Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 104th

CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

S5619

Vol. 141 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 1995 No. 67

House of RepresentativesThe House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Monday, May 1, 1995, at 12:30 p.m.

SenateTUESDAY, APRIL 25, 1995

(Legislative day of Monday, April 24, 1995)

The Senate met at 9:30 a.m., on theexpiration of the recess, and was calledto order by the President pro tempore[Mr. THURMOND].

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd JohnOgilvie, offered the following prayer:

Let us pray:Holy spirit of God, the greatest coun-

selor in the world, we open our minds,hearts, wills, and bodies to the infillingof Your power. Infinite Intelligence,grant us power to understand Your so-lutions to our problems. UnlimitedLove, fill our hearts with healing lovefrom which flows the affirmation thatothers need. Liberating Spirit, set usfree from bondage of our wills, so in-tent on what we want that we miss theguidance of what You have for us. Ar-tesian Strength, energize our bodies forthe arduous pressures of the day ahead.

Spirit of the living God, fall afresh onus. Peel back the icy fingers of the fistof fear that hold our hearts in the gripof grimness, that make us cautiouswhen faced by great challenges, andcause us to be timid in life’s testinghours. Spirit of Life, help us pull outall the stops so You can make greatmusic of joy in our souls. Radiate Yourhope through us. Make us positive peo-ple who are expectant of Your best forus and our Nation. Give us the authen-tic charisma that comes from Yourgrace: gifts of wisdom, knowledge, dis-cernment, and love.

And today, as we begin our work, weremember Senator and Mrs. Heflin and

ask You for Your continued healingpower in Mike, his wife. We thank Youfor the good reports of yesterday, andask You to place Your loving armsaround her with healing grace andhope.

This is the day the Lord has made. Solead on, O Lord. We rejoice and areglad in You. Amen.

f

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTINGMAJORITY LEADER

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Theable Senator from New Mexico is rec-ognized.

SCHEDULE

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, thismorning the leader time has been re-served, and there will be a period formorning business until the hour of 12noon with Senators permitted to speakfor up to 5 minutes each, with the ex-ception of the following: Senator DO-MENICI for 60 minutes; Senator THOMASfor 30 minutes; and Senator BAUCUS for15 minutes.

At noon today the Senate will pro-ceed to a 15-minute vote on the adop-tion of Senate Resolution 110, a resolu-tion condemning the bombing of theFederal building in Oklahoma City.

The Senate will recess between thehours of 12:30 and 2:15 for the weeklypolicy luncheons.

At 2:15, following the luncheons, theSenate will resume consideration ofH.R. 956, the product liability bill.

Members should, therefore, be awarethat further rollcall votes can be ex-

pected throughout today’s session ofthe U.S. Senate.

f

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.CAMPBELL). Under the previous order,leadership time is reserved.

f

MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, there will now be aperiod for the transaction of morningbusiness not to extend beyond the hourof 12 noon with Senators permitted tospeak therein for not to exceed 5 min-utes with the following Senators to berecognized for the time specified: TheSenator from New Mexico [Mr. DOMEN-ICI], is recognized to speak for up to 60minutes. The Senator from New Mexicomay proceed.

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you verymuch, Mr. President.

Mr. President, Senator NUNN fromGeorgia will be along soon and I intendto share my 60 minutes with him. If hewere here, I would let him open the dis-cussion and follow him. But in his ab-sence, I am sure he would want me toproceed.

(The remarks of Mr. DOMENICI andMr. NUNN pertaining to the introduc-tion of S. 722 are located in today’sRECORD under ‘‘Statements on Intro-duced Bills and Joint Resolutions.’’)

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

GRAMS). The Senator from New Mexico.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5620 April 25, 1995Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how

much time do we have remaining?The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-

five minutes fifteen seconds.Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator

from Nebraska like 10 minutes, 5 min-utes?

Mr. KERREY. Ten minutes.Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 10 minutes to

the Senator from Nebraska.Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to be added as anoriginal cosponsor to this legislation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered. The Senatorfrom Nebraska is recognized.

Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chair.(The remarks of Mr. KERREY pertain-

ing to the introduction of S. 722 are lo-cated in today’s RECORD under ‘‘State-ments on Introduced Bills and JointResolutions.’’)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Pennsylvania.f

FRESHMAN FOCUS

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Irise today as a replacement, pinch-hit-ting for the Senator from Wyoming,Senator THOMAS, who usually guidesthis half hour of time for the freshmen.We call this our freshman focus, 11freshman Republicans who on Tuesdayand Thursday mornings come to theSenate floor to talk about issues of im-portance to the Senate, to the country.Senator THOMAS has done a fine job indoing that. He is at the National PressClub today, so he is not available to dothat. But I will do my best to fill in forhim and try to lead the discussion thismorning with my colleague from Maineand others who will appear on the floorto talk about our theme for today,which was a question I received a lot intown meetings and other meetingswhen I was back in Pennsylvania, whenI was home in the last few weeks: Whatis ahead for the Senate? What is theSenate going to be doing with not justthe Contract With America, but awhole bunch of other things?

So we thought we would take on thatquestion head on: What is the agendafor the Senate? What are we going tobe doing? Is it relevant, and how rel-evant is it, for the American public andwhat they are concerned about?

I had lengthy discussions at home atthese town meetings and I got a goodfeel that we are on the right track.What is in our sights here in the U.S.Senate is on track with where theAmerican public would like us to go.

The issue we are debating here on thefloor today and for the next week or sois an issue of very great importance tothe economic well-being of this coun-try, legal reform. We have a much toocostly legal system. It is one thatmakes us uncompetitive and ineffi-cient, and one that is not fair to soci-ety as a whole. While we may have peo-ple, individuals, who hit the jackpotand win the lottery in some cases, thatis not exactly what our legal systemshould be designed to do. It should

have the societal benefit of spreadingrisk around, and also creating justicenot just for the individual but for soci-ety as a whole. I do not think our sys-tem achieves that as well as it can, andI think legal reform we are facing hereon the Senate floor will be a help to ev-eryone in our society. That, I believe,is very relevant for the average Amer-ican.

The other thing we are obviouslygoing to be bringing up, that may besomewhat expedited as a result of thetragedy in Oklahoma City, is a crimebill with very tough provisions onantiterrorism that is going to be, I be-lieve, a bipartisan effort. SenatorHATCH has talked about moving for-ward the crime bill, parts of whichhave passed the House, and moving itto the Senate floor with some toughantiterrorism measures, to quickly re-spond. Hopefully, the crime bill we aretrying to push through will get an ex-pedited path as a result of some of theactivities over the last week or so.Hopefully, the Senate can quickly re-spond. Again, it is a matter of whetherthe other side is going to allow thisbody to move in an expeditious thoughthoughtful way or whether we aregoing to play delaying tactics andstalling tactics, to be a roadblock toprogress.

There are two other things I want tofocus on. If I heard about an issue backhome from folks who were trying tomake a living, small businessmen inparticular, it was regulatory reform.More than anything else, having theGovernment regulators be more rea-sonable in dealing with the laws thatwe put forward and for the Congressand for the regulators to work togetherto put forward regulatory schemes thatmake common sense, not these overlybureaucratic and harmful procedureswe put in place today to overregulateour society. Again, they cause a lot ofpersonal pain and suffering and prob-lems and affect lives in ways that arealmost incalculable as a result of thescheme we put in effect over the last 30or 40 years. We need to look at this,recreate Government anew, do some-thing commonsense oriented to makeGovernment work better for peopleback home. I believe the regulatory re-form measures we will be consideringhere in the next month or so will go along way toward doing that.

The last thing we are going to belooking at, and I will combine thesetwo, is we are going to be looking at atax cut bill and we are going to belooking at a budget resolution that isgoing to put this country on a road toa balanced budget in 7 years. I knowthe Senator from Maine is going totalk about this in detail as a memberof the Budget Committee. In fact, weare going to have on the floor of theSenate a budget that will bring us tobalance in 7 years. We will be able tovote for a balanced budget. I think it isthe first time that has been the case,that the majority party in one of thebodies has proposed a balanced budget,

since 1969. So it is in fact historic andit is a great opportunity. It is a greatchallenge for not only the Members ofthe Senate, but for this country, totake a step back and look and see whatwe are going to do, not just to get thenumbers to add up right but simplyhow are we going to save this country?How are we going to provide for somestability and financial future of thiscountry?

This is not about just balancing thebudget; this is about saving the coun-try. Because if we do not take thiscourse, if we do not act seriously onthis fiscal crisis we are in right now, itis only going to get harder in the fu-ture. It does not get easier. Anyonewho will tell you we can just put thisoff a little bit and it will get easier inthe future is wrong. The budget deficitgets worse and worse the longer wewait. You jeopardize programs likeMedicare and Social Security andevery other popular program that ishere in Washington by delaying andplaying politics with this issue.

I am hopeful we will not play poli-tics, that we will be able to stand uphere and have an intelligent debate onthe floor of the Senate and talk aboutwhat we are going to do to set prior-ities and put this country on a soundfiscal footing in the future so we canmake sure people who are banking onSocial Security and Medicare in theirretirements, people who need the wel-fare systems that we have and hope-fully will be able to reform, that thosesystems will be available and are notjust going to be squeezed out becauseof our inability to set fiscal prioritiestoday. The chance of them beingsqueezed out in the future is not just apossibility, it is a certainty. We willsqueeze these programs out, a lot ofthem, if we do not set our house inorder now.

So I am excited about that. I think itis a great opportunity for the Senate toshine, for us to really step forward andhave this kind of deliberative discus-sion about issues at the core of who weare as a country and what direction weare going to take. I am anxious to getahead, to look ahead at the next fewmonths and see what we are going todo here in the U.S. Senate. I think itbodes well for this country for us tohave this kind of aggressive agenda forthe American public.

I will be happy to yield 5 minutes tothe Senator from Maine.

A BALANCED BUDGET

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thankthe Senator for yielding. I am pleasedto be able to join my freshman col-leagues in talking about the agenda forthe coming weeks and months as we re-turn from our spring recess and havethe opportunity to discuss with ourconstituents exactly what is on theirminds. I can assure you, it is the samething that it was in November.

People are still clamoring for institu-tional, economic, and political change.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5621April 25, 1995They recognize that some of the monu-mental achievements that we have al-ready made in the first 100 days, manyof the issues that have laid dormant inthis institution for years and years,have been acted upon, such as requir-ing Congress to live by the same rulesthat apply to the rest of society, stop-ping the tide of unfunded mandates,and giving the President line-item vetoauthority. So we have made progress.But they want to continue our assaulton the status quo. I cannot think of abetter way to demonstrate our com-mitment to changing the status quothan to show the American people thatdeficit reduction and balancing theFederal budget is going to be on thetop of our agenda.

I know that many people have saidhere on the floor of the Senate when wewere debating a constitutional amend-ment to balance the budget that we donot need a constitutional amendment,that it is not necessary. Unfortunately,history has just disproved us in that re-gard because we have had a fiscal los-ing streak with 26 years of unbalancedbudgets. Mr. President, 1969 is the lasttime in which we had a balanced Fed-eral budget.

I hope that we can disprove history. Ihope that we are able as we meet thisweek in the Senate Budget Committeeon Thursday to begin the process ofmarking up the budget resolution thatwe will engage in a bipartisan effort tobalance the Federal budget. Our goal isto put our budget on a glidepath to-ward balancing it by the year 2002.

So I hope all who have mentionedthat we do not need a constitutionalamendment will join us in that effortto ensure that we will in fact have astatutory commitment toward the bal-ancing of the Federal budget.

The administration unfortunatelyhas perpetuated the fiscal status quowith a budget that was submitted bythe President several months ago. Infact, back in 1992 the President said hewould offer a 5-year budget plan thatwould balance the Federal budget. Hehas not done that. He then said that hewould reduce the Federal budget defi-cit by half by 1996. Of course, that hasnot occurred. Instead, we received abudget that only eliminates one agen-cy, the Interstate Commerce Commis-sion, out of a grand total of a budget of$1.2 trillion. In fact, the CongressionalBudget Office reestimated the adminis-tration’s projections on deficits. And itis quite alarming as well as disturbingwhen you see the upward trend of thedeficits as well as the interest pay-ments. That is what makes our actionon the budget deficit and balancing theFederal budget so compelling.

According to the CBO, the 1996 deficitwill be $211 billion, not the $197 billionprojected by the administration. The1998 deficit will rise to $231 billion, notthe $196 billion projected by the admin-istration. In 1999, the deficit will reachan estimated $256 billion, far from the$197 billion the administration hadforecasted. Finally, in the fiscal year

2000, the Congressional Budget Officesaid the deficit will reach $276 billionrather than the $194 billion the admin-istration has projected.

It means according to CBOreestimates that the size of our na-tional deficit over the next 5 years willincrease by 55 percent. It will growfrom 2.5 percent of the gross domesticproduct to 3.1 percent of the GDP,which is contrary to what the adminis-tration had indicated, that in fact theyhad said that the deficit would be 2.5percent of GDP and decline to 2.1 per-cent of GDP. Obviously, that is notnow the reality. The gap between theadministration’s projections on thedeficits and the Congressional BudgetOffice really amounts to more than$209 billion that will be spent over thenext 5 years; $209 billion. It is incred-ible when you consider the fact that bythe year 2000 we will in fact have hadour revenues exceed the 1995 revenuesby $323 billion.

So you would say then we must havea much smaller deficit in the fiscalyear 2000. Well, no. We are not goingto. We are going to have a deficit of$273 billion. It will be $100 billion morethan it will be in 1995, even though wewill have $323 billion more in addi-tional revenue.

We will be spending $422 billion overthe next 5 years. That represents a 28-percent increase during a time wheninflation is projected to rise by halfthat rate.

The administration said it is going tocut the budget over the next 5 years by$144 billion. In fact, it is beingreestimated by the CongressionalBudget Office. In fact, the administra-tion’s budget will only reduce Federalspending by $32 billion over the next 5years, meaning just about $6 billion ayear, thirty-nine one-hundredths of 1percent of total Federal spending,hardly enough, and certainly is notgoing to put us on a stable fiscal pathfor the future. And that is what we aretalking about, the future for this coun-try because deficits are affecting notonly taxes but productivity, savings,the deficit, and employment. It affectsall of those categories. We need to beinvesting in the future. Otherwise, weare going to create a second-rate econ-omy.

That certainly is not exaggerated be-cause 1969, the last time the FederalGovernment had a balanced Federalbudget, the dollar traded for 4 Germanmarks and 360 Japanese yen. And, sincethen, while the Federal debt has in-creased by 1250 percent, or $4.5 trillion,the dollar has lost two-thirds of itsvalue against the mark, and three-fourths against the yen.

I guess in reality what we are sayingis that it will continue to cost theAmerican people millions, if not bil-lions, of dollars because the link be-tween a lackluster and unfocused anduncontrolled Federal budget policy anda decline of the dollar is indisputable.In fact, the Federal Reserve Chairman,Alan Greenspan, told the House Budget

Committee recently that all told aFederal program of fiscal restraintthat moves the deficit finances tosounder footing almost surely will finda favorable reception in financial mar-kets. He added that a key element indealing with the dollar’s weakness is toaddress our underlying fiscal balance.In layman’s terms that means only onething. It means balancing the Federalbudget.

So I hope we can work in unison on aRepublican and Democratic basis andin conjunction with the administrationto produce just that, a balanced Fed-eral budget, not only for this genera-tion but future generations to come.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, at

this time I would like to yield 5 min-utes to the Senator from Arizona.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator has 5 minutes.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank mycolleague from Pennsylvania, andwould also just say in response to theremarks of our colleague from Mainethat she has been a long-time advocatebeginning with her service in the Houseof Representatives for sensible fiscalpolicy, and in particular support forthe balanced budget amendment. I justagain express my appreciation to herfor all of the hard work that she didthere and for what she has since car-ried forward to this body in attemptingto get us to support the balanced budg-et amendment this year. We failed byone vote. But I think, as has beennoted, we are going to get it passedsooner or later.

One of the things my constituentstold me during the last 2 weeks when Iwas out in Arizona was that we need tobalance the Federal budget. In fact, ifthere was any one theme that cameacross during the visits that I had withpeople all over the State in my tour ofthe State, it was that the Senate need-ed to keep up the good work that theHouse began, and that includes passingthe balanced budget amendment. WhenI asked them what they thought aboutthe first 100 days and the House Con-tract With America, they were over-whelmingly in support of it.

We traveled during the first week. Wegot in my old Suburban and traveled toMiami and Globe and Thatcher, andPima. These are names that are notknown to very many of you, but theyare little towns in Arizona. We had atown hall meeting in Safford with 130people one night. They were all just asinterested and engaged as you wouldhope that our American citizens wouldbe on these issues that we have beenworking on here.

Their primary message was we areappreciative of what the House did.Now you in the Senate need to do thesame thing. They were pleasantly sur-prised when I noted we had alreadypassed three of the contract items herein the Senate. That message had notreally gotten out too much. They werealso somewhat skeptical that the Sen-ate would do as well as the House, and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5622 April 25, 1995in particular with regard to the budgetissues.

We went on to the small towns ofWillcox, and Benson. These are ranch-ing communities primarily, and regu-latory reform is very high on theiragenda. They deal with the FederalGovernment every day because manyof them ranch on Federal lands and inother respects have dealings with theFederal Government, which are not al-ways the most pleasant.

So their view was that regulatory re-forms, the kind of things that the Sen-ate will be marking up in the JudiciaryCommittee tomorrow, the Dole regu-latory reform bill, are the kind of re-forms that they want us to carry for-ward. Of course, that was done in theHouse of Representatives as part of itsContract With America.

Then over to Yuma, AZ, up to Flag-staff, AZ, the Grand Canyon, wherethere is obviously a need to supportour National Park System to begin tomake it a better experience for the nowmillions of people who visit the GrandCanyon every year and also to balancevery carefully the environmental con-cerns with the other economic needs ofour citizens.

All of these subjects were discussedduring these 2 weeks as I went aroundthe State, but there is a sense of opti-mism that we have actually changedthings. There is a desire that we keepgoing. I think there is still a residuumof skepticism that the Congress reallywill follow through with these prom-ises, but people are very pleasantlysurprised that so far it seems to behappening.

Then finally, Mr. President, when thevery tragic events of just a week agobegan unfolding in Oklahoma City, itbegan to remind people all over thiscountry of how unified we are as a peo-ple in condemning that kind of vio-lence, in feeling the most heartfeltsympathy for the victims of the trag-edy, and for sharing a commitment tobring to justice the people who are re-sponsible.

I spent a good deal of my time, sinceI serve on both the Intelligence Com-mittee and the Judiciary Committee,talking to people about the threatsthat are out there and for the need tosupport the agencies that we count onto prevent these threats or to bring tojustice the people responsible whenthey occur. Our agencies, such as theCentral Intelligence Agency and theFederal Bureau of Investigation, we areextremely pleased with the way this in-vestigation has gone so far, but weknow that there is much work to bedone.

It is important for us to recognizethat this does not just happen auto-matically. It happens because hundredsof dedicated Americans are workingvery long hours under difficult cir-cumstances to find out what thesekinds of groups are up to, to try to pre-vent them from acting and, when theydo, to bring them to justice. We cannotreflect on it just when there is a tragic

event such as this. We have to supportthese agencies throughout the year andyear in and year out.

I am very disturbed by the calls thatI have heard in the beginning part ofthis year from those who would dis-mantle the Central Intelligence Agen-cy, for example, because the cold war isover, not appreciating the fact thatthere are hundreds of organizationsaround the world, some State spon-sored, others not, but all of which havein mind conducting the kind of terror-ist activities that occurred in Okla-homa City. It can happen from withoutour borders as well as within, and it iscritical that we remember that andsupport these organizations when theappropriations issues come before usvery soon. It is the only way we will beable to bring to justice the people re-sponsible for this kind of heinous activ-ity.

So, Mr. President, it was an Easterrecess that was edifying for all of usand at the end something that becauseof the tragedy I think unified us all inexpressing support for the people inOklahoma City.

I thank the Chair.Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator

from Arizona for his fine remarks andfor his zealous participation in tryingto get the Senate moving and working.This is a tough place to get activated,but the Senator from Arizona has beena delightful thorn in the side of a lot offolks around here to try to get thingsgoing, and I commend him for his ac-tivity.

Mr. President, how much time do wehave remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Elevenminutes and forty seconds remain.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 6 minutes tothe Senator from Tennessee, SenatorTHOMPSON.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Tennessee.

NO TIME TO GO LUKEWARM

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, Ithank my colleague from Pennsylva-nia.

I, first of all, wish to also commendthe Senator from Arizona. I think hisremarks concerning the need for ourstrong law enforcement agencies wasmost timely and most eloquent. BeforeI address the main point I wanted tomake, I must reinforce that.

I think too often in this country,whether it be our law enforcementagencies or our military, once we passa crisis, it is as if we do not need themanymore; once we have won a war, it isas if we do not need the military any-more. And historically we havedownsized too rapidly and too much. Ithink sometimes when things arepeaceful here domestically, we feel wedo not need a strong CIA, we do notneed a strong FBI and law enforcementauthorities. These people are out hereevery day and, as the Senator pointedout, they need our support on a contin-uous basis. They need the support ofthe Congress on a continuous basis, not

just when there is a crisis, when peopletend to overreact.

So I am very proud of these agencies.We must do everything we can to makesure that they remain strong, not talk-ing about cutting back the budgets ofthese agencies, certainly not talkingabout eliminating them as some havedone because they have gotten in a lit-tle trouble, and certainly they needoversight. But I think the tragic eventsof the last several days have just goneto underscore the fact that we must re-main strong both domestically andwith regard to foreign matters.

I was also impressed with what mycolleague from Arizona said concerningthe time he had over this last recess. Ishared many of the same experienceshe had. We ran the last campaign basedon a very simple notion, and that wasthe notion of changing the way we dobusiness in this town, in the Congressof the United States. And now we beginto see in newspaper articles, peoplehave gone back home, and the Presi-dent indicates that some people are notso sure, maybe things are moving toofast, people are not willing to makesacrifices—sure, they want thesethings done in the broad sense of theword, but when it comes to them, indi-viduals are too selfish to be willing tomake any kind of incremental adjust-ment if it affects them directly; etcetera, et cetera, et cetera.

That is not my experience. I havegone back to Tennessee every weekendsince I was elected to the Senate.These last few days have been no dif-ferent than any other days I have spentout in the country, in country stores,in cafes, talking to people. The mes-sage that I get consistently is that thisis no time to go lukewarm on our basiccommitments, on basically what weran on. It is not time to go soft on ourcommitment for a balanced budgetamendment. It is not time now to getcold feet on deregulation. It is not timeto get lukewarm on welfare reform.

These things are our commitments,these things they expect us to followup on, and they look forward to theleadership that they think we are pro-viding. They only ask that we be fair.

I have never talked to a grandparentin the State of Tennessee who was notwilling to make some incremental ad-justment if they thought it would go tothe benefit of their grandchild. Andthat is the message we have to bringback here. For all of those among ourcolleagues and in the media who thinkthat Americans are so individuallyself-centered and selfish that we arenot willing on an individual basis to dothe things necessary to make for astronger country, to make a strongercountry for our children and grand-children, I will have to point out tothem that they are very much mis-taken. The House of Representatives,of course, has been very active andvery busy. They have gotten a lot ofattention over their agenda and whatthey have done.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5623April 25, 1995I would just like to say this. Regard-

less of what any individual mightthink about the Contract With Amer-ica or any particular provision of thecontract, the House of Represenativesdid a very, very significant thing thatovershadows any individual provisionin that contract or the contract in itstotality, and what they did was whatthey said they were going to do. Neverbefore in the history of this countrywas a program so plainly and simplylaid before the American people whichsaid, if we get elected, this is what wewill do.

They got elected and then they wentabout doing it. Now it has come to theSenate. It has been pointed out manytimes that the Senate is not the House.It has been pointed out that things willmove slower in the Senate because thatis what it is designed to do. This iswhere the coffee is poured into the sau-cer to cool.

All of that is true. All of that is welland good. I have no problem in spend-ing days on end in the Senate debatingthe national issues, debating the issuesof strong contention where people havelegitimate concerns over issues ofbroad policy that affect the future ofthis country. I have no problem withdebating those matters on end. We donot have any agenda over here exceptto do the right thing in the rightamount of time.

What I have problems with is takingdays on end on matters which essen-tially are not controversial, where atthe end of the day they pass by 90 or 95votes to 5. I see no reason why weshould get hung up on delay over herefor delay’s sake. I hope that does nothappen. If we have controversial mat-ters that take days, let us take them.But if we have things that we know theAmerican people want and we knowthat most of the Members of this bodywant, I say let us get on with it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator’s time has expired.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. Iyield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Ithank the Senator from Tennessee forhis fine remarks and very cogentpoints on a number of issues, particu-larly his comments on our downsizingtoo quickly, not just with the militarybut with our domestic intelligenceagencies, law enforcement agencies. Ithink the Senator has hit the nailright on the head there and I congratu-late him for his statements on thatmatter.

I would like to yield our remainingtime that was allocated to us thismorning to the Senator from Okla-homa, who I know will be in the Cham-ber shortly with a resolution concern-ing the tragedy in his home State ofOklahoma, to talk about the agendafor the future here in the Senate.

Senator INHOFE.The PRESIDING OFFICER. There

are 4 minutes and 50 seconds remain-ing.

The Senator from Oklahoma.

THE AGENDA

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Presi-dent, and I thank the Senator fromPennsylvania for the time.

As he stated, in just a few minutes,Senator NICKLES and I will make somecomments concerning a resolution thatwill be voted on at noon today havingto do with the disaster that struckOklahoma less than a week ago.

However, I do think on this subject ofthe agenda that there is a misconcep-tion that is floating around out therethat the Senate has not been doinganything because most of the focus hasbeen on the other body. And it is un-derstandable, because that is wheremost of the activity was. Procedurally,things happen quicker in the Housethan they do in the Senate.

For those of us who have served inthe House of Representatives and arenow serving in the U.S. Senate, I canunderstand for the first time in mylifetime why our Founding Fathersperceived that we should have a bi-cameral system. And, in fact, thingsare more deliberate here. And I thinkit is, without pointing any fingers orbeing critical, that many things passthe House of Representatives with theunderstanding that they know that itwill get a more thorough examinationwhen it gets to the Senate.

But, having said that, I would haveto say that the Senate has done an in-credible amount of work. While I can-not document it, I would suggest thatthe Senate has accomplished more inthe first 90 days or the first 100 days ofthis session than they have at anyother time. We passed the line-itemveto. We passed congressional account-ability, forcing Members of Congress tolive under the same laws that theypass. We passed unfunded mandates.Those of us who have previously beenmayors of major cities understand thatthat is a major problem facing thecities and other political subdivisionsaround the country. And we have donethat. We have had moratoriums passed.I really believe that the Senate hasacted responsibly, but in a much moredeliberative way.

Now the time has been pretty muchoccupied on what are we going to do onthe budget. I think it is somewhattragic, and I have to be critical of ourPresident. When he talks about the def-icit reduction, he makes comments asif we are actually doing somethingabout reducing the debt. And it is amatter of terminology, that if there isanything that can come from this de-bate, I hope that the American people,and I think they are, are aware rightnow that we are talking about two dif-ferent things when you talk about debtand deficit.

In fact, the President’s budget thathas come in has built into it deficitseach year that will have a dramatic in-crease on our Nation’s debt.

I am still of the belief that we inCongress, in both Houses of Congress,as well as the administration, are in-capable of fiscally disciplining our-selves in the absence of a balanced

budget amendment to the Constitu-tion. And I really believe it is going tohappen. Of course, it did pass the otherbody, and it lacked one vote of passingin the U.S. Senate.

I would remind those who share myconcern for this nonpassage that it isunder a motion for reconsideration andthat we are going to be able to dosomething about it, I believe, beforethis term is over.

So, Mr. President, Senator NICKLESwill be joining me in just a momentand we will have an opportunity totalk a little bit about the tragedy thatstruck my State of Oklahoma.

I yield back my time.Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

THOMAS). The Senator from New York.Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask

that I might be allowed to speak for upto 12 minutes on the matter which theSenator from Oklahoma indicated willbe the subject of the remaining of ourmorning debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair.

THE PARANOID STYLE IN AMERICAN POLITICS

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as wethink and, indeed, pray our waythrough the aftermath of the Okla-homa City bombing, asking how such ahorror might have come about, andhow others might be prevented, Sen-ators could do well to step outside theChamber and look down The Mall atthe Washington Monument. It honorsthe Revolutionary general who oncevictorious turned his army over to theContinental Congress and retired to hisestates. Later, recalled to the highestoffice in the land, he served dutifullyone term, then a second, but then onprinciple not a day longer. Thus wasfounded the first republic, the first de-mocracy since the age of Greece andRome.

There is not a more serene, con-fident, untroubled symbol of the Na-tion in all the Capital. Yet a briefglance will show that the color of themarble blocks of which the monumentis constructed changes about a quarterof the way up. Thereby hangs a tale ofanother troubled time; not our first,just as, surely, this will not be our last.

As befitting a republic, the monu-ment was started by a private chari-table group, as we would now say, theWashington National Monument Soci-ety. Contributions came in cash, butalso in blocks of marble, many with in-terior inscriptions which visitors will-ing to climb the steps can see to thisday. A quarter of the way up, that is.For in 1852, Pope Pius IX donated ablock of marble from the Temple ofConcord in Rome. Instantly, the Amer-ican Party, or the Know-Nothings—‘‘Iknow nothing,’’ was their standardreply to queries about their platform—devined a Papist plot. An installationof the Pope’s block of marble wouldsignal the Catholic uprising. A feveredagitation began. As recorded by Ray

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5624 April 25, 1995Allen Billington in ‘‘The ProtestantCrusade, 1800–1860’’:

One pamphlet, ‘‘The Pope’s Strategem:‘Rome to America!’ An Address to theProtestants of the United States, againstplacing the Pope’s block of Marble in theWashington Monument’’ (1852), urged Protes-tants to hold indignation meetings and con-tribute another block to be placed next tothe Pope’s ‘‘bearing an inscription by whichall men may see that we are awake to thehypocrisy and schemes of that designing,crafty, subtle, far seeing and far reachingPower, which is ever grasping after thewhole World, to sway its iron sceptre, withbloodstained hands, over the millions of itsinhabitants.’’

One night early in March 1854, agroup of Know-Nothings broke into thestorage sheds on the MonumentGrounds and dragged the Pope’s marbleslab toward the Potomac. Save for theoccasional ‘‘sighting,’’ as we have cometo call such phenomena, it was never tobe located since.

Work on the monument stopped.Years later, in 1876, Congress appro-priated funds to complete the job,which the Corps of Engineers, underthe leadership of Lt. Col. Thomas I.Casey did with great flourish in timefor the centennial observances of 1888.

Dread of Catholicism ran its course,if slowly. Edward M. Stanton, thenSecretary of War, was convinced theassassination of President Lincoln wasthe result of a Catholic plot. Other ma-nias followed, all brilliantly describedin Richard Rofstadter’s revelatory lec-ture ‘‘The Paranoid Style in AmericanPolitics’’ which he delivered as theHerbert Spencer Lecture at Oxford Uni-versity within days of the assassina-tion of John F. Kennedy. Which to thisday remains a fertile source of conspir-acy mongering. George Will citedHofstadter’s essay this past weekendon the television program ‘‘This WeekWith David Brinkley.’’ He deals withthe same subject matter in a superbcolumn in this morning’s WashingtonPost which has this bracing conclusion.

It is reassuring to remember thatparanoiacs have always been with us, buthave never defined us.

I hope, Mr. President, as we proceedto consider legislation, if that is nec-essary, in response to the bombing, wewould be mindful of a history in whichwe have often overreacted, to our cost,and try to avoid such an overreaction.

We have seen superb performance ofthe FBI. What more any nation couldask of an internal security group I can-not conceive. We have seen the effec-tiveness of our State troopers, of ourlocal police forces, fire departments,instant nationwide cooperation whichshould reassure us rather than frightenus.

I would note in closing, Mr. Presi-dent, that Pope John Paul II will bevisiting the United States this comingOctober. I ask unanimous consent thatMr. Will’s column be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 25, 1995.]FEVERED MINDS, MARGINAL MEN

(By George F. Will)The Tennessee marble on the side of the

Morgan bank building in lower Manhattanstill bears, defiantly, scars inflicted on Sept.16, 1920, when a horse-drawn wagon loadedwith sash weights exploded amid a lunchtimecrowd. Among those blown to the pavementwas Joseph P. Kennedy. He was one of thefortunate. The blast, which shattered win-dows over a half-mile radius killed 30 and in-jured more than 100.

There were no arrests, or explanations.Someone probably had taken too seriouslysome socialist critique of capitalism, but theincident fed J.P. Morgan Jr.’s many phobias,which included: ‘‘The Jew is always a Jewfirst and an American second, and theRoman Catholic, I fear, too often a papistfirst and an American second.’’

Today, as the nation sifts and sorts themany jagged and tangled fragments of emo-tions and ideas in the aftermath of Okla-homa City, it should remember that this wasnot America’s baptism of lunacy. BleedingOklahoma City is a few hundred miles downthe road from Pottawatomie in what oncewas bleeding Kansas, scene of a memorablemassacre. John Brown’s body lies a-moldering in the grave, but his spirit—mas-sacres in the name of God—goes marching onin the paranoia of a few.

A very few, on society’s far fringes. Whichis progress. After Brown killed the mayor ofHarpers Ferry and seized the arsenal, he wassentenced to be hanged. Yet America’s pre-eminent intellectual, Ralph Waldo Emerson,said of him, ‘‘That new saint, than whomnothing purer or more brave was ever led bylove of men into conflict and death . . . willmake the gallows glorious like the cross.’’Morgan wrote the words above about Jewsand Catholics to A. Lawrence Lowell, presi-dent of Harvard, of which institution Morganwas an overseer. It is unthinkable that suchsentiments could be expressed in such circlestoday.

Today when the fevered minds of marginalmen produce an outrage like the OklahomaCity bombing, some people rush to explainthe outrage as an effect of this or thatprominent feature of the social environment.They talk as though it is a simple task totrace a straight line from some socialprompting, through the labyrinth of an indi-vidual’s dementia, to that individual’s ac-tion.

Now, to be sure, it is wise to recognize thatideas, and hence the words that bear them,have consequences. Those who trade in polit-ical ideas should occasionally brood as Wil-liam Butler Yeats did when he wrote thisabout the civil war in Ireland:

Did that play of mine send outCertain men the English shot?Did words of mine put too great strainOn that woman’s reeling brain?Could my spoken words have checkedThat whereby a house lay wrecked?However, an attempt to locate in society’s

political discourse the cause of a lunatic’saction is apt to become a temptation to ex-tract partisan advantage from spilled blood.Today there are those who are flirting withthis contemptible accusation: If the Okla-homa City atrocity was perpetrated by indi-viduals gripped by pathological hatred ofgovernment, then this somehow implicatesand discredits the current questioning of theduties and capacities of government.

But if the questioners are to be indicted,the indictment must be broad indeed. Itmust encompass not only a large majority ofAmericans and their elected representativesbut also the central tradition of Americanpolitical thought—political skepticism, thepedigree of which runs back to the Founders.

The modern pedigree of the fanatics’ ideathat America’s government is a murderousconspiracy against liberty and decency—amoney-making idea for Oliver Stone, direc-tor of the movie ‘‘JFK’’—runs back to the1960s. Those were years John Brown couldhave enjoyed, years when the New York Re-view of Books printed on its cover directionsfor making a Molotov cocktail, and a stu-dent died when some precursors of the Okla-homa City fanatics practiced the politics ofsymbolism by bombing a building at the Uni-versity of Wisconsin.

Today, when some talk radio paranoiacsspew forth the idea that the AIDS virus wasinvented by Jewish doctors for genocideagainst blacks, it is well to remember thatthe paranoid impulse was present in the firstarmed action by Americans against the newfederal government. During the Whiskey Re-bellion 200 years ago a preacher declared:

‘‘The present day is unfolding a design themost extensive, flagitious and diabolical,that human art and malice have ever in-vented. . . . If accomplished, the earth canbe nothing better than a sink of impurities.’’

It is reassuring to remember thatparanoiacs have always been with us, buthave never defined us.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, see-ing the distinguished Senators fromOklahoma on the floor, I know we alllook to hear from them. I thank thePresident and yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous con-sent to proceed as in morning businessfor 10 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered. The Senatorfrom Oklahoma is recognized.

f

DISASTER IN OKLAHOMA

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, 5 daysago we had a disaster that occurred inOklahoma. I happened at the time tobe in Dallas in a regional meeting onbase closure when I got a call from thePresident of the United States. At thattime, the entire Nation, only hoursafter the blast, was watching as thesmoke still had not yet cleared.

The President advised me as to whatthe Federal Government was doing. Hetold me about the FEMA team thatwas coming in, about the FBI, aboutlaw enforcement, all having to do withthe tragedy, and asked if there wasanything more that I could think ofthat could be done from the Federallevel. Of course, I told the Presidentthere was nothing else I could think ofthat could happen, and I proceededback to Oklahoma.

When you see something like thisthat happens and you see the resourcesthat are poured in from the FederalGovernment, the State government,the city government, but then most ofall from the individuals, it is, indeed,heart warming. I agree with Billy Gra-ham, during the memorial service,when he made the statement that itdraws us together, it brings out thebest in people when a tragedy of thisnature takes place. It is one thing towatch it on the television, and it is an-other thing to experience it knowingthat you have personal friends that are

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5625April 25, 1995inside the building. And as we speaktoday, I have personal friends that areinside the building. It was 5 days ago—5 days and 1 hour ago—that the blastwent off. When you look at the build-ing and see that it happened from thenorth side, the lower half of the build-ing on the south side is still intact tosome degree. I have hope and faith thatthere will be some individuals who arestill alive in the building.

But when I think back and rememberthe 4 days that I spent over there, someof the experiences that we have had arevery difficult to describe. My son is anorthopedic surgeon. There is a doctorwho practices with him. The doctorhad to go in and amputate a lady’s leg,in order to extract her alive from therubbish—it was a decision that she hadto make—with no anesthetic. Do youwant to die or do you want us to takeyour leg off and pull you out? And shechose the leg.

On the first night when the rainscame and it turned cold, I watched incadence some 200 firemen marchingdown with all their regalia on—theircrash helmets, their fire suits, theirboots—knowing that 40 at a time wouldhave to go inside this building andcrawl around on their hands and knees,not knowing whether the structure ofthe building would hold up and allowthem to remain alive. They did risktheir lives. I was told that there wasnot one that went in that was orderedin. They all volunteered to do it. Asyou know, we have lost some lives ofthose who have been a part of the med-ical and rescue teams.

During this time, we had an occasionto look at where do we go from here? Iwas asked by the President 2 hoursafter the blast, ‘‘What could be done topreclude something like this from hap-pening?’’ I have come to the conclusionthat nothing in terms of added securityor nothing in terms of taking awaymore freedoms is going to precludesome mad person from doing somethinglike this if he has his mind set on doingit. This was a mobile unit, it was an ex-plosion put together using fertilizer,using things that are certainly legal onthe market. And if we were to takethose things off the market, theywould find something else, we knowthat. It would just make it more chal-lenging to them.

I think that if we try to approachthis providing more security, we arewasting our time. However, I do thinkthere are some things that can be done.Senator NICKLES, Senator DOLE and Ihave submitted a resolution which wewill be voting on in just a few minutes.

The resolution calls for condemningthe violence in the strongest possibleterms. We send condolences to the fam-ilies. It applauds the rescue workersand supports the death penalty andcommends the President and the Attor-ney General for their quick action. Butit also pledges to approve legislation tocombat terrorism.

I remember in 1990 when we had theairport security bill. I had an amend-

ment on the floor—at that time, it wasin the other body—to have the deathpenalty in cases where a terrorist wascarrying out a hijacking and it re-sulted in a death. You never heard somany bleeding hearts in your lifestanding up saying, ‘‘You can’t do that,that’s inhumane.’’ I believe somethinglike that today will pass. While noth-ing good comes from tragedies likethis, if anything good were to come, itwould be that we are going to be ableto get tough on these guys and actuallypunish them.

