw around 25 percent and everything else of that kind, and all of it is subject to arbitration and agreement. In the Texas case, they already have been petitioned by the distinguished Governor of Texas, and they are in a hearing, and I do not know whether it will lead to arbitration; I haven't kept up with it. But the States know how to look out for themselves. To this States rights crowd on the other side of the aisle, now all of a sudden all the attorneys general are dumb, don't know what they are doing, and we have to protect the farmer, the filling station operator, and the repairman at the garage. Isn't it interesting, Mr. President. There is no plaintiff up here complaining, no plaintiff ever complaining about lawyer's fees. Who is complaining? The crowd that is crying is the one that is causing the injury. They posture themselves that they are looking out for the filling station operator and the working lady and the laundry woman and everybody else like that--poor America. The only way to get a lawyer is to go in and get good representation on a contingency basis. Isn't it interesting. You find me the plaintiff who has come up and said, ``I get paid too much money.'' They are tickled to death to get anything, because if you left it to the corporate crowd, they wouldn't get anything. I know. I have been in the game. I have watched it over the years. But be that as it may, they made that agreement and they said on a contingent basis, which now averages out to 8 percent --despite that sign of pejorative terms--just to excite people around here and throw poison about, drinking with the Devil and all. They have all the wonderful little expressions, but I wish they would come out in the Chamber and debate this thing, because I am ready to debate it and stand up when they end up with their peroration that we ought to be ashamed. Well, I am proud. I am proud of this particular initiative made by the lawyers and the States attorneys general, because they made that agreement and they went in never having won before. They put in their own money. And go to the distinguished Attorney General Mike Moore of Mississippi. Mr. President, you were an attorney general. Can you imagine bringing a case in the State of Washington and having the Governor of Washington sue you because you brought the case--not just say, ``General Gorton, I think you might be mistaken.'' Just sue you. Just sue you and make you hire a lawyer to defend yourself to do your job. That is Mike Moore, from Mississippi. He fought that. Had to get in his own pocket, and hire lawyers there the whole time. Otherwise, they had to hide witnesses that they got from the company. For 2 years they chased them around. They tried everything in the world to intimidate their witnesses. They really went on a struggle to come this far. And some of the lawyers they are talking about--I am not that intimate to the case--have yet to get a red cent. They have millions of dollars invested in time and effort--discovery, interrogatories, appeals, appearances, travel, on and on and on, on behalf of the public of America, and they are the ones who are doing the job and not these Senators with this particular amendment. Because if they were really interested in billable hours, I would refer to some of them here who are listed by none other than our friend, Steve Forbes. I worked closely with Steve Forbes. He was always asking me for more money. I was chairman of a subcommittee of State, Justice, Commerce, and he had Radio Free Europe, and Liberty. I really respect him. He is a wonderful fellow, a dedicated American. He did an outstanding job. But don't let him act like he never saw this town, because he has, and he has been asking the town and the Government for more money. But he listed here, since they brought in Intel--I just got this at the first thing--Andrew S. Grove, and he gets $164 million compensation a year, coming down to $77,000 an hour. Where is the bill about the predatory greed, corruption, ``Sultan of Smoke,'' outrage, predatory, right on down the line? They don't say that Grove is all of those nasty things. They say that is pretty good. Right on. And I agree with that. I admire him. I have been to the Intel plant in Dublin, Ireland. I have to tell that. I have to enjoy something this afternoon. Just to show how we do work with industry, I walked into the Intel plant, a billion-dollar plant outside of Dublin, and when I walked in the distinguished head of the plant named Frank McCabe--I know everything I say is going to be checked. In a campaign, they have nothing but lawyers and billable hours to check everything you say, so write that down--Frank McCabe is his name. And he said, ``Governor, glad to see you.'' Well, I don't remember him. But I remember him now, because he was with General Electric in Irmo, a plant we brought to Irmo, SC; GE. He was there for 10 years, managing that beautiful operation, and $1 billion invested. He said, ``You know how I got it operating and up and in the black?'' I said, ``No, how is that, Frank?'' He said, ``I went back and sent teams to Columbia, SC, where you had Midlands Tech, and we copied your technical training for skills, and we have it over here in Ireland.'' So, we do not speak casually or critically of Mr. Grove. I am proud of him. I wish I had the ability to make $77,000 an hour. The next fellow here is Mr. Eisner. Oh, I know him, and he is a wonderful operator. I have been out, talked to a board of young folks. I don't know the official name of that board, but I can tell you they were the smartest young gentlemen I ever met, and ladies. They cross- examined me and they knew more about what was going on in Washington than any group with whom I have met. They were really updated and had very thoughtful