Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senator from Utah has made a very, very powerful statement. We are most grateful. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Illinois 10 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield time to the distinguished Senator from Utah.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in response to my distinguished colleague from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, as the saying goes around here--and it is genuine--I have the greatest respect and friendship for the distinguished Senator. He and I have known each other for a good 30, 40 years almost. I really am a little dismayed and disappointed to see this assault on attorneys' fees in the context of what is ethical on behalf of trial lawyers. When they put a billboard up with respect to ethical practices and making millions--we will get the board, I guess, and have it displayed. But let me say a word, Mr. President, about lawyers themselves. A lot has occurred over my few years of public service. In the early days, what we had in the State legislature was about 85 percent of the membership was practicing attorneys. Today, fewer than 15 percent are practicing attorneys. That has come about, in a sense, as a result of billable hours. When we came out of the war and set up our practices, what really occurred was we had to do services for the client, whether it was in the field of real estate, whether it was in the field of a criminal charge, or whatever. It was an agreed-to fee or, in many instances, a contingent fee on winning the case. That is how I grew up as an attorney, which characterizes me now as a ``trial lawyer''--I hope not an unethical one. I was listening very closely to the Senator from North Carolina. The best I can tell is he used the expression ``litigation explosion.'' We can get into that. We have debated that, and we found through various studies made by the Rand Corporation for corporate America that there is no litigation explosion. ``Corrupted our justice system.'' The nearest thing I could find out was the fee itself, and it was too large, as the distinguished Senator surmised, and that in itself was unethical. We know that people make money. I understand that the fellow on Headline News today, William Gates, a very, very successful entrepreneur, never completed college, but he is a genius with a business worth some $39 billion. He makes, doing nothing, just $125,000. I know he has a modest salary, but it would only go to the tax folks. But he operates, and he operates very successfully. They have 21,000 employees there at that Microsoft entity. Every one of the 21,000 is a millionaire due to the leadership and accomplishment of Mr. Gates. Now, that is what is to be considered when we talk about trial lawyers taking on a noncase and developing a case. That really nettles my corporate friends. Incidentally, I should say this, that the corporate friends have been mine over the many, many years, as they well know from my votes here in the U.S. Senate. And we are very proud of the industrial development we have in South Carolina and the efforts of our Chamber of Commerce there. They are highly regarded, highly respected. But they had not gotten into this limbo, so to speak, of being unethical when you win a case. Specifically speaking, going to lawyers generally, it is the genius of America that fashioned this great Republic. Lawyers, if you please, you can go back, Mr. President, to the earliest days. ``Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!''--a lawyer, Patrick Henry. Or otherwise that 30-some-year-old, with quill in hand, seated at that table, ``We hold these truths self-evident, that all men are created equal.''--Thomas Jefferson, the lawyer. The most applicable one, Mr. President, to this present day, ``But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the greatest difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed and in the next place oblige it to control itself.''--that is our problem now-- James Madison, a lawyer. Or the Emancipation Proclamation--Abraham Lincoln, a lawyer. Or in the darkest days of the Depression, bringing about not only economic revival, but equal justice under law, ``All we have to fear is fear itself.''--Franklin Roosevelt, a lawyer. Or giving substance to equal justice under law-- Thurgood Marshall. I know the abhorrence some have for my friend, Morris Dees, down there with the Southern Poverty Law Center, or with Ralph Nader keeping the conscience clear with respect to consumer safety in America. But these are lawyers who are out leading the way. There is no question, Mr. President, that there is no higher calling for a profession than to eliminate itself. If the ministers could eliminate all sin and the doctors all disease, we lawyers are burdened with the challenge of trying to eliminate injury in cases. When I first came to the Senate that was really what was at hand, what you might call class actions. Up there in Buffalo, NY, Love Canal, toxic fumes, poisonous air. And as a result of the class actions there, the next thing you know what we had was the Environmental Protection Agency, which in and of itself, despite those who criticize the bureaucracy of it, has eliminated not only the injury and drinking their own sewage and breathing their own toxic fumes, but eliminated thousands and thousands of individual cases. Then next, of course, we had the matter of the asbestos cases. We had the cases with respect to the Dalkon Shield, breast implants; we had the cases of the little children burning up in flammable blankets in their cribs. And we got the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I just talked the other day to the chairman there who is doing the outstanding job that she is doing at the Consumer Product Safety Commission looking at all of these particular instrumentalities. And good corporate America does just that. The J.C. Penney Company-- there is no more outstanding firm. I have visited their laboratories where they have instituted safety tests of all the articles to be sold, particularly in the field of children's toys, and what have you. So the trial lawyers brought that about. And, Mr. President, just this past week I noticed a little squib in the Times. They had down there that Ford Motor Company had recalled an engine. They took the initiative of recalling 1,700,000 pickup trucks because the link bolt on the wheel was loose. The wheel threatened to come off and cause an injury. Now, Ford Motor Company was not particularly enthused about safety, we know, because back in 1978 Mark Robinson had to bring that Pinto case. And they got a verdict of $3.5 million actual damages and a verdict of $125 million punitive damages. No, they never collected a dime, I don't believe, for those punitive damages. But I say to the