I look at our system—I am not a law-yer—but when I see Roger Dale Staf-ford, of the Sirloin Stockade murder,sitting there watching color TV yearafter year, when I see that it takes anaverage of 91⁄2 years to carry out anexecution, then something is wrong.

I had a debate during the course ofthis with Mr. Ron Cubie, who is the de-fense lawyer in the World Trade Centercase. He was contending that the 1994crime bill was one that could take careof problems like this, that it providedthe death penalty in case of terrorism.That is not true. The 1994 crime billwas a farce. It did not provide any ex-clusionary rule reform. It did not pro-vide any habeas corpus reform. Sowhile they had on record the deathpenalty, they did not do anythingabout the endless delays that keeps theinvocation of the death penalty frombecoming a reality.

That being the case, there is no de-terrent. It is no deterrent for a terror-ist who is proposing to do something aswas done in Oklahoma 5 days ago. If hethinks the very worst scenario, theworst thing that can happen to him, isthat he is going to wait 91⁄2 years andthen be executed, he looks at our sys-tem and laughs at our system.

I am one of those rare individualswho honestly believes in his own heartthat punishment is a deterrent tocrime. And when we wait for the pun-ishment, long delayed periods, many ofthose people are waiting in an environ-ment that is more livable than the en-vironment that they are accustomedto. And to many of the people whomight be involved from some other na-tions, Middle Eastern nations, that isnot a deterrent. I have long sensed, inthe years that I spent in the otherbody, that one of the problems we havein combating crime in this country isthat the majority of people in Congressprior to the election of November 8honestly did not believe in their heartsthat punishment was a deterrent tocrime. Now we have the ACLU andthese organizations sitting around say-ing that we are so concerned aboutthese poor people who are involved inthese crimes. We have been much moreconcerned about the criminals than wehave been about the victims.

Mr. President, that is something thatis going to change. Maybe it took thistragedy in Oklahoma to make thatchange. I suspect that is the case.There are some bills that have been in-troduced prior to this tragedy—one was

introduced by Senators BIDEN andSPECTER—that are going to do some-thing about our ability to use re-sources out there to bring people tojustice. Wiretapping for law enforce-ment officers to use. Is that an inva-sion of privacy? Yes, maybe it is. Butsomebody has to do something aboutit. We have a lot of procedural thingsthat can be done that are addressed inthat legislation that I think shouldpass.

I think the resolution submitted bymy colleague from Oklahoma, SenatorNICKLES, and our majority leader, Sen-ator DOLE, and others, is going to setthe stage for the passage of tough leg-islation, providing tough and swift pen-alties for those people in America thatare involved in terrorist activities orthose people who are proposing to be-come involved in any other crime.

I think that it may be that we willlook back 10 years from now and saythat because of those individuals thatdied painful deaths out in Oklahoma,maybe that resulted in doing some-thing about crime in America.

I do not think that it is over yet. Aswe speak today, there are firefightersand rescue workers crawling throughthe rubbish on their hands and knees,hearing the cracks. When you walk by,as Senator NICKLES and I did, and seethe human flesh that is on jaggedpieces of iron—my office is locatedthree blocks away, my Senate office inOklahoma City. Our windows wereblasted out. It is very difficult to ex-plain to people the magnitude of thatexplosion—one that they originallysaid was a 1,200-pound explosion. Theynow say it had to be 5,000 pounds. Toput that in perspective, in World WarII, that was about 10 of the largestnonatomic bombs they used in the war.And this was all perpetrated by one ortwo deranged minds, who somehow feelpeople had to be murdered to provesome type of a point.

Lastly, I am going to hope that thoseindividuals—and there are somearound—who would try to exploit thistragedy into saying that we werewrong in the elections of 1994 in rebel-ling against some of the intrusions intoour lives by Government, or that some-how this philosophy is tied into this farextreme fringe right wing that appearsto be responsible for this tragedy, whenin fact the revolution, as I have re-ferred to it, that took place in the bal-lot box on November 8, 1994, should notbe reversed and people should not tryto exploit this tragedy in reversing it.

Finally, I want to commend thosewho have joined me and those whom Ihave joined in putting together thisresolution. I am sure it will pass atnoon today. I think that will be thepredicate for doing something verymeaningful about this type of activityin America.

As we speak, there is a funeral tak-ing place in Oklahoma City. It is for adaughter of a very close, personalfriend of DON NICKLES and myself.There will be many more funerals. I

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5626 April 25, 1995think the Nation will be standing byand watching. I am sure that all theNation grieves with us. I have beencalled by people not just from all overthe Nation but all over the world. Weshould take any action necessary tomake sure that something like thisdoes not happen again. It has been saidmany times that if it can happen in theheartland of America, in OklahomaCity, it could happen anywhere. No oneis immune.

I yield the floor.Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I com-

pliment my colleague, Senator INHOFE,for his statement and appreciate his as-sistance in putting this resolution to-gether. It is with a sense of sadnessthat we have this resolution before theSenate today. We will be voting on itat 12 o’clock. I wish that we were nothere. I wish the tragic disaster thathappened last Wednesday, April 19, hadnot happened. The deadliest terroristattack that ever happened on our soilhappened in Oklahoma City at 9o’clock.

This resolution is cosponsored bySenators INHOFE, DOLE, and DASCHLE,and a total of 75 of our colleagues havecosponsored. My guess is that manymore will join in cosponsoring by thetime we finish our vote.

This resolution speaks for the Senatebut really speaks for America when itsays we want to condemn this type ofviolence. It is a cowardly act, an evilact, one that is responsible for at least80 deaths that now have been con-firmed, with 150 missing and will prob-ably be recovered in the next couple ofdays. Most of those are expected to befatalities. In excess of 400 were injured.I visited some of those injured. Somewere injured very severely. Some willbe significantly injured for the rest oftheir lives as a result of this cowardlyterrorist attack.

Mr. President, it becomes very per-sonal when you see and know the indi-viduals affected. Senator INHOFE men-tioned that we have a very good friendwho is having a funeral today for hisdaughter. I talked to another friendtoday whose wife almost lost her life.She is a very good friend of ours aswell. I talked to another friend who ac-tually worked for the Senate, workedfor my colleague, Senator BOREN, forseveral years. His child was almostkilled and is still listed in critical con-dition.

At the memorial service or prayerservice on Sunday, I talked to a lot ofthe victims. I talked to one young cou-ple that lost two children, and that ex-perience makes it all become very per-sonal. I talked to two children who losttheir mother.

I talked to an individual who lost aspouse. The stories go on and on. Thisis a real tragedy of immense propor-tions with great damage inflicted onthose lives.

This resolution expresses our condo-lences, sympathies and prayers for thefamilies of the victims, to the injuredand also for the deceased. We pray for

them and we want them to know of ouroutrage for the crime and our compas-sion for those individuals as well.

This resolution states our strong sup-port for the President and for the lawenforcement officials who are doing ev-erything within their power to appre-hend and try and punish those peoplewho are responsible, and it states thatwe support the President and the At-torney General as they say this is cer-tainly a case in which the death pen-alty is appropriate. I concur with that.

This resolution also goes a little bitfurther and says we want to thank thevolunteers and the countless peoplewho have put so much into alleviatingthe pain. Senator INHOFE mentionedsome of the firefighters. I remember Iwas also in Dallas, and I flew up in thefirst plane available, returning toOklahoma City, and I was accompaniedby three firefighters who donated theirtime and money. They wanted to bethere to help rescue innocent people.We have met countless people, and notjust from Oklahoma. We have had fire-fighters across our State, but we metfirefighters from Arizona and fromMaryland and from all corners of thecountry. They are working unbeliev-able hours, and it is not easy work. Imight mention that the work was verydifficult at that time and very dan-gerous. It is not any easier now, be-cause the likelihood of finding survi-vors is diminishing by the day.

So their task right now is very grue-some, very difficult, and it continuesto be dangerous. And our heartfeltthanks—and I am speaking on behalf ofall Oklahomans, but really all Ameri-cans—for their courageous efforts.

When we see this type of evil deed, itmakes people think, how in the worldcould society degenerate to such a lowlevel, or how could evil be so prevalentto have such an act of violence destroyso many innocent lives.

I might also mention, maybe thelight that comes after this evil is to seeso much good that has come from somany people, so many thousands ofpeople, all across the State of Okla-homa and all across the country, whoare not only condemning the violencebut reaching out to help those peoplewho have been injured, to help thosefamilies that have been torn apart, tocomfort and console.

It has been heartwarming to hearPresident Clinton’s remarks, ReverendGraham’s remarks, Governor Keating,Mayor Norick, all of which I will saydid an outstanding job not only at theprayer service, ‘‘the time for healing,’’as Mrs. Keating referred to it, but real-ly to reach out to the families and tocomfort and console those families andlet them know that we really do care.

It is very heartwarming and it madeus feel good, and as Reverend Grahamsaid, ‘‘Good will overcome evil.’’ Wewant to thank the volunteers, all thepeople that worked in the hospitals. Italked to a survivor’s family, and hesaid had it not been for the outstand-ing work of so many volunteers and the

rescue operation, his wife would nothave survived, and she is now antici-pated to be a healthy survivor.

We want to thank those countlesspeople who risked their lives and werewilling to make that kind of sacrificefor other people. It makes me veryproud of my State. It makes me veryproud of my country. Instead of thisbeing the low mark which devastatednot only our city and our State and ourNation, I think it is giving us thechance to rally around and say, yes,good will prevail. There are a lot ofgood people in this country, and peopleare reaching out and trying to assistand trying to help. We thank them forthat.

Mr. President, I want to address justanother item, a development that hashappened in the last day or so that Ifind very troubling in relation to thisevent. The issue is pointedly noted andcautioned against by columnist GeorgeWill, who noted that an attempt to lo-cate the cause of a lunatic’s action is‘‘apt to become a temptation to extractpartisan advantage over spilled blood.’’With respect to this tragedy, the con-tempt for those people who try to gainpolitical advantage from the OklahomaCity bombing will only be exceeded bythe contempt for the perpetrators ofthis crime.

Mr. President, where should ourhearts be? What should our goals be?Where should our compassion be? Sure-ly it should be to reach out to thosefamilies that are affected, and that hasto be our focus, and then to arrest andconvict and punish those people whoare responsible for this atrocious, cow-ardly, evil act.

Yet, even before the missing havebeen recovered, I see politicians andsome pundits contemptibly jockeyingfor position, trying to blame the otherside for the evil actions of a few indi-vidual criminals.

The bombing in my State was not thework of the left or the right, of con-servatives or liberals, Republicans orDemocrats, or even right-wing extrem-ists, as some people would say. TheReverend Billy Graham laid the blameon the proper place, noting that thetragic event has proved again that‘‘Satan is very real, and he has greatpower.’’ He noted that the Bible tellsus evil is real and the human heart iscapable of limitless evil when it is cutoff from God and cut off from morallaw. I agree 100 percent.

I am ashamed, I am bothered, evenappalled by hearing politicians or pun-dits who would stoop so low as to playpolitics with this tragedy.

A reporter on a talk show, Juan Wil-liams, just recently linked the attackto Republicans in Congress saying,‘‘It’s the same kind of idea that hasfueled so much of the right-wing tri-umph over the agenda here in Washing-ton.’’

In an attempt to blame Republicanleaders in general, columnist CarlRowan was quoted in the Washington

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5627April 25, 1995Post as saying, ‘‘I am absolutely cer-tain the harsher rhetoric of theGingriches and the Doles * * * createsa climate of violence in America.’’

I do not know who the President wastalking about yesterday when he said‘‘loud and angry voices’’ spread hateand ‘‘leave the impression that, bytheir very words, that violence is ac-ceptable.’’

Mr. President, this tragedy took thelives of innocent young children andadults alike. Surely in the effort to layblame, our focus must rest with thecriminals—the evil, cowardly, individ-uals who took the lives of so many in-nocent people. Surely, the focus of ourhearts and our passion and our prayersmust remain with the families thathave been devastated.

I just hope and pray that those peo-ple who may be tempted to extract par-tisan advantage from this unbelievableact will look inwardly and find compas-sion in their hearts and not resort toplaying politics with the lost lives ofmy fellow Oklahomans.

If you were there—Senator INHOFEand I were there, Governor Keating andothers—and walked around in theruins, and talked to the firemen andtalked to the rescue people who werestruggling to find additional survivors,the very idea that someone might beplaying politics with this is almost be-yond comprehension. It is offensive. Ihope we do not hear it again.

Let us find those people responsibleand punish them and show compassionfor the families. Those families havehad their lives ruined. They lost lovedones. They lost a child, a daughter, aspouse. They lost a father or a mother.Their lives in many cases have beenmore than devastated by a tragedyfrom which they may not be able to re-cover. If it were not for the grace andcomfort of God, they may not be ableto recover.

This Senate, by our resolution today,I think, will be expressing comfort andconsolation to those families, our out-rage at this unbelievable, unspeakablecrime, and our sense that we in Con-gress want the law enforcement peopleto apprehend them and to punish them.

We compliment the law enforcementpeople for the outstanding job thatthey have done. We compliment therescue efforts that are going on todayand will probably be going on for somedays ahead. We compliment our politi-cal leaders from President Clinton,Governor Keating, and the city offi-cials, Mayor Norick, and many otherswho have put in so many tireless ef-forts, including fire officials and oth-ers.

We want them to know we supportthem and we appreciate their efforts.We appreciate the sacrifices they madeto show that good can overcome evil. Ithink we have seen that in my State. Iam very proud of the State of Okla-homa and our country as a result. Iyield the floor.

Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from West Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that I may consumesuch time as I may require.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.f

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR JOHNSTENNIS

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President once again,the silver cord has been loosened andthe golden bowl has been broken:‘‘Then shall the dust return to theearth as it was: and the spirit shall re-turn unto God who gave it.’’ Thesewords from Ecclesiastes—spoken prob-ably ten centuries before the birth ofChrist—bare the indelible stamp of per-manency. Somewhere, every day, everyhour, every minute, they are broughthome to someone, and in their train,follow the inevitable pain and sorrowand tears, that we all must bear whenloved ones and friends depart from usin this earthly life. The angel of deathis no respecter of persons, and each ofus will one day hear the beating of hiswings—Leaves have their time to fall,And flowers to wither at the north wind’s

breath,And stars to set—but all,Thou hast all seasons for thine own, O

Death!

Mr. President, it was with sorrowthat I heard the sad news over the pastweekend that our former colleague andfriend, John Cornelius Stennis, hadpassed away at the age of 93. When Icame to the United States Senate inJanuary 1959, John Stennis was a Mem-ber of this body, and we served to-gether 30 years—until he retired at theclose of the 100th Congress in 1989. So,it is with sadness that I pay tribute tothe memory of this departed colleaguetoday. As we grow older, we are obligedto bid farewell to some friend almostevery day, and thus does the circlegradually, and all too rapidly, dimin-ish; for—There is no union here of heartsThat finds not here an end.

Mr. President, John Stennis was aman who achieved greatly in life. For41 years and 2 months, he represented agreat and patriotic constituency inthis Chamber, where some of the great-est men of the Republic have servedand aspired to serve, and that achieve-ment alone would mark him as a manamong men. When we add to this thefact that he served as a member of theMississippi State House of Representa-tives for 4 years, as district prosecut-ing attorney from 1932 to 1937, and as acircuit judge from 1937 to 1947, we beginto realize what a wonderful career weare remembering today—60 years in thepublic service—in elective positions,where neighbors and friends, who areoften more critical than strangers, arethe electors! What more could be saidby way of eulogy? Volumes could bewritten and less said. Yet, that is therecord of our former colleague and

friend, who, in the merciful dispensa-tions of an all-wise Providence, hasnow passed on to the other side.

John Cornelius Stennis was bornnear DeKalb, Kemper County, Mis-sissippi, on August 3, 1901. He attendedthe county schools; graduated from theMississippi State College in 1923, andgraduated from the University of Vir-ginia Law School in 1928. He was ad-mitted to the bar in 1928 and com-menced practice in his home town ofDeKalb. I had the honor of serving onthe Arms Services Committee and onthe Appropriations Committee withSenator Stennis, of both of which com-mittees he had served as chairman be-fore his voluntary retirement at theclose of the 100th Congress.

John Stennis was an honest man, andhe was a good man, as good men go inthis life—plain and modest. He wasamiable, courteous, and courtly—asouthern Christian gentleman, in everysense of the word. He was intellectu-ally honest, a man of great moral rec-titude, simple in his habits, and com-pletely devoid of hypocrisy. He was aSenator who loved the Senate and whowas dedicated to its traditions. He wasconscious at all times, of the greattrust confided in him by the people herepresented, and he carried in his hearta great reverence for this institutionand for the Constitution of our coun-try. His was a steady hand, an uprightcharacter. He was a man of justice andfairness to all. He was unassuming inhis manner, sincere and firm in hisconvictions. Devoid of envy, he wasambitious only to serve the cause ofjustice and humanity, and being of, for,and from the people, he gave his life totheir service. In him, the great peopleof Mississippi had an ever faithfulfriend and servant.

Mr. President, John Stennis was nota large man physically. He was actu-ally rather slight. But he was a giant.The breadth of his character was huge,and the steel of his courage was for-midable. Nothing defeated him—notthe bruises of the legislative battle-field; not the frightful attack by thugsin the street, who almost caused hisdeath, near his home; not the death ofhis beloved wife; not the loss of his legto cancer.

Nothing defeated him. Nothing heldhim down for long. He always got upagain and went on. He struggled, but heprevailed and endured. And he did it allwith a quiet, unassuming dignity.

He was courtly—ever the gentleman.I called him a Senator’s Senator. Herepresented everything fine about theSenate and everything fine about thehuman spirit. He was the cream of allthings decent that one looks for in aleader and in a man.

Had he lived in another age he wouldhave been just as great, as respected,as beloved, and as revered as he hasbeen in his own time. He would haveenhanced any company in any situa-tion in any age.

But most of all, the indomitable for-titude stands out. There is a courage

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5628 April 25, 1995possessed by some men which is ex-traordinary—far beyond what most in-dividuals can ever muster in even theirbest and bravest moments. It is rarelyaccompanied by bombast and breastbeating. It is carried with a quiet andcalm demeanor. No outward show isnecessary. In his case, the kindly vis-age gave no clue to the inner steel. Hebore his duties and his crises, his joysand his sorrows, with equal dignity.

But it was awesome actually towatch. How many times have I come tothis Chamber for a vote, bone-weary,and at some dreadful hour in the morn-ing, and seen him sitting straight as anarrow at his desk! There he would be,17 years my senior, frail, missing oneleg, with a pleasant greeting for all, inspite of the hour. In this age of clock-watching, and quality-of-life advoca-tion, that kind of dedication may seeman anachronism. But John Stennis wasdedication and duty epitomized in thehuman flesh. He showed us by his ex-ample. He never lectured, never said,‘‘Do as I do.’’ He just lived an exem-plary life, and that was enough toteach all who were fortunate enough tobe around to learn. He taught us howto be Senators, he taught us how tobear sadness and brutality without bit-terness or surrender or despair. He didso by just being what he was.

Mr. President, all that even thegreatest of scientists can do is to try tointerpret and apply the laws, the im-mutable laws, the eternal laws of God.Scientists cannot create matter andthey cannot create life. They can moldand develop and shape and use them,but they cannot call them into being.They are compelled to admit the truthof the old nursery rhyme, which I amsure the Presiding Officer and theother distinguished Senator from Okla-homa will remember along with me:Nor you, nor I, nor nobody knows,how oats, peas, beans, and barley grows.

But the Scriptures tell us of the lawsof God, and reveal to us the Sourcefrom whence this Earth, the universe,and all of us who dwell here—for a splitsecond, as it were—between two eter-nities: ‘‘In the beginning, God createdthe heaven and the earth.’’ The Scrip-tures also reveal to us that God createdman from the dust of the ground, and‘‘breathed into his nostrils the breathof life, and man became a living soul.’’God then gave Adam a helpmate, Eve,and from those ancient parents, wehave all descended, and from them, wehave all inherited death. Only a Miltoncould so incisively provide a fittingepilogue to man’s fall from grace.They, looking back,all the eastern side beheld of Paradise,so late their happy seat,waved over by that flaming brand; the gatewith dreadful faces thronged and fiery arms.Some natural tears they dropped,but wiped them soon;the world was all before them where to

choosetheir place of rest, and Providence their

guide.They, hand in hand, with wondering steps

and slow,through Eden took their solitary way.

As so, it is our inevitable lot to die.But the Scriptures also tell us that wemay live again in that long lost para-dise from whence our parents came.There was a man in the land of Uz,whose name appears in extra-Biblicaltexts as early as 2000 years beforeChrist. His name was Job, and from hispatient, suffering lips came the age-oldquestion, ‘‘If a man die, shall he liveagain?’’, and later from his lips camethe answer to his own question: ‘‘Oh,that my words were written and en-graved with an iron pen upon a ledge ofrock forever, for I know that my Re-deemer liveth and some day He shallstand upon the earth; and though aftermy skin worms destroy this Body, yet,in my flesh shall I see God; whom Ishall see for myself, and mine eyesshall behold, and not another.’’

Mr. President, many years ago I reada story of an old Anglo-Saxon king whohad his barons at a great banquet.They were eating their venison andquaffing their ale. It was a bitter nightoutside. The storm raged. The snowwas falling thick and fast. Suddenly,into the rude chamber in which theywere gathered, there flew through somecrack or crevice in the roof a littlebird. Blinded by the light and per-plexed, it flew wildly here and thereand beat itself against the rude beams.Finally, it found another crevice andout it went again into the night. Theking, advanced in years, spoke to hisbarons and said,That bird is like a life;it comes from out of the night.It flits and flies around a little while,blinded by the light,and then it goes back out into the night

again.

Mr. President, as we witness thepassing of a great and good man likeJohn Stennis, we may well take ap-praisal of our own public and privatemerits and remember that we, too,only flit about for a little while, ourvoices resound in this Chamber for afew days or months or years, and thenwe are gone. These things are eva-nescent. Real substantial qualities ofhonesty, integrity, gentleness, mod-esty, and generosity will make the lifeof John Stennis remembered whenmuch of what we say and do here inthis Chamber shall have passed awayand perished. John Stennis is gone,. . . with your skysail setFor ports beyond the margin of the stars . . .

And those of us who had the honorand privilege of serving with him maysay of him:His life was gentle,and the elements so mixed in himthat Nature might stand up and say to all

the world,‘‘This was a man.’’

To the family and friends of JohnCornelius Stennis, my wife Erma and Iextend our deepest sympathy.I saw the sun sink in the golden west,No angry cloud obscured its latest ray.Around the couch on which it sank to restShone all the splendor of a summer day.And long, though lost to view, that radiant

light,

Reflected from the sky, delayed the night.

Thus, when a good man’s life comes to aclose,

No doubts arise to cloud his soul with gloom.But faith triumphant on each feature glows,And benedictions fill the sacred room.And long do men his virtues wide proclaim,While generations rise to bless his name.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Oklahoma.Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish

to compliment my friend and col-league, Senator BYRD, for the tributeto our colleague, Senator Stennis, whoserved in this body so ably, so well, forso long. His service of 41 years—onlythe Senator from West Virginia wouldknow who has exceeded that besidesSenator Hayden, I guess—but he had aremarkable tenure in the Senate.

I had the pleasure of serving withSenator Stennis. He was a person thathad enormous credibility and reputa-tion prior to my coming to the Senategoing back for many years. He waseven referred to in the Senate as a per-son known as the ethical watch guardof the Senate, and certainly a Southerngentleman in every single way. He wasa real asset to this body, certainly tothe State of Mississippi and to ourcountry, as well. We shall all miss him,but not forget the contributions thathe made to his State and country.

I compliment my colleague fromWest Virginia for a beautiful tribute toa wonderful colleague and Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank myfriend.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today theSenate formally adds its voice of con-demnation and outrage of the mindlessand heartless massacre carried out inOklahoma City last week. I join mycolleagues in stating in absolute andunequivocable terms that such actswill never be tolerated in this countryand that we resolve to do all in ourpower to make sure that the perpetra-tors of this heinous crime are foundand brought to justice. In our society,the rule of law reigns over the rule ofterror and it follows that swift and as-sured retribution must await thosewho harbor the thought that such actscan somehow alter that equation. Thevictims deserve no less; the criminalscan expect no more.

As this tragic event causes us topause and reflect upon a myriad ofquestions as to how and why such anevent could occur, I urge us all to exer-cise the temperance and reason whichare the characteristics of a civilized so-ciety. This most uncivil and unhumanof acts cannot be explained simply orlogically by rational thought. In therush to pinpoint blame and cause, al-ready occurring it seems in the publicdiscourse about this incident, too oftenwe overstep the mark and compoundthe harm already suffered. For the mo-ment, let us attend to the most imme-diate tasks at hand, that of the contin-ued efforts to search for survivors, to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5629April 25, 1995care for the wounded, to comfort thefamilies and friends who have lostloved ones, and to apprehend and pun-ish those responsible. That is morethan enough for now and it will keep usbusy for days to come. Then we willhave the time for reflection on thebroader, though not any less impor-tant, questions as to what we may beable to do to thwart such acts in thefuture.

My heart goes out to those familiesand friends grievously affected by thisunthinkable tragedy. The losses theyhave suffered are immeasurable and Ijoin the entire country in expressingthe consolation and sympathy. I alsosalute the heroic efforts being made todeal with this event and in particularcommend the Oklahoma City Police,Fire, and Emergency Medical Depart-ments, President Clinton, AttorneyGeneral Reno, the Justice Department,the FBI, FEMA, and all others for theirexcellent work in dealing with this in-cident. I pledge whatever assistance Imay be able to give and will work to dowhat I can to diminish the chances ofsuch an event from occurring in the fu-ture.

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I rise tosupport Senate Resolution 110 and joinwith my colleagues in denouncing theviolent attack on Federal workers andtheir children last week in OklahomaCity.

Our world is full of daily tragedies, somuch so, that each of us runs the riskof growing numb to the pain. But thisviolence struck close to home in manyways. Those murdered by the cowardlyterrorists who planned and carried outthis bombing appeared to be targetedbecause they worked for the U.S. Gov-ernment, or were the children of theseworkers. I urge the administration toemploy the strongest efforts under lawand our Constitution to bring the kill-ers to justice.

These killings also struck home inanother way for me. In my current roleas chairman, and previously as vicechairman of the Committee on IndianAffairs in the Senate, I have seen first-hand the squalid housing conditionsthat plague many Indian and nativeAmerican communities. I have alsonoted the many fine efforts of dedi-cated Federal employees who try tocounteract these conditions with fundsand authorities that are all-too-ofteninadequate to address the overwhelm-ing need.

Among those killed in this bombingwere a number of Federal employeeswho have dedicated their lives to im-proving Indian and Alaska native hous-ing conditions. Killed in the blast, orstill missing or unaccounted for as ofyesterday, are 10 individuals who haveplayed very prominent roles in sup-porting the development of housing op-portunities in Indian communities.While I do not give up hope that thosemissing or unaccounted for will still belocated alive, I do wish to take this op-portunity to describe what I knowabout 10 of these employees.

These 10 people have worked for theOffice of Native American Programs[ONAP] within the U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development[HUD], or for the HUD Area Counsel’sOffice on Indian housing issues. UnderSecretary Cisneros’ leadership, HUDrecently had announced a substantialstreamlining of its administrativestructures so that it could dramati-cally bolster its efforts to improvehousing conditions in Indian commu-nities. These employees were part ofthe new thinking underway at HUD,and I, and many tribal leaders, willsorely miss each one of these HUDworkers and their dedicated efforts.

Most Americans would be shocked ifthey saw the housing conditions thatIndian and Alaska Native familiesmust endure day in and day out. Ap-proximately 90,000 Indian families arehomeless or underhoused. One out ofevery five Indian homes lacks completeplumbing facilities. According to 1990census figures, 18 percent of all Amer-ican Indian households on reservationsare ‘‘severely crowded.’’ The com-parable figure for non-Indians is 2 per-cent. Likewise, while 33 percent of allreservation households are consideredcrowded, the comparable figure for allhouseholds nationally is 5 percent. Thetypical Indian home on a reservationhas 4.4 rooms, nearly a whole room lessthan the national median of 5.3 rooms.

These are the conditions that the 10Oklahoma HUD workers who are con-firmed dead or missing sought to im-prove. I am outraged that their con-structive efforts are cut short by thedestructive acts of cowardly terrorists.

HUD officials have informed me thatONAP maintained a staff of 26 in Okla-homa City. Another 10 Oklahoma CityHUD employees, including the Office ofArea Counsel, provided support to thenative American programs. I knowfrom the reports of Indian tribes inOklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, andTexas that ONAP staff had developed avery cooperative and productive rela-tionship with the native Americancommunities there. I am told that theOklahoma HUD staff have been exem-plary in their professional respect forthe rich cultural traditions of theircounterparts among tribal Governmentstaff. It was not unusual to see ONAPstaff at pow-wows and other nativeAmerican events on the weekends,joining with those they served in cele-bration of the beauty and enduring cul-tures of these communities.

The bombing exacted an extremelyheavy toll on ONAP personnel. As ofyesterday, two staff members were con-firmed as casualties, George Howardand Lanny Scroggins. Three additionalstaff members were still unaccountedfor—Jules Valdez, Don Burns, and DaveBurkett. From the Area Counsel’s Of-fice, Clarence Wilson, Mike Weaver,Kim Clark, and Lee Sells remain unac-counted for. Susan Ferrell, the lead at-torney for native American programsand one of HUD’s top Indian law attor-neys, has been confirmed as a casualty.

Mr. President, these staff were someof HUD’s best. They were dedicated,loyal, hardworking, and personallycommitted to the goal of providing de-cent, safe, and sanitary housing andcommunity development for this Na-tion’s native American communities.Their contributions over the yearshave been extremely important toHUD’s vital work in Indian country.Their loss at the hand of these sense-less killers means the tribes and Indianfamilies they served in that region willpay a high personal cost. Equally highwill be the price paid by the dedicatedcolleagues left behind in HUD’s ONAPand Area Counsel’s Office. Many ofthese survivors carry physical injuriesfrom the blast, some quite serious. Allof them carry emotional scars that un-derstandably run quite deep. I hopethese survivors can find courage forthese days.

The bombing was the act of cowards.I condemn it in the strongest of pos-sible terms. I mourn the loss it hascaused to the family members of itsvictims, to its survivors who now mustlive with this great pain, and to HUD’sIndian offices and the Indian tribeswho must now piece back together aprogram that has always struggledagainst nearly insurmountable odds.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, likeevery Member of this body and millionsof people around the globe, I deplore inthe strongest possible terms the sense-less murders of the innocent childrenand adults in Oklahoma City. This wasan atrocity and a barbaric act againsthumanity that truly shocks the con-science. I have joined in voting for theresolution presented by the majorityleader and the minority leader becauseI wholeheartedly agree with virtuallyevery statement made in the resolu-tion.

Congress must condemn, in thestrongest possible terms, the heinousbombing attack against innocent chil-dren and adults.

Congress should sent its heartfeltcondolences to the families, friends,and loved ones of those whose liveswere taken away and injured by thisabhorrent and cowardly act; and ex-press its hopes for the rapid and com-plete recovery of those wounded in thebombing.

Congress should commend the rapidactions taken by the President to pro-vide assistance to the victims and ap-prehend the perpetrators of this hor-rible crime. I also believe that weshould be sure that Federal laws aimedat combating acts of terrorism arecomprehensive and effective in pre-venting and punishing these acts.

At the same time, I must express onereservation concerning one provision ofthe resolution that indicatescogresssional support for the Presidentand the Attorney General’s positionthat Federal prosecutors will seek themaximum penalty authorized by law,including the death penalty, for thoseresponsible. I am opposed to the deathpenalty, but I recognize that current

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5630 April 25, 1995federal law provides for the death pen-alty in cases such as Oklahoma City.

I understand the feelings which leadpeople to call out for imposition of thedeath penalty in heinous cases, such asthis. However, I do not believe that itis generally the Senate’s role to makea statement on what specific type ofpenalty the prosecutors should seek inany particular case, whether it be thedeath penalty of life imprisonment orwhatever. Congress should not endeav-or to step across the line which sepa-rates the judicial functions of the Unit-ed States to attempt to direct prosecu-tors in the discharge of their functions.The law currently provides for thedeath penalty in this case and regard-less of whether I support or opposethese provisions in existing law, it isfor the Federal prosecutors, not Con-gress, to determine what penaltyshould be sought and ultimately, it isfor a jury of Americans to make thefinal judgment as to guilt and punish-ment for those who are brought to trialin this case.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I risetoday to ask my colleagues to continuemourning the brave and innocent men,women, and children who lost theirlives this past Wednesday in OklahomaCity.

As I speak, I know that search andrescue workers continue to dig towardthe bottom of the Alfred Murrah Fed-eral Building where the bodies of moreFederal workers lay. These public serv-ants paid the ultimate price in theservice of their country.

Mr. President, most of the victims ofthis tragedy were men and women ofour Federal Government. These peopleput their lives on the line just by beingassociated with the U.S. Government.These were common, decent humanbeings that were trying to make theirGovernment work better. I urge mycolleagues to always remember thecountless, nameless Federal workerswho work long, hard hours, committedto making our system of governmentwork for the better who put their liveson the line for the U.S. Government.

It was also an American commu-nity—working women and men withfamilies providing for their children,who were affected by this horrible trag-edy. The past week, this Americancommunity has come together as ashining example of why America is sostrong. Local police and firefighters,Federal law enforcement agents of theFBI, ATF, Secret Service, and FederalEmergency Management Agency per-sonnel show us what Americans wantfrom their public servants: efficiency,competence, cooperation. Americansrallying to overcome a crisis thatthreatens their stability. This is theAmerican spirit.

I urge my colleagues to keep the vic-tims and their families in yourthoughts and honor them with yourprayers. Thank you, Mr. President, andI yield the floor.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I risetoday to join my colleagues in express-

ing our outrage at the senseless, brutalmurders and injuries sustained by de-fenseless citizens and children in Okla-homa City last week.

We all know that Oklahoma City,and indeed our Nation, will never bethe same again. We all know that wewill never have all the answers as towhy something this tragic can happen.But one thing we can know is that wewill not rest until the perpetrators ofthis heinous act are brought to justice.

The resolution we will approve over-whelmingly today is just the first stepCongress will take in attempting to ad-dress this tragedy. We will work withthe administration to pass legislationexpanding the FBI’s powers to combatsuch acts of terrorism. We will work todo all we can to see that no one has togo through this experience again.

Mr. President, there are not words toexpress the sorrow we feel for the fami-lies who have lost loved ones. No onecan prepare themselves for a tragedy ofthis magnitude. No one can preparethemselves to see innocent infantsrobbed of their futures. And no one canprepare themselves for the grief andloss we know those personally affectedby this tragedy will experience for therest of their lives.

One thing we can do is reach out tothem, offer our prayers, our comfortand support. As the President recentlysaid, ‘‘you have lost so much, but youhave not lost everything. And you cer-tainly have not lost America, for wewill stand with you for as many tomor-rows as it takes.’’

In closing, Mr. President, I want topersonally express my sincere thanksand appreciation for the tireless effortsof this administration, the Oklahomaofficials, the rescuers, investigators,police officers, and firemen, our clergy,and so many thousands of others whohave given of themselves in this trag-edy. They are all heroes and their workwill never be forgotten, just as we as anation will never forget April 19, 1995.

MILITIA GROUPS AND THE OKLAHOMA CITYBOMBING

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 2 weeksfrom today, we mark the 50th anniver-sary of the Nazi surrender in WorldWar II. And just a week ago, we wit-nessed an event that should remind usall of just what we were fighting.

I am speaking, of course, of thebombing in Oklahoma City. Our sym-pathy and solidarity go out to the vic-tims of this terrible crime and theirfamilies. And we learn that 50 yearsafter the war, the battle against hate isnot over.

We Montanans like to call our Statethe ‘‘last, best place.’’ We take pride inour low crime rate and our civil soci-ety. And we like to think we are im-mune to the crime and violence that sosadly affects our country.

But we are not immune. Our easy-going ways now seem to attract someof the worst elements in our country.We find that anti-Semites, right-wingextremists, and terrorists believe theycan find a home in our State.

THE MILITIA AND THE FREEMEN

In the aftermath of the OklahomaCity bombing, you may have heardabout the so-called Militia of Montana.Let me tell you something about thisgroup and its friends.

The Militia of Montana was foundedby a few people associated with theneo-Nazi Aryan Nations group. Theirliterature and videos talk about inter-national conspiracies, shadow govern-ments, and banking elites—code wordsthat anyone familiar with the historyof anti-Semitism recognizes imme-diately.

Associated with the militia leaders isthe even more extreme Freemen move-ment. This group says in public thatthe income tax is illegal and the Fed-eral Government is a conspiracy. Inprivate, it says people who are notwhite are beasts; the Bible was writtenfor the white race.

With these organizations come hate,lawlessness, and terror.

The Federal Government and Federalofficials are targets. Jews are targets.We had a swastika painted on a housein Big Timber last month. A Jewishchild taunted in Helena. Militia mem-bers have gone so far as to distributehate literature—Nazi-style pamphletscalled ‘‘Strength of a Hero’’ and ‘‘War-rior Song’’—in the Montana Legisla-ture.

Women are targets. In the past year,fanatical opponents of abortion rightsbombed a clinic in Kalispell and burnedthe Blue Mountain Women’s Clinic inMissoula to the ground.

And law enforcement is a target.Just a few weeks ago, seven armed mi-litia members threatened the marshalin the small town of Darby with gunsafter he had pulled over one of them fordriving in a car whose license platesexpired 3 years ago. On the other sideof the State, Freemen have postedbounties for law enforcement officials,saying they were to be executed byhanging.

Thoughtless politicians and radiobroadcasters encourage this by loosetalk of revolution, and intemperate at-tacks on Federal bureaucrats—which isto say, our neighbors who work forUSDA, the Forest Service, and law en-forcement. Some have even broughtmilitia proposals before the MontanaLegislature.

The results of this toleration for hateare obvious. In March, an eastern Mon-tana county attorney wrote me to say:

The more the federal and local law enforce-ment agencies behave with a ‘‘hands-off’’ at-titude, the more bold and daring thesegroups become.

And a constituent from Ravalli Coun-ty writes, just 9 days before the bomb-ing:

You see Freemen with guns in the post of-fice, grocery store and gas stations. If it getsto any one of them that a person doesn’t likethe ‘‘Freemen,’’ they will call or confront aperson face to face. They tell people that weare all going to ‘‘die like the Jews.’’

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5631April 25, 1995NO PLACE FOR HATE

The situation is serious. But if weface up to it, we can solve it before itgets worse.

The ringleaders of the hate groupsare few in number. Garfield County At-torney Nick Murnion has studied themclosely. He believes the Freemen andmilitia have no more than 25 to 30 coremembers around the State.

The hard-core leaders, in many cases,are common criminals. They refuse topay their taxes and will not live by thelaws. Those who have broken the lawsshould be arrested, tried and put injail. And we can do it if we give law en-forcement the support it requires.

But dealing with the rank and file isa responsibility of the entire commu-nity. Most militia members are notNazis or potential terrorists—merelyloud, deluded people who are an embar-rassment but not a threat. And all ofus need to show them that hate has noplace under Montana’s big sky, and noplace in America.

Hate groups, threats of violence andracism must be met in the open. Theygrow and spread in darkness and si-lence but they vanish in the sunlight.The entire American family must showthem that they are not welcome.

THE BILLINGS MENORAH MOVEMENT

And that will work. I know, becauseI have seen it work. When the vast ma-jority of ordinary, decent people standtogether, the small number of hatersand extremists are always defeated.

In November 1993, a group ofskinheads came to a Jewish house inBillings, MT, and threw a bottlethrough the glass door. A few dayslater they put a brick through the win-dow of another Jewish house, with a 5-year-old boy in the room. Then theysmashed the windows of Catholic HighSchool, which had a ‘‘Happy Hanukah’’sign on its marquee.

