Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would respectfully ask my colleague from Illinois to withdraw his second-degree amendment. If he wishes to have a vote on the amendment----

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the full reading of the amendment, but it probably is not clear from its reading, so let me explain what the amendment would do. This amendment restores at least $1.7 billion to the Federal Treasury to be used for veterans health care, paid for by blocking tobacco lawyers from extracting obscenely excessive and unethical attorney fees from the multistate tobacco settlement. The amendment caps future fee payments from this agreement at $20,000 an hour. In an 8-hour day that is more money than, of course, our salary. The amendment does not apply to any fees from any cases that have already been judicially reviewed and approved by the court and would only apply prospectively, to fees paid in the future, out of the tobacco settlement taxes that have not yet been collected. The trial lawyers still will receive billions of dollars under this amendment. So far, they have received in the billions of dollars. At $20,000 an hour, I suggest this amendment would impose perhaps a one yacht per lawyer per day rule. It is actually a serious proposition. The people who are being ripped off here are, of course, the people who are supposed to benefit from the tobacco settlement. But the fees in some of the cases amount to more than $100,000 an hour and ultimately involve little or no original legal work. Do not take my word for it. These fees are indefensible and outrageous. Even some in the trial bar are in agreement. Here is what noted plaintiffs' lawyers, including tobacco lawyers, have had to say about the tobacco fee award. Michael Ciresi, a pioneer in the tobacco litigation who represented the State of Minnesota in its lawsuit, and who is no doubt familiar with these lawsuits, said the Texas, Florida, and Mississippi lawyers' fees awards ``are far in excess of these lawyers' contribution to any of the state results.'' Washington, DC lawyer tobacco industry opponent John Coale has denounced the fee awards as ``beyond human comprehension,'' stating that ``the work does not justify them.'' Even the Association of American Trial Lawyers, the Nation's premier representative of the plaintiffs' bar, has condemned attorneys' fees requested in these State tobacco settlements. Here is what the President of ATLA noted: Common sense suggests that a one billion dollar fee is excessive and unreasonable and certainly should invite the scrutiny [of the courts.] ATLA generally refrains from expressing an institutional opinion regarding a particular fee in a particular case, but we have a strong negative reaction to reports that at least one attorney on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Florida case is seeking a fee in excess of one billion dollars. Finally, to get the academic side of it, quoting from Professor Lester Brickman, professor of law at Cardozo Law School and a noted authority on legal ethics and attorneys' fees: Under the rules of legal ethics, promulgated partly as a justification for the legal profession's self-governance, fees cannot be `clearly excessive.' Indeed, that standard has been superseded in most states by an even more rigorous standard: Fees have to be `reasonable.' Are these fees, which in many cases amount to effective hourly rates of return of tens of thousands--and even hundreds of thousands--dollars an hour, reasonable? I think to ask the question is to answer it. The choice before the Senate is we can either allow the tobacco settlement to continue to be diverted to pay $100,000 an hour fees to billionaire lawyers or we can put the excess of those fees to a proper use, serving a national need, such as veterans health benefits, while still allowing the tobacco lawyers to earn up to $20,000 an hour.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Members of the other side of the aisle as under the earlier order.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Tomorrow morning, following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1637, the FSC/ETI bill. This legislation will have a direct impact on the creation of jobs and it is important that we move the bill forward. I make this statement on behalf of the majority leader and point out he and others have been working with our Democratic colleagues to lock in a list of amendments to the bill. Thus far, as the leader points out, we have not been able to limit the number of amendments, but we will continue to work toward that end. Senators Grassley and Baucus will be here in the morning to start working through the amendments to the bill. The leader would encourage all Members who wish to offer an amendment to contact the bill managers as soon as possible. The leader would also inform all Senators that votes are expected throughout the day tomorrow as we begin consideration of this important legislation, and Senators will be notified as votes are scheduled.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. All right. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 3. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the Senate then begin a period for morning business until 10:30 a.m., with the time equally divided in the usual form, provided that the time under Republican control be equally divided between Senators Murkowski and Collins or their designees.