Senator from North Carolina, I can tell you now, that saved a lot of injury and a lot of cases, because Chrysler has just had a recall that I saw in the news. And you can go right on down. That brought about attention to safety and people not burning up and having the wheels lock on them, and those kinds of things, and coming off and causing that injury. That brings us, Mr. President, to the present case at hand, which, in essence, was not a case at all. I never heard of bringing in, in a class action, the tobacco companies and getting them to agree not to sell their product, but rather to advertise adversely not to sell, not to attract; on the other hand, agreeing, if you please, to a look-back provision whereby they would be burdened with the beauty of diminishing business for themselves, tobacco consumption, particularly in the field for little children, and raising the price of their product whereby the moneys would go then to the attorneys general and the U.S. Government to help pay these expenses, and so forth. That was not a case that was just filed and tried a few weeks later, and they got a verdict. On the contrary, it was a long, hard, contingency struggle with a guarantee not only to get nothing had it not succeeded--and none have succeeded so far. I repeat, no one has sued a tobacco company and gotten a jury verdict as of this minute, period. But they said, we think we can do it if you let us try; and we will take it on a contingent basis. I do not know what the percentage is down in Florida or Texas or Mississippi where they have settled--somewhere around 10, 15 percent or whatever. The States, the health community, the U.S. Government had nothing to lose. The lawyers bringing this pioneering, if you please, health care for all of America, they had everything to lose. In fact, a fine attorney general down there, Mike Moore, had to really withstand being sued by his own Governor of his own State of Mississippi trying to prevent him from bringing the case. Don't give me this billable hours or $180,000 an hour or $5 an hour or whatever it is. This isn't any hourly thing. This is a no-case situation whereby you turn around and have to pay legal fees to defend yourself in order to bring the case, and he withstood that for a year in the courts with his reputation relatively ruined, but holding on. Then after they won that, they literally had to hide the witness and secure his safety because they had a whistleblower in one of the companies who was willing to bring forth the records and say here they are, here is the actual fact within the company records, here is what they stated, here is what their research found, here are their plans on advertising and here are the ingredients they also included in order to bring about addiction. They had to hide the witness. Don't give me billable hours. I don't know how much hog farmers make. I am waiting for my friend to come back, but I know the lawyers make nothing unless they succeed in bringing this case. Now, of course, having done that, and getting these other lawyers in, his friend, Dickey Scruggs, and Ron Motley from my State of South Carolina, they had an expert approach. If a painter paints a $10 million painting, I don't know how much he gets an hour for painting it, but you have to have expertise. The ingenuity of using the RICO provision of the distinguished Senator from Utah, that is what they did. They said we can use the RICO provision and really go after them. And that was a wonderful, ingenious approach to the actual trial of this particular class action. You have to understand all along nobody over the 3-year period is paying anybody a red cent when they talk about billable hours. So they brought their case, they struggled along, and they got right to the point where it was going to be exposed, that particular record of the unethical. My distinguished friend on the other side of the aisle has a sign up there about ethical; it is the unethical conduct of the corporate lawyers, not the trial lawyers. They have not mentioned one thing unethical other than they won the case and they will get a good fee. They deserve every dime of it and more. They ought to get some kind of award from the health community because this will save us billions and billions of dollars in cost, in health care, hundreds and thousands and perhaps millions of lives from cancer deaths. Not Dr. Kessler, not Dr. Koop, but Mike Moore, Dickey Scruggs, Ron Motley have done more to save people from cancer than Koop and Kessler combined, and Koop and Kessler have tried their best, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. No one in Congress was at that table. There wasn't any Senator--``I introduced the bill.'' There wasn't any Congressman, ``I sponsored, I cosponsored,'' all of this ``I'' stuff. Now they have a lynch mob going on because the polls show that lawyers are unpopular, particularly trial lawyers. I have a friend in town here, sends me a thank-you note at Christmas, Victor Schwartz. We have been in this routine 20 years. Victor represents the business round table and the Chamber of Commerce, and he gets the conference board and he gets all these retainers so long as he doesn't win the case. It reminds me of Sam Ervin's famous story about the doctor who practiced there in Monroe, NC, for some 32 years all by himself. Finally, he had a young son who graduated from medical school and he turned to him and said, ``Son, I haven't had a vacation in 32 years. I am taking off with your mother for a couple of weeks.'' He comes back and the son walks up to him and he says, ``You know Ms. Smith, Daddy?'' ``What about her?'' He said, ``There is really no arthritis in her back, I got that thing cured.'' He said, ``Oh, my heavens. That is the patient that sent you through med school. Why did you do that?'' You can solve cases, but that is our problem with most lawyers now. As long as they can get a continuance, as long as they can make a motion, as long as they can delay, as long as they bureaucratize the judicial system--and that is the corporate defendant crowd. The plaintiff doesn't win until he concludes a case. He has no time; he has about five or six cases waiting, a lot of time out there, a lot of money, a lot of time investigating everything else. What happens is that he finally scores, but he not only scores for himself, he scores here in this particular case for all of America, because they met last June and they had the sensibility not to be greedy. The inference is that you have a greedy bunch that is unethical; they are getting too much. Not at all. The fact is, they had the sensibility to say, like Kansas City, there is only so far that we can go. There has to be balance. If we put them out of business, if we continue to pressure and take legitimate companies out of business, then what will happen is that newcomers