Events like these can isolate theirvictims. They can silence people ofgood will and open broader campaignsof hate and violence. But that did nothappen. Instead, Billings rallied withthe Jewish community.

The Billings Gazette printed up thou-sands of paper menorahs. People allover town pasted them in their win-dows as a sign of solidarity. Billingsheld the largest Martin Luther KingDay march ever in our State. And theskinheads left town.

As good people again speak out, thatwill happen with the militias andFreemen too. They must know they arenot welcome in our churches, our gro-cery stores, our towns. We must standwith law enforcement as they trackdown clinic bombers and arrest radicaltax protesters. And when the Americanfamily stands together against thehate groups, as Billings stood againstthe skinheads, they will vanish.

Mr. President, nothing will undo thepain in Oklahoma City. But the suffer-ing of the bombing victims and theirfamilies need not be in vain.

Let us reflect on this horrible event.

Let us remember the sacrifice our fa-thers made across the seas 50 yearsago.

And let us rededicate ourselves toending hate here at home in America.f

THE ENVIRONMENT OFEXTREMISM

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, onthe matter of the extremism which thedistinguished Senator from Montana sothoughtfully addressed, I want to justaddress the environment; not nec-essarily the extremists, not the hategroups—I want to address our conduct,namely the public servants.

We read in the morning’s paper, forexample, where David Broder uses thatdescription of this Government here inWashington, the greatest gift to freepeople the world around, a representa-tive form of government that works sowell—he uses the words of our distin-guished Speaker, ‘‘the corrupt liberalwelfare state.’’

You know Mr. GINGRICH is not goingto blow up any buildings and neither isSenator HOLLINGS. But what has comefrom my experience is a reactionagainst this particular environment,because it is created by pollster poli-tics.

I ran for 20 years without ever seeinga political poll. You addressed the is-sues as concern the citizenry, goingdown the Main Street, out into thefarms, the rural areas, the small towns,as well as the civic club meetings inthe cities. You had a feel for what isgoing on. But that is not allowed todayin the pollster world. What you do isyou take a poll, find out what they callthe six or seven hot button issues, andtake the popular side of those particu-lar issues and blame everybody else.

Specifically, if you want to run foroffice up here in Washington, it hasgotten to an environment of runningagainst the Government. This is sheernonsense, but this is the fact. I thinkwe are elected to make this Govern-ment work. The approach of the envi-ronment, under the contract and other-wise, is to get rid of the Government,dismantle it. It is not needed. Cut themoney so they cannot do the job orwhatever else it is. But as long as youcan run against the Government, withthe cry, ‘‘The Government is not thesolution, the Government is the prob-lem,’’ that is the problem I wish to ad-dress here. Because all the attentionand editorials will now go with respectto the hate groups.

Unfortunately, they have prosperedover the past 15 years. I was inaugu-rated as Governor of South Carolina in1959. After I took the oath of office, Iran back up the steps to get on dif-ferent clothes for the parade. I lookedon my desk and I found a green enve-lope, gold embossed, from the Ku KluxKlan, Grand Klavern of America, giv-ing me a lifetime membership. Well, Iwas lawyer enough. I said, ‘‘We aregoing to return that with a return re-ceipt requested.’’ But I asked for the

head of my law enforcement division,Mr. Pete Strom, I said, ‘‘Have him hereat the end of the parade. I want to seeabout this.’’

At the end of the parade, I askedChief Strom. I said, ‘‘We have the Klanin South Carolina?’’ I was down inCharleston, and we did not have thatactivity in the city of Charleston, notthat we were any better than any partof the State.

But he says, ‘‘Yes. We got 16,721members.’’

I said, ‘‘You keep a count?’’He said, ‘‘Yes. We keep a count of

them but none of the Governors wantedto do anything.’’

I said, ‘‘Do anything?’’He said, ‘‘Yes. Get rid of the crowd.’’I said, ‘‘Well, I agree with you. We

ought to get rid of them. What do youneed?’’

He said, ‘‘I need your cooperation. Ifyou can get me a little money for in-formant fees, if you can help me infil-trate this group, we will get rid ofthem.’’

And at the end of my 4-year term weintegrated now Clemson University—then Clemson College—without inci-dent, because we were able to bring itdown from 16,721 to less than probably200.

In fact, they told me. I did not knowabout any meetings. But some of myinformants were called in the meetingsand informing and everything else, andwe dispelled the Klan from South Caro-lina. But unfortunately, Mr. President,that now has grown back.

When they talk, and write in eruditefashion in the morning news, do notworry about this violence and racism,that we had it back in the 1920’s. Donot give me the 1920’s. Let us go backjust 30 years ago or 40 years ago, from1954 with the Brown against the Boardof Education decision and come on up40 years to 1994. I can tell you categori-cally we have more racism today in myhome State than we had at that par-ticular time.

This environment really bothers mein the context of what I experiencedback home just this past Easter break.We had an annual meeting of our StateChamber of Commerce. To that meet-ing I was invited, of course, the twoSenators, and the six Congressmen.Most of us, of course, were in attend-ance and we answered the questions.One of our distinguished Congressmanhad gotten on to the matter of the abo-lition of, getting rid of, closing downthe departments of Government. I wasjust sort of taken aghast. But Ithought I would hit them right headon.

When my turn came, I said, ‘‘Wait aminute. You folks are talking now ofabolishing the Department of Com-merce?’’ Here I am meeting with theState Chamber of Commerce, and Icould see the faces light up, and theystarted almost clapping saying, yes. Isaid, ‘‘The Department of Commerce,Education?’’ We had former Governor,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5632 April 25, 1995very popular and outstanding Gov-ernor, Dick Riley, who is the Secretaryof Education up here now. They said,yes, yes. They got even louder. I said,‘‘Energy, and HUD?’’ Yes. They werealmost standing up cheering. Theywere almost standing up cheering.

Let us do not talk of the extreme.That is easy to address. Let us talk ofthe responsibility of middle America.Everybody wants to buy the votearound here of middle America. We areit. We are middle America and we aredeveloping that attitude of dismantlingit and getting rid of the very thing weare supposed to build and represent torespond to. We certainly are not re-sponding by paying for any bills.

I fought that, now years on end, try-ing to get fiscal responsibility. But Iwant to emphasize that my feeling isnot just on account of the disaster inOklahoma, which I think is reflective.When we set up the environment ofthat kind, then extremism can prosper.I saw it in 1963 under our hero JohnFitzgerald Kennedy. I will never forgetat that particular time the anti-Ken-nedy environment that persisted. Ihave never thought anyone was moreeloquent, more intelligent, more dy-namic than John Fitzgerald Kennedy.And he did attract in a sense the bestand the brightest to our Governmentat $1 a year and we had things moving.

But an environment had developedsomewhat similar to this environmenttoday that I feel when I go to thesemeetings and see these reactions—President Kennedy was about as popu-lar as an itch. I can tell you here andnow when the news came over that hehad been assassinated, public school-children in my backyard stood andclapped.

We are responsible—not the extremegroups—we in Government are respon-sible for these responses, with this kindof environment, and this kind of feelamongst the people. Yes. The talkshow hosts. Good heavens above. Theycannot plead not guilty now. They areas guilty as get out. They have talkedof arms and shooting. And, yes, thismorning as they talk now they refer toourselves up here as the corrupt liberalwelfare state. They have got all thebuzzwords. The Republican Party givesinstructions on using the properbuzzwords. The Senator from NorthDakota put that in the CongressionalRECORD. We know those particularbuzzwords, and they will tell you to usethose buzzwords because that fires upthe people and engenders support foryour particular position. That is whathas been going on, to my dismay.

I felt after the election in Novemberthat rather than a Contract WithAmerica, that what we needed was achallenge. Rather than reinventingGovernment, we needed to restart it.After all, we had 12 years of Reagan-Bush, and Heaven knows they had cutenough spending, except in the field, ofcourse, of defense. We had cut, cut,cut—this minute with even furthercuts, 50 percent of WIC, 50 percent of

Head Start, 50 percent of title I for thedisadvantaged. All of those have beennot embellished and fleshed out totheir fulfillment whereby we savemoney—$3 for every $1 invested in WIC,$4.50 for every $1 invested in HeadStart, $6.50 for every $1 invested intitle I for the disadvantaged. Yes,health research has been cut. We saved$13.50 for every $1 we invest there.

Some were talking about the flu. Ijust was reading David McCullough’sbook on Truman, and after World WarI; 1918, 1919. We had 500,000 deaths froma flu epidemic, more than was killed inWorld War I. We had 25,000 GI’s in campthat never got to war that died as a re-sult of the flu. With problematic re-search, we have saved those lives, andthe report now is we have less than5,000 here in the year 1994, or 1995, themost recent figures.

So we save and we ought to under-stand by investing in education, invest-ing in these various programs, we actu-ally are saving money. But the drum-beat to election has gotten so thatthere is a total disrespect for anybodythat serves in public office almosttoday, and particularly at the Wash-ington level.

I thought with the problems that wehad what needed to be done is a chal-lenge for America in the context of aMarshall plan on the one hand, and acompetitive trade policy on the otherhand. Specifically, as we started theyear, we have 39.9 million in poverty inthe United States of America, and thathas not diminished. We have over 10million homeless on the sidewalks to-night when you are on the way home.We have 12 million children going hun-gry. We have 39 million without healthcare. Those who have a full-time jobare making 20 percent less than whatthey were making 20 years ago. Accord-ing to the census figures last year, thatis the groups from 17 to 24—73 percentof that age group cannot find a job orthey cannot find a job out of poverty.And with our lack of a trade policywhereby 10 percent of manufacturedgoods, back in 1970, 25 years ago, only10 percent of manufactured goodsconsumed in your and my UnitedStates represented imports; now over50 percent. If we had gone back in thelast few minutes or as of today back tothe 10 percent, that is 10 million manu-facturing jobs. We are going out ofbusiness. We are headed the way ofEngland. As they told the Brits someyears back, ‘‘Don’t worry; instead of anation of brawn, we are going to be anation of brains, and instead of produc-ing products, we are going to provideservices and have a service economy.Instead of creating wealth, we aregoing to handle it and be a financingcenter.’’ And England has gone to hellin an economic handbasket.

When you lose your economic power,Mr. President, you lose your power inforeign relations. As of today, we arenot the biggest contributor to foreignaid. Japan is the biggest contributor.They are holding the schools on

Fredrich List, the Japanese model,whereby the wealth of the economy ismeasured not by what it can buy butby what it can produce and the deci-sion is not based on be fair, be fair,level-the-field nonsense. It is whetherthe decision strengthens or weakensthe economy. And this is the competi-tion we have in the Pacific rim, andeven now the emerging nations in East-ern Europe are not adopting the freetrade of Adam Smith and David Ri-cardo but, rather, following theFredrich List model, and that is thecompetition we have to wake up to.

So I thought the first order of busi-ness now with the fall of the Wall wasthat we could start rebuilding this landand we are immediately going to thedistinguished President George Bush,who, in his State of the Union, said wehave got more will than wallet. False.We have got more wallet than will. Ican tell you that. We have the money.We are spending it $1 billion a day forinterest costs, for nothing. We arewasting it. If they want to get a GraceCommission—and I was very sorry tosee my friend passing here, PeterGrace, who headed up that Commis-sion, just this last week. I served onthat Commission, and he acted withtremendous distinction for the good ofthe Government here in Washington.

But if you want to get waste, fraudand abuse, the biggest we have—andnobody wants to talk about it—is theincrease of the debt. And all you needto do, if you want to find out what thereal deficit is, is see what the debt wasin 1994, what it is going to be in 1995—we will go backward—and what it wasin, say, 1990 and how much it increasedin 1991, and then in 1991, how it in-creased in 1992. And you can see, not ofthis structural debt or other kind ofdebt that they describe, but you cansee we are spending on an average of$300 billion more than we are taking in.That is the deficit as I see it.

In January, they estimated $338 bil-lion, but we have had six increases inthe interest rate since that time. So itis going to be $350-some billion nodoubt—$1 billion a day—and we areinto a downward spiral. You can haveall the freezes, and I favor them. Youcan have all the spending cuts, and Ifavor them. I absolutely oppose any taxcut. We do not have the money to cut.I can tell you that now. But that isbuying the vote, the pollster will tellyou, not only to use the pejorativeterms but to come out for middleAmerica.

That is what distresses me. The lead-ership of the Republicans and the lead-ership of the Democrats are both talk-ing about middle-class bills of rightsand buying that vote and leaving uswho have been in Government and try-ing to work to get us operating in theblack and get this Government goingagain scrambling back to the environ-ment. We can put in a value added taxalong with spending freezes, along withspending cuts, along with closure of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5633April 25, 1995the loopholes, tax expenditures andalong with a tax increase.

I knew in my heart—and I can seeHoward Baker there, the leader back in1981, 1982 when we talked about afreeze. In 1981, Howard turned to meand he said, ‘‘Now, Fritz, I can’t comeout and endorse it, but we are going tohave to get on top of this. We are goingup to the hundred billion deficit.’’

We never had had that before. We donot even blink at the $300 and $400 bil-lion deficits that we are having today.He said, ‘‘You come out with yourfreeze, and I will support it in the con-text of I will say, ‘Well, that is inter-esting; let’s study it and let’s see if wecan go from there.’ ’’ And when I did,the next morning Don Regan, the Sec-retary of Treasury, tackled us from be-hind and said, ‘‘No way; we are notgoing to do that.’’ And as a result therest is history.

Under President Reagan, we got the$100 billion deficit, the first $200 billiondeficit. Under President Bush, we gotthe first $300 billion deficit and thefirst $400 billion deficit. Now, yes,President Clinton came to town andcut $500 billion in spending. He taxedSocial Security. He taxed cigarettes.He taxed liquor. He taxed gasoline. Helet go some 100,000 Federal employees,and he was on the right track until No-vember when the contract now is theattention, almost like spectator sportup here. And so it is Annie get yourgun; anything you can do, I can do bet-ter.

We are not really talking in terms ofsubstance. We are only talking interms of symbols. You can adopt theContract With America in the next 10minutes and not a single bill is paidand not a single job is created. So if wecould put in the Marshall Plan andstart investing in people—we are talk-ing about putting people first—if wecan go back to the theme upon whichthe distinguished President was electedand then turn to a competitive tradepolicy, we can start rebuilding oureconomy and our strength and therebyour influence.

Our foreign policy and security as anation is like a three-legged stool. Youhave the one leg of the values of thecountry, and we feed the hungry in So-malia; we build democracy in Haiti. Wehave the second leg unquestionedthere, too, that of the military. Thethird leg, the economic leg, has beenfractured, intentionally so, over thepast 45 years with the special relation-ship that we had to support the fight ofthe cold war against communism. Butnow with the fall of the Wall, it is ouropportunity not to dismantle the Gov-ernment but to rebuild the Govern-ment, not to reinvent the Governmentbut to rebuild it.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Presi-dent, that ‘‘Perspective—Challenge forthe New America,’’ be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Charlotte Observer, Mar. 12, 1995]CHALLENGE FOR THE NEW AMERICA

(By Ernest Hollings)Our economy is broken. Our society is

splitting apart. Our nation is in decline.Forty million Americans live in poverty; 10million Americans are homeless; 12 millionchildren go hungry every day; and more than39 million of us don’t have health care.

America, land of opportunity, today is afrightening picture. The cities have becomecenters of crime and violence, the schoolshave become shooting galleries, the landdrug-infested. The hard-working have no jobsecurity. Those with full time jobs are mak-ing 20% less than they did 20 years ago. And73% of the generation of the future—thosewho are 17 to 24 years old—can’t find a job orcan’t find one that will lift them out of pov-erty. For the first time in our history, to-day’s younger generation will not live betterthan their parents. We’re developing into atwo-tiered society of the haves and have-nots.

And what does the Contract with Americapromise? Procedure Process. Delay. Adoptthe Contract in the next 10 minutes and nojob would be created, no bill would be paid.It’s true that the Contract makes a lot ofheadlines about issues of concern. But itmakes no headway.

We in Washington act as if we were electedto cheer rather than to govern. Our duty isto get out of the grandstand, get down on thefield and score. To score, the United Statesneeds to launch a Marshall Plan to rebuildAmerica. But many feel we don’t have themoney. Like George Bush, they contend we‘‘have more will than wallet.’’ Nonsense. Wehave more wallet than will. We just refuse topay our bills. As a consequence, our wealthis wasted on paying the interest costs of asoaring debt.

Pretending that economic growth andspending cuts alone could cure the deficit,David Stockman said, ‘‘We have incessantlypoisoned the political debate with a mindlessstream of anti-tax venom.’’ The resulttoday? A spending spree of $1 billion a daythat services a debt that grows like topsy.To put a tourniquet on this hemorrhage, wemust freeze spending, cut spending, close taxloopholes and enact a 5% value-added tax,which would put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis. With this in place, we canprovide a Marshall Plan to rebuild America.

First, we must invest in proven programsthat save money and people, such as the WIC(Women, Infants and Children) nutrition pro-gram: childhood immunizations; Head Start;education; biomedical research and more.Next, we should promote savings and invest-ment with revamped Individual RetirementAccounts and research tax credits for indus-try. And we should reinstitute revenue-shar-ing to pay for unfunded mandates and to re-build the decaying infrastructure—roads,bridges, schools—of our cities and states.

COMPETITIVE TRADE

At another time of crisis, Abraham Lin-coln said we must think anew, act anew anddisenthrall ourselves. If we can think anew,about spending and taxes to develop anAmerican Plan for America, we mustdisenthrall ourselves from the buzzwords ofthis town—‘‘protectionism,’’ ‘‘industrial pol-icy’’ and ‘‘distrust of government.’’

The very fundamental of government isprotection. We have the Defense Departmentto protect us from enemies without, and theFBI to protect us from enemies within. Medi-care and Medicaid protect us from ill health.Social Security protects from the ravages ofold age. We have clean air and clean waterprovisions to protect the environment. Andof course, we have a raft of protectionsagainst free market forces—minimum wage,

unemployment security, anti-trust laws, safemachinery, safe working places, plant clos-ing notices, parental leave—which all addedto the costs of production. All of these pro-tections have sweeping bipartisan support sowe can maintain our high standard of living.

In today’s low-wage, controlled globalcompetition, the U.S. living standard mustbe protected. But after 50 years of operat-ing—and losing—under the free trade modeldeveloped by Adam Smith, the United Statesmust realize that it needs a competitivetrade policy to win the war of ever-increas-ing trade deficits. Unlike Smith, who be-lieved the wealth of a nation was measuredby what it could buy, we live in a worldwhere wealth is measured by what a nationcan produce. Trade policy is not a moralquestion of ‘‘being fair,’’ but a question ofwhether it strengthens or weakens the econ-omy.

Our government should stop kowtowing tothe multinationals and start protecting oureconomy. Instead of having 28 departmentsand agencies in government that deal withtrade, we need to orchestrate them into oneentity to guide national trade policy. Simi-lar to the National Security Council, weneed a statutory National Economic Councilto direct trade policy and globalize our in-dustrial policy. We don’t need a bunch of newlaws. We need to enforce the trade and dump-ing laws that are on the books now.

To augment a competitive trade policy, weneed to embellish the Advanced TechnologyProgram, regional manufacturing centersand small business loans for technologicaldevelopment. We should use market accessto encourage voluntary restraint agreementsfor those products important to our nationalsecurity. We must change archaic securitieslaws to favor long-term investment. And ifforced, we can translate the inspection prac-tices and nontariff barriers of our competi-tors into English by withholding market ac-cess until the United States is permittedmarket access.

Ten years ago, 26% of our work force wasengaged in manufacturing. Now, it’s dwin-dled to 16%. If we lose our manufacturingpower, we’ll cease to be a world power. Weneed a competitive trade policy and anAmerican plan for America to get the coun-try moving.

U.S. CAN-DO

The United States is a can-do country.Since the beginning, it always has looked tothe people’s government in Washington tolead the way. And today, as spiraling deficitsand free trade threaten our standard of liv-ing, our challenge is to use government toget us out of this mess. Look how successfulwe’ve been:

It was the Washington government thatenacted the land ordinances that opened theWest to pioneers.

The Washington government built theroads, canals, harbors and the trans-continental railroad that poured our rich re-sources into factories.

The Washington government produced thewater projects that transformed the Midwestdesert into the breadbasket of the world.

The Washington government brought elec-tricity to rural America.

When free enterprise failed in the Depres-sion, the Washington government lifted usfrom despair and rebuilt our economy.

The Washington government saved theworld from fascism.

The Washington government broke theback of racial discrimination and set us onthe road to equal justice.

The Washington government joinedscience, industry and education and put aman on the moon.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5634 April 25, 1995We can repeat our past successes. Enough

of this chant to get rid of the government.As John Adams said, ‘‘The declaration ofhostility by a people to a government madeby themselves, for themselves and conductedby themselves is an insult.’’

And enough of these information-agebuzzwords of reinvention, reassignment, dis-mantling and devolution. Now is the time toquit playing with symbols and go to work onsubstance.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me just readthis because this is what we had inmind and spoke of back right afterthey submitted the contract and talkedabout in November so reverently, and Iread now because I do not want peoplenow to think I am joining the com-ments with respect to extremism. I donot differ with them. I salute the dis-tinguished Senator from Montana, theSenator from Minnesota and others,but I read because we have got to givethe people hope in this environment.And I read this.

The United States is a can-do country.Since the beginning, it has always looked tothe people’s government in Washington tolead the way. And today, as spiraling deficitsand free trade threaten our standard of liv-ing, our challenge is to use Government toget out of this mess. Look how successful wehave been.

It was the Washington government thatenacted the land ordinances that opened theWest to pioneers.

The Washington government built theroads, canals, harbors and transcontinentalrailroad that poured our rich resources intothe factories.

The Washington Government produced thewater projects that transformed the Midwestdesert into the breadbasket of the world.

It was the Washington Government thatbrought electricity to rural America. Whenfree enterprise failed in the Depression, theWashington Government lifted us from de-spair and rebuilt our economy. The Washing-ton Government saved the world from fas-cism. The Washington Government broke theback of racial discrimination and set us onthe road to equal justice. And it was theWashington Government that joined science,industry and education and put a man on theMoon.

We can repeat our past successes. Enoughof this chant to get rid of the Government.As John Adams said, ‘‘The declaration ofhostility by a people to a Government madeby themselves for themselves and conductedby themselves is an insult.’’

I yield the floor.LOUD AND ANGRY VOICES

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I risethis afternoon with a question: Whereare the loud and angry voices?

President Clinton traveled to myhome State of Minnesota yesterday tospeak out against what he called the‘‘loud and angry voices * * * the pur-veyors of hatred and division’’ that heclaims have fostered a climate of pro-found distrust in government.

Mr. President, I will concede thatthere is indeed deep discontent in theheartland, some of it focused on theFederal Government; discontent wasreflected at the ballot box in Novem-ber.

People are fed up with a governmentthey believe has grown too big, toooverpowering, too unresponsive. Theyheard the conservative message of less

government and it hit home. Just asAmericans have done time and timeagain throughout the history of thisNation, they started a revolution ofideas by voting for a change.

Now, that is what courageous Ameri-cans do—they vote. Courageous Ameri-cans do not plant bombs. CourageousAmericans do not murder their neigh-bors and their neighbors’ children.Cowards do.

I have been receiving telephone callsfrom angry constituents, furious that—simply because they consider them-selves opponents of bigger governmentor higher taxes—that their Presidentwould seek to somehow tie them to theactions of the desperate few who com-mitted unspeakable violence in Okla-homa City. Why stop there? Why notblame fertilizer producers and the folkswho sell it? Why not blame the employ-ees who rented out the truck that car-ried the bomb? Or the Federal Govern-ment itself?

I will tell Americans why we can-not—and must not—play the blaminggame: because the only individuals re-sponsible for this tragedy are the verycowards who built the bomb, parked infront of that building, and in that hor-rible explosion, took innocent Amer-ican lives.

For some things that happen, there isno reason, and out of anger we tend toblame. We must not blame each other.

Those who did this—they alone areresponsible, and they should bebrought forth in the American tradi-tion of justice and held accountable fortheir actions.

We must remember the pain of Okla-homa City, but this is not a time toscore political points or to somehowuse the victims of this tragedy as thepawns of some crazy chess match. Thisis a time for healing, for sticking to-gether. We should be drawing ourselvescloser to our fellow Americans—notpushing each other apart.

Mr. President, democracy can be ahazardous endeavor. There are deeprisks—but equally deep riches to begained—every time a civilization is en-trusted with the freedom to govern it-self. A government ‘‘of the people, bythe people, and for the people’’ cannever be sealed off from the world.

We cannot pass enough laws to pre-vent what happened in Oklahoma City.But with the promise of punishmentthat is swift and severe, we make abold statement that the vicious actionsof a few will not be tolerated within ademocracy.

If President Clinton had listenedcarefully during his visit to Minnesota,he would have heard the same loud andangry voices that I hear echoing acrossthis country. The loud and angryvoices I hear are not political or ideo-logical. They are the voices of real peo-ple—in Oklahoma, in Minnesota, andacross the country—who have wit-nessed this awful tragedy and are de-manding justice.

We would not serve them well by po-liticizing tragedy. Instead, we must

punish those who committed this act,stand by those who were injured in theblast, and keep forever in our memo-ries respect for those who lost theirlives on April 19, 1995.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my heartgoes out for the families and friends ofthose brutally murdered by the sense-less bombing in Oklahoma City lastweek. It was a cowardly act, per-petrated against fathers and mothers,children, aunts and uncles, brothersand sisters, friends and fellow Ameri-cans. While our prayers go to the survi-vors, the community and the bravesoles doing the gruesome work of re-covery, I am sure each of us, in ourown way have uttered, why and ‘‘therebut by the grace of God go I.’’

There is not justification for such anact of barbarism; no circumstancesunder which our society can toleratesuch actions. Those who would wan-tonly take the lives of innocent citi-zens, also destroy the fabric of our free-dom. They must be caught. If foundguilty, they must be dealt the harshestpenalty the law will allow.

As a nation, we must draw a clearline between what is acceptable dis-agreement with Government and whatis just plain lawless brutality. But inour sorrow and anger, we must bemindful to draw that line carefully.

Our Constitution dictates the middleground between measured justice andreckless retribution. It is a time testedoutline for what is too much Govern-ment and what is too little. It is thevery framework of our liberty. Even so,there are plenty of instances in the his-tory of our Nation where its umbrellaof protection was bent by public out-rage or fear and the rights of individ-uals or groups have been suspended forwhat was viewed as ‘‘the public good.’’And in almost every case, those havebeen mistakes.

In retrospect, few of us can really de-fend the wholesale incarceration ofAmericans of Japanese descent at theoutset of World War II. It must haveseemed the proper action at the time.

None of us can now defend SenatorJoe McCarthy’s witch hunt for com-munists in the entertainment business,although we were a nation in fear ofspreading communism.

Few of us who remember the civildisobedience of the late sixties, can de-fend the excess of Federal investigatorswho tapped the phones of dissidents,investigated the lives of civil rightsleaders or spied on those whose onlycrime was having strongly held opin-ions that opposed the official positionof our Government.

Make no mistake. Those who exe-cuted this bombing are outlaws of theworst kind; misguided and sick peoplehiding behind some cause so they caninflict human suffering on people theydon’t even know.

But they in this case doesn’t includeeveryone in America who opposes Gov-ernment excess.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5635April 25, 1995It doesn’t include people who choose

to exercise their constitutional rightto assemble, right to free speech, rightto keep and bear arms, to practice re-sponsible civil disobedience, or to dis-agree with the Federal Government.

Neither the ultra right nor the ultraleft, neither conservative radio pro-grams nor the liberal media are guiltyof this crime. The criminals who did itare responsible.

Those who would use this act of bar-barism to lay blame on their politicalor ideological enemies, do every citizenof this Nation a great disservice. Theyare attempting to place the blamesomewhere other than on the shouldersof the criminals themselves, not be-cause of their grief, but the callous po-litical self interest.

It also shows they have a shallow un-derstanding of what makes our countrygreat.

In this Nation, the rights of the indi-vidual come first. The guilty must befound, tried and punished.

The rights of the innocent must bepreserved.

In this Nation, ideas and beliefs arenot crimes. God forbid that they everwill be.

That is the constitutional prescrip-tion for our freedom. It should not besacrificed for the short term politicalgain or national comfort.

(At the request of Mr. DOLE, the fol-lowing statement was ordered to beprinted in the RECORD.)∑ Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, thesense of the Senate resolution offeredby the Senators from Oklahoma andthe majority leader and minority lead-er reflects the desire of the U.S. Senateto voice its outrage at the horriblebombing of the Federal building inOklahoma City as well as our desire tosee swift punishment for those respon-sible. The resolution also offers theSenate an opportunity to express con-cern and sympathy for the lives trag-ically affected by this crime.

To the families of those injured orlost in the bombing, I offer my deepestsympathies. We all offer our thanks tothe rescue workers, volunteers and lawenforcement officials who have re-sponded to the crisis with bravery,compassion, and extraordinary profes-sionalism. Out of the depths of the de-spair caused by this criminal act,Americans are finding renewed unityand strength as we face together thisadversity.

Right after the blast I was asked ifthis type of attack is the price our Na-tion must pay for a free and open soci-ety. I do not accept the thesis that wemust live in fear—for our lives, for thesafety of our children, or for our ownability to express ourselves. After all,our Nation is founded on the principlesof protecting life, liberty and the pur-suit of happiness. None of these pre-cepts was honored by the terroristswho ended or forever altered the livesof the victims of the Oklahoma Cityblast.

I personally rely upon my faith tohelp understand this tragedy and gain

a sense that justice will be served. As aSenator, I will join every other govern-ment official in the effort to ensurethat the hunt for the perpetrators ofthis crime is successful and swift. Andalthough I cannot support the imposi-tion of the death penalty because of mylongtime conscientious objection to it,I nonetheless condemn the crime in theharshest terms and am eager to knowthat the criminals are behind bars.∑

f

THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THECOMBINED JEWISH PHILAN-THROPIES

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is aprivilege to join today in celebratingthe 100th anniversary of the CombinedJewish Philanthropies.

The Combined Jewish Philanthropieshas always been at the forefront of is-sues vital to the Jewish community,and I have been proud to work withmembers of this organization. As an or-ganization that grew from 5 Jewishagencies in 1895 to more than 80 agen-cies in 1995, it has developed into one ofthe most successful charitable organi-zations in the world. Throughout theseyears, the CJP has had extraordinarysuccess in improving the lives of count-less people.

The CJP has helped to alleviate thehorrors of the past by assisting in therescue and resettlement of hundreds ofthousands of survivors of the Holo-caust, and it has faced the challengesof the present by assisting in the emi-gration and resettlement of large num-bers of Soviet Jews. It has also laid asolid foundation for promoting socialjustice through programs that createjobs, help the needy, care for the elder-ly, and educate children.

During my years in the Senate, Ihave been proud to work with membersof the CJP on many social programs inMassachusetts, including Jewish voca-tional services, family services, andBig Brother/Big Sister programs. Wehave worked together to develop coun-seling and job training initiatives forthe Jewish community in our State,and we have helped over 5,000 Jewishimmigrants during the past 6 yearsfind jobs in Massachusetts. We havealso worked together to ensure thatyoung persons in need of role modelshave the opportunity to participate inthe Big Brother/Big Sister programs inMassachusetts. It has also been a privi-lege to work with the CJP againstantisemitism in the former SovietUnion and for the right of emigration.

The CJP’s centennial celebrationcomes during a time of great challengeand great opportunity for the friends ofIsrael. All of us deplore the tragic vio-lence that continues to plague thepeace process in the Middle East. But Ilook forward to working closely withthe CJP, the Clinton administration,and my colleagues in Congress, to se-cure a just and lasting peace and to en-sure that Israel’s vital security inter-ests are protected.

I extend my respect and warmestwishes as the CJP enters its secondcentury.

f

VOLUNTEERS HELP KEEPCALIFORNIA BEAUTIFUL

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I risetoday in support of thousands of Cali-fornia volunteers who have contributedtheir time and hard work this monthto ensure California remains the Gold-en State that its people, the rest of thecountry, and the world have come totreasure.

April is Keep California BeautifulMonth, and the nonprofit Keep Califor-nia Beautiful, Inc., supported by thou-sands of individuals and businesses, aswell as county, State and Federal agen-cies, have organized more than a hun-dred community-based projects to im-prove and maintain our publicly ownedlands and facilities, from parks ininner cities to the wide-open spaces weall love. The specific objectives are toreduce litter, remove graffiti, expandrecycling, and enhance natural re-sources in urban and rural areas.

This year, 1995, is the beginning ofwhat we all hope will be an ever-in-creasing annual event in the years tocome. As we tighten our belts andstreamline government at all levels,volunteer efforts like Keep CaliforniaBeautiful become even more impor-tant. In fact, the synergy created bythe private-public partnership of thiseffort will, I believe, actually multiplyour capability to do the hands-on workneeded in all parts of the State.

This year’s success will be the first ofan ongoing annual event for years andyears to come. That way, not only arewe improving California for our chil-dren, but hopefully our children willimprove it for their children. It is thatkind of spirit that makes Californiaspecial.

I commend my fellow Californiansfor their efforts and encourage every-one to get involved in Keep CaliforniaBeautiful Month next year.

f

WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE?THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the sky-rocketing Federal debt, which long agosoared into the stratosphere, is in acategory like the weather—everybodytalks about it but almost nobody hadundertaken the responsibility of tryingto do anything about it until imme-diately following the elections last No-vember.

When the 104th Congress convened inJanuary, the U.S. House of Representa-tives approved a balanced budgetamendment. In the Senate only 1 of theSenate’s 54 Republicans opposed thebalanced budget amendment; only 13Democrats supported it. Thus, the bal-anced budget amendment failed by justone vote. There will be another votelater this year or next year.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5636 April 25, 1995As of the close of business yesterday,

Monday, April 24, the Federal debtstood—down to the penny—at exactly$4,839,548,467,525.15 or $18,371.01 forevery man, woman, and child on a percapita basis.

f

A NATIONAL DAY OF SERVICE

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, Icommend Americans who are partici-pating in the National Day of Service.Today, people all across this Nationare working together in communityservice. As we speak, people of all agesand backgrounds are using their handsand hearts to show their Americanspirit.

This day should remind us all of whatit means to be an American, for today,our people are standing side by side.They are gathering, not to discusstheir differences, but to pursue com-mon goals.

Today, Americans are standing sideby side immunizing infants. They arestanding side by side tutoring school-age children. They are standing side byside restoring urban parks, feeding andsheltering the homeless, and rehabili-tating housing and community centers.Today, we stand united as Americans.

In West Virginia, people in BraxtonCounty will work together to create anature trail near the Braxton CountyMiddle School so students can learnmore about their environment. InWelch, people are working to clean avacant school so it can be converted ina facility to offer a safe shelter for vic-tims of domestic violence by the localagency known as SAFE, Stop AbusiveFamily Environments. These activitiesfor National Youth Service Day arejust a few examples of important com-munity work sponsored by the WestVirginia Commission National andCommunity Service.

This day strikes a warm, familiarchord for me personally. From personalexperience, I know the benefit of work-ing with others to build better commu-nities.

In 1964, the VISTA program broughtme to a coal camp community inEmmons, WV. There, I followed Ken-nedy’s call to service and worked withthe people of Emmons, trying to do mysmall part in building a stronger com-munity.

Together, we built a baseball fieldand a community center. We broughtthe people much needed preventativehealth care. We rallied to bring aschoolbus to Emmons and helped tokeep Emmons’ kids in school.

From personal experience, I knowthat community service benefits par-ticipants as much as it benefits com-munities. My work with VISTA taughtme a very important lesson: That I canmake a difference.

Today, the people of America cele-brate that same lesson: Each and everyAmerican can make a difference.

Let us all be careful not to forgetthat important lesson at the end of theNational Day of Service. Let us re-

member and reaffirm that lesson everyday of the year.

Why must we remember the lessonevery day of the year? The reason issimple: Community service programswork.

Just look at the resounding successof AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps gives thou-sands of young Americans the tools tomake a difference in their own livesand in the lives of others.

AmeriCorps participants performvital services in America. Just over 6months ago, 85 West Virginians weresworn into AmeriCorps. Today they areworking with 20,000 people nationwideto keep schools safe, restore natural re-sources, tutor teenagers, and more—allin exchange for education.

Programs like AmeriCorps simulta-neously open doors to higher educationand help build stronger communities.They allow Americans to help eachother, and build trust, understanding,and hope.

Mr. President, I am proud to stand insupport of the National Day of Service.I salute everyone working in commu-nity service. I congratulate each ofthem for making a difference.

f

TRIBUTE TO DAVID MARTIN

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I risetoday to pay tribute to David Martin, adistinguished public servant, an inquis-itive adventurer, and a uniquely warmindividual.

I came to know David when he servedon the staff of my father, the late Sen-ator Thomas J. DODD. To my siblingsand me, however, David Martin wasmuch more than an employee of one ofour parents. He was more like a be-loved uncle and insightful teacherwrapped into one.

I recall spending a number of delight-ful evenings at David’s home with myfamily engaged in stimulating con-versation. One could not come awayfrom talking with David Martin with-out learning something new. He was agripping conversationalist.

He was very unassuming and did notaggressively advertise his superiorknowledge. You had to probe to findthat rich vein, but once you succeeded,your reward was real and immediate.

David had such a dynamic and engag-ing intellect that he was a magnet forsome of the 20th century’s foremost au-thors and thinkers. He counted RalphEllison, George Orwell, Norman Mailer,William F. Buckley, Jr., and EdwardTeller among his friends.

David’s biography is so varied andfascinating that it reads more like thatof a protagonist in a novel than a real-life individual. He was a veteran, a warcorrespondent, a noted author of politi-cal science, a human rights advocateand a legislative expert. He even co-ordinated Richard Byrd’s last expedi-tion to the South pole. David Martinwas a true renaissance man.

His three books on Yugoslavia arestill required reading for anyone whowants to understand that troubled part

of the world. He was a passionate advo-cate for refugees, and as executive di-rector of the Refugee Defense Commit-tee from 1946 to 1947, he was instrumen-tal in ending the inhumane practice offorcible repatriation of war time refu-gees to the Communist eastern bloc.

David was legendary in the Senatefor the breadth and depth of his exper-tise. During the 11 years he served onmy father’s staff, David was a keymover behind the eventual adoption ofthe limited test ban treaty. He also ad-vised my father on a range of foreignpolicy hot spots, from Germany to Af-rica, from the Dominican Republic toSoutheast Asia.

After working for my father, Davidwent on to the Senate Judiciary Com-mittee, where he organized hearings onmarijuana that are generally creditedwith alerting the public to the truedanger of the drug.

David’s first wife, Judy Asti, whomhe married in 1947, died in 1971. He re-married in 1974 to Virginia WorekLevy. He is survived by Virginia, aswell as his two children, Joe and Re-becca; his brother, Maurice Manson;and two stepsons, Ian and Raoul Levy.

Today we live in a better country anda better world thanks to David Martin.I think that is among the highestpraise that can be given to an individ-ual who has passed away, and in DavidMartin’s case it is richly deserved.

f

ANNIVERSARY OF COL. CHARLESSHELTON CAPTURE IN LAOS

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, Saturday,April 29 marks the 30th anniversary ofCol. Charles Shelton’s capture inSoutheast Asia.

Colonel Shelton grew up in my home-town, Owensboro, KY, where you couldfind him playing football for the highschool team, courting his wife, and de-veloping the values that would laterserve him so well as he served his coun-try.

Like so many other dedicated Amer-ican soldiers, the day he left the UnitedStates to fly secret reconnaissancemissions over Laos, he put his life onhold, whether that meant the dreamsand ambitions of an individual life, orthe simple pleasure of watching hisfive children grow into adults.

But, when he was shot down on April29 and captured, the notion of putting alife on hold took on a new and horribledimension for Colonel Shelton and hisfamily. That’s because for the next 29years, Colonel Shelton remained an of-ficial prisoner of war—the final U.S.military personnel to be so listed bythe American Government.