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, last year, the Senate considered legislation to try to mitigate healthcare cost increases by reforming the medical malpractice system. The bill we took up was S. 11, ``The Patients First Act of 2003,'' which I had co-sponsored. Unfortunately, gridlock prevailed when a cloture motion was defeated. While I was disappointed that the Senate could not address healthcare liability reform on a comprehensive basis, we now have the opportunity to address the obstetrics and gynecological specialty with S. 2061, ``The Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act.'' There is a reason that the OB/GYN specialty should be one of the first areas addressed by medical malpractice. It is one of three specialties subject to the highest liability insurance premiums. Nationally, the dramatic increases in premiums--more than 160 percent over 16 years, 1982 to 1998--have greatly outpaced the rate of inflation, and many physicians and hospitals have been unable to keep up with these escalating costs. In Arizona, OB/GYN practices face premiums averaging $67,000--up 16 percent in just one year's time. There are only a few ways doctors and hospitals can bear these costs. They can pass a portion of them on to patients or they can alter their practice patterns. Some physicians have cut the salaries of their hard- working, professionally trained medical staff or reduced headcount in their practices. Those who are still employed after the cutbacks are overworked, stretched thin with added responsibilities. Other doctors have reduced or completely eliminated some gynecological, surgical or high-risk obstetric procedures. Perhaps most disturbing are the instances of physicians retiring early, relocating their practices to states with friendly laws, or dropping obstetrics altogether. The result is that women's access to prenatal and delivery care is compromised. There are fewer physicians in practice to tend to women; patients have less time with their doctor. I am concerned that women seeking prenatal care and delivering their babies in Arizona may have to travel long distances, passing by hospitals along the way, just to find a facility that can accommodate their needs. While Arizona is not deemed a medical liability ``crisis state'' by the American Medical Association--I am working to make sure that does not become the case-- instances of facilities having to close are too frequent. For instance, Copper Queen Community Hospital in Bisbee, AZ, closed its maternity ward after physicians there, who were able to deliver babies, lost their liability insurance coverage. Imagine a community hospital that cannot meet one of the primary needs of its residents because of escalating medical liability costs. The problem lies with a tremendous backlog in our courts and excessive jury awards that average $3.9 million. With more than 50 percent of jury awards totaling over $1 million, and the number of cases presented steadily on the rise, medical malpractice insurance carriers incur a great expense for defending suits, even those that are dismissed with no indemnity payment. Physicians Insurers Association of America claims that it costs physicians more than $75,000 to defend themselves in cases that they win--of course, even more in cases where they are found liable. Most notable may be the number of cases that are settled out of court without an admission or determination of guilt, just to avert the possibility of a ``mega award'' that could bankrupt a practice. Looking ahead, I am troubled by the number of medical students and residents who are feeling medical liability's sting. Almost 50 percent of America's medical students say they factor the medical liability crisis in their choice of specialty. Can we afford to have some of the best and brightest physicians of tomorrow dissuaded from specialties because we did not do what was right and fix the system today? The Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act only addresses obstetrical and gynecological care. It would establish parameters to maximize returns to the patients instead of trial lawyers. It would hold physicians and insurers accountable for medical expenses in instances where they are clearly wrong. The legislation would establish a period of 3 years from the date of injury for a person to bring forth a claim, making exceptions to this statute of limitations in cases involving minors. S. 2061 would allow for unlimited awards of economic damages, while placing reasonable caps on non-economic damages--pain and suffering. This is an important distinction that I want to take a moment to address. Economic damages are for the payment of medical expenses--both past and future--the loss of earnings--both past and future--as well as the cost of having services in the home to assist someone who has been injured or incapacitated from a negligent act. There is no limit on these awards. It is important to me to preserve a patient's access to full medical care when a party has been found negligent. This legislation does that. Non-economic damages meant to compensate for physical and emotional pain and suffering are not easily quantified. For these damages, awards would be capped at $250,000 and would be in addition to economic damages awarded. Very often, juries have awarded individuals millions of dollars to punish a defendant, not necessarily to compensate for what is an intangible loss. Under S. 2061, contingency fees would be set to make sure that patients with valid claims do not see their awards siphoned away by lawyers. The bill would allow lawyers to recoup fees and make a profit, but not at the unfair expense of the plaintiff. We have been down this road before and I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in support of medical malpractice reform. This legislation will deliver on the promise made to our constituents to fix the healthcare system in this country and rein in excessive and frivolous lawsuits.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. If I can answer the question of the Senator from Nevada this way, I know that we have 2 hours. I just asked the staff on the schedule they have if it goes beyond that. They are checking that right now. I say to my friend from Nevada, if there are no people beyond that time, then 2 hours, and then if there are, then whatever the Senator is willing to agree to we will be happy to enter an agreement on.