questions, and I learned from them. So I don't speak critically. But they got Michael D. Eisner here. Steve Forbes lists him down at $245 million, or $120,000 an hour. Where is the bill? Here is a fellow who has more than your $90-some thousand or $80-some thousand. The floor is cleared. They are not around. There is no amendment to grab Eisner at $120,000 an hour. Then, there is Stephen Hilbert. He gets $350 million, or $170,000 an hour. Man, this thing is going up, up, and away. I better start subscribing to this magazine and see where I can get out of this political rut, trying to defend the working people of America, those who cannot afford billable-hour lawyers--who cannot afford a lawyer, period--but can come in and if they have a claim or have a chance or whatever. One of the last cases I handled, I said, ``I don't think too much of that case.'' Well, the lady said, ``Mr. Hollings, we have been to four other law firms and finally the sergeant out there at the police station, he said that you didn't mind trying the cases. And what I am telling you is right. I wasn't at fault.'' Well, it looked to me the way she described the particular injury, and the case that had come about, they had to have a moving bridge. If someone is ever interested, I will go, because I took that case all the way up past the circuit court of appeals in Richmond, and we won it. I worked for a year and a half easily, almost 2 years, my partner and myself. We had a fortune tied up in that. I wish I had the time to go into it this afternoon, it was very interesting. The point is, we didn't know we were going to get anything for that 2-year period until the end when we finally prevailed. I could go down the list. Wait a minute--Sanford Weill, Travelers Group, $434 million--$200,000 an hour. Where are they? Man, come on. Don't give me about this $80,000 an hour or $1,000 an hour. We have people in America making $200,000 an hour. Yes. Yes. They are ashamed all right. They wouldn't come out here. They won't come out because they know what we are telling is the truth about this situation. What goes into an agreement is a lot of things listed here: the time and labor, that is the billable hour; then the novelty and difficulty of the question; the skill requisite; the preclusion of other employment--you can go down the list of these things, on and on, about the tests, the experience, reputation, ability, the attorneys involved, the undesirability. Can you imagine bringing a case more undesirable than to have your own Governor sue you for bringing the case and everybody else chasing you around and calling you predatory, and ``Sultans of Smoke,'' and everything else like that, when what you have done was agreed upon by the State? And no, no, no, Senator from Wyoming, we don't have a responsibility other than to leave that one alone; and the one in Florida alone; and the contract in Texas alone--because those were contracts made and cases disposed of without the Congress of the United States under formal agreement. We are all good enough Americans to realize we are not going to abrogate the agreement or contract or whatever it is. Even if we wanted to write it into this particular bill, we couldn't do it. Those are agreements made when we were sleeping at the switch and not doing anything about children smoking. Now, we are all in heat--``children smoking,'' ``we've got to look out for the children,'' ``they're victims, victims.'' People are bringing in their relatives saying they are victims, smoking for years on end. For 30 years we have been telling them the best we could about the danger to your health on a package of cigarettes. There it is. There it is, Mr. President. They want to come in now with this assault, about how they are saving people, totally misrepresenting the record. There isn't any question about it, starting with the Hugh Rodham sign and going down to billable allowance and our duty and 25 percent and the outrageous--outrageous--words again and again and again. Now, what's afoot? Well, any and everything on this bill, unfortunately, because we have drugs, we have tax cuts for marriage penalties, we have all kinds of little provisions here and little provisions there. If you take the political polls, they say, as they said in Henry VI, ``Kill all the lawyers.'' That is what Dick the Butcher said. But it was the greatest compliment we ever had, I say to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my most distinguished friend, because they wanted to start anarchy and tyranny in that vast land. They knew as long as there was a living lawyer to protect individual rights, anarchy could not prevail. So Dick the Butcher shouts, ``First, we must kill all the lawyers.'' But, of course, this crowd over here could care less about Shakespeare, and they are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves, absolutely ashamed of themselves bringing on this onslaught, taking up this time on a matter we have already voted upon. Why? Because we have the billable hour crowd downtown. A lot of good friends I have, and I have gotten most every award you can find from the Chamber of Commerce. I love them, but they even have TV ads about trial lawyers, trial lawyers. If they ever get in trouble, tell them to get one, because they don't want to get a corporate billable hour lawyer sitting on his duff up on the 32nd floor looking at his oriental rugs, at his mahogany desk, blinking his eyes, waiting to go to the club and charging you for it. It reminds me of a Sam Ervin story, when he was a Senator here, about that poor doctor down there in North Carolina. He said the gentleman practiced medicine for 32 years and never had a vacation. He finally got his son out of med school and said, ``Son, your mother and I are going