Because of numerous reports ofsightings and escape attempts well intothe 1980’s, it wasn’t until 1994 that hischildren requested the Pentagon tochange his status to presumed killed inaction.

While we can’t begin to imagine whatthis wait was like for Colonel Sheltonor his family, we can pay tribute to hisservice and to the ordeal he and his

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5637April 25, 1995family endured in order to protect thefreedoms we all enjoy in this country.

Mr. President, let me close by sayingto the children of Colonel Shelton thatwe can never replace the years you lostwith your father, but his marker in Ar-lington National Cemetery will serveas a reminder for generations to comeof his heroism, his courage, and hisunyielding love for this country.

f

CONCLUSION OF MORNINGBUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, morning business isclosed.

Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mi-

nority leader.Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ap-

preciate your recognition. I would liketo use my leader time to make a state-ment on the pending resolution priorto the time to take our vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 7 daysago, a brutal attack on a Federal officebuilding in Oklahoma City left over 80people dead, more than 400 injured, anda city and Nation shaken to its core.

On Sunday, the Nation observed aday of mourning. All Americans joinedPresident Clinton, the families of vic-tims, and the people of Oklahoma Cityin thought and prayer at the memorialservice. With them, we thanked andhonored the brave men and women whohave aided in the rescue efforts at thebomb site. It was an added tragedy tolearn Sunday that one of the rescuers,a nurse, lost her own life in the courseof helping others.

The swift and efficient work of FBIand other Federal law enforcement inapprehending suspects reinforces thewell-earned reputation of those agen-cies. Terrorists must know that nomatter who they are, domestic or for-eign, there is no place to hide from thereach of our law. President Clinton hasmade clear that those who committedthis act will be pursued, found, con-victed, and punished to the full extentof the law. He has the support of everylaw-biding American in that deter-mination.

An act of terror—the intentionalmurder of innocent men, women, andsmall children—shattered the sense ofsecurity that Americans have enjoyedin an increasingly violent world. Ourworld has made us all vulnerable to thederanged and to the enraged. No one’ssecurity can be guaranteed againstpeople determined to attack, to kill, topursue their mad plans, Security can-not be guaranteed against those whohave no concern for human life.

But that does not mean we aredoomed to give in to the forces of in-sanity or mad rage. The human worldhas always been one of risks and dan-gers. Throughout human history, vio-lence has erupted in wars and betweenindividuals; human beings have been at

risk from the forces of nature, fromdisease and accident.

Today’s violence and terrorism comeinto our homes through television im-ages. They have an impact that writtenreports of battles and tornadoes couldnever have.

No sooner had Wednesday’s bombingbeen reported than scores of fakedbomb threats began to be received fromcoast to coast. Federal buildings inKansas City; Miami; Portland, OR;Dayton and Steubenville, OH; Casper,WY, and Boise, ID, were closed. InOmaha, the Zorinsky Federal Buildingwas closed, and its day center emptied,by a bomb threat.

Television and wire service storiesreported all these threats and others.No wonder Americans all over thecountry immediately felt at risk. Theimmediacy of live television, the awfulimages of wounded, bleeding, shakingpeople staggering out of the Federalbuilding in Oklahoma City made everyAmerican watching a participant inthis hideous tragedy. No one who sawthe small children covered with blood,dazed and bewildered, will ever forgettheir eyes.

The deaths and injuries, have brutal-ized families all across America. Ayoung woman from Spearfish, SD, serv-ing in the Air Force, is among themissing. Married just 4 days before thebombing, she left her duty station atTinker Air Force Base on Wednesdaymorning to go to the Social Securityoffice in the Federal building in Okla-homa City to register her marriedname, and she has not been found. Herfather, David Koch of Rapid City, herhigh school classmates from the 1993graduating class at Spearfish High, andall who knew her have been devastatedby this terrorist attack. That is truefor literally hundreds of families andpeople nationwide.

The immediacy of television bringsus closer together as a Nation mourn-ing national tragedies, but it alsomakes each of us feel less safe, less se-cure in our daily lives.

We should not let ourselves forgetthat outbreaks of insane violence haveoccurred before. In 1927, for instance, aMichigan farmer unable to pay hisproperty taxes bombed a school full ofchildren, killing more than 40, becausehe blamed the construction of theschool for his high property taxes.

Incidents like that were not as fre-quent in a smaller, younger nation.But they did not occur and despite thefact that they occurred, Americans inevery generation remained true to theconstitutional structure of Govern-ment that has given us the world’smost free society.

We need to remember this fact, as mycolleagues from Oklahoma said so elo-quently this morning, of our history inthe face of the Oklahoma City tragedy.This act of terrorism will haveachieved a purpose if it robs Americansof their sense of security. It will haveachieved a purpose if it leads us to re-spond irrationally. It will have

achieved a purpose if public discourseturns to invective.

The deaths and injuries caused by thebombing of the Federal building mustnot be allowed to rip apart the fabric ofour society.

The resolution the Senate is about topass expresses the outrage and sadnessof the Senate and the American peoplewith respect to the bombing in Okla-homa City. It commends all those in-volved in the rescue efforts and the in-vestigation. It offers our sincere condo-lences to all those who lost familymembers and friends in, and all thosewho were injured by, the bombing.

I want to clarify one point with re-spect to the resolution. It states cor-rectly that the law authorizes thedeath penalty for terrorist murderers.Although the death penalty is not asentencing option for those convictedof the World Trade Center bombing,the 1994 crime bill, which was enactedafter the World Trade Center bombing,does provide for the death penalty incases such as the bombing of the Fed-eral building in Oklahoma City.

The resolution also expresses supportfor the President’s and the AttorneyGeneral’s statements that Federalprosecutors will seek the maximumpunishment allowed by law for thoseconvicted of the bombing. While someSenators support the death penalty forcertain crimes and others oppose thedeath penalty as a matter of principle,there is a strong belief among all Sen-ators that the apprehension, prosecu-tion, and punishment of those whocommit heinous crimes such as thisone should be pursued as aggressivelyas possible. That belief is reflected inthe strong support for this resolution.

Of course, words can never expressthe depth of our emotions at a timelike this. Furthermore, our nationalresponse must be multifaceted.

We have to relearn the hard fact thatour technologically advanced societyhas created new ways to make us vul-nerable. And it will never be possible todevelop enough technological securityto make us invulnerable. Metal detec-tors and x-ray machines, and electronicID cards all have their place in nec-essary security actions. But the bomb-ing in Oklahoma City proves that youneed not even enter a building to blowit up.

At the same time, we must becomemore vigilant and more aware. Thenumber of bombing incidents in theUnited States has gone up more thanfourfold in the last decade. In 1983, theFBI reported 683 bombing incidents. In1993, the last year for which completefigures are available, the FBI reported2,980 bombing incidents.

Few Americans realize this, but in anincreasingly violent and fragmentedworld, we cannot afford to be compla-cent. There are some steps we can taketo respond more forcefully and pro-ac-tively to the threat of terrorism,whether it is home-grown or comesfrom abroad.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5638 April 25, 1995We must do more and focus more at-

tention on the intelligence resourcesthat may help detect potential terror-ist attacks before they can be con-summated. We should take up and passPresident Clinton’s anti-terrorism pro-posals. We should determine what addi-tional tools the FBI and other law en-forcement agencies may need to carryout their missions.

We should examine proposals for im-proved visa tracking of overseas visi-tors to the United States, so that thosewho overstay their visa time cannotsimply vanish into society without atrace. We should take steps to alter ourasylum procedures, so that those le-gitimately seeking political refuge canbe admitted, while those using asylumbacklogs as a pretext are not allowedto stay indefinitely, but let us remem-ber, as well, that this tragedy was notthe work of overseas terrorists, but ofAmericans, people who enjoyed thegreat freedom our Nation offers.

We have become accustomed to see-ing terrorist attacks in other parts ofthe world—Bosnia, the Middle East,Europe, and Latin America. Americanshave seen hundreds of smoke-stainedpeople streaming out of the WorldTrade Center Buildings in New YorkCity. In response, we have been quickto explain that the causes are national-ism, or religious fanaticism, or someother belief system with which Ameri-cans have nothing in common.

Americans have always been quick toseek reasons to explain what happensin the world around them. But thereare events so monstrous, so evil, thatthey cannot be explained away. Nohuman reasons can account for theminds that could conceive, or thehands that could carry out, this deed.

Nevertheless, it is natural andhealthy for each of us to question andtry to understand how this could havehappened, and to think—beyond laws—about what we as a society might do toreverse the trends of violence and in-tolerance in America.

It is imperative that we find ways forAmericans from diverse backgroundswith sometimes very divergent pointsof view to live harmoniously.

The first step toward that goal is forus to talk to each other. We must findbetter ways to do that. We must re-store civility to private, and especiallypublic, discourse. We should not permitour political or racial or ethnic orother differences to blind us to eachother’s truths.

If we listen to one another, we arelikely to find our differences are not asgreat as some of the intemperate rhet-oric makes them appear. We are likelyto remember that what divides us ismuch less important than what unitesus as a nation. We will never eliminateall our differences, but we will learnthat we can live with them.

Each of us—as parents, neighbors,teachers, elected officials, candidatesfor office, journalists—has an affirma-tive responsibility to promote thatkind of environment.

The bombing in Oklahoma City is theresult of evil, misguided people. We donot yet know what their motivationwas; we can only speculate. But we canask ourselves if our increasingly hate-ful public discourse is falling on earsreceptive to hate, if it is providing acontext for hands ready to undertakehateful acts.

No one believes that the actions ofany man are the fault of the speech ofanther, but people are inspired and up-lifted by words and ideas. We saw thatat the memorial service in OklahomaCity. Words and ideas can and do in-spire and uplift. But they can misleadand delude. All of us who speak and actin the public arena have an obligationto bear that in mind, for every time wespeak, in effect, we are making achoice about what kind of environmentwe promote. The privilege of servingour community carries with it the obli-gation not to damage that community.

Americans now can and must do whatearlier generations of Americans havedone. We must mourn with the familiesof victims and pray for all the shat-tered lives and hopes. We must identifychanges in the law that have the prom-ise of making us safer. And we mustcontinue to live our lives, saddened bythe enormous loss, but rededicated tothe social contract that binds us to-gether and allows all of us from dif-ferent backgrounds, with differentideas, to live together in peace.f

CONDEMNING THE BOMBING INOKLAHOMA CITY

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs.HUTCHISON). Under the previous order,the hour of 12 noon having arrived, theSenate will now proceed to consider-ation of Senate Resolution 110, whichthe clerk will report. Under the pre-vious order, the Senate will proceed tovote on the resolution. The clerk willreport.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 110) expressing thesense of the Senate condemning the bombingin Oklahoma City.

The Senate proceeded to consider theresolution.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, Iask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the resolu-tion. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Sen-

ator from Oregon [Mr. HATFIELD] andthe Senator from Vermont [Mr. JEF-FORDS] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Sen-ator from Iowa [Mr. HARKIN] is nec-essarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.INHOFE). Are there any other Senatorsin the Chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 97,nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]

YEAS—97

AbrahamAkakaAshcroftBaucusBennettBidenBingamanBondBoxerBradleyBreauxBrownBryanBumpersBurnsByrdCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenConradCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDaschleDeWineDoddDoleDomeniciDorganExonFaircloth

FeingoldFeinsteinFordFristGlennGortonGrahamGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHeflinHelmsHollingsHutchisonInhofeInouyeJohnstonKassebaumKempthorneKennedyKerreyKerryKohlKylLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanLottLugarMack

McCainMcConnellMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurkowskiMurrayNicklesNunnPackwoodPellPresslerPryorReidRobbRockefellerRothSantorumSarbanesShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarnerWellstone

NOT VOTING—3

Harkin Hatfield Jeffords

So the resolution (S. Res. 110) wasagreed to.

The preamble was agreed to.The resolution, with its preamble, is

as follows:[Senate Resolution 110 was not avail-

able for printing. It will appear in a fu-ture issue of the RECORD.]

f

RECESS UNTIL 2:15 P.M.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the Senate will nowstand in recess until the hour of 2:15p.m.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:37 p.m.,recessed until 2:16 p.m., whereupon, theSenate reassembled when called toorder by the Presiding Officer [Mr.KYL].

f

COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABIL-ITY AND LEGAL REFORM ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report pending business.

The legislative clerk read as follows:A bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal stand-

ards and procedures for product liability liti-gation, and for other purposes.

The Senate resumed the consider-ation of the bill.

Pending:Gorton amendment No. 596, in the nature

of a substitute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Rhode Island.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I suggestthe absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5639April 25, 1995Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President,awaiting others who wish to addressthis particular problem, I would like toemphasize, of course, the good that hasbeen done over the many, many yearswhen we have debated product liabil-ity. The sponsors of the bill here arelooking for a problem to solve and dis-regarding the fact that the UnitedStates of America is the safest societywith respect to manufactured productsin the history of the world. That hasbeen done in large measure due to thatgroup of trial lawyers, damage suits,punitive damages, and other verdicts.With respect to punitive damages, theycan only come about as a result ofgross negligence and willful mis-conduct. And in my State, and in manyof the States, some States do not evenallow them. But in my State, if thetrial judge himself does not find proofof willful misconduct to his own satis-faction, he just throws out that par-ticular finding.

So punitive damages have been usedvery judiciously, and in reality, are sel-dom used. For example, we asked theparticular witness who appeared beforeus at the hearings who had presentedthe issue of punitive damages beforethe U.S. Supreme Court, we asked himto please study and come back and re-port to us over the past 30 years thetotal amount of punitive damagesfound. I know from my own experienceand otherwise that it was a smallamount, relatively speaking. I cited atthat particular time the $3 billion pu-nitive damage verdict in the ExxonValdez case.

And the gentlemen studied the par-ticular findings of punitive damagesover the 50 States in the past 30 yearsand it was $1.3 billion. Of all punitivedamage findings, in all product liabil-ity cases, there was an amount lessthan one-half in one manufacturer’scase.

That has been the problem, Mr.President, in the sense that the greatnumber of punitive damages are indus-tries suing industries. An exampleagain was down in the Pennzoil case, inPennzoil against the Texaco Co. in theState of Texas some years ago. Againthere was another $3 billion finding. SoI can just cite two manufacturer’scases where all the punitive damagefindings in product liability casesamounts to one-sixth of the amounts ofthose two cases.

But look at the magnificent goodthat the tort system has done overmany, many years. I think, for exam-ple, Mr. President, of the 4 millionminivan recalls by Chrysler Corp. herein the last several weeks. Quite to thepoint. You do not find Chrysler Corp.recalling minivans to correct thatfaulty latch on the back door becausethey think it is just good business.They know good and well that they are

going to get socked for actual and pu-nitive damages if they willfully allowthat particular defect to continue, toknowingly, willfully, heedlessly—reck-lessly is the language used in punitivedamage awards—allow that to con-tinue.

And as a result we will give the bodybefore long over at the Department ofTransportation information about themillions and millions of car recalls bythe various automobile companies overthe past several years, which meanswhat? Which means exactly what weare trying to say. If you want to talkabout Medicare, limit the damages,limit the recovery of the injured par-ties as a result of the neglect of thesemanufacturers as this bill does, andwhat will happen is that you and I willpick them up in Medicare and Medicaidcosts.

In all my years of trial work, I havenever really seen an injured partymake money. And I can tell you lessand less of those in the trial bar arejoining that particular trial bar be-cause the other is much more luxu-rious. If you can represent the indus-try, the business, the manufacturer, ifyou can represent, as some 60,000 law-yers here in the District of Columbiarepresent, lobbyist consultant causes,hardly ever entering the courtroom,you are into the game of billable hours.In my 20 years of active practice andover 40 years at the bar—almost 50years now at the bar—I have never hada billable hour case. We are alwayspracticing law from the standpoint ofthe success of the trial and the rep-resentation of that particular client.

But be that as it may, let me empha-size going right to the different studiesmade by the Rand Corp. and others,large manufacturers have responded toproduct liability suits by establishingcorporate level product safety officers.In the 1987 Conference Board report, 232risk managers reported that over two-thirds of the companies in this surveyhad responded to product liability bymaking their products safer.

I can go down the list of the varioustrials and findings that led to a changeof practice, whether it is in the Dalkonshield case, or the Drano case. The evi-dence showed in the Drano case that,subsequent to the plaintiff’s injury, thescrew top on the can was changed be-cause it caused it to explode. That par-ticular design was changed on accountof the plaintiff being awarded $900,000in compensatory damages and $10,000 inpunitive damages. With regard to fire-fighter respirators, three firefighters inLubbock, TX, were killed as a result ofa defect in their respirators, a hole inthe diaphragm. A lawsuit revealed thatthe company knew that the respiratorwas unsafe. The manufacturer latercorrected the mask as a result of thelawsuit.

I have a whole documentary of prod-uct after product after product beingmade more safe than ever before on ac-count of product liability. We are alltalking like product liability is a bur-

den on society. It is an advantage tothe American body politic because itbrings out this safe conduct.

Specifically, Mr. President, just afew years ago, originally some 15 to 20years ago, I went into Bosch, a manu-facturer of fuel injectors in my back-yard, which now has graduated up tomaking antilock brakes. I would thinkthat any investor on the New YorkStock Exchange would say wait aminute, before I invest in the antilockbrake manufacturer, I can see thatafter a year one might go awry, after 10years a car with an antilock brakemight go and cause the one wheel tolock and the rest spill them over andcause, without even running into some-body else, a serious accident. I betternot invest in an antilock brake manu-facturer.

The truth of the matter is that I wasintroduced into the manufacturingplant itself, and I put coverings overmy shoes, a smock around my clothing,a head cover over my hair and my headand everything else as if we were pro-ducing pharmaceuticals or film. Wehave the film making plants of Fujithat is doubling their size right now inGreenwood, SC. I have Hoffmann-LaRoche actually building the most mod-ern pharmaceutical plant in the worldin Florence, SC, right this minute. Andwe have brought in Parke-Davis andBaxter and Norwich and the other med-ical pharmaceutical manufacturers. Sowe know about them.

I thought I was already into one ofthose film making plants where youcould not stand the slightest speck ofdust. I asked the manager at the Boschplant, I said, ‘‘Let me ask you aboutthis plant. How many product liabilityclaims have you had?’’ He said,‘‘What’s that?’’ I said, ‘‘Product liabil-ity claims. Defective antilock brakes,some of them going bad.’’ He said, ‘‘Oh,Senator, we have never had a productliability claim. If we had’’—and hequickly ran over on the line there andpicked up one—he said, ‘‘See that littlenumber. Every antilock brake thatgoes out of this particular plant has aserial number and we could imme-diately identify where and at whatstage any kind of defect occurred, butwe have never had it.’’

Now, that particular corporationmakes the antilock brakes for the Toy-ota, for the Mercedes-Benz, and was re-cently awarded a 10-year contract forall General Motors cars. This is whatwe have going on as a result of productliability. It is not the stultification ordenial of the development of manufac-tured products or pharmaceuticals orwhatever else. What has developed isfar more safe to the consuming public.

We know that, and we appreciate it.The Consumer Federation of America,Consumers Union, every consumer or-ganization of any credibility whatso-ever in the United States of America,is absolutely opposed to this so-calledreasonable bill. They know it, and Iknow it. It is not reasonable.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5640 April 25, 1995The bill in the last three Congresses

never had caps. They have caps on pu-nitive damages now in this bill. Wenever had in the last three Congressesthe matter of misuse. Now they have amisuse provision. It allows them to getout from under the particular claimsexemption. They have the exclusion forrental car exemptions, the matter ofcomponent parts. We can go right ondown the different things that havebeen sneaked into this particular bill.

To talk in terms that I have heardrecently about how you cannot passproduct liability reform at the Statelevel absolutely begs the question. Thedistinguished Presiding Officer knowsthat. He has it in his own State.

In 1988, in South Carolina, under aRepublican administration, a Repub-lican Governor, we had a get-togetherof the chamber of commerce, the tex-tile manufacturers, the pharmaceuticalgroups, the trial lawyers, the medicalbar and all insurance companies, andwe got a product liability reform billpassed and signed by the Governor.Forty-six States have done that.

I heard just recently that, to do thatat the State level would take 4 or 5years because those trial lawyerswould come in and delay it, becausethey like delay. Totally false. Thesponsors of this bill do not understandthat.

I am a trial lawyer. That is the lastthing I want is delay. I know the game.The insurance company is going to ul-timately pay, if at all, if there is goingto be any recovery. The insurance com-pany and the manufacturers’ attorneyswin every time if they can delay thecase. Witnesses get lost, they‘‘malaccuse,’’ and everything else ofthat particular kind, and all along thattrial lawyer is having to pay for what?For the investigative costs, the medi-cal experts, the depositions, interrog-atories, the court costs, his own timeand everything else on a contingent-feebasis.

You get 5 to 10 fairly substantialcases in your practice and you are car-rying those for 2 to 3 years now. Do nottell me it will take 4 to 5 years, I willgo broke. So I as a trial lawyer am try-ing my best to bring those cases to aconclusion. Yes, the trial lawyer doeshave a self-interest in bringing thatcase to a conclusion and as quickly ashe can. The delay is on the other side.I know, because I represented the elec-tric and gas company and the bus oper-ator in my own hometown in defendinginjury claims against that bus com-pany. Any time I got the investiga-tors—and we can sit up there with themahogany desk and nice Karastan rug,answer the phone and act dignified anddo not have to worry about looking forany witnesses or talking to any doctorsor anything else, just tell the inves-tigatory team of the large corpora-tion—and it was the largest corpora-tion we had in the State of South Caro-lina at the time I represented them—‘‘Go ahead and get all of those state-ments. Don’t worry about it.’’ ‘‘Miss so

and so, fill out interrogatories No. 52and send that to the lawyers and I’llsend them another bill.’’

Oh, man, that is luxury practice.That is what you have downtown here.That is what you have with this crowdthat is sponsoring this particular bill.They wrote it. The game plan now isquite obvious. The game plan is oozeand cruise. How reasonable and howfair and they call it the fairness actand all that nonsense, like somebody isfast asleep, and then go over there andget with the Gingrich contract.

Republicans are rolling over on thisside with the Gingrich contract. Hewrites it over there. He tells them,‘‘You do this or you’re out of it. You’renot going to have your funds raised byus, you’re not going to have our sup-port in the next year’s election and ifyou want to be on the team, you haveto come out for practice and vote as wesay vote.’’

Right now they have in the morningnews how they are trying to get themto sign a pledge about a budget. Canyou imagine that? Like joining someorganization or fraternity. I never wasin a fraternity. They were against therules at the campus of the college I at-tended. But you take an oath. So theyhave an oath of loyalty to whateverelse—not to the people they representor their conscience but what Mr. GING-RICH and the contract finds.

So we are in a dangerous strait herein this particular body. We will be ask-ing for time to debate every one ofthese particular measures. You havenot only the matter of the punitivedamages provision in here, you havethe exemption for the manufacturer.You would think that the consciencewould get them, if you please, and theysay, ‘‘Well, it makes no difference.’’ Ifit does not make any difference, I wantthem to go along with the amendmentwhen we put it up that the manufac-turer will also be under the provisionsof this particular measure.

They have it for everybody but who?The manufacturer. The manufactureris not subject to the provisions of thisbill. It is a manufacturer’s scapegoat ifthere ever was one. In good conscience,I just could not put up a bill like thatand try to defend it amongst my col-leagues. I would lose all my credibility.But that is what they have. They say itis not restrictive. Yet, certain evidenceis not admissible. They say it is sim-plicity, eliminating duplication, themultiplicity of suits. They asked for abifurcated system on the one hand foraction and on the other hand for puni-tive damages and say you cannot onthe willfulness part submit that kindof evidence in the actual damage claimover here for compensatory damages.

The Conference of State SupremeCourt Justices came up, the NationalConference of State Legislatures cameup and said this is really going to bogus down taking the guidelines fromWashington and trying to administerwith new words of art and provisions atthe State level. If there is ever one un-

funded mandate, this is it. This is anunfunded mandate back at the Statesto cost more money, more legal costsand everything else of that kind, andthey have the audacity to come forthwith a straight face and say they areinterested in the consumers getting themoney because the lawyers are gettingtoo much. That is out of the wholecloth.

Of all tort claims in the UnitedStates of America, rather of all civilclaims filed in the United States ofAmerica, tort represents 9 percent ofall civil claims filed. Of the 9 percent oftort claims filed, product liability rep-resents 4 percent of the 9 percent, orthirty-six one-hundredths. We are nottalking about medical malpractice. Weare not talking about businesses suingbusinesses. We are not talking aboutSecurities and Exchange Commissionsuits and class actions. We are nottalking about automobile wreck cases.We are not talking about any of thosekinds of injury cases. We are talkingsolely about product liability. It is nota national problem.

President Ford took this up startingback in 1976 with a special study com-mission, and after 4 years of findings,they found that the States were doingit. Sure enough, over the past 15 years,as I pointed out, 46 of the 50 Stateshave just done that, they have up-graded, in a sense, their product liabil-ity laws.

Now cometh the theme, so to speak,of the revolution of the Contract WithAmerica. I never heard so many Repub-lican friends of mine quote Jefferson,but all of a sudden Thomas Jeffersonhas gotten very popular around here inWashington these days. ‘‘That Govern-ment closest to the people is the bestGovernment.’’ So when it comes towelfare reform, block grant it back,give it to the States. When it comes tohousing, give them the money. When itcomes to the crime bill, eliminate thecops on the beat, give them blockgrants back there. The people backhome know how to better spend themoney. They have the better judgmentat the local level. You would thinkthat 12 jurors having sworn under oathto listen to the particular evidencewould better be able to make a judg-ment in a case. But, no, no, not withthis manufacturers’ bill. CorporateAmerica has come to the scam hereand they come and say: ‘‘No, wait aminute, we have to reverse fields andwe have to bring this to Washington,and do not worry about it, Washington,we are really not going to get uniform-ity because we are not going to giveyou a Federal cause of action,’’ which Ihave been debating for 15 years. If youbelieve it is a Federal problem, give usa Federal cause of action. They said:‘‘No, what we are going to do is giveyou Federal regulatory guidelines.’’That is what this whole body is upagainst—regulatory measures at theState level. Here with this bill we aregoing to heap it upon them.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5641April 25, 1995The body is up against the Washing-

ton bureaucracy to give it back to thelocal level. This whole body is allwound up about unfunded mandateshere now. Come the end of April, weare going against the contract, and weare going to give them an unfundedmandate, and they know it. The wholebody is saying that in welfare we haveto make the recipient more respon-sible. Here we say that the manufac-turer is not going to be responsible. Wehave all kinds of bars in here to protectthe manufacturer. If you have anydoubt about it, we will show you thesection where the manufacturer itselfis exempt from the bill. That is whatwe have going here with respect toproduct liability.

We have serious problems in thiscountry of ours. But torts, historically,under the English system for 200 someyears, has been a matter of the juris-diction of the States. They are tryingto give meaning to the 10th amend-ment. When I go home and turn on C-SPAN, I see the speakers about thecontract say we are going to givemeaning to the 10th amendment. Thoseresponsibilities, not delegated specifi-cally under the Constitution to theFederal Government, shall be reservedto the States. Oh, no, they say, on thisone, if we can put over this one—howdo you put it over? When you get in acampaign, Mr. President, you knowhow they have been putting it over be-cause I get it from the other side. Theycome to me, the National Associationof Manufacturers, in my campaign overthe last 15 years, elected three times.They say, ‘‘Why do you not go alongwith this thing? We have product li-ability problems’’.

The chamber of commerce comes toyou and the Business Roundtable mem-bers come to you, responsible civicleaders and all think there is a realproblem. Why? Because VictorSchwartz, and the hired hands up here,a bunch of 60,000 lawyers, have beenpaid off. They say, ‘‘Get ahold of thatSenator and get a commitment fromhim because he has not committed.’’We tried to tell the business leaders,‘‘Look, wherein do you ever think thatthe National Congress in Washington,DC, is more conservative than yourown legislature back in the State cap-ital?’’ I know from 40 years in govern-ment that temporarily, yes, you mighthave a more conservative governmentand group over in the House of Rep-resentatives. But give it a few moreyears and I can tell you from my expe-rience up here, I would much ratherhave the State legislature find on thisparticular score. You might think youget temporary relief but in a few years,you will trip up on this rug and go upto the window and get your money.Business does not have a problem. The232 risk managers under the ConferenceBoard study showed that it was lessthan 1 percent of the cost of doing busi-ness.

When they get to talking about com-petitiveness, competitiveness, competi-

tiveness, I have to smile, because Ihave been in the game for years and Iwish they would point out—and theycannot—that we have over 100 Germanindustries—recently BMW, recentlyHoffmann-La Roche, and over 50 Japa-nese industries, and I got the blue chipcorporations of America that came tomy home State. Not once have theysaid: ‘‘What about this product liabil-ity? We need some kind of solution toit.’’

The fine businesses that like and re-spect safety are willing to put it intothe cost of the product and into thepractices, with safety offices and ev-erything else in these particular enti-ties all over the United States.

If you want safe manufacturing, youcome to the United States of America.We take it for granted and we areabout to strip it today and tomorrowand the next day, whenever we vote,trying our best to put in a fixed situa-tion which is, frankly, an embarrass-ment to me having been on both sidesof this particular problem in the court-room representing businesses as well asrepresenting injured parties. It is dif-ficult, difficult, difficult in this dayand age. You do not get runaway ju-ries. They all know about insurance.They are very sophisticated. They haveall good businesses. They know there isno free lunch. You have to prove by thegreater weight of the evidence to all 12jurors—all 12. If you miss one, yourcase is over with; you get a mistrialand you have a hard time getting backinto the courtroom and all that timeyour costs and all are going up.

So in these civil claims of tort, if wewant to get to the problem, let us go tothe businesses suing businesses thathave billions and billions of dollars,where these fellows sit around in theboardroom and say, ‘‘I do not care, letus go to trial and let us show what wecan do.’’ I put in the RECORD here yes-terday the most spurious of claims bydifferent businesses for millions andbillions of dollars, really, which says tome perhaps there is a problem. Themost objective group—and if you hadto characterize it, it could be charac-terized ‘‘corporate’’—is the AmericanBar Association. They have various di-visions. The American Bar started real-ly with the utilities and the railroadand other lawyers. They are the oneswho had the money to go all the way toChicago, all the way to New York orLos Angeles to a meeting. Workinglawyers for individual clients never hadthat kind of money. They found outthey were not represented. As a result,that is why you have ATLA, the Amer-ican Trial Lawyers Association. I wasin on the early days when it was orga-nized. Now we have almost as many de-fense lawyers attend our ATLA con-ferences as plaintiff’s lawyers. The de-fense lawyers come and learn and un-derstand the various issues, the variousdemonstrative evidence that was start-ed out years ago on the west coast byLou Ashe and Mel Belli, and others, tokeep a record, rather than an operation

by ambush. Give everybody everythingyou have and say here is what I amgoing to prove. As a result, we have theRestatement of Torts and otherwise,and wonderful progress has been madein the field of law in the trial of casesover many, many years.

That has been done at the Statelevel. What happened as a result is thatthe American Bar Association, onceagain, for the sixth time, has opposedthis bill. They have prepared testimonyand testified against the bill. You havethe American Bar Association; youhave the Association of Law SchoolDeans and Professors—over 121—oppos-ing this as bad law. You have the Na-tional Conference of State Legislaturesand the Conference of State SupremeCourt Justices. We have the credibilityand the concern of the responsibleconsumer groups and other wise indi-viduals—the AFL–CIO and everyoneelse who really understands the plightof injured parties. They all oppose thisas a bad, bad, bad, prejudicial kind ofmeasure that should not be in the Na-tional Congress. If there is a problem,the States are handling it well. This ispart of the contract. I hope that in thiscontext these folks will keep their con-tract with the American people.

Mr. BREAUX. If the Senator willyield, I would like to ask the Senator aquestion. One of the arguments I haveheard on the side of the proponents ofthe legislation is that we have to dothis in Congress, in Washington, be-cause we have to have what they calluniformity among all of the States,and all of the States have to have thesame laws when it deals with personalinjuries that are derived from defectiveproducts that hurt people, that wehave to have the same laws in all of theStates.

It is my understanding that this leg-islation says you have to have uniform-ity, unless the State wants to make iteven more difficult for an injured per-son to recover, and then we can have 50States having 50 sets of different rules,if the rules make it more difficult foran injured person to recover. That isnot uniformity.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, thatis not uniformity; the Senator is quitecorrect. More restricted measures arepermitted.

The fact of the matter is that it isnot uniform with respect to one of thebig issues of concern, the matter of pu-nitive damages.

In the distinguished State of Wash-ington, home of the manager of thisbill and the principal author, they donot have punitive damages. Where theyhave punitive damages, they are lim-ited to $250,000, but they are not re-quired by this bill in those States thatdo not have punitive damages.

There is no uniformity here. If theyreally wanted uniformity, we wouldhave had ipso facto a Federal cause ofaction. Then we would have the rules,the simplicity, and the uniformity.

There is no attempt to produce trueuniformity, even though we have had

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5642 April 25, 1995this measure up time and time again,everyone has wondered about this par-ticular measure and requirement of theStates in their jurisdiction. There is aconstitutional question involved, butthey have said: ‘‘Wait a minute; if wereally want uniformity, please give aFederal cause of action and we will gofrom there.’’

If we want a finding under the inter-state clause, Congress has that author-ity and responsibility to make the find-ing and get a Federal cause of action.Then we have uniformity. But they useevery gimmick to make sure it is not.

Mr. BREAUX. It is my understand-ing, does the Senator agree, that thisuniformity argument really does notapply; if each State wants to make itmore difficult for an injured person torecover, they have the right to do that?

Under this proposal, we could have 50different States with 50 different setsof rules with regard to an injured per-son’s ability to recover damages, if it ismore restrictive than this bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right. Takeevery page of the bill—every page ofthe bill has certain legislative, con-gressional language. That is to be in-terpreted, the intent of that particularlanguage is to be interpreted by the 50several supreme courts of the 50 sev-eral, separate States. Then, in certaininstances, it could go all the way tothe U.S. Supreme Court. So they knowthat.

We would not have that if we had aFederal cause of action. We would haveone jurisdiction and we would movewith that and the lawyers and the par-ties would know where they are. Theydo not want them to know where theyare.

There are certain roadblocks, restric-tions, as indicated in your question.This bill says that, if we want to getmore restrictive or want to put agreater burden to the injured party,fine. We do not mind at the nationallevel.

If we approve this bill, we are sayingas a Government up here, if peoplewant to do that, the Government inWashington, the great white father, weapprove that. If a State wants to bemore considerate of the injured party;no, no. We, the Federal Government,the end-all, be-all of wisdom up here,the Washington bureaucrats, we sayno.

Mr. BREAUX. If the Senator willyield, I think he has very clearly madethe point we are talking about—fair-ness. This legislation does not rep-resent fairness at all. I think the Sen-ator from South Carolina has madethat point very well. I thank him.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distin-guished Senator from Louisiana. Hehas been a leader on this measure.

I can say manufacturers are not allthat steamed up. They would have longsince gotten rid of me. They have tried,and they have come pretty close thelast time, so I am not bragging.

I can say right now, the manufactur-ers understand it. I met time and again

with manufacturers, business leaders,bankers, and everyone else of thatkind, and they begin to realize that.

I have asked, I challenged them, geta judge in the State of South Carolinathat has just been put up to the circuitcourt of appeals, as has Billy Wilkins.Remember Judge Wilkins, who headedup a sentencing commission for Presi-dent Reagan and was considered for thehead of the FBI? Go back to Billy andsay, ‘‘Is product liability a problemhere, really?’’ He would say, ‘‘Not inSouth Carolina, not in the State. Theyhandle it well.’’

This has not come from the judiciaryor the American bar. This has notcome from the consumers, whose inter-est it is supposed to—with that title,Fairness Act—supposed to represent.On the contrary, it is a manufacturersscam.

I yield the floor.Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

ABRAHAM). The clerk will call the roll.The assistant legislative clerk pro-

ceeded to call the roll.Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in thenature of attempting to correct a few,I think, inadvertent misstatementsduring the course of the last 24 hours,and also in the interest of speakingphilosophically on at least one of thepoints made by my friend and col-league from South Carolina, I wouldlike to speak briefly on three or foursubjects.

Yesterday in his opening statement,the distinguished junior Senator fromLouisiana [Mr. BREAUX] commentedthat although Louisiana State law doesnot allow punitive damages, S. 565would preempt this refusal to allowsuch damages. It is quite important forme to correct that misapprehension, asmy own State of Washington, like Lou-isiana, is one of roughly five in thiscountry that does not permit punitivedamages in most civil litigation at all.

As I said in my opening statement, ifI had my way, I would abolish punitivedamages in civil litigation. It amountsto an unlimited form of punishment,the risk of unlimited punishment incivil litigation at the absolute discre-tion or whim of the jury. My view ofcivil litigation is that it should be de-signed to redress grievances, to com-pensate fully individuals for actualdamages that they have suffered, butshould not be used for punishment.

So I would be extremely disturbed ifwe were dealing with a bill that in-cluded the preemption to which theSenator from Louisiana referred.

S. 565, which, in essence, is what weare dealing with in my substituteamendment, does not preempt the abil-ity of a State to restrict punitive dam-ages to a greater extent than are re-stricted in S. 565 itself.

Section 107, subsection (A) reads:General ruling. Punitive damages may, to

the extent permitted by applicable Statelaw, be awarded against the defendant in aproduct liability action that is subject tothis title.

And then it goes on to limit punitivedamages in such actions. That is tosay, that it does put certain limita-tions on punitive damages, but it doesnot mandate that a State must permiteven up to that limitation in productliability litigation in those States.

While we are on the subject of pre-emption, there are two other similarareas in which there is no preemptionin the sense, at least, that there is nopreemption of a State prohibitionagainst punitive damages. We have inthis bill a statute of repose for certainmanufactured items of 20 years. But ifa State has a statute of repose as broador broader than the one in this billwith a limit of fewer than 20 years,that statute of repose is not pre-empted.

Section 108, subsection (B)(2) reads:Notwithstanding paragraph 1—

Which establishes a 20-year statute ofrepose—

If pursuant to applicable State law an ac-tion described in such paragraph is requiredto be filed during a period that is shorterthan the 20-year period specified in suchparagraph, the State law shall apply with re-spect to such a period.

And, finally, if a State law does notallow joint liability at all, S. 565, whichbans joint liability for noneconomicdamages, does not require a State toban joint liability for economic dam-ages.

All of this is relevant because in aconversation an hour or so ago on thisfloor between the distinguished Sen-ators from Louisiana and South Caro-lina, the criticism was raised that if weare going to go for uniformity, weshould require absolute uniformity;that there is something perverse orsomething wrong about a preemptionin one direction without a preemptionwhich is all encompassing in nature.

In fact, I believe the Senator fromSouth Carolina went beyond that pointto say that if we desired uniformity inproduct liability litigation, we shouldtransform what is now a State cause ofaction to exclusively a Federal cause ofaction and have identical rules applica-ble in every State in the country.

I find it curious that we should sofrequently in this body be faced withan argument that because we seek toreach a certain goal, we have to do itabsolutely and without exception.

I believe that it is the essence of oursystem that we are constantly adjust-ing our rules to meet the present needsof the society. I do not believe that wemust act mechanistically and, ofcourse, we do not act mechanistically.Usually, this kind of argument isbrought up simply because the entireconcept is opposed by whoever presentsit.

I began my remarks on this bill yes-terday by saying that obviously there

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5643April 25, 1995are two purposes of society on whichsometimes the margins come into con-flict. Clearly, in connection with thislitigation, one is the regressive griev-ances, is the proposition that courtsshould be open to citizens of the UnitedStates and of the respective States tosue when they feel that they have beenwronged. The other is economic effi-ciency, is the encouragement of thecreation of jobs, of research, of devel-opment resulting from that research,the marketing of new and improvedgoods and pharmaceutical drugs, andthe prevention of the irrational and un-reasonable withdrawal from the mar-ket of goods and services which are ofgreat use to most of society but whichoccasionally are accompanied by ad-verse reactions on the part of a fewconsumers.