Mr. KYL. Yes.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me summarize what I think has been established during the last couple of hours. The reason we took to the floor is because there has been a lot of criticism of the President of the United States and the administration for its actions in finally deciding that enough was enough with Saddam Hussein, that his continual violation of the U.N. resolutions had to be enforced by someone, and that before there was an imminent threat posed by his dangerous regime, it was important for the United States and a coalition of other countries to take action to remove him. The criticism has come both from potential Democratic nominees for President, Members of this body, news organizations, and others outside the body, but we sought to try to put into perspective some of these criticisms and to point out that at the end of the day, there should be no question that President Bush did the right thing. The three key points were, first, that an intelligence failure is not the same thing as intelligence misuse or misleading, and if there was a failure because the intelligence agencies were wrong about the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that they thought existed and which we have not been able to find, it is not the same thing as saying that the President misled anyone or that anyone else with access to intelligence misled anyone. The second point was that whatever the state of intelligence, the case for removing Saddam Hussein is still very strong, a point which several of our colleagues have made repeatedly on both sides of the aisle, as well as President Clinton and other members of his administration prior to the Bush administration. And, third, that the question regarding the weapons of mass destruction, the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons is not a matter of whether they existed but what happened to them; that everyone who had access to the intelligence was convinced they existed. In fact, we know they existed at least one time because they were used against the Kurds and against the Iranians. Saddam Hussein himself, in submitting documents to the United Nations, admitted they existed. This was, I believe, either 1996 or 1998 and then again in the year 2002. So we had his admission that they existed. As Senator Bennett said a while ago, nobody knows whether they were destroyed, shipped someplace else, or whether we destroyed them, but eventually we will find out the answers to those questions. The fact we cannot find those weapons of mass destruction stockpiles--primarily artillery shells with chemical munitions--does not detract at all from the case against Saddam Hussein or make the case that somehow or another the American people were somehow misled by the President. In closing, I will quote from the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. What the current ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee had to say is: As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe after September 11 that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons and the way they are targeted against civilian populations that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence would put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot. The ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee is the junior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller. These were his comments on October 10, 2002. Yet today we find some saying the President contended there was an imminent threat, when he did not, and that we should not have acted unless, in fact, there was an imminent threat. I think Senator Rockefeller was correct, and I know he has access to all of the intelligence because, of course, he is the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. Now I will read from the chairman of the Intelligence Committee: I have seen enough evidence. I do not know if I have seen all the evidence, but I have seen enough to be satisfied that there has been a continuing effort by Saddam Hussein, since the end of the gulf war, particularly since 1998, to reestablish and enhance Iraq's capacity of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and nuclear. That was the immediate past chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the senior Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. He, too, had access to all of the intelligence. My point in quoting my two colleagues is that in the Senate, those of us on the Intelligence Committee had access to the same intelligence the President did, at least similar intelligence to what other countries in the world had, and all of us, including the United States, believed these things. We had the same intelligence that was given to the President. We were not misleading anyone. The President obviously was not misleading anyone. The fact that it turns out some of the intelligence turned out not to be totally correct is not the same thing as saying somebody misused the intelligence. I hope my colleagues on the other side do not cross that line of accusing the President of intentionally misleading the American people because to do so, in effect, would be also to accuse our own colleagues of that very same thing. I do not believe, based upon what I know of my colleagues, that that could be said of any one of them. So I hope we can get over this notion that just because not all the intelligence was correct, therefore, it must mean somebody was misleading someone else. I think we have established that is not true and that it would be very wrong to try to pursue that line of attack against President Bush simply because we happen to be in an election year. We will have more to say on this subject in the future, but I want my colleagues to understand that if there are charges made against the President or against this administration relating to the use of intelligence with respect to the war in Iraq, those charges will be rebutted. I appreciate very much the attention of my colleagues to this matter this evening.