Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. No. I apologize for raising these, but I just wanted to show the sincerity. You know, these are all friends of mine. I admire them all. And they produce that amount.

Mr. HOLLINGS. No. The Congress has a lot of good work to do, but not to get off in the field of this thing.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Certainly.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Certainly.

Mr. HOLLINGS. No, sir.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Not at all.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the questioning of the distinguished Senator, because it brings into sharp focus exactly what we are about here.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly.

Mr. HOLLINGS. What impressed me, Senator, about Mr. Gates--I missed him the other morning because I had to be on the floor--but he has some 21,000, 22,000 individuals working for him--all millionaires. Now, how do you like that? That is a wonderful business and industry. And it is his genius that has gotten it there. It was nothing we did in the Congress.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on April 18, 1998, this body mourned the passing of a distinguished and beloved former colleague, Terry Sanford of North Carolina. In the days following Terry's death, I heard many moving tributes to him on this floor. And at his funeral in North Carolina, I heard eloquent eulogies and heartfelt testimonials to his greatness. But I have heard no tribute to Terry Sanford more sincere or beautiful than that of Joel Fleishman, who was a good friend to Terry Sanford and whom I, too, am proud to claim as a friend. Mr. Fleishman's tribute evokes the qualities that made Terry Sanford a great statesman and educator, and it reminds us all of the importance of principled public servants to a republic such as ours. At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Fleishman's tribute to Terry Sanford be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate consideration of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act bill, the so-called ISTEA bill. This bill sets priorities and funds for surface transportation projects and programs for the next six years. It is the product of many months of negotiations between the House and the Senate and between Members on both sides of the aisle. We have managed to come together on this bill by compromise and a willingness to listen to all points of view for the good of the nation and the States. As ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee, I can tell you that the provisions in the Commerce Committee title of the bill were the product of intense negotiations for many weeks. But the way to judge our efforts is the result and I am proud of what has been achieved. We have provisions to strengthen the safety of motor vehicle air bags and to allow States to design programs to raise the percentage of their citizens who use seat belts. In addition, we have given the Secretary of Transportation the flexibility to design additional commercial motor vehicle safety programs. We have authorized a program to provide funds for the development of rail and intermodal projects. These programs will allow us to expand the nation's infrastructure. Most importantly, the bill contains funds to replace our crumbling bridges and roads. Together these programs will provide our citizens with safer bridges and roads and additional infrastructure will allow our citizens to compete in the world market. Commerce Committee provisions also address the needs of recreational boaters and anglers. The bill extends the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and recovers a greater portion of the federal fuel taxes paid by boaters and anglers. In addition, Commerce Committee provisions ensure that funds are available to make boating safer, more accessible, and environmentally cleaner for the 76 million Americans--more than one- fourth of the nations's population--who go boating each year. Finally, the bill extends programs to restore and protect sportfish resources and strengthens efforts to introduce segments of the American public . . . especially our youth . . . to the healthy fun of fishing and boating. I take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Commerce Committee for their efforts on behalf of this bill, and indeed, on behalf of all of us. Mr. President, I urge passage of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if there was any real sincerity or concern about money--and, incidentally, I never have seen my Republican friends ever worry about people making money. You all really are worried about people making money? Come on. You know and I know they would come in here and say, here is the head of Philip Morris--and I got all these things, billable hours--$85,779,000 with stock options there. That is his pay, according to the Wall Street Journal. But I can play that game of so much an hour. Let's talk about the 5 years with nothing an hour. ``He either fears his fate too much or his dessert is small,'' we say in the practice, ``to fail to put it to the touch and win or lose it all.'' And the lawyers in Florida, in Texas, in Minnesota--nothing an hour as of now. Instead of a jackpot, they are hitting a hijacking on the floor of the Senate by a crowd that is trying to make TV shorts that Hollings is in the pocket of the trial lawyers. The truth of it is, I am trying to get into their pocket. I can tell you that right now. And I might succeed. I got some names here from the different Senators around that seem to know them better than I do. But in any event, the comeuppance is that blood, sweat, and tears. There isn't any question about