So what we are trying to do here is todeal with the proposition that the pro-ponents of this bill—and I think theclear majority of the Members of thisbody—feel that the pendulum hasswung too far in favor of litigation.This should not be a surprise. We readabout this constantly, we hear about itconstantly, and we know that we arethe most litigious society, literally, inthe history of the world. It seems quiteevident to most citizens that the oper-ations of our society and of our econ-omy are often inhibited by the amountand the nature of much of the litiga-tion with which the people of Americaare faced.

And so here we seek, in a modestway, in one field of litigation, to putsome limits on that litigation. We donot do so by depriving anybody of acause of action. Every cause of actionthat exists at the present time willexist if this bill becomes law. But wedo put some inhibitions in the way ofthe pursuit of punitive damages, dam-ages which do not, by their very na-ture, compensate for an injury. We putlimitations on the ability of plaintiffsto recover from defendants beyond theresponsibility of those defendants witha particular harm. And, yes—I mustcorrect myself—we do under some cir-cumstances deprive people of causes ofaction with respect to equipment andmanufactured items which are morethan 20 years in age.

That does not mean that we feel wehave done everything that might ap-propriately be done. We feel that theselimitations are reasonable and shouldbe universal in nature. But that doesnot automatically carry with it thephilosophy that no one else, no otherState, can feel that other limitations,greater limitations, are also appro-priate. We need the experimentation ofa federal system in that connection.Nor do we feel that because we desiresomewhat greater uniformity in thelaw, we have to have absolute uniform-ity. Now, with 50 States and the Dis-trict of Columbia, each with a differentlegal code, there is a total lack of im-posed uniformity in the law relating toproduct liability, in spite of the factthat the production and marketing of

products is national in nature. Ofcourse, I suppose we can say we shouldgo from no mandatory uniformity atall to 100 percent mandated uniformity.Personally, I think that would be ab-surd. I think most Members of thisbody think it would be absurd. There isnot the slightest chance that this body,in its wisdom, would federalize the en-tire product liability system. But thatdoes not mean that a greater degree ofuniformity that we have at the presenttime is not socially desirable. We—andeven more important than we—themarket thinks that a greater degree ofuniformity is essential. So we go to-ward the center. We attempt to getthat pendulum back into a centerpiece.We are seeking balance. So we do notintend to go to the extremes with re-spect to product liability, and we donot in this bill.

We do not intend to go to the ex-tremes with respect to joint liability,and we do not in the course of this bill.We do not adopt the shortest possiblestatute of repose in this bill, and we donot demand absolute uniformity in thisbill.

In the four most important elementsof this bill, we seek not some kind ofpure ideology, but an appropriate bal-ance, a greater degree of encourage-ment for the economy to create jobs,competitiveness, new and improvedproducts, certain limitations on thekind of litigation problems whichplague our society, and we feel it isthis middle ground that is the appro-priate ground. That is the rationalethat, I think, is overwhelmingly appro-priate for the way in which we treatpreemption in each of these areas.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Alabama is recognized.Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise in

opposition to this bill. It is entitled theProduct Liability Fairness Act. In myjudgment, that is the biggest mis-naming of any bill that I have seencome before this body. It is a misnomerbecause, in my judgment, it is very un-fair and one-sided. It is sort of like youhave seen in the fine print—you know,everybody’s choice—they say it is acontract you entered into. It is one ofthose take-it-or-leave-it sort of things,in that here we have a very unfair bill.I will be going into that as we discussthis over the next several days.

I want to discuss several things.First, my friend from the State ofWashington says that he would like todo away with all punitive damages, andI wonder if he has thought that when acompany hires employees—chemists,engineers, and so forth—who have hada record of alcoholism or drug abuseand nevertheless the manufacturer ex-poses the public to those types of peo-ple and a person is injured, should notthat company be punished?

Let us consider a case—this is not inproduct liability situation—where aperson is driving where an automobileaccident occurs, and the driver of one

car has 10 beers, crosses the centerline, causes an accident, and man loseshis leg, as compared to an accident inwhich a bare distraction causes damageto someone.

I think both the people who lose legsregardless should be entitled to recovercompensation, but the man who wasunder the influence of 10 beers, andwho got behind the wheel and injuredsomeone, ought to be punished.

The concept of tort liability is thatthere is a wrongdoer and someone is in-jured as a result thereof. The wholebasis of our law that has developedover the common law over the years isbeing that the wrongdoer must pay.

So are we talking about a situationin which we want to put all wrongdoerson the same level? Human beings dif-fer. In regard to injuries, the loss ofone, two, three fingers—if I were to beinjured by a machine that did not havea proper guard on it—those three fin-gers that I lose may be different fromthe three fingers that a violinist loses.

So we make distinctions in regard toindividuals. There are a lot of aspectsof noneconomic damage that we fail togive appropriate attention to. A youngwoman who loses the capacity to havea child, a young woman whose face isscarred in a fire—all of those are non-economic pain and suffering.

In Russia, when Chernobyl, the nu-clear plant, experienced a meltdown,the people who suffered radiation andwho suffered in many ways, many ofthose suffered noneconomic damages,but they ought not to be limited intheir compensation.

Now, I realize that in some aspectsthere have been changes in the bill be-fore the Senate. Changes that havebeen made, designed to be able to get itpassed in the Senate. I do not thinkanybody here fails to realize that theHouse of Representatives passed a billthat was written with one purpose inmind—to see that awards are substan-tially reduced and that the injuredparty does not receive what they reallyare entitled to.

Whatever the Senate were to pass, ifcloture is obtained, will go to con-ference. What will come out of con-ference will be the bill that will go tothe President.

Looking at who the players are, thecast of characters, who will be in con-ference, I do not think there is muchquestion as to who will prevail. I thinkthe Speaker of the House will prevail,relative to the bill that comes out ofconference.

There is no question that he hasshown superb leadership in getting leg-islation passed in the House and inbeing able to bring about party dis-cipline and to attract others. I do notsell him short on what the conferenceversion of this bill will be like.

Now, I want to go over a few thingsin this bill and in the House-passedbill, and list what in my judgment Ithink the final version will be.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5644 April 25, 1995Both bills exclude commercial loss.

Commercial loss by business—which in-cludes loss of profits, destruction to fa-cilities, everything else—does not comeunder this bill or the House bill.

Why, then, if the provisions of thisbill are so great and so needed that cor-porate America is excluded from it?There are a lot of examples. We have amachine that blows up in a factory be-cause of defective manufacturing. Thatmachine blows up and people on thesidewalk and other places are injured.They come under the provisions of thisbill. However, the company itself cansue the manufacturer of the machinefor lost profits, for the destructiondone to the physical property, for nu-merous elements of damage. They do itoutside the purview of this particularbill.

If something is good for the goose, itought to be good for the gander. Butbusinesses do not want to come underthis bill.

Where have the large damage ver-dicts occurred? The biggest one that weknow about was Pennzoil versus Tex-aco, for $11 billion. It was not a productliability case, but a commercial case.

Go down the list and we will see mostof the largest verdicts that have oc-curred relative to civil litigation arewhere businesses suing businesses.They do not attempt to take care ofthat in this bill. They do not want tobe put under this bill.

The fact that they do not want to beput under this bill indicates that thereare provisions that they do not wantthat could affect their lawsuits, whenthey suffer a loss, and when they sue awrongdoer, to have to live with and tohave to comply with.

When we stop and think, there areother aspects we should consider. Thebill does exclude airlines for hire, butthere are other aircraft that we oughtto look at. Two planes crash in the air.Persons that are injured in thoseplanes come under this proposed bill asto their damages. The airplane doesnot. One of the planes drops parts of itsbody down on Yankee Stadium andYankee Stadium suffers a financialloss. The spectators are injured. Theycome under this bill; the owner of theYankees for the loss of business profits,destruction to grandstands or tobleachers or what else might be, theydo not come under it. What is good forthe goose is good for the gander.

The bill talks about an ongoing busi-ness. I even got to thinking about it,and this may apply or may not apply,but if part of that airplane falls on ahouse of ill repute, if it is legitimate ina town—and there are States and townswhere they are—then the ongoing busi-ness can recover for the loss of profits.That may be an extreme example, butit shows you how they have craftedthis bill to take care of situations per-taining to commercial use, to businesslosses, yet the human elements of lossof limbs and of pain and suffering arerestricted under this bill.

In the product liability bill duringthe 103d Congress, there was a provi-sion for a defense against punitivedamages where the FDA had given pre-market approval to a drug or medicaldevice. Last time there were severalSenators who were very concernedabout this provision, so this time theproponents left it out with the idea ofpicking up some votes. The House, onthe other hand, left it in. They left inthe FDA provision whereas statisticshave shown, over a 10-year period 51.6percent of all products that have beenapproved for the market by FDA havebeen recalled. But when this gets toconference, you can rest pretty well as-sured that the House provisions on thatwill control and be maintained.

This bill has a 20-year statute ofrepose. A statute of repose says thatregardless of what happens, after 20years of it being built—and where itsays ‘‘construct’’—that thereafter, re-gardless of what was the reason, youcannot bring a lawsuit. You have acomplete defense. This language of thebill is broad enough, in my judgment,with the use of the word ‘‘construct’’ toinclude a bridge, which if it collapses,will be subject to a statute of repose of20 years. Yet the House bill has a stat-ute of repose of only 15 years, and Ithink it will end up being 15 years.

You had the general aviation awhileback, where a bill was passed, agree-ment was worked out by most of thepeople involved here. They put in an 18-year statute of repose, which I thinkwas a serious mistake since the figuresshow that 60 percent of the smallplanes in use were 20 years old or older.But, anyway, the House would even re-duce that down further—20 years or 15years. I mentioned a nuclear powerplant, Chernobyl, and the pain and suf-fering that had incurred. Practicallyevery nuclear powerplant in the UnitedStates today is at least 15 years of age.Most of them are older than 20 years.

Maybe it might not cover it. It usesthe word ‘‘construct’’ and as I read thevarious language, I think it does. Butregardless whether it does as a unit ob-ject as a whole, component parts in anuclear powerplant which have beenthere for 20 years or longer, or 15 if theHouse prevails and I think they will. Iam not sure, but it seems to me I readawhile back the last nuclear powerplant that was started in constructionwas more than 20 years ago.

I think we do not realize the breadthof this bill and its effort to try to en-compass all situations and what it willdo.

I think there was testimony beforethe Commerce Committee on machinetools. The indications were that over 50percent were at least 30 years old orolder. Design conflicts, metal stress onairplanes and metal stress on airplanesthat cause damages frequently, in thedecision of the national safety inves-tigation board—I do not remember theexact name—would indicate that metalstress on airplanes does not occur untilafter 15 or 20 years.

On the House side there are caps onnoneconomic damages on drug compa-nies, on pharmaceuticals. That cap is$250,000 on noneconomic damages, andthere are provisions throughout onpharmaceuticals and drugs. This newsection that was added, thisbiomaterials section, you first read itand it looks like raw materials. I wastold that is like a fluid such as siliconethat is in a breast implant, or the tis-sue that is sewed together in regards tomaking it, that gives them some im-munity and protection against thesesuits.

But then you read further in that andit says ‘‘component parts.’’ I have apacemaker. I do not know all the com-ponent parts. But, as I understand it, ithas batteries and some computers andother component parts. There are wiresthat go down from that pacemaker,and its battery, into my ventricle—into the chambers of my heart. Thereare several component parts.

If it is defective, it would mean thatfor implants—and this biomaterial pro-vision deals with implants—that an in-dividual would practically have no wayof recovering for defective products.

In pharmaceuticals, manufacturersare just almost given complete immu-nity in any suits. Drugs, and those im-plants I was mentioning a while ago,the silicone breast implant, the CopperIUD, and the Dalkon shield, as I under-stand it, are implants. So some peoplewere worried about those as it wouldaffect women for punitive damages. Weought to be concerned about this newsection that they put in the bill onbiomaterials.

The House bill abolishes joint andseveral liability for noneconomic dam-ages as to all civil lawsuits. The House-passed bill, which again I think willprevail in conference, does not limit itto products but it says to all civilsuits. I do not know who is responsiblefor the Oklahoma City bombing, butsomeone could bring a civil suit. Iknow in my home State that civil ac-tion was brought against the Ku KluxKlan and really did a great deal to stopthe Ku Klux Klan through that civillawsuit because the Klan had someland and other assets that were collect-ible. In the Oklahoma City situation,in the Alfred Murrah Building, if therewere four people that were involved init and a court would have to determinethe part that each played relative to aconspiracy. But what if one of the con-spirators happens to inherit 5,000 acresof land or has other assets, and it is de-termined that he is the one with themost knowledge, it may be that aplaintiff could not collect damages.

The present law is let the partiesthemselves determine among them-selves the apportionment of the dam-age rather than having the plaintiff re-sponsible relative to the apportion-ment of damages and the determina-tion on each and every individual case.I think they have worked it out overthe years.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5645April 25, 1995There are some States that have con-

tributions from joint tort feasors.There are others that do not. But as ageneral rule, it has been worked out ina manner where it is not a difficult sit-uation that has caused any tremendousinjustice among the defendants to ap-portion that responsibility.

We mention caps on punitive dam-ages, and the House has caps on non-economic damages on drug companies,pharmaceuticals. The language is thatit is a cap of $250,000, or three times theeconomic loss. How does that apply?Let us take an example. We have a 55-year-old CEO of a company. He has 10years of work expectancy say, and at 65he would retire. He makes $5 million ayear. So you take $5 million, multiplyit by the annuity tables, which wouldwe will say 10 years is what he wouldhave. You have $50 million that wouldbe then a part of his cap. You thenmultiply it by three. He would have a$150 million cap on punitive damage, oron the matter of the cap on non-economic damages that the House hason drugs.

Then we compare the $150 million,which takes care of the wealthy, to thehousewife. She has no economic lossbecause she does not work outside thehome. So the housewife has a cap of$250,000, as opposed to $150 million forthe CEO. The 65- or 70-year-old retiredperson has no economic loss, and he isnot working. Mr. President, $250,000 isthe cap. The CEO 55 years of age iscapped at $150 million. And you can goon down the list of the inequities. Theprovisions as it would apply on factualsituations shock your conscience.

There is a provision that allows youto collect workers compensation. Per-haps you collect under the workman’scompensation, $40,000 or $30,000. Youget your medical bills paid and otherexpenses. They are subrogated. Thatmeans, if a claimant recovers against athird-party wrongdoer, the insurer isentitled to get its workman’s com-pensation insurance back. But this billhas the language that a claimant can-not settle his lawsuit without thatworkman’s compensation insurer’s per-mission. You have to have the permis-sion of the insurer to settle, unlessthat workman’s compensation insureris paid in full. You come to the pointthat, well, I do not want to gamble.The case is probably worth $500,000.Maybe if somebody does not want to gothrough a lawsuit so they say, ‘‘Well, Iwill settle my damages for basicallyabout two-thirds on the dollar. But theworkman’s compensation companysays, ‘‘No. I want 100 percent on thedollar,’’ and this is shocking to one’sconscience.

I also remind you that we have an ex-emption under antitrust laws for insur-ance companies, and they can get to-gether and in effect reach some sort ofan agreement. There is also the situa-tion that it could well be that they arethe same insurance company for theemployer as well as the manufacturer.Therefore, they are bargaining for a

cheaper figure, putting a claimant in adisadvantageous situation.

There are all sorts of factual situa-tions that can arise which show thisquestion is which really shocks yourmind to consider from a viewpoint ofwhat is right and wrong and gives thema hammer over a claimant’s head.

Shocking your conscience further,there is a provision in this bill thatsays that if you sue for punitive dam-ages, then either party, the plaintiff ordefendant or any of the defendants, hasa right to have a separate trial on theissue of punitive damages as opposed tothe trial in chief in which compen-satory damages are sought. This billprovides for bifurcated, separate trial.

Then the language of this bill pro-vides that you cannot prove the ele-ments of culpability, the fault, the evi-dence of punitive damages in the com-pensatory damage lawsuit.

So you have evidence of a drunkchemist that was involved with a com-pany making a drug. That evidencewould go to punitive damages, but itcould not be introduced in the compen-satory damage lawsuit. I think thatshocks your conscience.

Consider the example of where a per-son is intoxicated. The bill has a provi-sion which gives a complete bar to re-cover if the intoxication of the plain-tiff amounted to 50 percent of the cau-sation and the damages. On the otherhand, if a punitive damage case wasbrought under this bill, the drunken-ness or the alcoholic activity of thechemist or whoever the actor might bethat was involved in the production ofthe product could not be shown in thecompensatory damage lawsuit. Youwould have to show it only in the puni-tive damage part of the lawsuit.

Now, this bill does not have the loserpay in regard to the attorney’s fee. Butwhen it comes out of conference, Ithink you better be extremely watchfulas to whether the conference reportwill contain such a provision.

I think it is important that we lookat this bill carefully. I pointed outsome of the provisions, and every timeI read the bill I see more and more fineprint, methods by which there is an ad-vantage that is sought for manufactur-ers. I have not had the time to reviewthis yet, but in the punitive damage as-pect of it, they have changed the lan-guage where it was generally acceptedthroughout as either willful or wantonor gross negligence depending on theState standards. It uses the words‘‘conscious, flagrant indifference to thesafety of others,’’ and so on. I am inter-ested in seeing where that languagecame from and the reason.

I do not in my recollection rememberthe use of conscious, but I rememberthat under certain circumstances—andI am hazy on this, and I have askedstaff to do some research, to contact atort professor at a university pertain-ing to this—there seems to me to be abody of law that for a corporation to beconscious, it requires activity on thepart of the board of directors. I am

vague on that, and I do not want tomake a statement because I am notsure as to that. But that is somethingthat is troubling and something that Iwish to look at further and perhaps saysomething else at a later time. Butthese words are new words. And, ofcourse, they would be interpreted bythe courts as they come along, andthere may be basic case law in regardsto it at the present time that has givensome type of interpretation whichmeans that there is an existing prece-dent. It may not have to be followedfrom one State to another.

But that brings up the interpretationwhich to me is just entirely inconsist-ent by the original motivation thatbrought forth the idea of some federal-ized tort law. That was the conceptthat we live in a world in which inter-state commerce goes from one State tothe other and products are sold and ev-erything else. Therefore, we need a uni-form Federal products liability.

Well, this is far from being uniform.First, it only preempts the State lawsin the specific matters that are listedwithin the bill. The interpretation thatis given is placed upon the State courtsystem and in diversity cases on thecircuit court of appeals. Under theoriginal bill that they proposed, theyhad the State courts reviewing this aswell as the territories. You could havehad 55 different interpretations of lawand of with little uniformity in that re-gard.

The proponents made a change some-what in that whereby it says that the11 Federal circuit courts will be in-volved in interpretations. So you havegot all of at least 11 circuits that couldhave different interpretations, and youcould have conflicts of law. They madea change which says basically doesaway with the concept of the old line ofcases of Erie which say that the Fed-eral courts shall follow the State lawand they say now the State laws per-taining to interpretation of this shallfollow each circuit, but instead of uni-formity you can still have at least—well, it would take, in my judgment, 20to 25 years before you would finally getthe matter to the Supreme Court, andyou would have uniform interpretationof a particular language or particularprovision. It is devoid of uniformity.There is no uniformity except for thefew instances in which they preempt inthis, and the ones they preempt are ineffect the guts of a civil lawsuit. Butyou have a situation where you do nothave uniformity relative to the moti-vation that many businesses argued forrelative to that. So there is no uni-formity that is involved here.

There has been this lawsuit aboutMcDonald’s and the woman with thecup of coffee, and there is an article byRoger Simon in the Baltimore Sun onFebruary 22, 1995. He says:

Forget about the millions won by sue-happy lawyers.

Just about everybody knows about thewoman who spilled a cup of coffee on herselfand sued McDonald’s because it was too hot.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5646 April 25, 1995Just about everybody knows the jury

awarded her millions of dollars and this iswhat is wrong with America.

It is so wrong, in fact, that the Republican‘‘Contract With America’’ has promised tofix it and hearings are now under way beforeCongress to make it much harder for con-sumers to sue for large amounts of money.

But the real story of what happened tothat much-maligned woman tells us some-thing else about America.

Stella Liebeck was 79 years old in 1992 andsitting in her grandson’s car when shebought a 49-cent cup of coffee at a McDon-ald’s drive-through window in Albuquerque,N.M.

The car was stationary when she lifted thelid to put in cream and sugar, but she spilledthe coffee on her lap.

She received third-degree burns on hergroin, thighs, and buttocks. She was hos-pitalized for 8 days and underwent skingrafts. According to her lawyer, she was dis-abled for more than 2 years. Her hospitalbills were in excess of $10,000.

McDonald’s offered the woman $800to settle, and she had a $10,000 hospitalbill.

She sued.At trial, Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Mor-

gan of Houston, told the jury that McDon-ald’s serves its coffee between 180 and 190 de-grees, which, he argued, is 40 degrees hotterthan most food establishments. McDonald’ssays coffee tastes better at the higher tem-perature.

Morgan presented an array of expert wit-nesses who testified that serving coffee atsuch a high temperature presents an unac-ceptable risk to consumers.

The jurors also learned that between 1982and 1992, more than 700 claims had been filedagainst McDonald’s for coffee burns and thatMcDonald’s had settled claims for more than$500,000.

After a 6-day trial, the jury awarded Mrs.Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damagesfor her injuries, but reduced that by 20 per-cent because the jury felt the spill was 20percent her fault.

Then the jury awarded her $2.7 million inpunitive damages, a figure it did not pickout of a hat.

Having been told during the trial thatMcDonald’s sold $1.35 million worth of coffeeper day, the jurors assessed McDonald’s afine equal to 2 days of gross coffee sales.

The trial judge, however, reduced theamount of punitive damages to $480,000 ortriple Mrs. Liebeck’s actual damages.

Both sides could have appealed, but it wasnow 1994. Mrs. Liebeck was 81, and her law-yer felt McDonald’s was hoping she would diebefore the case was concluded.

So he negotiated a settlement withMcDonald’s. He is not allowed to say for howmuch, but let’s say it was roughly $500,000.

Mrs. Liebeck’s attorney would get one-third of that amount and the expert wit-nesses, who can cost tens of thousands ofdollars, would be paid out of Mrs. Liebeck’sshare.

So Mrs. Liebeck did not become a million-aire or anything close to it. Which is typicalof such cases.

‘‘I have been an attorney for 20 years andI have received two awards for punitive dam-ages in all that time’’—

The lawyer Morgan told RogerSimon.in a telephone interview * * *. ‘‘And youknow how many times I have gotten full pu-nitive damages as the jury intended? Never.’’

An American Bar Association study of over25,000 jury awards between 1981 and 1985found that the median punitive damage

award was only $30,000. According to a U.S.News & World Report, the current averageaward in personal injury cases is $48,000.

And, contrary to claims that there hasbeen an explosion of personal injury law-suits, the number of such suits have beendropping since 1990.

It is important to keep in mind, however,that punitive damages are supposed to servea purpose.

‘‘It’s all economics,’’ Mr. Morgan said. ‘‘Ifsome companies can make more money in-juring you with a bad product than keepingyou safe with a good one, they will injureyou. I am not saying all companies; I amsaying some companies.’’

In other words, the fear of being sockedwith large punitive damages is all that keepssome companies from doing us harm.

So why should we ‘‘reform’’ away our abil-ity to hit them where it hurts?

I ask unanimous consent that this ar-ticle be printed in the RECORD at theconclusion of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.THOMPSON). Without objection, it is soordered.

(See exhibit 1.)Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, there

are many other aspects, and I willspeak further in regard to it but, atthis time, I yield the floor.

EXHIBIT 1FORGET ABOUT THE MILLIONS WON BY SUE-

HAPPY LAWYERS

(By Roger Simon)

Just about everybody knows about thewoman who spilled a cup of coffee on herselfand sued McDonald’s because it was too hot.

Just about everybody knows a jury award-ed her millions of dollars and this is what iswrong with America.

It is so wrong, in fact, that the Republican‘‘Contract with America’’ has promised to fixit and hearings are now under way beforeCongress to make it much harder for con-sumers to sue for large amounts of money.

But the real story of what happened tothat much-maligned woman tells us some-thing else about America:

Stella Liebeck was 79 years old in 1992 andsitting in her grandson’s car when shebought a 49-cent cup of coffee at as McDon-ald’s drive-through window in Albuquerque,N.M.

The car was stationary when she lifted thelid to put in cream and sugar, but she spilledthe coffee on her lap.

She received third-degree burns on hergroin, thighs and buttocks. She was hospital-ized for eight days and underwent skingrafts. According to her lawyer, she was dis-abled for more than two years. Her hospitalbills were in excess of $10,000.

McDonald’s offered Mrs. Liebeck $800. Shesued.

At trial, Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Mor-gan of Houston, told the jury that McDon-ald’s serves its coffee at between 180 and 190degrees, which, he argued, is more than 40degrees hotter than most food establish-ments. McDonald’s says coffee tastes betterat the higher temperature. (McDonald’s de-clined to be interviewed for this column.)

Morgan presented an array of expert wit-ness who testified that serving coffee at sucha high temperature presents an unacceptablerisk to consumers.

The jurors also learned that between 1982and 1992 more than 700 claims had been filedagainst McDonald’s for coffee burns and thatMcDonald’s had settled claims for more than$500,000.

After a six-day trial, the jury awarded Mrs.Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages

for her injuries, but reduced that by 20 per-cent because the jury felt the spill was 20percent her fault.

Then the jury awarded her $2.7 million inpunitive damages, a figure it did not pickout of a hat.

Having been told during the trial thatMcDonald’s sold $1.35 million worth of coffeeper day, the jurors assessed McDonald’s fineequal to two days of gross coffee sales.

The trial judge, however, reduced theamount of punitive damages to $480,000 ortriple Mrs. Liebeck’s actual damages.

Both sides could have appealed. But it wasnow 1994, Mrs. Liebeck was 81, and her law-yer felt McDonald’s was hoping she would diebefore the case was concluded.

So he negotiated a settlement withMcDonald’s. He is not allowed to say for howmuch, but let’s say it was roughly $500,000.

Mrs. Liebeck’s attorney would get one-third of that amount and the expert wit-nesses, who can cost tens of thousands ofdollars, would be paid out of Mrs. Liebeck’sshare.

So Mrs. Liebeck did not become a million-aire or anything close to it. Which is typicalof such cases.

‘‘I have been an attorney for 20 years andI have received two awards for punitive dam-ages in all that time.’’ Morgan told me in atelephone interview yesterday. ‘‘And youknow how many times I have gotten full pu-nitive damages as the jury intended? Never.’’

An American Bar Association study of over25,000 jury awards between 1981 and 1985found that the median punitive damageaward was only $30,000. According to a U.S.News & World report, the current averageaward in personal injury cases if $48,000.

And, contrary to claims that there hasbeen an explosion of personal injury law-suits, the number of such suits has beendropping since 1990.

It is important to keep in mind, however,that punitive damages are supposed to servea purpose.

‘‘It’s all economics,’’ Morgan said. ‘‘If somecompanies can make more money injuringyou with a bad product than keeping yousafe with a good one, they will injure you. Iam not saying all companies; I am sayingsome companies.’’

In other words, the fear of being sockedwith large punitive damages is all that keepssome companies from doing us harm.

So why should we ‘‘reform’’ away our abil-ity to hit them where it hurts?

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I suggestthe absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Ihave been waiting my turn to commenton the observations of my distin-guished colleague from Washington. Ihave been waiting with anticipation.

The distinguished author and man-ager of the bill, the Senator fromWashington, said, as best I can remem-ber that here in the Senate, if we seekto accomplish a certain goal, we shoulddo it absolutely. It is very, very curi-ous to me, if we seek to accomplish acertain goal, we should do it abso-lutely.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5647April 25, 1995Now if what is attempted is uniform-

ity, then why not require uniformity?It is not about whether it is an abso-lute or a balanced measured, or any fo-rensic approach. It is a matter of lawand what is provided. We go right tothe idea of uniformity and its incon-sistency with respect to the States.

Very interestingly, Mr. President,this bill—which I have a copy of—starts off, if we look at the front pageof S. 565, as ‘‘A bill to regulate inter-state commerce by providing for a uni-form product liability law.’’

Well, they got into that pollster non-sense that I was talking about earlier.They do not want to call it a uniformlaw, rather they now want to focus onfairness. The buzzword now is every-thing has to be ‘‘fair.’’ I do not knowwho it is going to be fair to. They sayhere that ‘‘This act may be cited as theProduct Liability Fairness Act.’’ How-ever, what they ought to call it is the‘‘Product Liability Generosity Act toManufacturers of 1995.’’ Very, very gen-erous to the manufacturers.

Now let us go to the matter of puni-tive damages. Let us look at S. 687, the1993 bill, at page 22. S. 687, page 22, saysin the proof of punitive damages:

In determining the amount of punitivedamages, the trier of fact shall consider allrelevant evidence, one, the financial condi-tion of the manufacturer of product seller;two, the severity of the harm caused by themanufacture of product seller; three, the du-ration of the conduct or any concealment ofit by the manufacturer or product seller;four, the profitability of the conduct to themanufacturer or product seller; five, thenumber of products sold by the manufactureror product seller of the kind causing theharm complained of by the claimant.

These are the elements that youhave, generally, at the State courtlevel on the proof of punitive damages,so it is not just a runaway jury. Manytimes I have heard—and the distin-guished Presiding Officer has triedthese cases—a judge turn and say thereis going to be a fine to make sure theydo not engage in this reckless course ofconduct again. And in determiningwhether there is going to be punitivedamages, it’s important to look at theworth of the organization and whetheror not it is a customary violation, theduration of the conduct or concealmentof it and all of these elements.

Now look at the matter with respectto this particular bill, S. 565, on puni-tive damages. They do not list thosethings at all. It says here at the bot-tom of page 47: ‘‘Proceeding with re-spect to punitive damages.’’ Line 24:‘‘Evidence that is admissible in theseparate proceeding under paragraph1—(i) may include evidence of the prof-its of the defendant, if any, from thealleged wrongdoing; and (ii) shall notinclude evidence of the overall assetsof the defendant.’’

That is all. They don’t spell out whatyou can look at in this bill, Mr. Presi-dent. You can consider evidence of theprofits from the wrongdoing, but notany evidence whatsoever of the overallassets, or the nature or the duration of

the conduct, or concealment of themanufacturer, or the number of prod-ucts sold, or the financial condition ofthe manufacturer. In fact, they say:‘‘Shall not include evidence of theoverall assets of the defendant.’’

In the Exxon Valdez case, how do youthink Exxon Corp. profited from run-ning into the ground? There would notbe any profit there. I could go throughthe list of different manufacturers’cases. I refer to the matter of the illu-sory part position on the Ford auto-mobile, whereby the users of Ford carsbetween 1970 and 1979 thought thatwhen they had a car in the park posi-tion, it was giving the operator the im-pression that the car was secured. Ofcourse, it was the slamming of the cardoor or vibration caused the car tomove in reverse. We have one casehere, and several others, about a carthat backed up into a particular indi-vidual that was walking by the rear ofthe automobile and was run down, andthey gave $4 million in punitive dam-ages.

Under this particular test againstFord, if you put this into law, I do notsee where Ford gained an advantage ormade profits—if they could call it prof-its—from the misconduct that causedthe injury to the pedestrian that thecar all of a sudden backed into. Ofcourse, Ford Motor Co. could changethe thing. When they got the punitivedamages, they understood and changedthe park position in the gear of theFord automobile.

But to come now, and rather thanlist commonsense provisions that theyhad in the 1993 and 1991 bills and every-thing else, they put these kinds of re-strictive provisions in, and then claimit is a fairer bill. I go right to the puni-tive caps there on page 47. They havein the bill what purports to be uniformstandards for punitive damages. Butwhen get beneath the cover, Mr. Presi-dent, you discover the real deal. Thatis, if you have punitive damages inyour State, it’s preempted. But if in aState that does not provide for puni-tive damages, you are not given thebenefit of uniformity. The Senatorfrom Washington does not want uni-formity for the State of Washingtonsince they do not have punitive dam-ages, but, yet, he is talking about uni-formity. Of course, it is all uniformityso long as it is advantages, so to speak,for the manufacturer, but not the in-jured party. So this does not providefor punitive damages in all States andfor all citizens, even though the so-called goal of the bill is uniformity. Inthis particular bill, he said, eventhough we want uniformity, if you donot have punitive damages, no way,you still do not get them. On the otherhand, even if you were injured, youcannot exceed $250,000 or three timesthe economic loss which, in many in-stances, is a lot less than the $250,000cap. So you do not teach the lessonthere.

With respect to a more reasonablebill, again, you have the matter of mis-

use on page 44. Regarding the previousbills, they are talking about how rea-sonable they have gotten now. ‘‘Reduc-tion for misuse for alteration of theproduct.’’ This provision was not in thethree previous bills. The statute ofrepose, as has already been pointedout, for no good reason, has been re-duced now to 20 years. So pass this,with the House at 15 years, it is goingto be reconciled downward.

The liability shield for componentparts manufacturers was not in thethree previous bills. As the distin-guished Senator from Alabama, havinga heart beeper in his own body, whichis obviously comprised of componentparts, said wait a minute, if this thingis defective, do not give me this par-ticular bill or I am a definite loser.There will be no recovery there.

On the morning of the markup, theyadded this rental car provision to ex-empt rental car companies from liabil-ity. If you get a rental car and you runinto somebody, the rental car owner isnot responsible. But if you borrow mycar, and run into somebody, I am stillresponsible. They have many more se-vere provisions, if you read down, as wehave in covering this particular meas-ure. The fact of the matter is that thisbill is not intended to be more reason-able but rather more restrictive onthose seeking recovery for their par-ticular injury.

And I want to go here to the uniform-ity part where it does not apply to themanufacturer, and they talk now aboutthe Uniform Commercial Code.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent at this particular point—it is notthat long—to have printed in theRECORD an overview of the UniformCommercial Code.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE—ANINTRODUCTION

1. NATURE AND ORIGINS

As of 1988, one of three different OfficialTexts of the Uniform Commercial Code wasin force in each of the American states ex-cept Louisiana, as well as the District of Co-lumbia and the Virgin Islands. The 1962 Offi-cial Text (or a predecessor with minor vari-ations) was in force in 3 states. The 1972 Offi-cial Text was in force in 14 states. The 1978Official Text was in force in 32 states. Unlessotherwise indicated, all references in thisbook are to the 1978 Official Text of theCode. The Code is law in these jurisdictionsby virtue of ‘‘local,’’ state by state, enact-ment. The United States Congress did notenact the Code as general federal statutorylaw, although it did enact the Code for theDistrict of Columbia. The 1978 Code is di-vided into eleven articles as follows:

Article 1. General Provisions.Article 2. Sales.Article 3. Commercial Paper.Article 4. Bank Deposits and Collections.Article 5. Letters of Credit.Article 6. Bulk Transfers.Article 7. Warehouse Receipts, Bills of Lad-

ing and Other Documents of Title.Article 8. Investment Securities.Article 9. Secured Transactions; Sales of

Accounts and Chattel Paper.Article 10. Effective Date and Repealer.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5648 April 25, 1995Article 11. Effective Date and Transition

Provisions.In all but Articles Ten and Eleven, the Arti-cles are subdivided into ‘‘Parts.’’ Thus, inArticle One there are two ‘‘Parts’’ while inArticle Two there are seven. Each Part is inturn subdivided into ‘‘sections.’’ Sections arenumbered in a manner that indicates bothArticle and Part. Thus, section 2–206 on‘‘Offer and Acceptance in Formation of Con-tract’’ is in Article Two, Part Two. The firstnumber of a section always indicates the Ar-ticle and the second number the Part withinthat Article in which the section appears.The Official Text of The Code includes ‘‘Offi-cial Comments’’ on each section. The enact-ing jurisdictions did not enact these com-ments, although they did enact both the sec-tion headings and the sections (except inso-far as they amended the Official Text, atopic which will be considered below.) Thevarious jurisdictions, on enacting the Code,generally followed the arrangement and se-quence of the Official Text. In almost all in-stances, they also preserved the Code’s num-bering system. For example, in the greatState of Oregon, a seven appears before thefirst digit in the Code’s numbering systemand a zero after the last digit. Otherwise, theCode’s numbering system is left intact.Thus, in Oregon, 1–101 is 71–1010.

The National Conference of Commissionerson Uniform State Laws was the originatingsponsor of the Code. This was hardly the firstventure of the Conference into the field ofcommercial law reform. The Conference hadearlier sponsored a number of ‘‘uniformacts’’ in this field. Those acts that wereadopted in one or more jurisdictions are list-ed below, with dates of promulgation.

Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law, 1896.Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act, 1906.Uniform Sales Act, 1906.Uniform Bills of Lading Act, 1909.Uniform Stock Transfer Act, 1909.Uniform Conditional Sales Act, 1918.Uniform Trust Receipts Act, 1933.All states adopted the Uniform Negotiable

Instruments Law and the Uniform Ware-house Receipts Act. Roughly two-thirds ofthe states adopted the Uniform Sales Actand the Uniform Trust Receipts Act. Theother acts were less well received.

By the late 1930’s, the foregoing uniformacts had become outdated. Changes had oc-curred in the patterns of commercial activ-ity prevalent when the acts were promul-gated. Also, wholly new patterns hademerged which gave rise to new kinds oflegal needs. Moreover, a major objective ofthe uniform acts had been to promote uni-formity. But not all states enacted the acts,and the courts of the states rendered count-less nonuniform ‘‘judicial amendments.’’ By1940, there was growing interest in largescale commercial law reform. The Con-ference was already at work revising the oldUniform Sales Act and was giving consider-ation to a revision of the Uniform NegotiableInstruments Law.

In 1940, Mr. William A. Schnader conceivedthe idea of a comprehensive commercial codethat would modernize and displace the olduniform acts. That same year, with the sup-port and advice of Professor Karl N.Llewellyn, Mr. Schnader, as President of theNational Conference of Commissioners onUniform State Laws, persuaded the Con-ference to adopt a proposal to prepare a com-prehensive code. Shortly thereafter,Schnader and others sought the co-sponsor-ship of the American Law Institute. Ini-tially, the Institute agreed only to co-spon-sor a revision of the old Uniform Sales Act,but on December 1, 1944 the two organiza-tions formally agreed to co-sponsor a Uni-form Commercial Code project, with Profes-sor Karl N. Llewellyn of the Columbia Law

School as its ‘‘Chief Reporter’’ and SoiaMentschikoff as Associate Chief Reporter.The co-sponsors also set up a supervisoryEditorial Board of five members which waslater enlarged. Professor Llewellyn thenchose various individuals to serve as prin-cipal drafters of the main Code Articles:

Article 1. Karl N. Llewellyn.Article 2. Karl N. Llewellyn.Article 3. William L. Prosser.Article 4. Fairfax Leary, Jr.Article 5. Friedrich Kessler.Article 6. Charles Bunn.Article 7. Louis B. Schwartz.Article 8. Soia Mentschikoff.Article 9. Allison Dunham and Grant Gil-

more.Between 1944 and 1950, the foregoing team

formulated (not without extensive consulta-tion) the first complete draft of the Code.The co-sponsors then circulated this draftwidely for comment. After revision, the co-sponsors promulgated the first Official Textof the Code in September 1951 and publishedit as the ‘‘1952 Official Text.’’ In 1953, Penn-sylvania became the first state to enact theCode, effective July 1, 1954. In February of1953, the New York State Legislature andGovernor Thomas E. Dewey referred theCode to the New York State Law RevisionCommission (located at the Cornell LawSchool) for study and recommendations. Be-tween 1953 and 1955, the Commission droppedall other work to study the Code. In the end,the Commission concluded that the Codeidea was a good one but that New Yorkshould not enact the Code without extensiverevision. Meanwhile, the Code’s EditorialBoard had been studying the Commission’swork (as well as proposals for revision fromother sources) and in 1956 the Board rec-ommended many changes in the 1952 OfficialText. In 1957, the co-sponsors promulgated a1957 Official Text that embodied numerouschanges, many of which were based on theCommission’s study. Another Official Textwas promulgated in 1958, and still another in1962. The latter two made relatively minorchanges in the 1957 Official Text.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts became the sec-ond state to enact some version of the Codein September 1957. By 1960, Kentucky, Con-necticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Islandhad followed suit. In 1961, eight more statesjoined the fold. In 1962, there were four more,including New York. In 1963, there were elev-en more enacting states, in 1964 one, in 1965thirteen, and in 1966 five more. By 1968, theCode was effective in forty-nine states, theDistrict of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.Louisiana is the only state not to haveadopted the entire Code. In 1974, however,that state did enact Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and8 of the 1972 Official Text, with amendments.