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I very much appreciate those remarks coming from a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence. I now will yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for an incredibly fine speech. I appreciate the remarks he gave tonight very much, and I am sure the President does, as well. At this time, I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I yield to the other Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I will answer in a couple of different ways. First of all, I served on the Intelligence Committee for 8 years, and I was convinced, based upon the intelligence estimates provided to us over that period of time, these weapons were possessed, they had been used, and they would likely be used again if he had the opportunity to do so, and that there were weapons programs ongoing within the country of Iraq. So I don't have any doubt, as the Senator has so eloquently pointed out here, that the Kurds, who he referred to and spoke with, were absolutely right that these kinds of attacks would occur again. I wondered whether I was alone in this and, of course, in looking, I found that I was not. Let me note two or three things colleagues have said. Then I will turn to Senator Hatch. But I note that in 1998, long before President Bush came to town, President Clinton had come to the same conclusion, based upon the intelligence that had been provided to him by the intelligence agencies. A couple things struck me and then I will move on. He said: Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them, not once but repeatedly. That is the point the leader made. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops . . . against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Iran . . . even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. I also found it interesting that in December of 1998, in an Oval Office address, President Clinton said this, and I take just one sentence: I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. That was the President of the United States responding to the intelligence he was given. I know some colleagues have said the current administration hasn't qualified the intelligence enough. They have not said we think or we judge. They said we are pretty sure. Here is President Clinton staying, ``I have no doubt today.'' That is not caveated or qualified. Then several members of his cabinet--I looked at what they had to say. Madeleine Albright, the distinguished Secretary of State, said: I think the record will show that Saddam Hussein has produced weapons of mass destruction, which he's clearly not collecting for his own personal pleasure, but in order to use. Therefore, he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from every brutal dictator that has appeared recently. That is her judgment. Secretary of Defense William Cohen talked about Secretary Albright, indicating Saddam Hussein has ``developed an arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons. He has used these weapons repeatedly against his own people as well as Iran.'' We are talking about an arsenal of weapons here. Here is the former Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration talking about that. He went on to say in this particular interview, which occurred at Ohio State University: I have a picture which I believe CNN can show on its cameras, but here's a picture taken of an Iraqi mother and child killed by Iraqi nerve gas. This is what I would call Madonna and child Saddam Hussein-style. That is the picture Secretary Cohen at that time displayed on the screen. He said: Now, the United Nations believes that he still has very large quantities of VX. VX is the nerve agent which is so deadly. As Dr. Frist knows, a single drop can kill you within a couple of minutes. Here is Secretary Cohen and Secretary Albright referring to the United Nations believing that he still has a large quantity of this product, the point being that everybody thought he had it. The United Nations thought he had it, Secretary Cohen thought he had it, Secretary Albright thought he had it, and President Clinton thought he had it. I found it interesting that Senator Leahy, the distinguished ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, said in 1988--and he is right on target: If Saddam Hussein had nothing to hide, why would he have gone to great lengths to prevent U.N. inspectors from doing their job? That is a question we all asked. There is no doubt that since 1991, Saddam Hussein has squandered his country's resources to maintain his capacity to produce and stockpile chemical and biological weapons. The point is, a lot of our colleagues had no doubt and they said they had no doubt. Senator Kerry--I will make this the last quotation--in 1998 said: We do know that he had them-- Referring to WMD-- in his inventory, and the means of delivering them. We do know that his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development programs were proceeding with his active support. The bottom line is the distinguished majority leader is absolutely correct. But not only do we have reason, not only did those Kurdish physicians have reason to believe he had these horrible weapons and would use them again, so did the leaders of our country, including the leaders of the United Nations all throughout this period of time of 1996, 1998, right on up forward. Unless the distinguished majority leader has anything else, I yield at this point to the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I would answer the question this way: It is easy for us, in this sort of antiseptic environment of the Senate, to talk about these matters. But I was moved by the story of these Kurdish doctors, who saw it with their own eyes. I cannot imagine how they would not believe, and why we should not think it reasonable they would believe, Saddam Hussein would do this again, that he had every intention to, every capability of doing it again. When I look at this picture, I think of the words of Secretary Powell when he visited Halabja and saw what occurred there and basically vowed the United States would never, ever again allow something like that to happen if he could do anything about it. It made me proud. It made me recommitted to the proposition that when we know something like that is going on, or we believe it to be the case, like these Kurdish doctors did, we have a duty to do something about it. I absolutely agree with the Senator.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I know the majority leader wishes to speak next; and then I know the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee is here as well. I now yield to Majority Leader Frist.