it, by gosh, when you take the little lady who came in, and they decided to bring the case, and he got his friends in and they worked it. And I asked them. I said, ``I saw one account they had $5 million invested in the Mississippi case.'' They said, ``Well, they got that from the asbestos cases and everything else.'' Maybe that is what it is; the Chamber of Commerce just doesn't like class actions. But that is cleaning up bad medical devices, the implants, the asbestosis, and now cleaning up tobacco. This is not a billable hours thing. They haven't got billable hours. Zero hours, 1993; zero hours, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998. They haven't gotten a dime. And you all are trying to hijack them on what has been agreed to by the attorneys general, by the Governors, by the clients and everything else, preying around like vultures on agreements made. Ex post facto now, they want to come in and show how concerned they are. If you had been concerned, you would have done something about it. I have been up here 30 years, and they haven't done anything other than put the ad on a packet of cigarettes. Now we have somebody who has brought tobacco to the bar of justice, and they haven't gotten anything yet--zero hours. And yet you all want to come in here and play this game about you are all worried about who is getting the money. Mr. President, it is absolutely ludicrous for this group to come in. It is another design. It is just that you take a poll. They don't like lawyers in the poll, so they make the little TV short in the campaign this fall and they say so-and-so is in the pocket of the trial lawyers, yak, yak, yak, and everything else of that kind. But I will show where the attorneys general and the Governors and the parties all agreed and the work did it. And we didn't do it up here in Washington. Now is no time to come in here and start preying on people on an agreement that has already been made.

Mr. HOLLINGS. We only have about 7 minutes left. So you have a half- hour or more. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. HOLLINGS. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, under the agreement I move to table the amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS. We are prepared on this side with the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield such time as necessary to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 3 or 4 more minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey 5 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Mignon Clyburn, daughter of U.S. Representative James Clyburn, on her election to the South Carolina Public Service Commission. The PSC-- which overseas electricity, gas, phone, water, and sewer rates--is crucial to safeguarding consumer rights for all the people of South Carolina. Its work will be especially important and complex now that the telecommunications and utilities industries have been deregulated. It is because the work of the Public Service Commission is so important that I am glad to see someone as capable and dedicated as Mignon Clyburn appointed to the Commission. Public service flows in Mignon's blood. Her father, the first black Representative elected from South Carolina since Reconstruction, served South Carolina for many years in various community and state positions before entering the House of Representatives. Mignon has worked for over a decade as the driving force behind The Coastal Times newspaper. Her tireless work writing, editing, and marketing the magazine has earned it well-deserved praise as one of the best community papers in the Southeast. Mignon also has served her community through extensive volunteer work with the United Way and other organizations. Mr. President, Mignon Clyburn will make an excellent Commissioner. She understands the importance of the Public Service Commission for the people of South Carolina. She said after accepting the position, ``I think this is the most significant agency . . . in the state. What's more vital or fundamental than your utilities?'' Mignon Clyburn will make a wonderful Public Service Commissioner. She is an intelligent, hard working, and committed to improving the life of every South Carolinian. I am confident she will be a dedicated and effective guardian of South Carolina consumers.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. If the distinguished leader will yield, I understand we are coming back at 2:15. I was trying to get an hour on our side.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Texas reminds me of that youngster who went to the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist drew some circles on the blackboard and said, ``Now what do you think of?'' He said, ``Sex.'' He drew lines up and down. The youngster said, ``Sex.'' He drew some crosses. He said, ``Sex.'' The psychiatrist said, ``Young man, you're the most oversexed person.'' The youngster said, ``Doc, you're the one drawing the dirty pictures.'' The Senator from Texas is the one drawing the dirty pictures. I have never heard so many extreme nonsensicals in my life. We want to keep his dear mother here. No one is victimizing her. What we are going to try to do is help the doctors to counsel her to stop smoking. Let's get back to last June, almost a year ago, to show you how far out of kilter this thing has gotten. What happened was, to the surprise of many--I did not know, and I do not know of any Congressman or Senator who participated. I do not think there was a Congressman at the table. I do not think there was a Senator at the table. But the tobacco companies, together with the States attorneys general and the White House and the health community, announced a dramatic