In 1961, the Code sponsors set up a Perma-nent Editorial Board for the Code which con-tinues in operation to this day. After its firstwritten report on October 31, 1962, the Boardmade three further reports. During the 1960’sand early 1970’s, the Board was concernedmainly with two tasks: (1) promoting uni-formity in state by state enactment and in-terpretation of the Code and (2) evaluatingand preparing proposals for revision of the1962 Official Text. For example, the Boarddevoted great energy to revision of ArticleNine on personal property security. Eventu-ally, the American Law Institute and theNational Conference of Commissioners onUniform State Laws approved a revised Arti-cle Nine which West Publishing Co. pub-lished in 1972 as part of a new 1972 OfficialText of the entire Code (incorporating all of-ficially approved amendments thereto).

In the mid and late 1970’s the Code spon-sors and others studied possible revisions ofArticle Eight on investment securities. Acommittee called the 348 Committee of the

Permanent Editorial Board reviewed propos-als and made recommendations to the Board.Eventually, the Code sponsors adopted a re-vised Article Eight and in 1978 promulgateda new Official Text embodying these revi-sions. As of January 1, 1988, thirty-two stateshad adopted most of this Official Text.22

No one has published an authentic ‘‘inside’’story of the evolution of the Code. Judged byits reception in the enacting legislatures, thecode is the most spectacular success story inthe history of American law. We know thatthe design and text of the Code bears the in-imitable imprint of its chief draftsman, KarlN. Llewellyn, and that his spouse, SoiaMentschikoff, had a major hand in the entireproject. We know, too, that many individualswhose names have not appeared so promi-nently as draftsmen or as reporters hadgreat influence on aspects of the final prod-uct. One example is Professor Rudolf B.Schlesinger of the Cornell Law School whowas not only responsible for the idea of aPermanent Editorial Board,24 but also pro-vided most of the ideas for the radical revi-sion of Article Five on letters of credit thatappeared in the 1957 Official Text. Anotherexample is the extensive work of the lateProfessor Robert Braucher of the HarvardLaw School (subsequently Mr. JusticeBraucher of the Massachusetts JudicialCourt). His efforts began in the 1940’s andcontinued until his death in 1981. We know,too, that politically and in other ways, Wil-liam A. Schnader of the Philadelphia Barwas the Code’s prime mover. It seems safe tosay that without his efforts, the Code wouldnot have come into being. Llewellyn andSchnader are now dead (deceased 1962 and1969 respectively), a fact that imposes a realhandicap on anyone who seeks to prepare anauthentic history of the Code project. ABritish scholar, Professor William Twining,has catalogued Llewellyn’s papers at theUniversity of Chicago Law School, and anyfuture history of the Code project must takeaccount of these papers.

2. COMMERCIAL LAW NOT COVERED; FREEDOM OF

CONTRACT

The Uniform Commercial Code does notapply to the sale of realty nor to security in-terests in realty (except fixtures), yet theseare undeniably commercial matters. TheCode does not apply to the formation, per-formance, and enforcement of insurance con-tracts. It does not apply to suretyship trans-actions (except where the surety is a partyto a negotiable instrument). It does not gov-ern bankruptcy. It does not define legal ten-der. It is not a comprehensive codification ofcommercial law.

The Code does not even cover all aspects oftransactions to which its provision do apply.For example, it includes several innovativeprovisions on the formation of sales con-tracts, but it still leaves most issues of con-tract formation to general contract law. Tocite one more example, the code includesprovisions on the purchaser’s title to goods,but one of these provisions turns on the dis-tinction between void and voidable title, adistinction that requires courts to invokenon-Code law. Section 1–103 is probably themost important single provision in the Code,and will be discussed in section five of thisIntroduction. The provision reads:

‘‘Unless displaced by the particular provi-sions of this Act, the principles of law andequity, including the law merchant and thelaw relative to capacity to contract, prin-cipal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepre-sentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bank-ruptcy, or other validating or invalidatingcause shall supplement its provisions.’’

As Professor Grant Gilmore once put it,the Code ‘‘derives from the common law

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5649April 25, 1995[and] assumes the continuing existence of alarge body of pre-Code and non-Code law onwhich it rests for support, [without whichthe Code] could not survive.’’ Much of thepre-Code and non-Code law to which Profes-sor Gilmore refers is case law from suchfields as contracts, agency, and property,which comes into play via 1–103.

Of course, federal commercial law over-rides the Code. The Federal Bills of LadingAct is illustrative. So, too, is the CarmackAmendment to the Interstate CommerceAct. Federal regulatory law overrides theCode, too. Today there are federal statutessuch as the National Consumer Credit Pro-tection Act, and the Magnuson-Moss-War-ranty-Federal Trade Commission Improve-ment Act regulating aspects of consumerwarranty practices. Similarly, state regu-latory statutes also override the Code. Thus,there are state retail installment sales acts,state usury laws, state laws on consumercredit, and so on. The Code itself includes afew regulatory provisions.

Finally, most of the Code’s provisions arenot mandatory. The parties may vary theireffect or displace them altogether: freedomof contract is the rule rather than the excep-tion. Most commercial law is therefore notin the Code at all but in private agreements,including course of dealing, usage of trade,and course of performance.

3. VARIATIONS IN ENACTMENT AND ININTERPRETATION; CONFLICT OF LAWS RULES

The Uniform Commercial Code is not uni-form. As early as 1967, the various jurisdic-tions enacting the Code had made approxi-mately 775 separate amendments to it. Arti-cle Nine on security interests in personalproperty was the chief victim of thenonuniform amendments. As of December 15,1966, 47 of the 54 sections in the Article hadbeen amended; California, in particular, lib-erally rewrote or deleted segments of it. Thenew Article Nine, embodied in the 1972 and1978 Official Texts, had become law in forty-six states (including California) by January1, 1987. Article Six on bulk transfers was alsothe subject of many nonuniform amend-ments. New York amended Article Five in away that renders it inapplicable to many let-ter of credit transactions, and yet New Yorkdoes more letter of credit business than anyother state.

Another source of nonuniformity lies inthe various ‘‘optional’’ provisions in the Offi-cial Texts of the Code. Thus, for example,Section 9–401 offers enacting states three al-ternatives with respect to the place of filingof financial statements. Section 7–403(1)(b)offers two versions of the burden of provingthe bailee’s negligence. Section 6–106 im-poses a duty on the bulk transferee to seethat the transferor’s creditors are paid off,but it is wholly optional. Section 2–318 in-cludes three options on third party bene-ficiaries of warranties. And the Code in-cludes still other optional provisions. In al-most every instance, some states have adopt-ed one version while other states have adopt-ed another.

So-called ‘‘open-ended’ drafting is anothersource of nonuniformity. In Articles Two andNine, the draftsmen used such phrases as‘‘commercial reasonableness’’ and ‘‘goodfaith.’’ That different courts will give suchphrases different meanings should surpriseno one. And, after any uniform law has beenon the books for very long, disparate judicialinterpretation and construction of evenquite detailed provisions become anothersource of nonuniformity. Today, many Codesections have been the subject of judicial in-terpretation and construction in more thanone jurisdiction and the courts disagree overthe meaning of many sections.

The foregoing sources of nonuniformitysignify that the Code’s conflict of laws rules

are becoming especially important. Section1–105 sets forth the basic Code provisions.

(1) Except as provided hereafter in this sec-tion, when a transaction bears a reasonablerelation to this state and also to anotherstate or nation the parties may agree thatthe law either of this state or of such otherstate shall govern their rights and duties.Failing such agreement this Act applies totransactions bearing an appropriate relationto this state.

(2) Where one of the following provisions ofthis Act specifies the applicable law, thatprovision governs and a contrary agreementis effective only to the extent permitted bythe law (including conflict of laws rules) sospecified:

Rights of creditors against sold goods. Sec-tion 2–402.

Applicability of the Article on Bank De-posits and Collections. Section 4–102.

Bulk transfers subject to the Article onBulk Transfers. Section 6–102.

Applicability of the Article on InvestmentSecurities. Section 8–106.

Perfection Provisions of the Article on Se-cured Transactions. Section 9–103.

Various scholars of conflict of laws haveoffered their thoughts on 1–105, and we havecollected some of their writings in the foot-note. Later in this book we also address our-selves to specify conflicts problems in thecontext in which they arise.4. AIDS TO INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION

The principal aids to interpretation andconstruction of the Code are these:

Case law.Prior drafts and prior official texts.Other legislative history—New York Law

Revision Commission Reports—State legisla-tive hearings and committee reports.

Official Comments to each section.Periodic Reports of the Permanent Edi-

torial Board.Treatises and other secondary sources.Rules of interpretation and construction.Standard interpretation technique.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I willread the very first line:

As of 1988, one of the three different Offi-cial Texts of the Uniform Commercial Codewas in force in each of the American Statesexcept Louisiana. . . . The United StatesCongress did not enact the code as generalFederal statutory law.

It is talking of the nature and ori-gins. Then it goes on to point out thatwhat we have under the code is a selec-tive process. It says here in the sectiontwo, titled ‘‘Commercial Law Not Cov-ered; Freedom of Contract’’:

Finally, most of the Code’s provisions arenot mandatory. . . . Most commercial law istherefore not in the Code at all but in pri-vate agreements, including course of dealing,usage of trade, and course of performance.

The Uniform Commercial Code is notuniform. Now that is the manufactur-ers.

I ask unanimous consent to haveprinted in the RECORD a particular lawreview article on the conflict of lawsunder the Uniform Commercial Code atthis point.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Arkansas Law Review]CONFLICT OF LAWS UNDER THE U.C.C.

(By Robert A. Leflar)

When do conflict of laws problems ariseunder the Uniform Commercial Code, nowthat it is law in all the states and other sub-

divisions of the United States except Louisi-ana?

Conflicts do still occur. Obviously they canoccur when part of a commercial transactiontakes place in Louisiana or in a foreign na-tion whose law differs from the Code. Butthey occur more frequently between the lawsof states that have adopted the Code. Why?Because (1) several states have enacted vari-ant amendments to some sections of theCode, and (2) the courts of a number ofstates, careless of the function of uniformityin a uniform act, have given nonuniform in-terpretations to some sections of the Code.Conflicts are not now as inevitable as in the1950’s and early 1960’s, when only a few stateshad enacted the Code, but they can be evenmore frustrating than they were then. Theanswers to the conflicts problems, however,are reasonably definite.

The history of choice-of-law provisions inthe Code is, in a very real sense, a pre-out-line of the more recent history of Americanconflicts law generally. It is a history of in-creased emphasis upon substance over formand of deliberate preference for an approachthat would result in application of better,sounder rules of commercial law as distin-guished from mechanical choice-of-law rulesapplied for their own sake. The approach isprimarily designed by commercial law spe-cialists whose concern was with what theyconceived to be good commercial law, ratherthan by conflicts scholars. Most conflictsscholars, however, ultimately agreed withthe approach.

Joe C. Barrett of Arkansas was one of thepractical lawyer-Commissioners whose inter-ests lay in the substantive law areas, not inchoice-of-law theory. His voice was an influ-ential one almost from the beginning ofwork on the Code, and he agreed with thepragmatic approach to conflicts issues.Though he left it to others, for the mostpart, to frame the conflicts language, he sup-ported their ideas, particularly as the sec-tions were reviewed by the Permanent Edi-torial Board of which he was a longtimemember. He had much to do with the think-ing and rethinking that is reflected in thesuccessive drafts as they are presented in thenext few pages. Above all, he was satisfied bysection I–105 as it finally emerged, first inthe 1958 Official Text, then with one furtherchange in 1972. The section as it now standsis as follows:

SECTION 1–105. TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF

THE ACT; PARTIES’ POWER TO CHOOSE APPLI-CABLE LAW

(1) Except as provided hereafter in this sec-tion, when a transaction bears a reasonablerelation to this state and also to anotherstate or nation the parties may agree thatthe law either of this state or of such otherstate or nation shall govern their rights andduties. Failing such agreement this Act ap-plies to transactions bearing an appropriaterelation to this state.

(2) Where one of the following provisions ofthe Act specifies the applicable law, thatprovision governs and a contrary agreementis effective only to the extent permitted bythe law (including the conflict of laws rules)so specified:

Rights of creditors against sold goods. Sec-tion 2–402.

Applicability of the Article on Bank De-posits and Collections. Section 4–102.

Bulk transfers subject to the Article onBulk Transfers. Section 6–102.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5650 April 25, 1995Applicability of the Article Investment Se-

curities. Section * * *.Perfection provisions of the Article on Se-

cured Transactions. Section 9–103.The first 25 years

From the beginning the effort was to makethe new Code applicable to as many trans-actions as could constitutionally be broughtunder it. The due process clause of the fed-eral Constitution, and possibly the full faithand credit clause, set the outer limits. Theleading case was (and is) Home Insurance Co.v. Dick, which held that due process was vio-lated by a state’s holding a transaction to begoverned by the substantive law of a statewhich had no substantial connection withthe transaction.

The October, 1949 draft of section 1–105 at-tempted to achieve the desired maximum ap-plication of the new Code by providing thatthis Act shall apply to any contract or trans-action within its terms if:

(a) the contract is completed, or the offermade or accepted, or the transaction occurswithin this state; or

(b) the contract is to be performed or thetransaction is to be completed within thisstate; or

(c) the contract or transaction relates toor involves goods which are to be or are infact located, delivered, shipped or receivedwithin this state; or

(d) the contract or transaction involves abill of lading, warehouse receipt or otherdocument of title which is to be or is in factissued, delivered, sent or received within thisstate; or

(e) the contract or transaction involvescommercial paper which is made, drawn,transferred or payable within this state; or

(f) the contract or transaction involves acommercial credit made, sent or receivedwithin this state; or involves a commercialcredit issued in this state or confirmation oradvice of which is sent or received withinthis state, or involves any negotiation with-in this state of a draft drawn under a credit;or

(g) the contract or transaction involves aforeign remittance drawn, transferred orpayable within this state; or

(h) the contract or transaction involves aninvestment security issued or transferredwithin this state; or

(i) the contract or transaction involves asecurity interest created within this state orrelating to tangible personal property whichis or is to be actually within this state or tointangible personal property which has or isto have its situs within this state; or in-volves a bulk transfer of property to the ex-tent that such property is within this state;or if the borrower’s principal place of busi-ness is within this state; or

(j) whenever the contract, instrument ordocument states in terms or in substancethat it is subject to the Uniform CommercialCode.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of theforegoing subsection, the parties to a con-tract or transaction involving foreign trademay agree in writing that the law of a speci-fied jurisdiction shall apply.

The objective had been to list all the fac-tual connections that were substantialenough to permit forum law (the Code) to beconstitutionally applicable.

At the same time an alternative section 1–105 was drafted, for inclusion in a proposedenactment of the Code by the federal Con-gress, on the supposed authority of the com-merce clause. This draft generally trackedthe language of the state section.

The reaction to this section came near tobeing violent. A part of the reaction wasautomatic resistance to change: ‘‘If it’s dif-ferent from what I learned in law school itmust be wrong.’’ A number of conflicts schol-

ars joined in unanimous adoption of a resolu-tion introduced by the respected ProfessorElliott E. Cheatham of Columbia UniversityLaw School:

‘‘Resolved, that the undersigned, partici-pants in the 1949 Institute of Internationaland Comparative Law, Ann Arbor, Michigan,are of the opinion that Section 1–105 (in bothforms) of the May, 1949, draft of the UniformCommercial Code, dealing with conflict oflaws, is unwise and should be omitted fromthe Code; and the Executive Secretary of theInstitute of International and ComparativeLaw is requested to transmit a copy of thisresolution to the President of the AmericanLaw Institute and the Chairman of the Com-missioners on Uniform Laws.’’

This reaction induced the Institute and theCommissioners to revise the section bylengthening it considerably, deleting the al-ternative proposed for federal enactment,but retaining the same objective that theAct, as a state statute, apply to as manytransactions as the Constitution would per-mit. The 1952 draft of the section, instead ofproviding that ‘‘this Act’’ shall apply to allthe enumerated situations, called for appli-cation of particular parts (articles) of theAct to the fact situations:

SECTION 1–105. APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT;PARTIES’ RIGHT TO CHOOSE APPLICABLE LAW.(1) Article 1 applies to any contract or

transaction to which any other Article ofthis Act applies.

(2) The Articles on Sales (Article 2), Docu-mentary Letters of Credit (Article 5) andDocuments of Title (Article 7) apply when-ever any contract or transaction within theterms of any one of the Articles is made oroccurs after the effective date of this Actand the contract

(a) is made, offered or accepted or thetransaction occurs within this state; or

(b) is to be performed or completed whollyor in part within this state; or

(c) relates to or involves goods which areto be or are in fact delivered, shipped or re-ceived within this state; or

(d) involves a bill of lading, warehouse re-ceipt or other document of title which is tobe or in fact issued, delivered, sent or re-ceived within this state; or

(e) is an application or agreement for acredit made, sent or received within thisstate, or involves a credit issued in this stateor under which drafts are to be presented inthis state or confirmation or advice of whichis sent or received within this state, or in-volves any negotiation within this state of adraft drawn under a credit.

(3) The Articles on Commercial Paper (Ar-ticle 3) and Bank Deposits and Collections(Article 4) apply whenever any contract ortransaction within the terms of either of theArticles is made or occurs after the effectivedate of this Act and the contract

(a) is made, offered or accepted or thetransaction occurs within this state; or

(b) is to be performed or completed whollyor in part within this state; or

(c) involves commercial paper which ismade, drawn or transferred within the state.

(4) The Article on Investment Securities(Article 8) applies whenever any contract ortransaction within its terms is made or oc-curs after the effective date of this Act andthe contract

(a) is made, offered or accepted or occurswithin this state; or

(b) is to be performed or completed whollyor in part within this state; or

(c) involves an investment security issuedor transferred within this state.

But the validity of a corporate securityshall be governed by the law of the jurisdic-tion of incorporation.

(5) The Articles on Bulk Transfers (Article6) and Secured Transactions (Article 9) apply

whenever any contract or transaction withintheir terms is made or occurs after the effec-tive date of this Act and falls within the pro-visions of section 6–102 or sections 9–102 and9–103.

(6) Whenever a contract, instrument, docu-ment, security or transaction bears a reason-able relationship to one or more states or na-tions in addition to this state the partiesmay agree that the law of any such otherstate or nation shall govern their rights andduties. In the absence of an agreement whichmeets the requirements of this subsection,this Act governs.

This, too, produced negative reactions.These were largely based on the assumption,actually not justified, that section 1–105 fol-lowed the mechanical choice-of-laws theoriesof Professor Joseph H. Beale of Harvard, asthose theories were embodied in the Amer-ican Law Institute’s Restatement I of Con-flicts of Laws, for which Professor Beale wasthe Reporter. Two facts tended to supportthe assumption. One was the designation ofspecific fact situations as being determina-tive of the stated choices of law. That wasthe way Beale had set forth his hard and fastjurisdiction-selecting rules, and the criticstended to overlook the fact that the Code’schoices would be different from Beale’s. Theother was that Judge Herbert F. Goodrich,Director of the American Law Institute andChairman of the Code’s Editorial Board, wasa former student and long-time disciple ofBeale and was at least to some extent re-sponsible for the successive drafts of section1–105. On this point, the tendency was tooverlook the fact that Judge Goodrich, in hissupport of these early drafts of section 1–105,had moved far away from Beale’s still earlierrules. These reactions were, nevertheless,part of the reason for the slow acceptance ofthe Code by state legislatures in the next fewyears. Reconsideration of the language wascalled for, but there was no serious thoughtof abandoning the objective of having theCode apply to all the fact situations to whichthe due process clause would permit its ap-plication. It was sincerely believed to be abetter body of commercial law than anyother anywhere, and the best basis for choiceof law was deliberate application of this‘‘better law.’’

Simplification was the principal result ofthe reconsideration. The 1958 official draft ofthe Code, substantially completed in 1957,put section 1–105 in very nearly its presentform. It became apparent that, apart frompermitting parties to agree on what lawshould govern their transactions, the effectof the detailed listing in the 1952 Code of thefact situations to which the various portionsof the Code were to apply was nearly thesame as a simple statement that all thetransactions listed were to be governed bythe relevant parts of the Code. The listedfact situations, it was believed, all bore aconstitutionally ‘‘appropriate relation’’ tothe forum state in which the Code was thelaw. But if any of them did not, the newphrasing, ‘‘this Act applies to transactionsbearing an appropriate relation to thisstate,’’ evaded possible unconstitutionality.At the same time it avoided hard-and-fastrules of the Bealian kind and left the choice-of-law limits open-ended so that they wouldfit in with whatever new developments thefuture might bring to that small branch ofconstitutional law.

The next conflicts change came in 1972. Itwas not a modification of section 1–105 assuch, but rather a deletion of all choice-of-law provisions from section 9–102 and a revi-sion of the choice-of-law provisions in sec-tion 9–103, both dealing with secured trans-actions. This increased somewhat the scope

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5651April 25, 1995of the first paragraph of section 1–105, butleft as before the separate applicability ofchoice-of-law rules laid down for the five sep-arate areas identified in the second para-graph of section 1–105, including the revisedsection 9–103. Section 8–106, on the law gov-erning certain investment securities trans-actions, was revised in 1977, and anotherminor change was at the same time made insection 9–103, correlating it with the revisedsection 8–106. That is where the Code’s con-flicts sections stand today. There are still anumber of doubts and unresolved questionsnot only under section 1–105 but under theother listed sections as well.

Party autonomy—reasonable relation

With specified exceptions, ‘‘when a trans-action bears a reasonable relation to thisstate and also to another state or nation theparties may agree that the law either of thisstate or of such other state or nation shallgovern their rights and duties.’’ What con-stitutes a ‘‘reasonable relation’’? How farafield may the parties go in deciding forthemselves what law is to govern theirtransactions?

The theory of party autonomy in choice oflaw has not always been accepted by Amer-ican jurists, though it has for a century beena factor affecting choice of governing law incontracts cases. Acceptance of the parties’stated intention, or even their implied inten-tion, as to what law should govern their con-tract is a part of the common law of conflictof laws today. To that extent the Code mere-ly follows the common law. The unansweredquestion is only as to where the outer limitlies. The term ‘‘reasonable relation’’ sets anouter limit, and suggests that common sensedefines it, but still does not locate it, geo-graphically or otherwise.

The Official Comment on section 1–105 isnot very conclusive. The Comment’s prin-cipal reliance is on Seeman v. PhiladelphiaWarehouse Co., a case in which, actually, nochoice-of-law clause was involved. The hold-ing was that a contract calling for a rate ofinterest usurious by New York law but validby Pennsylvania law should be governed byPennsylvania’s law, and the contract sus-tained. There were substantial elements ofboth making and performance in each state.The court did rely upon an inference thatparties contracting in good faith would haveintended their contract to be governed bythe law of the one of the only two relatedstates that would validate it. This was not somuch party autonomy in choice of law as itwas a preference for the law that would vali-date a contract made in good faith—a ‘‘basicrule of validation’’ approach.

The Restatement (Second) of Conflict ofLaws is somewhat more in point. It specifiesan outer geographic limit on the contractingparties’ freedom to name the governing lawby providing that their choice will not con-trol if ‘‘the chosen state has no substantialrelationship to the parties or the transactionand there is no other reasonable basis for theparties’ choice.’’ This of course is only a neg-ative, not an affirmative, statement as tohow far afield the choice may go. Yet the im-plication that the parties are free to choosethe law of a state unrelated to the trans-action or to themselves is significant. Thesignificance is increased by the implicationthat a ‘‘reasonable basis’’ for such an extra-neous choice may exist. And the OfficialComment on section 1–105 does say:

‘‘an agreement as to choice of law maysometimes take effect as a shorthand expres-sion of the intent of the parties as to mat-ters governed by their agreement, eventhough the transaction has no significantcontact with the jurisdiction chosen.’’

The argument that follows is that agree-ments by contracting parties as to what lawshall govern their transaction are not essen-

tially different from other parts of their con-tract upon which they are completely free toagree. The only limitation should be thatthey cannot lawfully do something thatwould be violative of the strong public policyof a concerned state. Reasonableness shouldhave to do with good reasons for wishing aparticular system of law to govern theirtransaction, not necessarily limited to stateshaving physical contacts with them or it.That is the view taken by most academic in-terpreters of the Section.

A set of facts suggested by the most recentcommentator illustrates the argument. Sup-pose a contract completed in Florida for saleof goods to be delivered to a Canadian buyerin Montreal by a seller incorporated in Dela-ware but operating factories in Arkansas,Louisiana and Wisconsin. The contract stip-ulates that New York law shall govern itsvalidity, construction and enforcement.‘‘The stipulation could be upheld based uponthe parties’ familiarity with New York law,its fuller development in dealing with issuesof the type presented by the particular con-tract or perhaps the parties’ preference for aparticular substantive doctrine establishedunder New York law. Unless the selection of-fends a fundamental public policy of theforum state or constitutes a wilful evasionthat smacks of bad faith or overreaching, thecourt would have no cause to interfere withthe choice of the parties.’’ The same author,however, cites two cases both holding thatsimilar contract stipulations were ineffec-tual because New York had no physical con-nection with the transaction sued on. De-spite such cases, it is not unlikely that the‘‘reasonable relation’’ required by section 1–105 will some day, in some courts, be held tobe satisfied simply by the parties’ deliberatedesignation of a relevant law that in theiropinion best serves the purposes of their vol-untary transaction.

It must not be thought that every choice-of-law clause in every commercial contractthat any parties execute is deserving of en-forcement. Such clauses can be hidden in thefine print of take-it-or-leave-it form con-tracts which casual customers have little orno opportunity to study. Adhesion contractsare always suspect. Something turns uponthe meaning of the Code word ‘‘agree.’’ Thetake-it-or-leave-it party may not have‘‘agreed’’ to a strange and unread choice-of-law clause in the fine print that was nevercalled to his attention. At least there can beas much justification for avoiding theseclauses as there is for avoiding any otherharsh and unanticipated provision in anykind of adhesion contract. Other Code provi-sions also afford means for avoidance of un-fair choice-of-law clauses. Section 1–103 pre-serves defenses based on ‘‘estoppel, fraud,misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mis-take, * * *’’; section 1–203 ‘‘imposes an obli-gation of good faith’’ in all contracts; andsection 2–302 permits refusal of enforcementas to any unconscionable clause in a salescontract. The enforceability of choice-of-lawclauses is no more required than for anyother sort of contract clause.

It must be admitted, also, that choice-of-law contract clauses have been avoided bysimply neglecting to notice section 1–105 as acontrolling statute.

One of the worries that was discussed whenthe party-autonomy part of section 105 wasfirst drafted was whether third persons, notparties to the contract but affected by itmight be prejudiced by the parties’ selectionof a state law unfavorable to the third per-sons’ interests. Such third persons may in-clude creditors of a seller who retained pos-session of the sold goods, other creditors ofeither party or nonbuyers in whose favor awarranty might or might not run.

The drafters’ quick answer to this worry isin the wording of section 1–105 itself. It saysthat the parties may agree on what law is to‘‘govern their rights and duties.’’ This doesnot refer to the rights and duties of thirdpersons. That may not be conclusive in allsituations. More in point is subparagraph (2)of the section, which in its five specific ex-ceptions identifies the situations in whichthe interests of third persons are most likelyto be involved, and takes them out of theparty-autonomy category. There may beother situations, but at least the problem isminimized.

‘‘This act applies . . . appropriate relation’’

‘‘Except as provided hereafter in this sec-tion . . . [and] failing such agreement thisAct applies to transactions bearing an appro-priate relation to this state.’’ One purposebehind section 1–105 from its beginning wasthat the Code (‘‘this Act’’), believed to be themost nearly perfect system of commerciallaw yet devised by man, should be as widelyapplicable as possible. Within the UnitedStates, the only limitations upon territorialapplicability of an otherwise valid state stat-ute (which was what was contemplated forthe Code), are to be found in the FederalConstitution. What are they?

The due process clause in the fourteenthamendment is the traditional one, and prob-ably still the principal one. Home InsuranceCo. v. Dick is the leading case. In it, theUnited States Supreme Court held that forTexas to apply Texas law to invalidate atime-for-suit clause in a Mexican insurancecontract, valid by Mexican law, was a viola-tion of due process. The constitutional re-quirement, broadly stated, is that no state’ssubstantive law may be applied to govern atransaction unless the transaction had somefairly substantial connection with thatstate. In Dick, the only Texas connection wasthat the plaintiff, assignee of claims underthe Mexican contract, was a Texas domi-ciliary. That was not enough. There aremany contacts that will suffice, but theymust be significant ones.

The 1949 and 1952 drafts of section 1–105listed a considerable number of specific con-tacts which the drafters believed, or at leasthoped, would be accepted by the SupremeCourt as sufficiently substantial to permitapplication of ‘‘this Act’’ or the designatedone of the Act’s articles. One of the fre-quently-voiced objections to these earlydrafts was that several of the listed contactswere so casual, so insignificant as elementsin the total transaction, that they would notsatisfy the constitutional standard. Some ofthem probably would not have. That was onereason why the specificity of the early draftswas abandoned in the present (1958) revision.Yet the basic thought that the Code was asuperior body of commercial law that oughtto be widely applied was not abandoned.Making it applicable whenever the facts borean ‘‘appropriate relation’’ to the forum statehaving the Act preserved the potential formaximum applicability, without risking spe-cific unconstitutional possibilities.

Another concern also was involved. Thisone arose partly from the fact that probablewide adoption of the Code, plus variant in-terpretations of it and local amendments toit, made it less urgent that ‘‘this Act’’ as itwas operative in any given state be there ap-plied to essentially extrastate transactions.Assurance that the Code as amended and in-terpreted in any given state was clearly the‘‘better law’’ could not be maintained.Forum shopping by plaintiffs not interestedin ‘‘better law’’ but only in law most favor-able to their private interests would be en-couraged by a choice-of-law rule always re-quiring application of the forum’s version ofthe Code. The original purpose of the earlier

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5652 April 25, 1995section 1–105, to compel application of ‘‘thisAct,’’ in every state that adopted the Code,to every commercial lawsuit filed in thestate, was no longer the worthy purpose thatit had at first appeared to be.

Also important was the modernization ofAmerican choice-of-law law was occurring atabout the same time, breaking away fromthe old hard-and-fast mechanical rules thathad been accepted during most of the cen-tury. The infusion of Brainerd Currie’s con-cepts of ‘‘governmental interest,’’ ofEhrenzweig’s idea of a ‘‘basic rule of valida-tion, of Cavers’ ‘‘principles of preference,’’and of the fundamental ‘‘choice-influencingconsiderations’’ into the mainstream of con-flicts law has made that body of law far morereasonable than it used to be, and far moreacceptable as an intelligent basis for choos-ing between competing laws.

Choice-of-law problems in commercial liti-gation do not arise as often today as they didbefore the Code or in the Code’s early days.Many of them are resolved beforehand byagreement of the parties. Others are coveredby the specific rules set out in the secondparagraph of section 1–105. For the rest, thegoverning words ‘‘appropriate relation’’ canwell be taken to refer to what appears to beappropriate under sensible modern choice-of-law principles. There is good reason to be-lieve that this is the approach which the ma-jority of courts are taking to the problem.

There may be infrequent cases not coveredby either of the two sentences in the firstparagraph in section 1–105, nor by any of thefive possibilities specified in the second para-graph. These will involve transactions inwhich the parties have not agreed to as towhat state’s law shall govern and in whichthe transaction does not bear ‘‘an appro-priate relation to this [the forum] state.’’The situation will arise when the plaintiffhas for reasons of his own filed his lawsuit inwhat has been called a ‘‘disinterested thirdstate.’’ It might be resolved by a forum nonconveniens dismissal. But if jurisdiction isretained, since the Code simply prescribes nochoice-of-law rule for the case, the courtmust of necessity fall back on its preexistentstatutory or common law of conflicts law,whatever that may be.

Paragraph (2) of the section

The second paragraph of the 1958 draft ofsection I–105 named five areas, identified bynumbered Code sections, that were not to begoverned by the rather loose provisions ofthe first paragraph. These areas, for the sakeof maximum predictability of results in thetransactions covered by them, were to besubject to hard-and-fast choice-of-law rules,explicitly laid down. The governing law wasto be that of a designated place, so that theparties could know beforehand, by knowingthat law, what the legal consequences oftheir transaction would be.

Maximum assurance of this predictabilitywas provided by requiring, for each of thefive areas, that the whole relevant law ‘‘in-cluding the conflict of laws rules’’ of the des-ignated place be applied. Reliance upon thisrenvoi technique was designed to make cer-tain that the forum court trying the casewould handle the issue in exactly the sameway that a court at the designated placewould handle it, by applying the samechoice-of-law rules that court would applyand thus reaching exactly the same decisionthat would be reached by a court at thatplace. Accidents might interfere with thisabsolute predictability, but that came asclose to it as could be planned.

The section as thus drafted in 1958 remainsunchanged except for the scope of the last(fifth) area. That was modified in 1972, andthe modification has now been accepted in amajority of the states. Each of the five ex-cepted areas will now be noted.

Section 2–402. This section in part of the Ar-ticle on sales of goods. It deals with therights that a creditor of the seller may haveagainst the sold goods by reason of the sell-er’s misleading retention of possession orother allegedly fraudulent conduct with ref-erence to the goods. The Code itself providesthat certain types of conduct are eitherfraudulent or not fraudulent. Apart fromthose provisions, section 2–402 prescribes aspecific choice-of-law rule, that the law gov-erning the creditor’s rights, if any, in thesold goods (as against both buyer and seller)is that of the state where the goods are situ-ated. This is the sort of case in which one re-lated state’s law is likely to be as good asanother’s, and about as relevant. The goods’situs is an ascertainable extrinsic fact on thebasis of which a firm determination of gov-erning law and resultant rights can mostreadily be made not only by a court but bythe parties themselves.

Section 4–102. Article 4 of the Code dealswith bank deposits and collections. Section4–102 provides:

‘‘The liability of a bank for action or non-action with respect to any item handled byit for purposes of presentment, payment orcollection is governed by the law of the placewhere the bank is located. In the case of ac-tion or non-action by or at a branch or sepa-rate office of a bank, its liability is governedby the law of the place where the branch orseparate office is located.’’

Here again the purpose was to lay down aclear and simple choice-of-law rule thatwould prescribe the law of an obvious andreadily ascertainable place to govern the lit-erally millions of elementary transactionsthat occur on every banking day in the Unit-ed States. The Official Comment makes itclear that the rule is to ‘‘apply from the in-ception of the collection process of an itemthrough all phases of deposit, forwarding,presentment, payment and remittance, orcredit of proceeds.’’ Unity of governing lawis part of the objective. At the same time,however, section 4–103 permits the parties,‘‘by agreement,’’ to vary the choice-of-lawrule laid down by section 4–102. Thus theparty autonomy which is a central feature ofsection I–105 is available for this area also.

Section 6–102. The law governing bulktransfers of tangible goods is covered by Ar-ticle 6 of the Code. The paragraph numbered(4) of section 6–102 provides:

‘‘Except as limited by the following sec-tion all bulk transfers of goods located with-in this State are subject to this article.’’

The following section (6–103) does not dealwith choice of law, but rather lists eightkinds of transfers that are not governed byArticle 6 at all, therefore not by section 6–102.

Again, situs of the affected goods is madethe controlling choice-of-law fact. There hasbeen criticism of sections 6–102 and 6–103 ofthe Code, but the criticism has apparentlynot been directed at the choice of law provi-sion in paragraph (4) of section 6–102.

Section 8–106. Investment securities(stocks, bonds, and the like) constitute thesubject matter of Article 8. Section 8–106does not lay down conflicts rules for all mat-ters covered by the article, but only for aspecified part of it. The first paragraph ofsection 1–105 governs as to the rest. The 1972version of section 8–106 was as follows:

‘‘The validity of a security and the rightsand duties of the issuer with respect to reg-istration of transfer are governed by the law(including the conflict of laws rules) of thejurisdiction of organization of the issuer.’’

That version is still the law in most states.In 1977, however, the section was changed toread:

‘‘The law (including the conflict of lawsrules) of the jurisdiction of organization of

the issuer governs the validity of a security,the effectiveness of registration by the is-suer, and the rights and duties of the issuerwith respect to:

‘‘(a) registration of transfer of a certifi-cated security;

‘‘(b) registration of transfer, pledge, or re-lease of an uncertificated security; and

‘‘(c) sending of statements ofuncertificated securities.’’

It is interesting that both versions of thesection repeal, presumably for the sake ofemphasis, the renvoi provision which is inany event applicable to it, as well as to allthe others of the five specified exceptionslisted in the second paragraph of section 1–105.

The modification of the section does notchange the rule as to what law governs thevalidity of a security as issued, nor as to thetransfer of certificated securities. What itdoes is clarify the aspects and effects of reg-istration, particularly of uncertificated secu-rities, that are to be governed by the des-ignated law. As under the earlier version, thefirst paragraph of section 1–105 relates therest. Application of the law of the issuer’s‘‘jurisdiction of organization’’ to registra-tions and closely related matters present noreal difficulties and is in keeping with nor-mal expectancies.

Section 9–103. Secured transactions, thesubject covered by Article 9 of the Code, in-cludes some of the most difficult areas ofcommercial law, and the choice-of-law sec-tions of the article have been among its mostcontroversial. In the 1958–1962 version of theCode, section 9–102 applied most of the arti-cle’s provisions to ‘‘any personal propertyand fixtures within the jurisdiction of thisstate.’’ The 1972 revision deleted this choice-of-law clause completely. The 1958–1962 ver-sion, in section 9–103, dealt with choice-of-law issues as to validity, perfection and theeffects of default in security transactions.The 1972 revision eliminated the conflictsparts dealing with validity and defaults,leaving only as hard-and-fast choice-of-lawrules those parts dealing with perfection andthe consequences of non-perfection of secu-rity interests. These obviously are substan-tial legal areas. But the deleted areas, fromboth sections, were also substantial. Thechoice-of-law rules applicable to them arenow those set out in the first paragraph ofsection 1–105.

There are many ways in which movablegoods can be pledged as security for dis-charge of obligations owed to creditors orother obligees, and many ways in whichthird persons may acquire conflictingclaims. Removal of the goods from one stateto another may be contemplated or not con-templated by the secured party (obligee), andremoval may occur even though it was notcontemplated. Removal increases the riskthat third persons may, possibly in goodfaith, acquire conflicting claims to thegoods. Official recordation of the securitytransaction (‘‘perfection’’ of the security in-terest) is the accepted method for validatingthe security holder’s interest as againstmost of such conflicting third-person claims.But recordation where?

That is the principal question which sec-tion 9–103 undertakes to answer, along withcompanion questions as to the effects of non-perfection. Potential fact situations and thevariant rules prescribed for them by section9–103 are too elaborate for detailed expla-nation in this short article. They are muchclearer, however, under the 1972 revisionthan they were before, also more fair andmore efficient. They are sufficiently specificthat not a great deal of litigation on choice-of-law questions has developed in states, now

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5653April 25, 1995a substantial majority, that have enactedthe 1972 revision, and commentators on thesection have envinced general agreement asto its scope and applicability. By 9–103(1)(b)perfection of security interests is governedby the law of the state where the chattel waslocated at the time of the transaction, ex-cept that under 9–103(1)(c) if at the time apurchase money security interest is createdthe parties contemplate removal of the chat-tel to another state then the law of the otherstate governs, subject to a 30-day recorda-tion requirement. A certificate of title thusissued will in most situations protect theholder of security interests noted on it forfour months after the chattel is removed toa different state, after which time an inno-cent purchaser, under 9–103(2)(b), will takefree of a locally unrecorded security interest.