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator very much. The Senator made the last point I wanted to make in this regard, and then I will conclude my remarks. We were briefed every day of the war at 9 o'clock in an area here in which we can receive classified briefings by the general in charge of the operation at the Pentagon and representatives of the CIA, the Defense Department, State Department, and others. Every morning they checked several boxes to remind us of the status of the open relationship. Before the operation started, they told us about their belief that Saddam Hussein would lob artillery shells with chemical munitions at our troops. They pointed out that they were going to make efforts to try to prevent this from happening. They called it the ``red line'' around Baghdad. When we got that close, then there would be this threat of chemical weapons fired against our troops--maybe biological. So before the war, they began the bombardment on the command and control systems that would send the orders out to the generals in the field. They bombed artillery sites hoping to destroy their artillery weapons. They bombed the warehouses where they thought the munitions might be stored. They dropped millions of leaflets warning that if any officer carried out an order to use these weapons against the allied forces we would hold them accountable as war crime criminals. As our troops got closer to that red line, they had to don the equipment that would protect them against these munitions. It was not easy to fight under those conditions, but we believed this attack could very well occur. We got to the Baghdad Airport. By that briefing, the generals were scratching their heads saying: We are not sure why, but we haven't been attacked with these artillery shells. Yet maybe it is because we destroyed the artillery units that would have fired them. Maybe they just got scared because of our leaflets or they couldn't issue the orders. We are not sure. But for some reason they didn't fire them. For several days, they continued to wonder about that. My point is this: At the highest levels, our troops and our leaders at the Department of Defense all believed this was a threat that could well materialize against our troops. They went to great lengths to try to protect against it. This was not a matter of somebody misleading the American people. We believed it, our troops believed it, the generals believed it, and the Defense Department believed it. And, yes, the President believed it. Nobody was trying to mislead anyone. We based a lot of our actions on this belief. Let me conclude my remarks by saying this: Much has been made of David Kay's acknowledgment that all of the intelligence agencies apparently were wrong about the weapons stockpiles. But listen to what David Kay said as he reflected on the decision to go to war: I think at the end of the inspection process we'll paint a picture of Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war. It was a system collapsing. It was a country that had the capability in weapons of mass destruction areas and in which terrorists, likes ants to honey, were going after it. Kay stated on numerous occasions that Saddam Hussein was in clear material breach of Security Council Resolution 1441. The Iraq Survey Group, of which he was head, discovered hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited under the original United Nations cease-fire resolution and that should have been but were not reported under Resolution 1441. The group found a prison laboratory complex which may have been used in human testing of biological agents. It found ``reference strains'' of biological organisms which can be used to produce biological weapons. It found new research on agents applicable to biological weapons, including the Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever. It found continuing research on ricin and aflatoxin. It also found plants and advanced design work on new missiles with ranges well beyond what was permitted. Not just the words of Resolution 1441 but the entire credibility of the U.N. was at stake. The years of Iraqi violations had to come to an end. Now that awful and bloody regime has come to an end. In the final analysis, whatever the inaccuracies of specific pieces of intelligence, that Saddam Hussein continued to harbor intentions for the development and use of WMD remains true. The observations of David Kay, once again, showed this. He reported earlier this year that Iraq ``was in the early stages of renovating the nuclear program, building new buildings.'' This is the regime that, as I said, David Kay called ``far more dangerous than even we thought. To wait any longer to remove it would have been a gamble not worth taking.'' I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. KYL. If there was an effort to mislead, there would have been a lot of countries complicit and a lot of Senators complicit. I don't believe for a minute that, in fact, any of us attempted to mislead; that Jacques Chirac attempted to mislead, that the United Nations, or President Bush attempted to mislead. We were all going forth with the same intelligence. We all reached the same conclusion. Maybe we don't know yet, but at some point in the last few months or years Saddam Hussein buried, sent to Syria, blew up, or otherwise got rid of those weapons. We just do not know. But about their existence at one time, there can be no doubt.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if we didn't agree on anything else--and there were some issues we agreed on--all of the countries mentioned, all of the intelligence services mentioned by the Senator from Kentucky, in fact agreed on that point. Among other things, they agreed because they read the documentation provided to the United Nations by Saddam Hussein in which he admitted he had biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. We knew he had used them. He said he had them. The question now is, What happened to them between sometime in the late 1990s, maybe right up to a week or two before the Iraqi war, and the time we were able to go in after the Iraqi war in search of them since we haven't yet found large stockpiles? We found some things. We certainly found missiles. We have found the programs to reconstitute the chemical weapons program and the biological weapons program. But what we thought we were going to find was a lot of artillery shells filled with chemical munitions and some mortars and things of that sort. We thought they were going to be used against our troops. That we haven't yet found. That is a mystery. You can say it is an intelligence failure, but as the Senator from Kentucky pointed out, nobody disagreed with the proposition that at one time he had those weapons. There is a lot of evidence to that fact.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Sorry. I say to the Senator from Nevada, is 20 minutes all right, then?

Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object; 20 minutes, yes, 30 minutes, no.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. While the Senator from Idaho is speaking, I will be happy to speak to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have a presentation I would like to make in morning business.