without these records that are really bringing about the settlements for us, they won't have any records of any kind of additives. They won't have any records of any kind of lies to Members of Congress or anything of that kind. They won't have any records of agreeing not to advertise or agreeing to advertise adversely to children, or agreeing to a look-back provision. What we will do, like Samson, is pull down the temple walls and ruin us all and we will have gotten nowhere. Now, we understand here this week we can get nowhere. We can start with lawyer fees. We can start with $1.50, $2 a pack, up, up and away. We can have impossible look-back penalties and everything else of that kind, but this isn't the end of Congress. We will be back and we can always amend what we never have tried before, like look-back and nonadvertising agreements. But my counsel is let's move on with the provision of the commerce bill which says simply as to the agreements made within the States, we don't disturb them--all of them, as best I can tell, are under arbitration. But as to the new agreements made for lawyers, they are subject to arbitration for both sides and approved by the court itself. Now, there is nothing unethical or untoward or whatever it is. The beginning lawyers who made the case are deserving. The others who are piling on deserve a heck of a lot less. We all know that. So we are not just setting an example here of $185,000 for nothing but trial lawyers as the thing is depicted at the present time. I can see we have some others that would like to be heard at this particular time. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be extended until 12:45.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.

Mr. HOLLINGS. May I make an inquiry of the majority leader?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I am dismayed. About a half-hour ago, I had a chance to talk, of course, just a bit with the majority leader. Until now, nothing has been said, and this kind of conduct and course of conduct is just the worst I have seen in my 30-some years up here. There is nothing you can do if they want to change their votes. They all voted for the bill, and I know how they felt because I talked to various Members. I have been talking to them intermittently over the past several months, and over the past 1 month in conferences with the White House. And now, to come at the last minute and have the ground cut from under you with this particular request on the premise that you want to be fair and give everybody a fair vote, that isn't what I worked for. I worked to give this a particular priority that no one else has given it--and certainly not to tobacco companies. I think the tobacco companies have the pressure on at this point to go along with the Lugar amendment and save them billions of dollars. That could be the case. I yield to my distinguished friend from Kentucky.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I do object. Mr. President, this has been a long, hard road, as you well know. Almost a year ago the White House, health community and the States, and the States' attorneys general all met and everyone was provided for except the person who really depended on his living--that is, the tobacco farmer. So I got together during the fall with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford, and he and I worked diligently over the fall period developing what we call the LEAF Act, which not only took care of the farmer but the farm community; namely, the warehousemen, the bank that is financing, the equipment dealer, and everything else of that kind. There is no question that if this so-called tobacco bill works, there can't be any tobacco farmer unless they are tobacco companies. This is going to diminish the tobacco companies to a great extent and limit the tobacco farmers, as they go down or out of business. We have included the LEAF Act as sort of a safety net. Now, we met in the Commerce Committee on that basis. I know the distinguished chairman, Senator McCain, came to me, and on the basis of him going along with the LEAF Act, we made it a bipartisan bill and voted it out 19-1. The distinguished chairman also went to South Carolina before thousands of farmers and represented: Don't worry about the LEAF Act. Mr. President, I have been in five conferences now--two actually in my own hideaway in the Capitol--with the White House, the majority leadership, Senator McCain, and others, on this pack of bills. It included Senators on both sides of the aisle, with staffs and everything else. In the five meetings, including the one at 4 o'clock this afternoon, I was always counseled: Don't worry, the LEAF Act is intact. Don't give me the double talk that it is still intact, not when you put in the Lugar bill by a majority vote. The Lugar bill, by a majority vote, puts that farmer out of business. That is the one thing that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, and others, have worked and counseled against, and everything else of that kind. I question, respectfully, that the majority leader identified the majority of the Commerce Committee members. That is all your Republicans; is that what you say?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I do object.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Mr. President, there is not any question about the majority leader's right to proceed as he does and make that request. But he only does that with the majority vote of the Commerce Committee. That is the dismaying thing to this particular Senator, because when you meet as the ranking member, you represent not only yourself but the committee members and other Senators interested, of course, in the tobacco farmer. And you are not just wanting to assure yourself. You are wanting to assure others you represent because they are constantly asking these questions. So everyone, the White House, the health community, everyone now has gotten in step as of 4 o'clock on the LEAF Act, and to come now with this procedure and say they have the majority, which would include the distinguished chairman of the committee, is a shocking surprise to me. I can tell you that right now because I have been with him. I got with him only on this understanding. And to come now and put the LEAF Act in jeopardy with this particular procedure, I just had to stand up here and register my objection. Now, I don't want to object in a silly fashion to the printing, so I will withhold it, but the bipartisanship is ended.