to have to take off for a couple of weeks. You have to take over because we have never had a vacation.'' He came back off vacation and was talking to his son. ``Dad, you know Mrs. Hurleeha?" He said, ``Yes, that's the lady with the bad back.'' The son said, ``She doesn't have a bad back.'' ``My God, son, did you settle that case? She paid your way through med school.'' If you don't kill them, you can charge them, and if you don't bring the case to court and keep on studying it, you get into this billable hour thing. That is exactly what is going on. They have it with respect to the product liability, with the Coast Guard bill, the transportation bill. Anytime that corporate America can hammer on lawyers who really are bringing about safety, bringing about good health, bringing about the end of smoking in America, you have done something. Let's get to the point. The greatest call upon any profession, Mr. President, is to rid itself of the profession. Specifically, if the ministers can get rid of all sin, the doctors all disease, the greatest call upon the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee and me is to get rid of all injury cases. When I came up here 32 years ago, just about, one of the first things was Love Canal. We had all the toxic fumes and the people dying. What happened? We didn't sit around when it was brought to our attention, by whom? Trial lawyers. We put in the Environmental Protection Agency. And it bothers some people getting those EPA statements, environmental statements, but they have saved a lot of injury. It has saved a lot of lives. We have a much, much more healthy America. Similarly speaking, we found little children burning up with flammable blankets in the cribs. The trial lawyers said, ``Look, there is no sense trying these and winning and getting money; let's stop burning up the children. Let's get a Consumer Product Safety Commission.'' I have been in test labs where they test not only the toys, not only the cribs, but all the particular devices that go into the kitchen as to safety, and we have corporate America on a safety course. Ask Ford Motor Company. Just the week before last, they recalled 1,700,000 Ford pickup trucks. Why? Because of Mark Robinson out there with the Pinto case in San Diego. Mr. President, 20 years ago, he got a verdict of $3.5 million actual damages and $125 million punitive damages. He hasn't collected a dime on the punitive damages, but we in America have collected on it, because that is why they are calling in these things now. Time and again every week--Chrysler, just before that, called in hatchbacks. These automobile companies don't just get a CPA to factor in the cause of the injury--``We can afford that rather than pay the lawyers; we just settle the cases''--they are putting out safe products in America. And Europe is following our example. So what happens then? Along comes the trial lawyers with the attorneys general. They have come in now and not taxed anybody. When I heard this figure last June, I was almost in shock. I have worked on the defense budget for 28, 29 years on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The actual amount is $250 billion, but when they came up with $368 billion, I said my newspaper has gone loco. They don't know how to print things. They have a mistake here. They came up with $368 billion and said just increased a modest amount, and they are saying, ``Oh, Congress is up there, tax and spend.'' And that is the companies' ads. They are the ones who agreed to it. It was their idea. Come on, we have gotten totally off track here with this political charade that has been going on with attorneys' fees. ``We'll come back again, and if we can't get $1,000, we'll come back for another amount; we'll come back next year, and we shall return,'' like MacArthur. Come on, they know better. We will not put in here to get the billable hours crowd downtown and limit them and or take these corporation fellows who ``deserve'' what they get. ``They produce,'' and don't tell me the trial lawyers don't produce. We are here. No Congressman brought us here. No Senator brought us here. The trial lawyers brought us here on this particular initiative. It is greed, trying to get even more, acting like we are the ones giving the fees. As the Senator from Wyoming says, the provisions are in here for responsibility of arbitration. You wouldn't have found 19 Senators who would have reported this bill out for a reckless 25 percent and billions and billions of dollars like they are talking about. It is less than what corporate America is doing, riding around smiling. I met with that crowd. I like the carpetbagger up in the Northeast and Boston and New York. When you are a young Governor, they will let you in the door. And we have the blue chips, corporate America, down there. Now we travel over to Europe and Latin America, and we have--and we are proud of it--the hundreds of Hondas, the Hoffmann La Rouches, the BMWs. But I can tell you here and now, let us not as a Congress bog down into this political thing on account of pollster politics and start limiting fees. Let us let them make their agreements. Let us, as a Federal program, have an arbitration like we have in everything else. They have subjected themselves, I know, in Mississippi and otherwise, to arbitration. The trial lawyers will agree with that. Let us get away from all of this onslaught of Hugh Rodham, Hillary's brother, everything else like that, that they might think is a good thing to put on national TV so they can get on C-SPAN and go again and again at the particular bill that we have before us. Mr. President, as a question, we had hearings on this. And there is a legal question. I am sure the chairman of the Judiciary Committee will get into it.