There are still problems, especially withreference to inherently movable chattelssuch as motor vehicles. Most of the stateshave motor vehicle title certificate laws,under which motor vehicle titles are inte-grated in properly issued certificates, butnot in improperly issued ones. In the tenstates which have enacted the UniformMotor Vehicle Certificate of Title and Anti-Theft Act, there is coordination with thecorresponding provisions of the Code, but insome other states there may not be. Perfec-tion of security interests in chattels the titleto which is supposed to be integrated in atitle certificate is referred by the Code tothe relevant title certificate law. Under theCode, however, if a title certificate thoughimproperly issued in a second state (fraudu-lently procured, as after a theft or by an ab-sconding buyer after a conditional sale) isfair on its face, a buyer of the chattel whopurchases it in good faith and for value in re-liance on the bad certificate, and ‘‘who is notin the business of selling goods of thatkind,’’ gets good title even against the ownerof a prior properly ‘‘protected’’ security in-terest. A used car dealer who relies on sucha bad certificate, on the other hand, wouldnot prevail over the prior security interest.

* * * * *Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will

read this little example to show ex-actly what we are getting at:

Suppose a contract is completed inFlorida for the sale of goods to be de-livered to a Canadian buyer in Mon-treal by a seller incorporated in Dela-ware, but operating factories in Arkan-sas, Louisiana, and Wisconsin; the con-tract stipulates that New York lawshall govern its validity, construction,and enforcement.

Now, there we are. Talking about for-eign shopping, New York lawyers sit-ting up there on the top floor of theWorld Trade Center Building, havingtheir martinis at lunch, they say, ‘‘Wedo not care what State this is in, wehave the Universal Commercial Codeand for us we will select where we are,where it is convenient for us to trycases, or any other forum that is avail-able to us.’’ But not the injured party.

They claim all they want is uniform-ity, but have the unmitigated gall toinclude an exclusion for manufactur-ers—for manufacturers. They boldfaceput it in there as an exemption formanufacturers for this particular lawthat they say is such a national neces-sity.

I have seen a lot of activity in myservice here as the junior Senator overthe years, but I have never seen a pro-vision where they come in, absolutely

representing the manufacturers andsaying they are trying to get money tothe injured parties. They really saythat. I will go back to the CONGRES-SIONAL RECORD and show it.

Where all the representative organi-zations of injured parties, whether it isthe lawyers themselves or otherwisethe consumer groups of Americans say‘‘No, no, no, do not give us this,’’ yetthey put in all the favorable provisionsfor the manufacturers. With respect tothe joint and several, we know thereare some 10 States that do not includejoint and several but rather, severalonly for the proof of compensatorydamages.

Do we think they make that uni-form? Just as they do not extend puni-tive damages to those States that donot have it, they do not extend thejoint and several provision to thoseStates that only have several.

If it was the intent to get uniformity,we would have it there, but they do notprovide it there.

So, we can go right on down the listin all regards to this particular billwith respect to uniformity on the onehand, or how far they have come overthe past several years and made itmore reasonable, when the truth of thematter is they have included a lot ofthings here in this particular measurethat were included in the House bill, sothat when it passes the Senate, ofcourse, it will not be conferenceable atall. It will not be subject to the con-ference because it will be a provisionnot in dispute but contained in bothmeasures.

I yield the floor.AMENDMENT NO. 597 TO AMENDMENT NO. 596

(Purpose: To provide for equity in legal fees,and for other purposes)

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I sendan amendment to the desk and ask forits immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.DEWINE). The clerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:The Senator from Michigan [Mr. ABRAHAM]

proposes an amendment numbered 597 toamendment No. 596.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the reading bedispensed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:At the end of the pending amendment add

the following new title:TITLE III—EQUITY IN LEGAL FEES

SEC. 301. EQUITY IN LEGAL FEES.(a) DISCLOSURE OF ATTORNEY’S FEES INFOR-

MATION.—(1) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub-

section—(A) the term ‘‘attorney’’ means any natu-

ral person, professional law association, cor-poration, or partnership authorized underapplicable State law to practice law;

(B) the term ‘‘attorney’s services’’ meansthe professional advice or counseling of orrepresentation by an attorney, but such termshall not include other assistance incurred,directly or indirectly, in connection with anattorney’s services, such as administrativeor secretarial assistance, overhead, travelexpenses, witness fees, or preparation by a

person other than the attorney of any study,analysis, report, or test;

(C) the term ‘‘claimant’’ means any natu-ral person who files a civil action arisingunder any Federal law or in any diversity ac-tion in Federal court and—

(i) if such a claim is filed on behalf of theclaimant’s estate, the term shall include theclaimant’s personal representative; or

(ii) if such a claim is brought on behalf ofa minor or incompetent, the term shall in-clude the claimant’s parent, guardian, orpersonal representative;

(D) the term ‘‘contingent fee’’ means thecost or price of an attorney’s services deter-mined by applying a specified percentage,which may be a firm fixed percentage, agraduated or sliding percentage, or any com-bination thereof, to the amount of the settle-ment or judgment obtained;

(E) the term ‘‘hourly fee’’ means the costor price per hour of an attorney’s services;

(F) the term ‘‘initial meeting’’ means thefirst conference or discussion between theclaimant and the attorney, whether by tele-phone or in person, concerning the details,facts, or basis of the claim;

(G) the term ‘‘natural person’’ means anyindividual, and does not include an artificialorganization or legal entity, such as a firm,corporation, association, company, partner-ship, society, joint venture, or governmentalbody; and

(H) the term ‘‘retain’’ means the act of aclaimant in engaging an attorney’s services,whether by express or implied agreement, byseeking and obtaining the attorney’s serv-ices.

(2) DISCLOSURE AT INITIAL MEETING.—(A) IN GENERAL.—An attorney retained by

a claimant shall, at the initial meeting, dis-close to the claimant the claimant’s right toreceive a written statement of the informa-tion described under paragraph (3).

(B) WAIVER AND EXTENSION.—The claimant,in writing, may—

(i) waive the right to receive the statementrequired under subparagraph (A); or

(ii) extend the 30-day period referred tounder paragraph (3).

(3) INFORMATION AFTER INITIAL MEETING.—Subject to paragraph (2)(B), within 30 daysafter the initial meeting, an attorney re-tained by a claimant shall provide a writtenstatement to the claimant containing—

(A) the estimated number of hours of theattorney’s services that will be spent—

(i) settling or attempting to settle theclaim or action; and

(ii) handling the claim through trial;(B) the basis of the attorney’s fee for serv-

ices (such as a contingent, hourly, or flat feebasis) and any conditions, limitations, re-strictions, or other qualifications on the feethe attorney determines are appropriate; and

(C) the contingent fee, hourly fee, or flatfee the attorney will charge the client.

(4) INFORMATION AFTER SETTLEMENT.—(A) IN GENERAL.—An attorney retained by

a claimant shall, within a reasonable timenot later than 30 days after the date onwhich the claim or action is finally settledor adjudicated, provide a written statementto the claimant containing—

(i) the actual number of hours of the attor-ney’s services in connection with the claim;

(ii) the total amount of the fee for the at-torney’s services in connection with theclaim; and

(iii) the actual fee per hour of the attor-ney’s services in connection with the claim,determined by dividing the total amount ofthe fee by the actual number of hours of at-torney’s services.

(B) WAIVER AND EXTENSION.—A client, inwriting, may—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5654 April 25, 1995(i) waive the right to receive the statement

required under subparagraph (A); or(ii) extend the 30-day period referred to

under subparagraph (A).(5) FAILURE TO DISCLOSE.—Except with re-

gard to a claimant who provides a waiverunder paragraph (2)(B) or (4)(B), a claimantto whom an attorney fails to disclose infor-mation required by this section may with-hold 10 percent of the fee and file a civil ac-tion for damages resulting from the failureto disclose in the court in which the claim oraction was filed or could have been filed.

(6) OTHER REMEDIES.—This subsection shallsupplement and not supplant any otheravailable remedies or penalties.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This title shall takeeffect and apply to claims or actions filed onand after the date occurring 30 days after thedate of enactment of this Act.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, myesteemed colleague from Kentucky andI are proposing here an amendmentwhich would establish a consumer oflegal services’ right to know how muchhe or she is paying and for what serv-ices. This is a right we recognize inmost other markets for goods and serv-ices, and one which is no doubt recog-nized and respected by most reputableattorneys.

Nonetheless, Mr. President, there aretoo many cases in this country inwhich tort victims and other consum-ers of legal services have real difficultydetermining whether they are getting afair shake from their attorney.

As a result, victims receive less oftheir rewards than they should, thelegal system costs everyone too much,and ever-higher fees are encouraged bya lack of competition.

Mr. President, this amendment willgive consumers of legal services themeans with which to make informeddecisions concerning their legal rep-resentation. By establishing a consum-er’s right to know in the legal servicesmarket it will encourage competitionand fair dealing. It will help make oursystem more fair to litigants and re-duce the total cost of our legal system.

The unfairness of our current systemis shown by the fact that tort victimsreceive only 43 cents of every $1 award-ed from damages—the other 57 centsgoing to pay lawyers and court fees andto cover the litigants’ lost time.

A significant portion of the 57 centstaken by the legal system goes directlyto attorneys. Plaintiff’s attorneys, inparticular, collected from 33 to 40 per-cent of the average award in a contin-gency fee case—that, plus fees for allcosts related to the litigation.

Now, I am not begrudging the hard-working attorney for his or her hard-won fee. Nor am I proposing that we es-tablish any set fee. But it seems clearto me that something is wrong with asystem in which, as was noted by Pro-fessor Lester Brickman of the CardozoSchool of Law, 25 to 30 percent of allcontingency fee cases have no real con-tingency.

In particular, in cases such as thoseinvolving airline crashes, fault often isnot in doubt as a practical matter.This means that plaintiff’s lawyers,who still collect their full 33-to-40 per-

cent fee, may receive the equivalent of$10,000 or even $30,000 per hour.

I was struck in particular by a 1989case Professor Brickman noted out ofAlton, TX, in which a school bus washit by a delivery truck. In this tragicincident 21 children were killed and 60were injured. Obviously and rightfullythere was a large judgment in favor ofthe plaintiff/children.

While there was no doubt about whowas at fault, the lawyers still chargedtheir full fees. As a result, according toProfessor Brickman, the attorneys re-ceived as much as $30,000 an hour fortheir services—money for which theydid little and which could have donemuch more to help the victims andtheir families.

Mr. President, victims are losing out,and so are the rest of us, because legalcosts are too high. Professor Brickmanestimates that contingency fees nowrun $13 to $15 billion annually. Thisrepresents a substantial portion, morethan 10 percent, of the $132 billionwhich Tillinghast research estimateswe spend as a nation on our legal sys-tem each year. This $132 billion acts asa huge, business-stifling liability taxon consumer goods and services.

Now, again, most attorneys recognizetheir duty to inform clients of howmuch they will be paying and for whatservices. Indeed, this is a standard forprofessions in general.

Doctors provide fee schedules to in-surers. Architects and even furnituremovers provide written, binding esti-mates upon request. Consumers of legalservices, I believe, deserve the sametreatment.

This is what our reforms would pro-vide: At the initial meeting with theprospective client the attorney wouldbe obligated to inform the client of hisor her right to obtain a written feestatement within 30 days. This state-ment would contain, first, the esti-mated hours of the attorney’s servicesthat will be spent settling or attempt-ing to settle the claim and handlingthe claim through trial; second, thebasis on which the attorney proposesto charge the client—hourly, contin-gent, or flat fee; and third, the hourlyrate, contingent fee, or flat fee the at-torney proposes to charge.

The attorney would be obligated togive this statement to the client with-in 30 days unless the client in writingwaives the right to receive it or extendthe attorney’s time within which toprovide.

Similarly, within 30 days after com-pletion of the litigation either by set-tlement or trial, the attorney would beobliged to furnish the client a writtenstatement describing, first, the numberof hours the attorney expended in con-nection with the claim; second, thetotal amount of the fee; and third, theactual fee per hour charged, regardlessof how the fee was structured. Again,the client could waive the right to thestatement or extend the 30-day dead-line.

A claimant who does not receive therequisite disclosures has the right towithhold up to 10 percent of the feecharged and to file a civil action forany damages the client incurred as aresult of the failure to disclose.

Mr. President, we need these reformsto help potential clients make in-formed decisions concerning legal rep-resentation.

The legal services market is in par-ticular need of open information be-cause clients may never have dealtwith the legal system before. This lackof client experience establishes a sig-nificant information and expertise im-balance, one that can lead to a client’sreceiving less favorable treatment thanhe or she might obtain with better in-formation.

Moreover, this problem is madeworse when an attorney is hired to pro-vide services for a single piece of litiga-tion. That lawyer does not have thesame incentives to keep the clientshappy at the conclusion of the lawsuitas an attorney providing services to alongstanding firm or client on an ongo-ing basis.

The right to know established by thisamendment will facilitate an exchangeof information concerning the qualityof legal services provided, and even sin-gle-issue relationships.

Thus we can empower clients in theirdealings with attorneys while actuallyincreasing the ability of market forcesto work in the legal services markets.The result will be increased competi-tion, better service, lower fees, andsavings for everyone.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Washington.Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the

amendment proposed by my friend, thedistinguished Senator from Michigan,is the first amendment that has beenproposed to this bill in something over24 hours of debate. It is a most inter-esting amendment. I hope that anyMember who feels that he or she cancontribute to the debate on the amend-ment will appear on the floor and sharewith Members of the Senate that Sen-ator’s views.

The amendment is relatively modestin one respect, and in another sense isexpansive. It is not directly connectedwith the other provisions of this bill inthat it is not limited to product liabil-ity litigation. It is, on the other hand,limited, as I understand it, to actionsin Federal court—basically in the U.S.district courts—and applies to all suchlitigation in those courts.

The concept that there should be dis-closure, both in the initial stages of anattorney-client relationship and at theend of that relationship, over a par-ticular case is, of course, an appro-priate one. On its surface, the amend-ment seems to be constructive. I hopewe will very promptly get the views ofother Senators on the subject.

I would like to conclude the debateon this relatively narrow amendmentbefore we adjourn this evening.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5655April 25, 1995Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll.Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HOLLINGS. While I am trying toobtain a copy of the amendment, I havein hand from the distinguished Senatorfrom Michigan a copy of a letter datedApril 24, I take it, outlining the amend-ment itself. It says here:

Under our proposal, at the initial meetingthe attorney would be obligated to informthe client of his or her right to obtain, with-in thirty days, a written statement contain-ing (1) the estimated hours of the attorney’sservices that will be spent (a) settling or at-tempting to settle the claim and (b) handlingthe claim through trial; (2) the basis onwhich the attorney proposes to charge theclient (hourly, contingent or flat fee); and (3)the hourly rate, contingent fee, or flat feethe attorney proposes to charge. The attor-ney would then be obligated to provide thatstatement to the client within thirty daysunless the client in writing waives the rightto receive it, or extends the time.

Mr. President, on the matter of fees,I was in the practice actively for 20years and I never had outlined this. Ihave always had an understanding, anda written one. I wish I had one of theforms here, because it was the mini-mum fee schedule, approved by theCharleston bar, my hometown, wherewe had a minimum fee schedule—at aformal meeting that was agreed upon—and that was a contingency contract.And wherein I was retained, I had thatcontingency contract signed not onlyby, of course, the client, but by myself.

In 20 years I have never found thisproblem. You can get this professor. Idoubt he has tried a case, because Ifind that is the case with most profes-sors and that is why they are profes-sors.

But right to the point, this so-calledestimated hours. Let me go to one ofthe cases that was taken all the way tothe Fourth Circuit Court of Appealsand then finally abandoned before theSupreme Court. It was a case of theC&S Bank as the trustee for HaroldTummestone versus the Morgan Con-struction Co. The reason I got the bankas a trustee is because the particularindividual had been severely damaged,brain damaged, which I will be glad togo into because, unless others want tospeak to this particular amendment,until I can get a copy of it I want tosay a few words.

But we wanted to get comity or thetrustee to bring that particular case. Iknew the bank had credibility. I want-ed to bring credibility to this so-calleddamage suit. Of course I got the bankto go over there and handle it and havethem review all of my activities.

With respect to that, I can tell youthe bank would not have required, andthe bank would not have had any idea,nor would I have had any idea about

the estimated hours of the attorney’sservices that will be spent (a) settlingor attempting to settle the claim.

Excuse me, let me rescind that par-ticular statement by saying, yes, Icould have put on there an estimationof (a) the hours spent settling or at-tempting to settle the claim. But, I cantell you here and now, they never of-fered any settlement. We tried thatcase. It was not until the jury came inthat they wanted to try to even talkabout settlement. I will never forget it.The trial judge in court recommendedthat we settle the case. The truth ofthe matter is I had proven a very, verystrong case. I felt very confident. Inspite of the admonition of the trialjudge, I told him to go ahead and writehis order, whatever it was, but I wasnot going to yield 1 red cent on thatparticular verdict because I knew whatwe had done. And I was not offered anysettlement.

I never had billable hours. That is an-noying to this particular Senator andlawyer. I have no idea how you canreally make it. You might sit in an of-fice and talk about so many hours youare going to try to settle. But it de-pends on how you reach the case on thedocket and what the pressure is thatyou can bring on the defendant, if theycan get a continuance and everythingelse of that kind, and there is such atremendous variable it does not helpthe client and it does not help the law-yer. It is a sort of spurious thing.

We believe in the client being in-formed. The information that I have al-ways had with respect to the contractand agreement with my clients is justexactly as I have pointed out. It is acontingent basis of one-third, wherebywe assume, as the attorney for thatparticular case, all costs and all courtcosts, all medical fees to get examinedby doctors and specialists’ fees.

I remember in this particular case Ihad to get a neurosurgeon to comedown and spend several days and lateron testify. So not only were his feesbilled to me—you have to pay the doc-tor’s fee if you do not want a witnesswho feels like he has not been paid.You want him to be a happy witness, soyou pay his medical fees. You pay theinvestigative fees. You pay all the in-terrogatory fees, discovery fees, all thetime. You pay for the appeals and thebrief and the court, the transcript ofrecord and everything else, the print-ing of that on appeal.

And of course all your hours andtime—I did not sit down and start com-puting hours and time. But for thepoor, indigent client, ‘‘Look. Don’tworry. We will do our level best to getyou any recoveries made, and any of-fers made we are obviously going totell you what the offer is and makesure you know about it. And you havethe approval or disapproval of any kindof settlement offer.’’ Because, ofcourse, we have malpractice in law aswell as malpractice in medicine. Soyou have to protect yourself and deal

open and on top of the table with theparticular client.

But I can tell you now. Being at thebar, this particular thing here is thefirst I ever heard of it. I started in 1947;1997 would be 50 years. So in almost 47years of practice, I never heard this asa problem. Let me go further. I can tellyou what I find as a problem. But thebasis on which the attorney proposesto charge the client an hourly contin-gent or flat fee, I think I can answerthat and just say what I have said here.

Three, the hourly rate contingent feeor flat fee the attorney proposes tocharge.

So mine again would be just the con-tingent fee. I could comply with twoand three. But I have no idea about theestimated hours of settling or attempt-ing to settle the claim and estimatedhours of handling the claim throughtrial. Of course, it says nothing hereabout the appeal.

It says similarly, within 30 days aftercompletion of the litigation, either bysettlement or trial, the attorney wouldbe obliged to furnish the client a writ-ten statement describing, first, thenumber of hours the attorney expendedin connection with the claim; second,the total amount of the fee; and, third,the actual fee per hour charged regard-less of how the fee was structured.That brings us back.

I really object to bringing it back tobillable hours because we have to workand represent clients. I am not inMichigan in one of these large lawfirms. We are in a relatively smalltown. I guess speaking with respect tolarge law firms in any event, and Ihave to spend, not bureaucracy andregulatory. Here we have regulatoryreform. Now they have regulationshere about actual fee per hour charged.We will have to hire someone to keeptrack of this thing because I have workto do, study the law, interview the wit-nesses, and talk about not only thepleadings and everything else of thatkind but the chances of prevailing. Allof that is tied up as we have been hear-ing about 2 to 3 years. I would ratherjust put it on a contingent basis tryingmy best to get it to trial and get it toa conclusion, and not be into the prop-osition of the actual fee per hourcharged and trying to compute it.

There is nothing wrong with disclo-sure. Like I say, I disclose. I want aclear understanding. I cannot representa client fully and fairly unless there isabsolute trust. You build that up. Youdo not write that into law up here inWashington. I practice law. You get areputation. You get a reputation fortrust and for accomplishment, and bythat reputation of being able to be suc-cessful at the bar and totally trust-worthy, the word spreads. You get aclient and you get a successful lawpractice. Incidentally, I had it. I had atleast three times what I made when Igot here in 1966.

But one of the things I really did notlike was charging clients. I never didcharge enough. A client told me that

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5656 April 25, 1995later on, as did several lawyers. I wouldrather come up here where I do nothave to worry about charging the cli-ents. I can talk to the jury and then goin with the jury and vote. I like thismuch better. I get a variety of cases,too. I do not get a reputation just bybringing one set of cases on the claim-ant side. You get any and every casewhether it is a terrorism case, whetherit is a product liability case, or wheth-er it is going to be telecommunicationsor whatever it is. So it is the enrich-ment of the learning experience uphere that attracted me and not thefees.

But having said that, what really dis-turbs me is this trying to bureauc-ratize the law practice which I have re-sisted. But if we are going to go aheadand bureaucratize the law practice,what really is outrageous in my opin-ion is this billable hours whereby thiscrowd downtown here is charging $300,$400, $500 an hour.

I will never forget when I was first uphere and I put in on the case statutethe textile amendment. I got help fromthe distinguished Senator from NewHampshire on the other side of theaisle, Norris Cotton.

After we succeeded in passing thattextile bill over 25 years ago, SenatorCotton said, ‘‘You know what so and sodowntown was paid to pass that bill?’’

I said, ‘‘I did not know he had any-thing to do with the bill.’’

He said, ‘‘No. But he was retained bythe industry and given $1 million to getthat bill through.’’

I said, ‘‘Did you ever talk to him?’’He said, ‘‘No. I never did talk to him.

But I just found that out.’’ I nevertalked to him.

But these lawyers in this town getthese enormous fees. I found since thattime regarding drugs—that is a terriblemenace to our society—that these law-yers that are successful in the drugcases immediately demand and receivea $50,000 retainer, $100,000 retainer,large, exorbitant fees of that kind. Ithink that is really the thing that dis-courages society against the lawyers. Ithink what we ought to do really islimit the attorneys’ fees. I think whatwe ought to do is limit the billablehours, the attorneys’ fees in all cases,the billable hours to $50 an hour.

Mr. President, at $50 an hour, at a 40-hour workweek, and a 52-week year,you would exceed over $100,000. That isjust $50. Of course, if you work onweekends and overtime like any triallawyer would work overtime. Every-body was off to the football game andSunday afternoon driving with thefamily, and I was working in the officeand Sunday night getting ready to goto court on Monday morning. Youcould easily at $50 an hour, if you workas a lawyer, make $150,000 to $175,000 ayear. I think that is a good salary fora working lawyer. Senators get less, ofcourse, and work harder. We start outearly in the morning around here, andthen when you supposedly get time off

like Easter break, that is constituentservice.

What I want to do is send an amend-ment to the desk to limit attorneys’fees in all civil actions to $50 per hour.And at the end of the matter proposedto be inserted, I want to add section302, limitation on fees. If an attorneyat law brings a civil action, or is en-gaged to defend against any civil ac-tion, the word ‘‘action’’ should be in-serted there because I was not familiarwith this particular amendment andnever had heard of it until the distin-guished Senator from Michigan sub-mitted it. But if any attorney at lawbrings a civil action or is engaged todefend against any civil action, the at-torneys may not be compensated forlegal services provided in connectionwith that action at a rate in excess of$50 an hour.

I expect to get reelected on thisamendment. I can tell you here andnow, if we can bring that down to $50an hour. I remember my poor col-leagues on ethics charges having to goback on this particular record.

You have my colleagues here rightnow who would elect me President ofthe Senate if they could get a fair votebecause they were charged $400 anhour, and they all owe their lawyersdowntown. You come to this place andin the legal game of bringing ethicscharges and everything else of thatkind and then having to go through allthe records and what have you and paythe lawyer downtown, you have got$400, $500 an hour. I have heard of allkinds of charges of that nature. And Ithink that what we ought to do is getto the real problem in these civil ac-tions, not just in product liability, ifwe are going to have an amendmentthat goes into all of this disclosure likethere is some kind of secret hocuspocus.

Now, let me agree with the distin-guished Senator from Michigan. Inoted in that letter as I was reading,and I quote, ‘‘This concern is not mere-ly hypothetical.’’ So says the Senatorfrom Michigan.

To give just one example: Accordingto the Washington Post, last month,attorneys collected $16 million in a set-tlement of antitrust claims againstseveral airlines. Their clients receivedcoupons worth $10 to $25 redeemable to-ward the purchase of airline tickets,under limited and restricted condi-tions. According to Prof. LesterBrickman of the Cardozo School ofLaw, in many tort cases lawyers arecharging standard contingent fees eventhough the contingency is in nameonly. Similarly, professionals whoaudit law firm fees find significantovercharging in many of the cases theyexamine.

If you got the contract that this law-yer has had, you cannot find any over-charging. If you get the one-third, youhave to pay all the costs and you havebeen paying for doctors; you have beenpaying for printing costs; you are pay-ing for interview costs; you are paying

all kind of costs over the 2- to 3-yearperiod, and that comes out of your fee.That does not come out of the claim-ant’s award or verdict, I can tell youhere and now.

I do not know the background of thisparticular case, but it is obvious to methis antitrust claim—and that is whatthese lawyers get in so much billablehours. I noticed in one they had on an-other bankruptcy, and so forth, ifsomeday we can retire and get to be areferee in bankruptcy and sit aroundon golf courses, learning how to finallysettle the bankrupt nature of the en-tity, we can pay really thousands andthousands of dollars in fees, which tome is a disgrace. I have seen that hap-pen in my own backyard, and I havecomplained about it in our hearings onbankruptcy cases.

But this $16 million in the antitrustclaim no doubt was approved by theCourt itself. Now, they had a claim andthey had all of these billable hours. Iknow how to get that $16 million downto about $2 or $3 million by comingdown to my amendment with $50 anhour maximum at that particular time.I think that is one way to rectify whatthe distinguished Senator from Michi-gan finds is an abuse.

It is not really lack of disclosure be-cause when you get an antitrust case ofthis kind, you bring a class action,which apparently this was, you reallyproduce a case that was not in exist-ence. You go around and fetch peoplewho do not have any idea that they arebeing recharged and you tell them Iwish to get and bring a class action; Ihappen from research to believe thatyou have a case here; you are not obli-gated to pay anything to me unless wesucceed.

So the clients, while the distin-guished Senator from Michigan maycomplain and I may complain at an in-ordinately high $16 million fee, you canbet your boots that the people them-selves had nothing to complain aboutbecause they did not have anything inthe first place. They did not even knowthey had a claim. They did not evenknow they could get involved and helpbring this abusive practice of over-charging by the airlines to a halt.

So they have performed a public serv-ice. Whether the lawyers in that par-ticular case deserved $16 million, atleast the Court thought so. And the cli-ents could well have appealed, and itcould have been adjusted, and it couldbe subject now to adjustment and thatkind of thing. I just really do notknow. I agree that I am, as the Senatorfrom Michigan, disturbed not aboutdisclosure because clients can find out.And I can tell you now, if you have aclient and you come around and all ofa sudden win a case and you do nothave an understanding, that client cango to another lawyer and you havemalpractice on your hands. You can behit with a malpractice suit, whetherthey win or lose. What happens is thathurts your reputation. So irrespectiveof the merit of the particular case, you

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5657April 25, 1995are supercautious in this day and ageto not engage in any kind of misunder-standing with clients. So, yes, write itdown, write down the contingent fee.

But I would have to oppose theamendment with respect to the billablehours. But if there is to be billablehours in product liability claimants at-torneys’ restrictions, then I thinkmaybe, if that is the will of the body,they want to consider limiting attor-neys’ fees in all civil actions to $50 perhour.

AMENDMENT NO. 598 TO AMENDMENT NO. 597

(Purpose: To limit attorneys’ fees in all civilactions to $50 per hour)

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I sendan amendment to the desk to theamendment of the Senator from Michi-gan and ask that the clerk report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report the amendment.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows.

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr.HOLLINGS] proposes an amendment numbered598 to amendment numbered 597.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:At the end of the matter proposed to be in-

serted, add the following:SEC. 302. LIMITATION ON FEES.

If an attorney of law brings a civil actionor is engaged to defend against any civil ac-tion, the attorney may not be compensatedfor the legal services provided in connectionwith that action at a rate in excess of $50 anhour.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I have explained theamendment and about read it to mycolleagues.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.Mr. MCCONNELL addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Kentucky.Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I

am pleased to be a cosponsor of theamendment by the distinguished Sen-ator from Michigan [Mr. ABRAHAM] re-quiring lawyers to disclose to their cli-ents information about fee arrange-ments.

The amendment of the Senator fromMichigan is a very simple consumerprotection amendment. Too often,those in need of legal services are inex-perienced in evaluating whether theyare getting good value for the moneythey pay. After all, choosing a lawyeris not exactly like choosing a lawnmower. No objective specifications, tomy knowledge, exist. It is virtually im-possible to compare prices. The onlything a prospective client may know inselecting the lawyer is what law schoolhe or she attended, and that he or shepassed the State bar examination. Theclient may not even know if it took thelawyer more than one try to pass thebar exam. And unfortunately, somelawyers take advantage ofunsuspecting clients. In contingent feecases, lawyers charge standard rates,

regardless of how much effort or howmuch risk is involved in the particularcase, typically, to take one-third ofany settlement, 40 percent of anyaward resulting from trial, and fre-quently 50 percent if the case gets ap-pealed. Many jury verdicts are eventu-ally reduced on appeal, so often an in-jured person will recover less moneythe further the case is litigated.

A few weeks ago, the WashingtonPost reported on the settlement of anantitrust case against several airlines.The clients got $10 to $25 coupons re-deemable under restricted and limitedconditions. The lawyers shared $16 mil-lion in fees.

Lawyers who bill their clients on anhourly basis create problems of a dif-ferent sort. Consider the case of theDenver law firm that claimed it did notbill its clients for the first class air-fare. A legal auditor hired by a clientdiscovered that the firm bought busi-ness class tickets but individual law-yers were upgrading to first class atthe airports and then billing the cli-ents. In another firm, a lawyer was dis-covered to have billed for 62 hours in asingle day—quite an accomplishment, Imight say.

Still, another lawyer drafted a mo-tion for a client that could be used inthousands of asbestos cases that thelawyer was defending. The lawyerbilled his clients 3,000 separate timesfor the same motion—3,000 separatetimes, I repeat, Mr. President, for thesame motion.

These anecdotes are related in a re-cent U.S. News & World Report storyentitled ‘‘Lawyers Who Abuse theLaw.’’ Add on to a few lawyers whotake advantage of their clients the re-ality that the legal system does notfairly compensate those who seek re-dress. Someone injured because of an-other’s negligence has as much chanceof winning in a lawsuit as he or shedoes by taking a turn at the gaming ta-bles of Las Vegas. Sometimes, as at thecasinos, it is possible to win big. Butwe know that in gambling, the house isusually the big winner. The same istrue in the legal system, only thehouse is the system itself—lawyers andcourt costs.

After all, more than half of every dol-lar spent in the liability system, 57cents goes to the lawyers and to thecourts. The injured get only 43 cents ofthat dollar.

These experiences are causing theAmerican people to lose confidence inour legal system. The same U.S. News& World Report article found that 69percent of the American people believelawyers are only sometimes or not usu-ally honest.

Restoring integrity to our legal sys-tem is a fundamental goal of this re-form effort. This amendment is de-signed to give clients some reasonableinformation about the financial aspectsof the relationship with a lawyer.

Under the amendment of the Senatorfrom Michigan, the lawyer would be re-quired to provide the client with two

statements, one at the outset of therepresentation and another when thecase is concluded.

The attorney must provide the clientwith the following information at thebeginning: How many hours will bespent trying to settle the case; howmany hours it will take to bring thecase to trial; how the attorney willcharge the client—hourly, contingent,or flat fee; and, the precise rate.

A final statement at the end of thecase must include the following: Thenumber of hours the lawyer spent onthe case, the total amount of the feeand the effective hourly rate, regard-less of the rate actually charged.

This basic information will go a longway toward restoring America’s faithin our legal system, and it will enablethose who need legal counsel to be bet-ter informed in selecting counsel. Thescope of the amendment is limited. Itapplies only to those cases filed in Fed-eral courts. So the Senator from Michi-gan has narrowed the scope of this con-siderably.

While there is no reason for these dis-closure requirements not to apply toState courts, we are trying to be mind-ful of imposing too many requirementsupon the States in this particular in-stance. So we have left the scope ofthis effort quite narrow, and the Statesare free to adopt these disclosure re-quirements on their own, obviously.

Let me close by stating what theamendment does not do. First of all, itdoes not prohibit or restrict contingentor hourly fees. It does not mandate theuse of contingent or hourly fees.

We recognize the importance of con-tingent fees. In some situations, a con-tingent fee may be the only way a per-son can afford to hire a lawyer to pur-sue a case. But the Abraham amend-ment affords consumers important in-formation. It will help those choosinglawyers to be good consumers, and itwill put consumers on a more levelplaying field with the lawyers whoseservices they need.

So I want to commend the distin-guished Senator from Michigan for hisamendment. I think it is an excellentamendment. I hope it will be adoptedby the Senate at the appropriate time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and Isuggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro-ceeded to call the roll.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I askfor the yeas and nays on my amend-ment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distin-

guished Chair.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5658 April 25, 1995Mr. President, of course, you can see

now what is entering into this particu-lar issue, and that is what I would callcandor. The reason this issue has sur-vived over 15 years but never passedthe Senate, the reason it hasn’t gottenanywhere is the antipathy to lawyers.And here in the middle of the treat-ment of product liability, a very re-stricted part of civil actions—you takeall the civil actions in the UnitedStates filed, 9 percent of all civil ac-tions filed comprise tort claims. And ifyou take all the tort claims filed, only4 percent of the 9 percent compriseproduct liability.

What you have is thirty-six one-hun-dredths of the civil actions being treat-ed in product liability. But super-imposed on top of that comes the firstamendment, and the first amendmentis: ‘‘Kill all the lawyers,’’ they said inKing Henry VI, Shakespeare. We willkill all the lawyers here. We have thedisclosure of attorneys fees and infor-mation.

They take an anecdotal measure thatthey refer to in the newspaper relativeto antitrust, having nothing to do withproduct liability, and they put in anantitrust charge which is no doubt aclass action—not class action on prod-uct liability—and a class action thathas been conducted over the manyyears. I have to go back and find outwhat it was.

Quite to the point, the $16 million,with the inference here, they do nottell you how many millions went to theclaimants. Obviously, millions went tothe claimants, but when you had thou-sands and thousands of claimants,maybe millions of claimants, then itdid reduce it to a $10 to $25 redeemabletoward the purchase of an airline tick-et.

Those things come out when you getthe full facts. But this anecdotal ap-proach, and taken with all civil casesin Federal court and putting down law-yers’ disclosure amounts gets to thecandor that really is behind the move-ment here at hand.

Product liability has been handled atthe State level and in a very judiciousand forceful fashion. We know it is nota national problem. All the littlethings that they tried to bring up overthe years—incidentally, Mr. President,by way of amusement to this Senator,I remember when they brought up theLittle League, and the Little Leaguehad the right and said, no, no, we arenot a part of this case. Then they hadan anecdotal amount of Girl Scoutcookies and they had the right andsaid, no, we are not into this at all.Then our former colleague who, inci-dentally, sat right here in the Senate,the Senator from South Dakota,George McGovern, was on a little TVexpose, how he went out of business onaccount of product liability, and thenhe reversed field and said, no, no, theyhad cut that particular little 30-secondbite that they had him and former Con-gressman and then Secretary Jack

Kemp on, which they were trying tobuild up.

They tried every amusing thing inthe world to give some force and cre-dence to our product liability problem.There is none. There is no nationalproblem in product liability. Now if wecannot get the votes for that, thenwhat we ought to do is get lawyers feeshere and call it disclosure, like thelawyers are running around cheatingtheir clients. Come on. If the lawyersdo that, they are not going to last long.I do not know what town they practicein, but reputation means everything inthe profession. Oh, yes, we object todoctors and doctors’ fees and every-thing else, until we get sick, and thenwe want the best and we love our doc-tors. In a similar fashion, yes, they allcomplain about the lawyers, until theyget in trouble and then they get a law-yer of their choice and have completetrust.

Like I say, at the bar we require aminimum fee kind of schedule and con-tract, and the lawyers of the local barassociations police their groups. And,yes, there are many cases beingbrought up now before our State su-preme court for malpractice, disbar-ment, and everything else of that kind,where they have taken the client’smoney. But that was not because theydid not disclose. You are going to findthose kinds of lawyers and those kindof individuals in every practice, profes-sion, trade, or business.

It is unfortunate, but you certainlydo not need here at the Federal level totry and burden product liability with alawyer fee act. But if we are going todo it, let us get to the real heart of thematter, because there is a cleavage ofdivision. When, Mr. President, I workfor you as my client, I do not get paiduntil I succeed and you understand thepercentage or the contingent basis. If Igo to you under billable hours, in addi-tion to trying to win your case, I amtrying to win myself more fees, and ona billable hour basis, the more I cansay that I worked on Saturday and Ispent some hours reading here and Ilooked there and everything else—inother words, I am trying my case andnot the client’s case.

I think that is unethical. I think it isbasically unethical. There are a lot ofthings that I think are unethical. Per-haps our conference that we havearound here every Tuesday trying toambush each other is. We never hadthat before. We had policy committees.As the distinguished Parliamentarianwho has been here for years knows, thepolicy committee set the seriatim ofthe treatment of measures. But wenever had parties meeting, the Repub-lican conference and the Democraticconference, to meet in ambush of theother side and come around here andtalk about ethics.

When you get these billable hours,you begin to work for your billablehours, you begin to work for your caserather than the client’s case. I neverdid like it. I never charged billable

hours. I resent it and reject it. But ifwe are going to have it, let us limit itbecause it is unforgivable what theyare trying to charge. If that is what themarket forces are, I never heard of allthe hours charged. Look at the O.J.Simpson case, what they say thosehigh-powered lawyers are charging.Maybe we can have a hearing beforethe Judiciary Committee and find out.I know we have not had any hearingson this.

The product liability measure was re-ferred to the Commerce Committee andthere was not one word of testimony onthis matter. That made me withholdthe matter of lawyers fees. I was wait-ing for somebody to raise the subject oflet us get the lawyers. Now that it hasbeen raised in the Abraham-McConnellamendment, I have to amend thatamendment with my particular one ofa limitation of $50, at the most, on anybillable hours.

As I pointed out, I am confident thatthe anecdotal antitrust case—not aproduct liability case—would reducethe $16 million. Oh, that would reduceit down to $2 or $3 million.

So we are moving in the right direc-tion in the Hollings amendment. Butmore than that, I would challengethose who sponsored this amendmentto bring me the product liability casewherein the claimant represented byan attorney was misled, misinformed,or not disclosed fully what the fee basiswas. I do not know of any. I never haveheard of any. I cannot understand it.Maybe it happened here in this anti-trust case. But if that is what they aredisturbed about, do not just reacharound in a magazine article havingnothing to do with product liability orreach around in a newspaper article inthe Washington Post having to do withantitrust and a class action broughtover a series of years and court ap-proved that we do not have the factsfor, having nothing to do with productliability. I want to ask them to pleasebring—if that is their intent now ondisclosure—evidence of where it is anational problem.