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in tribute to one of our nation's fine young students, Ms. Kortney Sherbine of Cheraw, South Carolina. She has been named the South Carolina state winner in The Citizens Flag Alliance Essay Contest. Her essay, ``The American Flag Protection Amendment: A Right of the People . . . the Right Thing to Do'', is a thoughtful paean to our Nation's banner. I ask that it be printed in the Record. The essay follows: The American Flag Protection Amendment: A Right of the People . . . The Right Thing to Do (By Kortney Beth Sherbine) It is my profound and adamant belief that an American Flag- Protection Amendment must be enacted to unequivocally ensure America's survival as a thriving, democratic nation. The significance of our beloved flag is best immortalized through America's heroic and valorous history. From the moment of our country's inception, the flag has served as an inspiration and motivation during times of exaltation as well as tribulation. All Americans should be moved to tears as they see Old Glory through Francis Scott Key's eyes as he peered anxiously from a British prison ship during the War of 1812 (World Book, 238). As he drifted in the Baltimore Harbor, the sole affirmation of America's surviving liberty waved highly in air. As he witnessed the perseverance of our flag, he realized our nation was destined for greatness. In addition, our flag's sacredness was poignantly displayed at Libby's Prison where soldiers cut our banner in twenty-two pieces saving it from desecration at the hands of the Confederates (Krythe, 17). Subsequently, the American people will never forget the powerful image of five marines and one corpsman planting the Stars and Bars at Iwo Jima. These aforementioned tributes to Old Glory should touch the very core of our identity as American citizens. The planting of the American flag throughout history has carved our role as the great defender of democracy. For over two hundred years, the flag has been the most honorable, tangible shrine to freedom the people of the world have witnessed. It is a beacon of hope and light for the oppressed and downtrodden. The American flag is as necessary and integral a part of our patriotism as God and family. It is a symbol of the turmoil our nation conquered to become a superpower today. No action can be more disheartening and devastating to a true American than seeing one of our own deface and desecrate our most precious symbol of liberty. Throughout the span of time, our fallen heroes have paid the ultimate debt for our freedoms and rights. These great patriots sacrificed their very lives for the values and unalienable privileges that Old Glory emulates. How dare our countrymen have the vile audacity to dishonor the memories of our veterans and our hallowed history? Captain William Driver reflected the true American spirit as he proclaimed, ``Thank God! I lived to raise Old Glory . . . I am now ready to die and go to my forefathers'' (Adams, 26). The media shows day after day how American citizens cling to the philosophy of basic human rights in a democratic society. We should hold the Stars and Stripes, the cloak of our very freedom, dear to our hearts with an equal conviction. Charles W. Stewart laced this concept with eloquence as he reflected, ``The Stars and Stripes is our sign of national sovereignty and unity. It is a symbol of the Constitution as the cross is a symbol of Christianity'' (Krythe, 26). We should value our flag's worth as we value our very existence in this grand nation. In 1989, our Supreme Court, through Texas v. Johnson, invalidated the flag-protection laws in 48 states and the District of Columbia (CFA, 3). Currently, five national surveys show that 80 percent of Americans support a flag- protection amendment (CFA, 1). A government should conform to the wishes of the majority of its citizens. Our forefathers were indeed wise as they anticipated the changing needs and demands of future generations. They set forth two possible routes for amendments. Firstly, two-thirds of the state legislatures may call a convention for the proposing of amendments. In addition, two-thirds of the Senate and House can propose an amendment (Ritchie, 59). This wisely crafted system of checks and balances has truly kept our country operated by its citizens. Among many basic rights, the first amendment of our Constitution prohibits the government from restricting freedom of speech (Ritchie, 65). An American's right to speak out for one's beliefs was born in the colonial era and has remained a unique component of our nation thereafter. The Supreme Court has grossly contorted the intention of this freedom and has made a mockery of it for the world to scorn. Freedoms must have limitations for humans to live in harmony. If no boundaries are enforced, chaos will certainly ensue. The ``clear and present'' danger system of limiting freedoms should extend to desecrating the flag (Ritchie, 67). Consequently, when 80% of Americans are extremely offended by the defacing of our most treasured symbols, the possibility for clear and present danger is imminent and inevitable. Vital steps do exist to allow the American people to have a voice concerning the preserving of Old Glory. Laws should reflect the feelings of the majority, not the whims of a minority. A democracy is a government of action. Inaction does not hold a place in our thriving nation. Many steps can be taken by citizens to make positive changes in our government. It is an American's right to contact members of congress, contact the news media, write an editorial, talk via radio, and circulate petitions and materials to show support for his cause (CFA 1). Every true believer in the United States of America should take these steps to save and preserve our beloved flag. If we want our great, democratic nation to survive, then we must save the banner of our triumphs and freedoms. If our symbol of freedom is destroyed, then our nation will surely follow. By losing respect for our American flag, we ultimately sacrifice the right to refer to ourselves as ``The land of the free and the home of the brave.'' In essence, we would merely reduce ourselves to ``The land of the ungrateful and the home of the misguided.'' Why worry about foreign nations stealing our freedoms when we are perfectly willing to sacrifice them free of charge? We must protect our Stars and Bars as adamantly as we fight for our very rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A wise President, Calvin Coolidge, summarized the necessity of our respect for the flag as he urged, ``It will be futile merely to show outward respect of our National Emblem if we do not cherish in our hearts, an unquenchable love for, and devotion to, the unseen which it represents'' (Adams, 30) Seeing our flag flutter majestically in the air should move every American to tears. We should be inspired to be profoundly grateful for the great human sacrifices that have provided us with a rare nation; a nation where all citizens, regardless of race, sex, religion, or wealth have the right to pursue their dreams and reach for the ``stars''. bibliography Adams, John W. Stars and Stripes Forever. Greenwhich, CT: Brompton Books Corp, 1992. Citizen's Flag Alliance. http://www.cfa-inc.org/about.htm. Internet Web Site. February 15, 1998. ``Francis Scott Key.'' World Book. 1987 ed. Krythe, Maymie R. What So Proudly We Hail. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. Ritchie, Donald A. The U.S. Constitution. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1989.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation that is necessary to stem the tide of one of the most annoying anti- consumer practices, known as slamming. Slamming occurs when a preferred telecommunications service provider of the consumer is changed without the consent of the consumer. This legislation enhances the verification and other procedures that carriers must use to ensure that the consumer consents to the change in its service provider. It also enhances the enforcement authority of the FCC, the Department of Justice, and the State attorneys general and imposes greater penalties and fines to address the problem of slamming. Slamming is not a new problem. Many consumers have been victims of slamming, suddenly discovering that their phone service is no longer being provided by their carrier of choice. Instead, it is being provided by an unauthorized carrier. We've all had the sales calls interrupt us at the dinner table. Regardless of what the FCC does, the problem persists. In a recent USA TODAY article, the FCC said it received 12,000 consumer complaints about slamming during the first half of 1997. In 1996, it received more than 16,000 total slamming complaints. In its Fall 1996 Common Carrier Scorecard, the FCC stated that slamming was the top consumer complaint category handled by the Enforcement Division's Consumer Protection Branch. It also stated that slamming complaints were the fastest-growing category of complaints, increasing more than six-fold between 1993 and 1995. In its 1997 Common Carrier Scorecard, the FCC indicated that nine companies accused of slamming have entered into consent decrees and have agreed to make payments to the United States Treasury totaling $1,245,000. The FCC has also issued two Notices of Forfeitures with combined forfeiture penalties of $160,000. Nonetheless, slamming continues to be a significant problem. The provisions we introduce today will hopefully stop this practice of slamming once and for all. The legislation places new responsibilities on carriers for the benefit of consumers. For example, often times, a consumer is slammed and does not know it until the next telephone bill arrives. Sometimes, unscrupulous carriers provide service to slammed customers for a considerable time before the customer becomes aware of the unauthorized switch. To prevent this, the legislation requires that whenever there is a change in the subscriber's carrier, the carrier must notify the subscriber of the change within 15 days. A carrier has 120 days to resolve a slamming complaint. If the carrier is unable to resolve the complaint within the required timeframe, then the carrier must notify the consumer of his or her right to file a complaint with the FCC. The FCC is required to resolve a slamming complaint it receives within 150 days. The bill also requires a carrier to retain evidence of the consumer's authorization to switch carriers and to inform the consumer of their rights to pursue a resolution of the matter with the Federal Communications Commission and with State authorities. Requiring carriers to store information will make it easier to resolve slamming disputes that arise between the consumer and the carrier. Armed with information on how to resolve slamming disputes, we hope that consumers will pursue their available recourse and help us hold carriers accountable for their illegal actions. In addition, the bill creates a variety of causes of actions and imposes still penalties on carriers. If a carrier violates FCC rules, the FCC can award the greater of actual damages or $500 and has the discretion to award treble damages. If there are no mitigating circumstances, the FCC is required to impose on the carrier a forfeiture of $40,000 or more for the first offense and not less than $150,000 for each subsequent offense. If a company fails to pay a forfeiture, the FCC can limit, deny, or revoke the company's operating authority. Where the slammer's actions have been willful, the Department of Justice can bring an action to impose fines in accordance with Title 18, United States Code and imprison the person who submits or executes a change in willful violation of Section 258. In addition, State attorneys general can bring actions in federal court to: impose criminal sanctions and penalties under Title 18 U.S. Code; recover actual damages or $500 in damages; and recover fines of $40,000 or more for first offenses and not less than $150,000 for subsequent offenses unless there are mitigating circumstances. Finally, this bill gives the FCC authority to pursue billing agents when they place charges on a consumers bill that they know the consumer has not authorized. Slamming is a troublesome problem. Slamming eliminates a consumer's ability to chose his or her service provider. It distorts telecommunications markets by enabling companies engaged in misleading practices to increase their customer base, revenues, and profitability through illegal means. Today hundreds of long distance carriers compete for a consumer's business. If slamming is not addressed effectively today, it could become much more worrisome. The changes in the telecommunications industry will probably result in a future in which local and long distance phone services are provided by an even greater number of carriers. It is therefore important that we eliminate the practice of slamming. Consumers have the right to choose their own phone companies when they choose. A consumer's choice should not be curtailed by the illegal actions of bad industry actors and a consumer should not have to spend a significant amount of time addressing issues of slamming. I expect that requirements placed by this bill will help to eliminate slamming. My actions with respect to slamming reflect my continued efforts to protect consumers as I have in the past supported legislation which successfully addressed the problem of junk fax and ensure that companies engage in proper telemarketing practices. I welcome my colleagues in joining Senator McCain and I as we address the problem of slamming and ensure that no one is allowed to curtail a consumer's choice of phone service provider. Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as a supporter of the Veterans' Equality for Treatment and Services Act of 1998, introduced last Friday by Senator Jeffords on behalf of myself, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Specter, and Senator Murkowski, I am committed to ensuring that our aging veterans have access to quality, affordable, reliable, and convenient health services. However, as budgets decrease so, unfortunately, do services provided. The demonstration project outlined in the VETS Act of 1998 will allow Medicare to reimburse the VA for its services without putting a strain on the Medicare trust, and will provide an additional funding source for the VA. The project authorized by this legislation will be conducted over a three-year period, at up to 12 sites across the nation, and annual Medicare spending will be capped. Safeguards will also be imposed to ensure the cap is not exceeded. This bill may even save Medicare dollars by imposing a mandatory five percent discount on its reimbursement for services provided to veterans. Those targeted by this legislation are lower- and middle-income veterans who are no longer eligible for treatment at the VA because of its constrained resources. People like Mr. John C. Elkins, of Columbia, South Carolina, who is in his late seventies and who served over 28 years in the military. Recently, Mr. Elkins wrote this in a letter to me: ``Oh, I know some think we hang on to life and drain government resources that are being paid for by the younger workers. But I must ask you and those who question us: isn't three wars in a lifetime worth something?'' The veterans of our nation have served honorably and faithfully, often under perilous conditions, and they have sacrificed both with the loss of their lives and with their livelihoods. Thousands of veterans have experienced any number of health care problems. These veterans should have the same access to health care as all other Americans and, quite frankly, Mr. President, they deserve more for the sacrifices they have made. Mr. President, you will remember what my good friend, the late President John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address: ``Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.'' The men and women of the armed services, our veterans, did just that. They answered their country's call to duty, and in response they were often put in harm's way. They served 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all around the world. They continue to support and defend our nation's interests, and I believe it is time our nation supported their interests. I urge my distinguished colleagues to join Senators Jeffords, Rockefeller, Specter, Murkowski, and me in supporting the VETS Act of 1998. It is among the very least that we in Congress can do to continue our support for these veterans, like Mr. Elkins, who have given so much to this country, while at the same time helping to preserve the VA medical system and the Medicare trust.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support passage of S. 1046, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1998. University research continues to be a great American success story, and NSF can be proud of its role in helping to create and sustain this great research enterprise. We continue to ask much of NSF and our universities because we know what this system has contributed to the Nation in the past, and we know that greater contributions await us in the future. Mr. President, by themselves, universities cannot solve our national problems such as technological competitiveness, the environment, and social issues like crime, poverty, and education. However, the research and trained young people provided by our universities will continue to play a major role in addressing these pressing issues. S. 1046 authorizes the continuation of the vital programs of NSF that support these efforts, including EPSCoR which has helped strengthen science and technology in many of our smaller states. I would like to take a moment and thank Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Jeffords for their efforts in getting this bill passed. The managers' amendment before the Senate today reflects agreement by the Commerce Committee and the Labor Committee on many issues relating to NSF's programs and funding. The two committees worked well together within the guidelines set forth in the standing order of March 3, 1988. Because of this bipartisan effort to address issues that are within the jurisdiction of the two committees, this is a good bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is my great honor today to salute one of Greenville's most beloved business leaders on her retirement as head of Leadership Greenville: Mrs. Jean Brown. Mrs. Brown has dedicated the last twenty years of her life to fostering an entrepreneurial environment in the South Carolina Upstate. Since 1979, she has worked with the Greenville Chamber of Commerce to develop the Leadership Greenville program, which today is a model of its kind. Through Leadership Greenville, Jean Brown has had an influence on the life of her community few individuals can match. Graduates of her ten month program head countless civic associations, philanthropic boards, and volunteer organizations in the Upstate. These leaders possess an unselfish and admirable desire to serve their communities, which Jean Brown encouraged and channeled. Thanks to her enthusiasm and energy, Leadership Greenville has grown into a Greenville institution. Although Jean Brown is retiring, her legacy will live on for generations in the good works of the Leadership Greenville graduates she trained. Mrs. Brown defines a leader as ``a person who has a passion for what they want to accomplish.'' If that is true, Mr. President, Jean Brown is a peerless leader. Today I am honored to pay tribute to such a dedicated and unselfish public servant.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in homage to an extraordinary group of young people, the Garrett Academy of Technology Varsity Boys Basketball Team. On January 2, 1998, these young men made 32 3-point shots in one game--a new national record. South Carolina takes tremendous pride in their accomplishment, which they achieved with teamwork and individual excellence. In the last two years, this team has set many individual and personal records. The Falcons are the defending 7-AA Region Champions and their coach, Michael Bayne, has been named Coach of the Year more than fifteen times in various sports. These athletes set a standard of excellence for every field of endeavor. The members of the Garrett Falcons are as follows: Robert Seabrook, who set a State record last year by making 12 3- point shots in one game. Robert, a Senior electronics student plans to attend Anderson College on a basketball scholarship. Wil Gibbs, an electricity student, is a Senior and will attend college in the Fall. Hashem Richardson, a plumbing student, is a Senior and will attend preparatory school. Josh Davis, a drafting student, is a Senior and will attend Spartanburg Methodist College. Hassan Bartley, an automotive student, is