settlement of $368 billion. That is without a Congressman or Senator even thinking in these terms. I have been up here 30 years. And I have worked with the Cancer Institute, Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler and others. Thirty-some years ago, yes, we put notification on a pack of cigarettes. And we have admonished--I have seen demonstrations by the Cancer Institute that stopped me from smoking. But we have not done near what was announced last June. Last June, the communities got together on the basis of the companies stating, in essence, ``Look, we're tired of winning these cases.'' As we speak on the floor of the Congress today, no one has won a jury verdict against a tobacco company, period. I think it is in the main, on account of the publicity and the health and the notification of the assumption of risk, that smoking is dangerous to your health. The companies themselves are engaged in advertising Miller High Life Beer, Kraft Foods; different other things of that kind, Ritz Crackers, what have you. They are good businessmen. They are not a bunch of crooks, as they are trying to be depicted here once the politicians got this particular issue. They have run a touchdown in all the directions and in all extremes. But what happened was the companies said, ``Look, rather than paying out all these costs to lawyers and winning every case after case, why don't we get together and continue in an orderly fashion.'' We are not going to have prohibition. Even I heard Dr. Koop testify to that before our committee that no, he was not attesting to having prohibition. We are not going to have prohibition of tobacco. Tobacco was here. The Indians were smoking it when we arrived. Just the other day we had a celebration with our role model, the former distinguished majority leader, Mike Mansfield, whom when you go to the Mansfield Room, he is very proud of that portrait of himself smoking that pipe. And he is 95 years of age. So we live in the world of reality. Hopefully, this Congress will get back to reality and not the nonsense that we have just heard of about taxes and what the idea was and everything else of that kind. The idea was to get an arrangement whereby the companies who could win every advertising case about Joe Camel and everything else of that kind says, ``We'll stop advertising in this manner. We'll stop spending that money on advertising. We'll stop spending this money on lawyers. And we'll make an agreement with you to pay in so much of our profits. Necessarily, you say that you want to raise the price because that is the best control of tobacco consumption, so we'll go along with raising the price.'' We live in the real world. I think it is $4 or $5 or something in downtown London. I was visiting with a friend not long ago from Canada. He picked out of his pocket and lit up a cigarette. And I said, ``How much, by the way, was that pack?'' He said, ``This one is $7, but in Canada it is $6 to $10.'' You see, that shocks us who really have not paid that close attention. I never heard of any $360 billion, and I have been working on the defense budget for years on end. That is only $245 billion. Here we come with an amount that they agreed to pay themselves with an increase in the cost. The politicians coming around hollering, tax, tax, tax-- tax and spend, tax and spend, and everything else, including the companies. Under the whole cloth, the tobacco companies are the ones who thought of the idea of taxing $368 billion. And this just carries it up to $500 billion. So they are the ones who gave us the idea that let us go ahead and see how much, if you please, Mr. President, you could charge on cigarettes, as much as possible, to try to stop the smoking, pay for the advertising, pay the States back for their Medicaid costs, start some children's programs. Yes, they talk about it--tax and spend. The spending is on children, on helping to get children to stop smoking. The distinguished Senator from Texas knows that. We are doing that, and we are going to use that money to try to stop children from smoking. And, you know, Mr. President, they went even further than I would have gone if I had been their lawyer or I had been the CEO, and that is take some kind of pledge and penalty for what they call ``look back.'' It took me a long time--they said, ``We're going to be responsible for stopping smoking in America.'' Now, whoever heard of that? We have been trying to do it with notification on the packages. The health community has been trying it. Every doctor now will counsel you. So there is nothing new. But the tobacco companies are supposed to advertise in an adverse fashion and pay a penalty that goes up, up and away if, as a company, they do not comply or accomplish it. Now, that was a pretty solid agreement that has been distorted in every fashion here which does not seem to get any understanding because the jackals have taken over now, cackling up here about tax and spend and everything else of that kind, going into $18,000 an acre, $100,000- an-hour lawyers' fees, and all these other things. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from North Carolina has an amendment that he wants to put in--and I want to yield to him just as promptly as I can--relative to legal fees. And we will debate that and the contribution made by trial lawyers. Let me just state ahead of time, categorically--and I am looking over here at a chart that says ``Minimal Ethics.'' Not at all, absolutely not at all. I have to say something about that chart. I cannot resist the temptation. I have been at the trial bar, and if they think it is anything unethical, we could go to the company lawyers who are now being investigated for conspiring with the company executives on how to avoid these charges and everything else of that kind. Man, oh, man, talk about being unethical, after the abuse and the challenge they have been through. There is a little attorney general down there in Mississippi. I was just watching it the other night. I was not that familiar with him--Mike Moore. He literally was sued by his own Governor trying to bring tobacco to the bar of justice. But he stuck to his guns. Maybe they call that unethical bringing that case against the industry, or a contingent fee is unethical. But it goes for the ``every mother's son'' the best of counsel. And corporate America and the Chamber of Commerce does not like that. Billable hours, good Lord have mercy, we are going to get into a good debate on billable hours. And there are 60,000 of them registered to practice in the District of Columbia, 60,000--oh, they got all lawyers in Japan right here in the District--59,000 will never see a courtroom or know anything about law. It's fixing me and fixing this one and that one. It's fixing the jury. Unethical? Unethical? I want to hear what is unethical about trial lawyers compared to the billable hour crowd. But back to the Senator from Texas, and he was talking about the amount of money, the billions here, to buy out the farmers. At least we are paying the farmers who have been making a good living to get out of that, not for those who didn't make a living, went broke, and we came and gave them food stamps to the tune of 431 billion bucks, Resolution Trust Company. Half of it was in the State of Texas. We bought every swimming pool, every tennis court, every golf course, every country club that you could possibly imagine. It was improperly financed. You and I know it. Over $200 billion to one State. But they want to talk about honest, hard-working tobacco farmers out there at the sweat of their brow being bought out of this particular business, coming up here with all these fanciful figures; $18,000 an acre--that takes care of the warehouse, that takes care of the bank on the loan, that takes care of the equipment, that takes care of the community, that takes care of his children. When he is out of the business, how do you send them to college? So you let them come in on Pell grants. Yes, it is a comprehensive approach. The LEAF Act is intended, because we saw last fall that the chairman of the Agriculture Committee wanted to just put them out of business, and not take care of the communities. I have I don't know how many farmers in South Carolina, I think about 2,000 tobacco farms, over $200 million, a big cash crop. So when we saw that, we moved. I want to say this categorically and just dispassionately, how shocked and dismayed I am to get into this particular situation. The record ought to reflect it. When we saw the chairman of the Agriculture Committee who said he had seen polls and everybody in tobacco farming wanted to get out of it, which is out of the whole cloth. I have been traveling to tobacco farmers, campaigning, crisscrossing all over the State. I never saw the tobacco farmers trying to get out of the business, but that is what he said. I said we are really in trouble. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford, and I, we have the LEAF Act and, yes, we positioned it. We knew what we were doing because the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee came to me and said, ``Evidently, they are going to have a tough time getting a bill out of any committee, and the majority leader asked if we can get one out of our committee. I would like to have it bipartisan,'' the chairman said. I said, ``I would like to have it bipartisan, too, but we have to take care of the farmers.'' He hesitated a few days and came back and said, ``All right, we will take care of the farmers.'' And we went all the way down to Florence and said the LEAF Act was taken care of, taking care of the farmers. The President of the United States went out to Kentucky and said the LEAF Act is taking care of farmers. We had five conferences trying to get this bill finalized with the White House, with the Republican majority and with the Democratic minority to work out what we could, to get a comprehensive policy and get it over to the House side. Each time we checked, the LEAF Act was there, undisturbed. Now, last night, out of the clear blue--which is one of the reasons I wanted the floor--we get Senator Lugar's bill which had one hearing last fall, I think last September, according to the record, never a markup, and get this whining out here about equal treatment. Why we have to give him--the Agriculture Committee likes the bill, had been marked up and reported, like ours had been worked upon. No, we have been hedging against that nonsense of the Lugar approach since last fall and working around the clock, locking down everything, and they come and tell us that they couldn't avoid it. They had to get a majority of the Commerce Committee members. I am dismayed the chairman voted with that majority. After all our work trying to work together. That explains my statement yesterday about the bipartisanship. Now, back to just exactly what we have here with respect to being victimized and everything else of that kind. I think that agreement, having been worked out within the Commerce Committee and all of these conferences and everything else, was a pretty judicious instrument in that you cannot have tobacco farmers, Senator, unless there are tobacco companies. You can put the companies out of business. We have a mob scene here, a lynch mob coming forward; get rid of the company. Every time we agreed on something, Senator McCain and I heard from different groups, ``more, more, more, they are