a Senior and will attend Spartanburg Methodist College. Kyren Ancrum, a plumbing student, is a Junior and plans to attend Denmark Technical College. Ralph Pressley, a plumbing student, is a Sophomore. Louis McCullough, a drafting student, is a Sophomore. Brandon Fields is a Freshman and undecided in his concentration of study. Mr. President, I ask that the newspaper account of this victory, ``Garrett Tech's 3-point Baskets Make History'' which appeared in the January 8, 1998 issue of Charleston's The Post and Courier be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From The Post and Courier, Charleston, S.C., January 8, 1998] Garrett Threes Make History (By Jeff Hartsell) Robbie Seabrook learned how to shoot a basketball on the hoop at his cousins' house. ``They were all so tall,'' said Seabrook, ``that I had to shoot from outside all the time.'' Now that Seabrook is all grown up--he's a 6-3 senior for the Garrett Tech basketball team--the outside shooting touch his cousins forced on him is paying off in a big way. Seabrook is the leading 3-point shooter on a Garrett team that set a national high school record for most 3-point baskets in a game last week. During their own Wall of Fame Invitational last Friday, the Falcons made 32 of 79 shots from 3-point range in a 117-39 victory over Bowman Academy. That performance bettered the 29 treys (in 94 attempts, still a record) made in a game last year by Alexandria High of Juniata Valley, Pa., according to the National Federation of State High School Associations. ``It was pure energy that night,'' said Seabrook, who made nine 3-pointers against Bowman Academy. ``All I know is I didn't get tired in that game.'' Neither did his teammates. Point guard Hashem Richardson also made nine 3-pointers, while Will Gibbs added eight and Louis McCollough, Damien Jackson and Brandon Fields had two each. For the season, Garrett (9-2) has made 98 3-point shots in 11 games, led by Seabrook, who has hit 52 of 137 treys (37.9 percent) and will play next year at Anderson College, an NCAA Division II school in Anderson. Seabrook, averaging 22 points per game, set a state record last year by making 12 3-point shots in one game and made 34 straight free throws at the end of last season and start of this season. Obviously, Garrett coach Michael Bayne believes in the power of threes. ``Robbie has the green light at any time,'' said Bayne, 60- 31 in his fourth season at Garrett after stints at Cardinal Newman in Columbia and Denmark-Olar. ``Most of the other guys have green lights only after penetration. We want to get it inside and dish it out for the square-up three.'' That job generally falls to point guard Richardson, a 6-2 senior averaging 31.5 points per game. McCullough, a 6-4 sophomore, scores about 15.8 points per game. Garrett's success in basketball--the girls' team also is doing well at 9-2--has come despite some problems that are unique to the school, known as Garrett Academy of Technology. Garrett reopened as a technical school four years ago after the old Garrett High was closed. Garrett draws students from all over Charleston County, which makes it hard for some players to make it to practices and games. For example, Gibbs, a 6-4 senior, lives in McClellanville, about an hour's drive from the school. And Bayne said many athletes who already have played sports for another school are reluctant to leave that school for Garrett. He said nine of his 12 players had never played organized basketball before they got to Garrett. ``A lot of kids who would like to play sports at Garrett are unable to, because they don't have a way home,'' Bayne said. ``And we only have two players that have played at another school. ``A lot of kids feel a loyalty to a team they've already played for, so we are trying to teach a system to kids that have never played on an organized team before.'' With the High School League due to reclassify member schools soon, Garrett has applied to move down to Class A from AA, Bayne said. Garrett has about 675 students. ``I think overall that is the right place for us in athletics,'' said Bayne, who also is athletic director. ``That's due to the lack of numbers that are actually able to participate in athletics. Garrett and the Academic Magnet (also in Class AA) are the only two schools in the state that don't have middle-school feeder programs designated to them. ``Until then, we are being a little cheated. The basketball programs have been able to win, but it's a very large hardship on some of our other programs.'' No matter what their classification, Bayne's Falcons have made their mark on the national record book. ``I'm very pleased for these young men,'' Bayne said. ``The national record is important in a lot of ways, but what these kids do after high school is what's important, and I just hope they remember that Garrett Tech taught them a lot.''

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Health Care Equality Act. Mr. President, it may come a surprise to many that the Department of Defenses has reneged on its promise to those who have honorably served in our military forces. That, Mr. President, is the promise of lifetime, quality healthcare for the military retiree and his family. I now introduce legislation that will offer all Senators the opportunity to join with me in righting this unconscionable wrong. Today our military retirees feel betrayed. Before joining, and while serving, they were promised quality, lifetime healthcare. However, that promise is being broken. Military health care facilities have closed because of the downsizing of our military forces. Those military health facilities that remain can treat fewer and fewer retirees. The TRICARE system has high overhead and its provider fees are so low that many health care providers will not participate. In addition, in some areas, retirees do not have access to provider networks. Finally, the TRICARE system will not treat Medicare eligible retirees. Mr. President, it is just not right that the military retiree is the only Federal retiree who is prevented from using his employer provided health care when reaching Medicare age. This legislation requires the DOD to provide all military retirees with health care that is comparable to the care provided by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, or failing that, to make the FEHBP available. In addition, this legislation would require that TRICARE be improved to the FEHBP level. This Legislation will not prevent a retiree from using a military health care facility. However, it will improve and increase the health care choices for our retirees. Our military men and women have given much to protect our country in time of peace and war. We must acknowledge this by providing them the available, affordable, quality health care that they were promised. No lesser measure will suffice. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in immediately enacting this legislation so that we can now begin to care for military retirees, as promised, in a manner they so richly deserve for their service to our great Nation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Health Care Equality Act. Mr. President, it may come a surprise to many that the Department of Defenses has reneged on its promise to those who have honorably served in our military forces. That, Mr. President, is the promise of lifetime, quality healthcare for the military retiree and his family. I now introduce legislation that will offer all Senators the opportunity to join with me in righting this unconscionable wrong. Today our military retirees feel betrayed. Before joining, and while serving, they were promised quality, lifetime healthcare. However, that promise is being broken. Military health care facilities have closed because of the downsizing of our military forces. Those military health facilities that remain can treat fewer and fewer retirees. The TRICARE system has high overhead and its provider fees are so low that many health care providers will not participate. In addition, in some areas, retirees do not have access to provider networks. Finally, the TRICARE system will not treat Medicare eligible retirees. Mr. President, it is just not right that the military retiree is the only Federal retiree who is prevented from using his employer provided health care when reaching Medicare age. This legislation requires the DOD to provide all military retirees with health care that is comparable to the care provided by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, or failing that, to make the FEHBP available. In addition, this legislation would require that TRICARE be improved to the FEHBP level. This Legislation will not prevent a retiree from using a military health care facility. However, it will improve and increase the health care choices for our retirees. Our military men and women have given much to protect our country in time of peace and war. We must acknowledge this by providing them the available, affordable, quality health care that they were promised. No lesser measure will suffice. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in immediately enacting this legislation so that we can now begin to care for military retirees, as promised, in a manner they so richly deserve for their service to our great Nation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague Senator Cochran in introducing legislation that helps define the rules of the game for health care providers and allows investigators to focus on ferreting out and prosecuting real fraud in Federal health programs. The Health Care Claims Guidance Act of 1998 that we introduce today is made necessary by conflicting, extremely complex regulations covering Medicare, Medicaid, CHAMPS and other Federally funded programs. Ironically, most of these exist as a result of Congressional efforts to reduce fraud and abuse--to establish a system for billing and claims processing that assures these programs are paying reasonable costs for medically necessary services actually provided to eligible individuals. Not achieving our goal of ending fraud, we just stack on more rules that require honest providers to take more and more time from patient care to do paperwork while the crooks ignore us or accept as a challenge getting around the rules. There is no end in sight. This is a classic example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. We have created a nightmare, and we have a responsibility to begin straightening out some of the confusion so honest health care providers can take care of patients and we can concentrate on prosecuting those who willfully violate the law. It is absolutely imperative that we accept nothing less than zero tolerance for real fraud and that the Government use all the tools at its disposal to prosecute willful violations of the law. It is equally imperative that we play fair with our partners who provide the health care we pay for with Federal funds. When a participating hospital receives directions from its fiscal intermediary, the hospital should know it can follow those directions without fear of being accused of fraud. Using the False Claims Act, the Justice Department is notifying hospitals that they are under investigation for alleged billing fraud, offering minimal time to respond or face prosecution. Hospitals are capitulating to these demands even when they know no fraud has been committed simply because they cannot afford to pay the accountants and lawyers to take on the Department of Justice. Others believe diverting these funds from patient care would be an irresponsible waste of tax dollars and not in the best interests of Medicare beneficiaries. I certainly agree. Respected physicians in my State, some personal friends of forty years, have received letters recently from the ``Medicare Fraud Unit'' demanding that they pay up immediately or face prosecution. They are confused and annoyed about the complexity of Medicare rules and coding, but they are outraged that they are being accused of fraud with no basis whatsoever. I submit, Mr. President, that they deserve to be enraged. And it doesn't get any better once they enter negotiations and are virtually unable to practice medicine because of the auditors consume most of the work day and office space. Then they wait for months to see if the ax will fall. The Health Care Claims Guidance Act of 1998 would take a small but important step in the right direction. It would amend the False Claims Act to create special rules for claims in all Federally funded health care programs. No criminal provisions are amended. The bill's provisions apply only to health care claims limited to civil actions. First, no action can be brought if the provider has relied on and correctly applied information supplied by a Federal agency or an agent thereof. Second, no action may be brought unless the amount of damages is material. Third, it establishes a safe harbor for hospitals with an effective compliance plan under the General Hospital Compliance Guidelines. And, fourth, it raises the burden of proof from a ``preponderance of the evidence'' to a ``clear and convincing evidence'' standard. Mr. President, let me make it clear once again, this bill in no way limits the authority of the Government to recoup or otherwise recover damages with respect to claims under any other provisions of law and does not apply to criminal provisions. It allows us to begin restoring the partnership between the Federal Government and those who provide health care under Federal programs and encourages the Government to use its resources to prosecute those who violate that partnership. I urge my colleagues to assist us in its early passage.