liars,'' they are this, they are that. Let's agree on all of that, you can put them out of business. Then McCain and Hollings can start their own tobacco company or maybe it would be Sessions and Hollings. It would be a pretty good business. All we have to do is get the tobacco from Turkey. We don't have any false records they can go and embarrass us with--juries and everything else of that kind. We can go back and get old Joe Camel and start advertising again. Ain't nothing wrong with that. They tried end on end before the courts to kick out their advertising, constitutional right, first amendment, and we can go make a living, and what has happened? Nothing for the children. So that is a pretty good political charade to come out on the floor of the Senate and say, now, is it tax or is it for the children, and analyze it in this tricky mind as being just a tax. It is an increase in price. You don't have to pay it. It is voluntary. I quit smoking. They say more than half of the people could quit smoking. Yes, it is addictive to some, just like alcohol. We could say get rid of Ronald McDonald, advertising fat for the children. Go after that. With that, I can agree with the Senator from Texas. When you come right down to it, it is a balancing act that we are engaged in, and nobody wants to acknowledge it. We can get rid of the tobacco companies, but that does nothing for us at all. It doesn't do anything for the health community. It doesn't do anything for the children. It doesn't do anything for the payments to be made. This is money going back to the States. It doesn't do anything for the programs. It doesn't do anything for the look back. It doesn't do anything to anything. So these people that run around and want $1.50 and more and more and more, don't even understand the problem, don't even understand what we are trying to do on the floor of the Senate with the tobacco bill. We are trying to go along with respectable companies--yes, they did stand up and falsely state that they didn't think it was addicting and everything, but those folks are gone. If you don't think they have exactly, just tell the truth. Go over to the Defense Department and get their civil and criminal docket and you will find true blue chip corporations of America trying to defraud the government at every turn. It is a sad thing. Then I have to look up here at minimal ethics in the business crowd. I talked to my friend, Tom Donohue, yesterday and I worked with him. I have every chamber of commerce award that you could possibly get. But to get up here and let this legalistic crowd take over and start controlling--here is the Republican movement that doesn't want to have price controls, wants to deregulate, wants to get rid of the Government, and now wants to fix prices, wants to fix fees. How can you tell when these lawyers have really made the case? It isn't an hourly thing. Until last June, there wasn't any case. Nobody has made any-- they have gotten some settlements. I know the best of the best from my hometown tried one for ancillary smoke--what do you call it? Voluntary smoke? Involuntary smoke? Whatever it is--up in Indiana during the months of February and March, and even he lost that. We are saying that you are not going to have any more immunity, or have a limit on the immunity. They can still bring individuals. They can still bring class actions. Everything is still in the commerce bill. I would like to have given what they promised last June--the immunity. But we did put an $8 billion cap on it. But the reason for giving any immunity is that the juries of America have given them immunity, period. They know the assumption of risk and everything else of that kind. It has been out there 30 some years. By the time we get along with some petitions before the court and everything, it will be 40 to 50 years, and everybody will have known about it; you won't be able to get a verdict against the companies. So we who are responsible for public policy are also at a crossroads. There is a pool of opportunity draining out on us. We ought to be acting this year. We ought to be acting this week. We ought to get with this thing on a realistic basis and how we brought this bill out, and not engage in trickery and come back in and take a bill that never was reported out of the committee, never onto the floor, never in debate, and say, ``Stick it in, because we can fix the majority on the Commerce Committee.'' I am saddened to see that. I never have seen that happen before. I checked with the Parliamentarian. They said yes, it could happen. But I never have seen that and it was sad to see. I have a lot of other things here that we could touch upon, but the distinguished Senator from North Carolina has been waiting. I hope when he does present his amendment, that he amends the words ``minimal ethics.'' I don't know that any trial lawyer--they win some cases, but they lose a lot of cases. As between the billable hour crowd and those working for the client rather than for themselves, because the clock keeps running, that is the most vicious thing that ever happened to my profession--this billable hour group. That is the worst thing I have ever seen occur, because I practiced law--never with billable hours; I got results for that client. Then he understood that was the charge, because we won. When we lost, we assumed all the costs. Everybody knows just that. What has been unethical, according to the testimony made to that attorney general down there, is the companies have been unethically engaged and the Chamber of Commerce has been supporting them. I hope the Senator from North Carolina will amend the words there on ``minimal ethics.'' I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.