Heavens above, we have enough workto do around here. But if we are goingto start debating lawyer’s fees at thenational level, and disclosures, andhow many hours, and what do you ex-pect, and how many hours on settle-ment, and how many hours on trial,and then the actual fee per hourcharge, regardless of how the fee wasstructured, and all of these things ofthat kind, this is a solution looking fora problem. What the real problem is, islawyers. So they say we can enhancethis product liability initiative bygoing at lawyers. And we will find outwho is for lawyers and against lawyers.

Well, I happen to be for lawyers. Wewill have to get that saying of ‘‘kill allthe lawyers.’’ But that was really alaudatory comment, whereby lawyersstand between tyranny and freedom. InShakespeare, you will find that ref-erence with respect to lawyers notbeing against all the lawyers, but the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5659April 25, 1995tyrant was saying the only way we canprevail and continue this tyranny is toget the lawyers because they are theonly ones that understand and knowand stand in our way of freedom, andwe can continue this tyranny. So itwas not a pejorative saying of ‘‘kill allthe lawyers.’’

We can go through to the FoundingFathers who were all lawyers and drewthe Constitution and worked at it over-night. We can come right on down theline with respect to the lawyers in thehistory of this land, whether it bePresident Lincoln in the days duringthe Civil War, or most recently here, incivil rights cases, Thurgood Marshalland others. If they had not had thoselawyers, I can tell you now, havingbeen at the local level over the manyyears, had Thurgood Marshall not suc-ceeded in Brown versus Board of Edu-cation, you would not have found theadvancements made.

Advancements were not made as a re-sult of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 somuch as the advancement made in the1954 Brown versus Board of Educationdecision by the U.S. Supreme Court,brought by the trial lawyer for theNAACP, Thurgood Marshall.

I will bring the cases, when we havetime, to the attention of my col-leagues. The hour is late and I want toyield to others to be heard on this.

Since it has just come up, I have rep-resented to the distinguished managerof the bill, it is not our intent to delay.We will survey colleagues on this sideof the aisle and see what amendmentsthey want to present. I want to see ifthere are those who want to talk onthis particular measure before we vote.And pending that, Mr. President, Iyield the floor. I suggest the absence ofa quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.SANTORUM). The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, mystaff brought to my attention—I wishwe had billable hours for Senators. Wecould make a living up here. Maybethat is the next amendment we willhave if they insist on this amendment,Mr. President.

Pending that, we have the ModelRules of Professional Conduct and theCode of Judicial Conduct by the Amer-ican Bar Association.

I look at rule 1.4, ‘‘Communication’’and I read:

A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably in-formed about the status of a matter andpromptly comply with reasonable requestsfor information.

A lawyer shall explain a matter to the ex-tent reasonably necessary to permit the cli-ent to make informed decisions regardingthe representation.

That is the American Bar Associa-tion Model Rule that we all are gov-erned by.

With respect to the fees themselves,rule 1.5:

(A) A lawyer’s fee shall be reasonable. Thefactors to be considered in determining thereasonableness of a file include the follow-ing:

(1) the time and labor required, the noveltyand difficulty of the questions involved, theskill requisite to perform the legal serviceproperly;

(2) the likelihood, if apparent to a client,that the acceptance of the particular em-ployment will preclude other employment bythe lawyer;

I take that, Mr. President, to be noconflict of interest.

(3) the fee customarily charged in the lo-cality with similar legal services;

(4) the amount involved and the results ob-tained;

(5) the time limitations imposed by the cli-ent or by the circumstances;

(6) the nature and length of the profes-sional relationship with the client;

(7) the experience, repetition, and the abil-ity of the lawyer or lawyers performing theservices;

(8) where the fee is fixed, whether the fee isfixed or contingent.

It goes on in detail on the basis ofthe rate of fee, the terms of payment,and all the necessary things—the divi-sions of fee, how to settle if there is adispute about the fee, all are mattersof disclosure.

What they are really coming with onproduct liability is an assault againstthe bar. I know the former distin-guished Vice President of the UnitedStates thought it was good politics,and he brought up about lawyers at theAmerican Bar Association.

If a person practices law, they areunder the rule and guidelines. It is stilla profession. Just like I have resistedactually the TV coverage of the pro-ceedings here of the U.S. Senate be-cause we could get a lot more workdone and we did a lot more work andwe got things done.

I also have resisted the so-called ad-vertisement by attorneys with theneon sign ‘‘Divorces, divorces,’’ or ‘‘Ifyou think you are hurt,’’ or, ‘‘We getmore money in our claims than any-body else.’’ I think that is unethical. Ihate to see that coming about with theparticular profession.

If we take the television out of theO.J. Simpson courtroom, that casecould be handled in the next 3 weeks.But it will take the next 3 months atleast with TV there. The idea is to getjustice and not to amuse the publicgenerally.

I hope we get the television out ofthis body, the television out of thecourtroom, and get back to some eco-nomic sense, go to work for the peopleof America, and certainly not takewhat never has been recognized as anational problem, except with respectto the American Bar Association andits code of conduct which it has overthe many, many years. It has nevermade a national problem to be legis-lated upon.

I know what they have in mind, andI think that my amendment will helpthem get at the 60,000 billable hour

lawyers, and not the trial lawyers.They really go after the trial lawyersand product liability.

I want to talk about the corporatelawyers and that billable hour crowdthat extends out. I have heard my col-league from West Virginia. He does nothave any understanding of the lawpractice. He says, why, at the Statelevel it is very difficult to get productliability reform. False. We have it in 46of the 50 States in the last 15 years.

He says one of the reasons we cannotget it are these trial lawyers holdingthings up because they like to extendtheir cases and get more money. Ex-tend more cases, I get more expenses.

I am paid on a contingency basis. Iam not paid by a billable hour. The fel-low who gets more money is the insur-ance company lawyer, the corporatelawyer. They love it. They try tostretch it out, get continuances, makemore motions and everything else. Igot 10 or 15 good cases in the officethat I have taken for seriously injuredclients. I have hundreds of thousands ofdollars in time and costs wrapped up. Iam really having to carry and finance,which we do. I have done it in my pri-vate practice.

We know how it is in corporate law.They have the mahogany desks and thePersian rugs, and they sit down therewith the paneled walls and just answerthe phone and everything. Answer thephone and say, by the way, charge himthat I talked to him on the phone. Inever heard of a contingency fee law-yer say I talked to somebody andcharged so much. They charge so muchper telephone call, so much per letter,so much per hour, so much per this.There is more per fees in the practicethan we could ever contemplate.

Heavens, let us not write this bu-reaucracy into the law.

Mr. President, I suggest the absenceof a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent I be permitted tospeak as in morning business for 10minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

f

IN MEMORY OF SENATOR JOHN C.STENNIS

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Iwould like to take a few minutes todiscuss the life and career of SenatorJohn C. Stennis, who passed away ear-lier this week.

Senator Stennis served in this Cham-ber for 41 years. His work here included

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5660 April 25, 1995serving as chairman of the SenateArmed Services and the Senate Appro-priations Committees and as Presidentpro tempore of this body.

Among his legislative achievementswas his ability to bend and flow withthe times. Once a staunch segregation-ist, Senator Stennis cast his vote forthe Voting Rights Act of 1982.

One area in which he never changed,however, was in upholding the safetyand security of this great country. Sen-ator Stennis warned against over-extending our military capacity. Healso warned against wasteful defensespending. But he never wavered in hissupport of the country’s national de-fense and ensuring that it maintainedthe military capacity to guarantee ourfreedoms and our liberties.

During his four decades in the U.S.Senate, Senator Stennis was always anabiding example of integrity and for-titude. His respect for the institutionof the Senate and the law of the UnitedStates made him an early opponent ofthe excesses and abuses of Senator JoeMcCarthy. As a result, he and SenatorSam Ervin were named as the twoDemocratic members on the Watkinscommittee that investigated the reck-lessness of Senator McCarthy and ledto his censorship.

In July 1965, the Senate created theSelect Committee on Standards andConduct, the forerunner of our currentSelect Committee on Ethics. This wasa controversial creation, and everyoneknew that whoever chaired it would bein a difficult position. The Senate hadtraditionally relied upon the voters ofa State to discipline a Senator for im-proper behavior, and institutional dis-cipline is a painful problem in an insti-tution that depends on the collegialityof its Members. The only logical choicefor this important and difficult leader-ship position was Senator Stennis. TheMississippi Senator became so success-ful and so respected in this positionthat the committee quickly becameknown as the ‘‘Stennis Committee.’’

Mr. President, the career of SenatorJohn C. Stennis was marked, not onlywith legislative triumphs, but with nu-merous personal triumphs over per-sonal adversity.

In 1973, he was shot by robbers infront of his house and left for dead.

In 1983, his beloved wife of 52 years,Coy Hines Stennis passed away.

In 1984, a battle with cancer resultedin the loss of one of his legs and con-fined him to a wheelchair. While in thehospital recuperating from the surgery,he was visited by the President of theUnited States, Ronald Reagan. Presi-dent Reagan later said that he haddreaded going to the hospital that day,for he feared the impact such a life-al-tering operation would have on afiercely independent man like SenatorStennis. But the President explained,‘‘when I left, it was I who had beenstrengthened.’’

He had been strengthened by the Sen-ator’s confidence, his faith, and his op-timism.

Those qualities defined Senator Sten-nis’ outlook on life. On his Senate deskhe kept a plaque that simply read:‘‘Look Ahead.’’

‘‘That’s my philosophy,’’ he ex-plained. Don’t waste time lamentingthe past. ‘‘You have got to look ahead.I realize that life’s not altogether whatyou make it. But that’s part of it, whatyou make it yourself.’’

Senator Stennis made for himself awonderful life, and the Senate and thecountry can be grateful for it.

When he retired from the Senate inJanuary 1989, Senate Majority LeaderROBERT BYRD called it ‘‘the end of anera.’’ And indeed it was.

Perhaps a greater compliment camefrom a Republican Member of Congressfrom Mississippi, who said, ‘‘We’ll misshim. Even if he’s a Democrat, he’s agreat man.’’

As the Senate Democratic leader, Isay that is a great statement, evenfrom a Republican.

In 1988, Congress established theJohn C. Stennis Center for Public Serv-ice Training at Mississippi State Uni-versity. The center covers a range ofhistorical projects, including an excel-lent oral history program. When a con-gressional historian approached himabout an oral history of his own lifeand career, Senator Stennis initiallyopposed the idea, saying it would betoo self-aggrandizing. The historianproceeded to explain that it was notonly an honor, it was his duty to recordfor posterity his personal account ofthe historic events and decisions inwhich he had been involved.

‘‘Well, sir,’’ responded Senator Sten-nis, ‘‘If you say its my duty, then Imust do it, because I’ve always donemy duty.’’

Indeed he did.It was not only his legislative accom-

plishments—and they were many—forwhich we so loved and remember him,it was also his commitment to God andcountry.

No person who has ever served in theU.S. Senate was ever quicker to tellyou what was wrong with this country.But no person was ever quicker to tellyou what was right about it, either.

Mr. President, Linda and I extend ourmost heartfelt condolences to the fam-ily of John C. Stennis: we share theirgrief and their loss. But we also thankthem for sharing him with us, and Ithank the people of Mississippi for se-lecting him to serve in the Senate forseven terms.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Mississippi.f

SENATOR JOHN C. STENNIS

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I firstwant to commend the distinguishedDemocratic leader for his commentsabout our departed colleague and mygood friend, Senator John C. Stennis.Today, there was a very appropriateeditorial published in the Clarion-Ledger, in Jackson, MS, describing theeffect that Senator Stennis had, by vir-

tue of his service in the Senate, on theState of Mississippi.

I commend the editor for such a finearticle and I ask unanimous consentthat it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articlewas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Clarion-Ledger, Apr. 25, 1995]

JOHN C. STENNIS: INTEGRITY SET STANDARD

FOR CONGRESS

The accomplishments of former U.S. Sen.John C. Stennis could fill pages.

Stennis’ long and full life ended Sunday atage 93, and during the next few days, Mis-sissippians, will hear many of the senator’saccomplishments recounted.

His long and distinguished career in gov-ernment left his mark on many of the poli-cies of the United States, especially in mili-tary matters. There are many institutionsthat bear his name, even an aircraft carrier.

Mississippi is a much different place, and amuch better place, because of the policiesand economic development projects hebrought to the state.

But, all of the political achievements, thethings that most politicians are measuredby, fall short when it comes to Sen. Stennis.

Stennis was, above all else, a man of integ-rity, a true statesman, whose adherence tohonor and code of conduct made him legend-ary in the U.S. Senate, which he loved sodearly.

That is indeed a rare quality, especially inthe mean-spirited politics of today.

Sen. Stennis’ reputation for fairness madehim a trusted colleague and confidant ofpresidents of both parties. He was known asthe ‘‘conscience of the Senate’’ because ofhis high ethical standards and respect for theinstitution.

Throughout his long career, integrity andservice were watchwords. It is appropriatethat, of the institutions that bear his name,the Stennis Center for Public Service at Mis-sissippi State University seeks to encourageyoung people to public service careers.

In his 1947 campaign, Stennis stated a sim-ple creed: ‘‘I want to plow a straight furrowright down to the end of my row.’’

Sen. John C. Stennis succeeded with thatpledge.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I wantto invite the attention of the Senate toa couple of points that are made in thisfine tribute. After talking about manyof the things that Senator Stennis didfor the State the editorial writer thensays:

But, all of the political achievements, thethings that most politicians are measuredby, fall short when it comes to Senator Sten-nis.

Stennis was, above all else, a man of integ-rity, a true statesman, whose adherence tohonor and code of conduct made him legend-ary in the U.S. Senate, which he loved sodearly.

Mr. President, as I was beginning tothink about putting this in the RECORDfor the information of Senators, I real-ized that I sit at the desk that was oc-cupied by Senator Stennis during thetime he served in the Senate.

As you know, there is a traditionhere to put your name in the deskdrawer like schoolboys used to. Sen-ator Stennis’ name is in this deskdrawer which he wrote in there and putthe date that he began service, 1947,and a dash, and never did, of course,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5661April 25, 1995put the date on which his serviceended, which the distinguished Demo-cratic leader pointed out was in 1989.

One other aspect of this desk is thatnot only has it been occupied by manyMississippians over the years, JeffersonDavis, to name one, John Sharp Wil-liams, a very distinguished Senatorwho had served as Democratic leader inthe House before he was elected to theSenate, and then served three terms inthe Senate and probably was one of themost respected national figures of hisday serving in the Congress. And serv-ing from Mississippi it made our Statevery proud. But Senator Stennis occu-pied this desk from 1947—well over 41years, as the Senators know.

But toward the end of his career helost a leg to cancer, and this desk waslocated in the rear of the Chamber. Sohis wheelchair could move right up tothe desk. But he never failed to riseand address the Senate even though hewas confined to the wheelchair and hadonly one leg. He had the carpenters puta special place here where a bar couldbe fitted. There are two holes carvedfor wooden inserts in this desk to holdthat bar. And the bar would rest insidethe desk. Most Senators put the rulebooks of the Senate and a couple ofother reference books in the top oftheir desk. But that had simply a barthere. He would put it there and pullhimself up, and with that one leg standerect to address the Senate because herespected the institution so much, itstraditions, and its customs, alwayspointing out to other Senators that weshould be in order; and having a tre-mendous influence because of his pres-ence in this body.

The Senate is much better off be-cause of his service here. The State ofMississippi is truly blessed to havebeen the State represented in the U.S.Senate by John C. Stennis.

Mr. President, I suggest the absenceof a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.f

IN MEMORY OF THE LATE JOHN C.STENNIS

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I wouldlike to speak for a few minutes thisevening on a subject close to my heart,and that is the memory of our formercolleague, John C. Stennis, who passedaway on Sunday, April 23, at the age of93. Senator Stennis served in this bodyfor over 41 years, from 1947 to 1989.

For a long number of years, as I wasgrowing up and following the activitiesof the Congress of the United States,Senator Stennis was one of my heroes,and that was long before I came to U.S.Senate. John Stennis personified forme the image of what a Senator should

be, and that image inspired me as Iconsidered whether to seek a seat inthe U.S. Senate in the 1972 election.From my first days in the Senate, JohnStennis was a patient mentor, a strongand valuable colleague, and a cherishedfriend.

It has been said that ‘‘Great men arelike eagles, they do not flock together.You find them one at a time, soaringalone, using their skills and strengthsto reach new heights and to seek newhorizons.’’ Such an eagle was JohnStennis.

John Stennis was a Senator’s Sen-ator. He was gentle and courteous inconduct, but tough and strong in con-viction and in character. He was a manof singular purpose and broad vision—yet he was sensitive, very sensitive, tothe needs and the wishes of others.

John Stennis personified the highestideals of honor and integrity withinthe U.S. Senate. Members of the Sen-ate from both parties and from widelydivergent philosophical points of viewtreasured his steadfast leadership, hisfearless courage, his kindness towardothers, his unselfish devotion to publicservice, his love and respect for theU.S. Senate, the Congress, his rev-erence for the U.S. Constitution, andhis unshakable faith in God.

Senator Stennis was an outstandinglawyer and judge before he came to theSenate, and his judicial temperamentmarked every aspect of his Senateservice. Time after time, the Senateturned to him to address the most dif-ficult and divisive issues, such as theconduct of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

When the Senate established the firstSelect Committee on Standards andConduct, which was the predecessor ofthe Ethics Committee, it was only nat-ural that Senator Stennis was selectedas the first chairman. From 1961 to1981, he served as chairman of theArmed Services Committee. As chair-man, he set a standard that all of hissuccessors strive to meet. He was aman of conviction, strong, moral char-acter, and absolute and total courage.Despite much adversity—a life-threat-ening gunshot wound in 1973, rightafter I came to the Senate that tragedyhappened, also the loss in 1983 of his be-loved wife, Miss Coy, and the chal-lenges of serious operations in lateryears, through all of that he served thepeople of Mississippi and the people ofthis Nation with courage and withstrength.

Chairman Stennis was the Senate’spreeminent authority on military af-fairs. His career spanned the period ofthe cold war. He came to the Senate in1947, the year the Marshall plan wasannounced. He left in 1989, the year theBerlin Wall came down. He played avery large role in those events and allthe events in between. He had guidedthis body through the difficult years ofthe post-Vietnam era and through thesubsequent revitalization of America’sArmed Forces.

Senator Stennis consistently sup-ported a strong national defense even

in times when it was not popular to doso. I recall clearly the first few yearsafter I came to the Senate in the early1970’s, when virtually all defense pro-grams were being challenged one afteranother on the Senate floor. SenatorStennis remained in the Chambersteadfast for hours and weeks andsometimes even months while the billwas pending in the Senate, making thecase for maintaining a strong defensefor our Nation.

At the same time, Senator Stenniswas downright intolerant of wasted andmisspent dollars, and he consistentlyopposed those who simply wanted towrite a Pentagon blank check.

Senator Stennis remembered well thelessons of pre-World War II isolation-ism and he constantly opposed the re-curring isolationist impulse, especiallyduring the difficult post-Vietnamyears. He was a rock of support forNATO at a time when there was strongopposition in the country to foreignmilitary alliances. One of the first as-signments he gave me when I got tothe Senate was going to NATO andcoming back and reporting to him onwhat I found there.

Yet he remained skeptical of exces-sive military involvement overseas andhe expressed great concern about theplans for intervention in Vietnam be-fore that intervention occurred. Oncethe Nation was committed to war, how-ever, he always believed that Americanforces should be provided with themeans necessary and the backing to ac-complish the objectives assigned tothem.

It was my privilege to serve with himsince coming to the Senate in 1973until he left in 1989. He was my friend.He was my mentor. He remained myhero. I will miss him, and I will misshis sound advice and wise judgment.During my first campaign for the Sen-ate in 1972, I came to Washington tomeet with Senator Stennis. This wasbefore I was elected in November butafter I had won the Democratic pri-mary. I told him of my strong interestin military affairs, and I asked for hissupport in obtaining a seat on theArmed Services Committee if I shouldbe elected.

I will always be grateful for his as-surances of support and his assistanceonce I arrived, and certainly all of thatplayed a very important part in mySenate career. With his support, I ob-tained a seat on the Committee onArmed Services, and I promptly soughthis advice on how I should fulfill myduties. He told me, and I recall it well,that the best way to learn about theDefense Department and the militaryservices was to deal directly and exten-sively with the men and women in uni-form as well as the civilian employeesof the Department of Defense. He en-couraged me to listen to their adviceand understand their point of view, toremain open and objective but alwaysto at least listen.

He appointed me to be the chairmanof the newly created Manpower and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5662 April 25, 1995Personnel Subcommittee which gaveme the opportunity to follow his advicein a great number of details and withconsiderable amount of time.

Over the years, I listened to andlearned from Senator Stennis as we de-bated the great issues of national secu-rity and other national affairs thatfaced our country in the 1970’s and1980’s, and the lessons learned thenstill apply almost every day in the Sen-ate in the 1990’s. It was a marvelouseducation in the ways of the Senate,the conduct of national security affairsand the Constitution of the UnitedStates.

In 1987, Senator Stennis becamechairman of the Appropriations Com-mittee, and I became chairman of theArmed Services Committee. It was mygood fortune to have him continue tosit on that committee, to be able tobegin my chairmanship with SenatorStennis at my side, because I fre-quently consulted with him and bene-fited from his advice on the problemsand issues that arose under the juris-diction of the Armed Services Commit-tee as well as many other matters thatcame to the floor of the Senate.

When Senator Stennis first came tothis body, he said in his classic directstyle, ‘‘I wish to plow a straight furrowright down to the end of my row.’’There is no doubt he did exactly that.Senator Stennis grew up on a farm andhe knew how difficult it was to plow astraight furrow with a mule. You can-not plow a straight line to your imme-diate goal or mark a stake in the fieldunless you keep your eye on the dis-tant point that establishes your sightline. That is the way John Stennislived. He staked out his immediategoals, but he always kept his eye onthe distant goal, the values and prin-ciples that enabled him to plow astraight furrow right to the end of therow.

Mr. President, I also remember wellhis advice to me when I came to theSenate. I hope I never will forget this.He said, ‘‘Sam, some new Senatorsgrow and some simply swell. Make sureyou continue to grow.’’

Mr. President, no higher honor hascome my way than serving in the Sen-ate with John Stennis. When he retireda few years back, I said then it washard for me to imagine the Senatewithout John Stennis at his desk. It isnow hard for me to imagine the Nationwithout the benefit of his talent, coun-sel, and his sterling example. We willmiss him. We will all miss him. But hislegacy of integrity and devoted serviceto the country will inspire the Senateand the Nation and young people par-ticularly for generations to come.

Mr. President, Colleen, my wife, andI extend our sympathies to his son,John Hampton Stennis, his daughter,Mrs. Margaret Stennis Womble, and toall of his grandchildren and greatgrandchildren, indeed, to all of his fam-ily and his friends, and we thank thepeople of Mississippi for sending thisgiant to the Senate for the number of

years that he served. The people ofMississippi and the people of this Na-tion can be very proud of Senator Sten-nis. He will be remembered in historyas one of the giants of the Senate. Aslong as there is a Senate, John Stenniswill be remembered for his service, forhis integrity, and for his character.

I thank the Chair.Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from South Carolina.JOHN STENNIS—A LIFETIME OF SERVICE

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I wishto pay honor today to one of the greatSenators of this century, JohnCornelius Stennis. His roots began atthe turn of the century as a youngfarmboy, in the fertile soil of KemperCounty, MS. And while his subsequentcareer was to take him to far awayplaces, and to positions of great honorin our Nation’s Government, his be-loved home country was never far fromhis mind. Second only to service to hisNation, his dedication to the State ofMississippi was legendary.

He had amassed a distinguishedrecord a public service, even beforecoming to the Senate in 1947. A PhiBetta Kappa law school graduate, heserved as a State Representative, dis-trict attorney, and State circuit courtjudge. But it was here in the Senatewhere we shall best remember him. Formore than 42 years, this Nation had thebenefit of his wisdom and his guidance.He was the epitome of a Southern gen-tleman, and fairness and integrity wereconstants in his conduct. It was nomere happenstance that he was ourfirst chairman of the Select Committeeon Standards and Conduct. He was fordecades the foremost guardian of ourNation’s defense, forcefully and relent-lessly pursuing strong defense pro-grams throughout the Cold War years.His credentials as ‘‘Mr. Defense’’ madeeven more remarkable his misgivingsand warnings to the Nation on involve-ment in combat in Vietnam, and hewas a major author of our first warpowers legislation. Chairman of ArmedServices, chairman of Appropriations,President Pro Tem—his achievementshere on this floor and in this body havebeen equaled by few.

And who among us who knew himwill ever forget his quiet courage? Hequietly brushed aside the impacts ofbeing shot and robbed while walkinghome. Years later, after loosing a legto cancer, he refused to yield to adver-sity—always rising to address thisbody, exuding dignity and determina-tion with every action.

John Stennis was a patriot—a states-man—a Senator in the finest traditionsof the word. He was one of the greatlions of our assembly, and we will misshim. I read today where he once re-sponded to a question about how hewould like to be remembered. He saidhe hoped that one could say of himthat ‘‘He did his best.’’ Well, that hedid. And his best will serve as a re-minder and a standard to all of us, forgenerations to come.

Mr. President, the distinguished Sen-ator from Georgia has touched on itwhen he said I wish to hoe a straightfurrow right down the field, that wasJohn Stennis. I can hear him now. Hehad those sayings about not swellingbut growing in experience. The rev-erence and respect at that particulartime was for Senators listening andlearning and profiting from experience.Now the pledge is when you come totown you are not going to listen toanybody; you have a contract. You aregoing to vote for it. And by the way, donot give me any of your experience be-cause in 6 years I am gone. It is an en-tirely different atmosphere.

And when you see, as the Senatorfrom Georgia has said in such eloquentterms, one of the finest, I am just deep-ly moved.

John Stennis and I became very closeamid serving on committees together,particularly the Appropriations Com-mittee later on.

But his family—the Peden clan—wasfrom Fountain Inn, SC, where Mr. Quil-len was born and other persons of emi-nence.

Invariably he would come back toSouth Carolina for the annual Pedenclan reunion.

I figured, like the Senator from Geor-gia, that he was my sort of patron andleader. I listened to him many a time.I can tell you this. John Stennis was aman of this institution. We have Sen-ator BYRD, who really reveres the Sen-ate as an institution. John Stennis re-vered the U.S. Senate as an institution.

And as much as we liked each otherand as close friends as we were, when Iwas chairman of the Budget Commit-tee, he followed it very, very closely.When I was chairman back in 1980, hewould say, ‘‘Fritz, you’re right. Wehave to somehow pay our bills. We areeating our seed corn.’’ He would makea little talk on the floor, not only withrespect to military affairs, with tre-mendous authority, but with respect tofiscal matters.

And later on, when I was not thechairman of the committee, but Italked to him and tried to get a votewith respect to that budget, he wouldsay, ‘‘I’m sticking with the chairman. Iknow how you feel about this, but wehave got to stay with the chairman.’’

I can hear him now. He was an insti-tution man. And that says a lot for thestability of the body and the courtesyhere and the ethics that we have. Heset the highest standard of anybody Ihave ever known.

I will never forget the afternoon hewas shot. Invariably, we would get to-gether down at the gym there at thistime, 6:30 going on 7 o’clock, and get aworkout. He said, ‘‘You’ve got to try tokeep up with Strom.’’ That is my sen-ior Senator. He said, ‘‘You will find ifyou stay in good physical shape, youwill be able to keep up with Strom.’’

We would work out. They had thiswheel that you get down on your kneesand you go forward and pull it back-ward and forward, and everything else.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5663April 25, 1995He was on that wheel the afternoon hewas shot. He left, if I remember cor-rectly, about 6:15 and he was shotabout 6:30 or 6:45.

He later related, when I went to seehim, he said:

You know, I’m lucky. These fellows toldme they wanted money and I did not haveany money. And I said, ‘‘Take my watch,anything else, my ring.’’

And they cursed him and just firedfive shots into his middle, his stomach,pancreas, and lungs—his insides.

He walked up to his house and talkedto Miss Coy, Mrs. Stennis, his wife. Hesaid, ‘‘Call an ambulance and call Wal-ter Reed.’’

The ambulance came. And as theylifted him up, he remembered wellhearing the chief of police, who hadreached the home at that time, saying,‘‘All right, take him over to GeorgeWashington Hospital.’’ He raised up onthat stretcher—the last he ever re-membered, he said, prior to coming tosome 9 hours later—and said, ‘‘Take meto Walter Reed. They are waiting forme there.’’

He said that was the real fortunatepart, because when he got to WalterReed, they had two Army surgeons whohad finished a 2-week lecture course tothe Army surgeons around the countryon bullet wounds and shrapnel woundsand battlefield surgery and that kindof thing, particularly with respect tothe loss of blood.

His operation took 9 hours. I willnever forget him saying that. He said,‘‘Had they not had that hard experi-ence of when to stop and replenish andwhen to move forward * * * ’’ They hadto sew up all his innards or he wouldhave been long since gone.

He came back and, as Senator NUNNpoints out, he did not slow down at all.Later, when the cancer got his legs, hedid not.

As Senator COCHRAN pointed out—who sits at the Stennis desk—he be-lieved in this institution. He attendedregularly all the sessions. He attendedthese debates.

I think television has ruined us all.Perhaps some would listen back intheir offices. But you do not have theopen exchange in the most deliberativebody. You are here and get quips thatstaff gives you. They have prepared re-marks and they run out and theRECORD is full and it appears it is a de-liberative effort. Not at all.

Senator Stennis did not like that,and he said so. He attended the de-bates. He attended all the votes and hekept going until the very, very end.

Unfortunately, he was not as con-scious and alert as he could have beenthe last few years. I wanted to go tosee him, but my staff who worked inti-mately with him on the Armed Serv-ices Committee and later on on the Ap-propriations Committee, said that,‘‘Poor John would not recognize youright now.’’

So he has gone to his just rewardafter the most distinguished career inthe U.S. Senate of over 41 years.

He was a Senator’s Senator if thereever was one in this body. He was notonly, as pointed out, an outstandingauthority on military affairs, but hehad that fundamental feel of payingthe bills and being straightforward inhis treatment here with all the Sen-ators and setting the highest standardof ethical conduct that you could pos-sibly imagine.

We need that inspiration today that,unfortunately, we do not have. We areall going to miss him very, very badly.

I am sorry tomorrow I cannot be atthe session relative to the continueddebate on product liability. I want toattend those services. But we will beback here at 4:45.

But it is good that we have those whohave served with him and rememberhim so well that will be there and bewith his family. His daughter retiredfirst in Charleston, where her husbandwas the dean at the College of Charles-ton and later up in Greenville, SC. SoI am looking forward to seeing thatfamily.

But I will never forget the inspira-tion he has given for all of us who haveserved with him to continue to serve.

I yield the floor.Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll.Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

f

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I amgoing to submit a unanimous-consentwhich I believe has been cleared byboth sides of the aisle.

I ask unanimous consent that therebe 60 minutes of debate equally dividedbetween Senators ABRAHAM and HOL-LINGS, with debate to begin at 5 p.m. onWednesday, April 26, on amendmentNo. 598, and that following the debateon the Hollings amendment the Senateproceed to a vote on or in relation tothe Hollings amendment, to be fol-lowed immediately by a vote on or inrelation to the Abraham amendmentNo. 597, as amended, if amended.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. GORTON. I further ask unani-mous consent that the pending Abra-ham amendment be laid aside in orderthat an amendment by Senator BROWNbe offered, regarding rule 11.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. GORTON. I further ask that fol-lowing the two stacked votes, the Sen-ate then resume consideration of theBrown amendment, and that followingthe disposition of the Brown amend-ment, Senator DOLE be recognized tooffer his amendment on the subject ofpunitive damages.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

f

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for theinformation of all Senators, Membersshould be aware that there will be tworollcall votes at approximately 6 p.m.on Wednesday. Senators interested inspeaking on any of these issues orother issues related to product liabilityor legal reform should be prepared tospeak throughout the day on Wednes-day.

AMENDMENT NO. 599 TO AMENDMENT NO. 596

(Purpose: To restore to rule 11 of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure the restrictionson frivolous legal actions that existedprior to 1994)

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I sendthe Brown amendment to the desk andask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mr. GOR-TON], for Mr. BROWN, proposes an amendmentnumbered 599 to amendment No. 596.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:At the appropriate place, insert the follow-

ing new section:SEC. . REPRESENTATIONS AND SANCTIONS

UNDER RULE 11 FEDERAL RULES OFCIVIL PROCEDURE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Rule 11 of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(3) by striking out ‘‘or,if specifically so identified, are likely tohave evidentiary support after a reasonableopportunity for further investigation or dis-covery’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘or arewell grounded in fact’’; and

(2) in subsection (c)—(A) in the first sentence by striking out

‘‘may, subject to the conditions statedbelow,’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘shall’’;

(B) in paragraph (2) by striking out thefirst and second sentences and inserting inlieu thereof the following: ‘‘A sanction im-posed for violation of this rule may consistof reasonable attorneys’ fees and other ex-penses incurred as a result of the violation,directives of a nonmonetary nature, or anorder to pay penalty into court or to aparty.’’; and

(C) in paragraph (2)(A) by inserting beforethe period ‘‘, although such sanctions may beawarded against a party’s attorneys’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The provisions ofthis section shall take effect 30 days afterthe date of the enactment of this Act.

f

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of theUnited States were communicated tothe Senate by Mr. Thomas, one of hissecretaries.

f

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session the PresidingOfficer laid before the Senate messagesfrom the President of the United

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5664 April 25, 1995States submitting sundry nominationswhich were referred to the appropriatecommittees.

(The nominations received today areprinted at the end of the Senate pro-ceedings.)f

EXECUTIVE AND OTHERCOMMUNICATIONS

The following communications werelaid before the Senate, together withaccompanying papers, reports, and doc-uments, which were referred as indi-cated:

EC–712. A communication from the Sec-retary of Agriculture, transmitting a draft ofproposed legislation to recover costs of car-rying out Federal marketing agreements andorders; to the Committee on Agriculture,Nutrition, and Forestry.

EC–713. A communication from the UnderSecretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuantto law, the report of a violation of theAntideficiency Act, case number 93–2; to theCommittee on Appropriations.

EC–714. A communication from the UnderSecretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuantto law, the report of a violation of theAntideficiency Act, case number 94–05; to theCommittee on Appropriations.

f

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OFCOMMITTEES

The following executive reports ofcommittees were submitted:

By Mrs. KASSEBAUM, from the Commit-tee on Labor and Human Resources:

Harriet M. Zimmerman, of Florida, to be amember of the Board of Directors of theUnited States Institute of Peace for a termexpiring January 19, 1999, vice William R.Kintner, term expired.

The above nomination was reportedwith the recommendation that she beconfirmed, subject to the nominee’scommitment to respond to requests toappear and testify before any duly con-stituted committee of the Senate.f

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS ANDJOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolu-tions were introduced, read the firstand second time by unanimous con-sent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr.NUNN, and Mr. KERREY):

S. 722. A bill to amend the Internal Reve-nue Code of 1986 to restructure and replacethe income tax system of the United Statesto meet national priorities, and for otherpurposes; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. BAUCUS:S. 723. A bill entitled the ‘‘Badger-Two

Medicine Protection Act’’; to the Committeeon Energy and Natural Resources.

By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr.SPECTER):

S. 724. A bill to authorize the Adminis-trator of the Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention Programs to makegrants to States and units of local govern-ment to assist in providing secure facilitiesfor violent and chronic juvenile offenders,and for other purposes; to the Committee onthe Judiciary.

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself,Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. DOR-GAN, and Mr. WELLSTONE):

S. 725. A bill to amend title 38, UnitedStates Code, to extend certain authoritiesrelating to the provision of community-based health care by the Department of Vet-erans Affairs, and for other purposes; to theCommittee on Veterans’ Affairs.

f

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCEDBILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself,Mr. NUNN, and Mr. KERREY):

S. 722. A bill to amend the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 to restructureand replace the income tax system ofthe United States to meet national pri-orities, and for other purposes; to theCommittee on Finance.

USA TAX ACT

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, todayfor Senator NUNN and myself, this is avery exciting day because—after morethan 2 years of study, research, andtremendous help from a lot of peopleand a lot of experts—we are todaygoing to introduce a totally new in-come tax law for this land, both as toindividuals and corporations.

Today we are going to introduce a to-tally new Tax Code. We will explain itto the Senate and the American peoplefor the next 40 or 50 minutes. And it isour hope, since we have gone to ex-treme lengths to develop a totally newtax code in all respects —and indeed wewill today introduce that totally newtax code—which will replace and getrid of the current income tax system inits totality both as to corporations,businesses and individuals in the Unit-ed States.

We are hopeful that this documentwill begin a serious debate and thatthis approach, which we will explaintoday, will find its rightful place veryhigh on anyone’s list as they look atthe needs of the United States for thefuture.

Before I go to my prepared remarks,let me suggest that for the Senatorfrom New Mexico these are very excit-ing times because I believe the visionthat most of us have is for a betterAmerica, for a better America for ourchildren, a more competitive Americawith more good solid high-paying jobsfor which we can train and educate ourpeople and provide them with an oppor-tunity for a satisfactory and happy lifefrom the standpoint of material well-being.

The two things that haunt us in ourefforts as leaders who say we are goingto do our best to provide that forAmerica are the enormous amount ofdebt that we incur in our Federal budg-et processes because we refuse to find away to pay for the programs and ac-tions of the Federal Government ratherthan to borrow for them. Thus we gob-ble up huge amounts of savings of U.S.citizens and corporate savings just topay that debt, thus minimizing our fu-ture growth potential and increasinginterest rates dramatically, and in avery real way diminish the productiv-ity of our country.

The second thing is that we have aU.S. Tax Code that instead of promot-

ing and prompting savings and invest-ment is actually a disincentive to both.Instead of saying to the American peo-ple and American corporations we wantyou to invest more, we want you tosave more, we have a Tax Code thatsays just the opposite. If you do eitherof those things, you are penalizedunder the American Tax Code; that is,the savings or investment. If you spendyour money, in a sense you only paytaxes on that money which you spendonce.

We very much hope in our new bill tocreate a level playing field from thedate that it is adopted by the U.S. Con-gress forward, a level field in that peo-ple have a real choice as between in-vesting and saving some of their dis-posable income and spending it. And asto American corporations, we hope wewill greatly simplify the process bywhich they pay taxes to their countryand at the same time dramatically en-courage capital investment as com-pared with a Tax Code today which pe-nalizes that.

So in order to get where we want togo, you have to know how to get there.This is common sense. The advice for atraveler seeking a destination and for anation that is in quest of its destiny,and when leaders talk about their vi-sion for the future, they invariablyspeak of creating a higher standard ofliving, better-paying jobs, and strongereconomic growth. We do not do that orsay that just because those are nicesounding words, but because they areindeed at the heart and soul of whatAmerica ought to offer to its peoplewhen we say this is a land of oppor-tunity. We know where we want to go.But how do we get there?

The challenge facing the Americaneconomy, and those who work, thosewho invest, those who start companies,and those who continue companies in aprosperous way, the challenge facingthem and the best way to improve theNation’s prosperity, in almost every-one’s opinion, is to increase savingsand investment.

When Americans save, they are real-ly investing in America, and our TaxCode should reflect that national prior-ity. Our major trading partners encour-age in their tax codes savings, and soshould we. There are many causes ofinadequate private savings and invest-ment, and I have already indicatedthat our inability to develop a budgetyear by year and over decades, wherebywe pay for what we give our citizens in-stead of borrowing to give to them, isone very serious way that we do notsave, or use our savings to pay for ourprofligacy.

The other very serious problem andperhaps most important is the dis-incentive in our Nation’s tax policies.The Federal Income Tax Code is un-American in spirit and wrong in prin-ciple because it levies a double tax ondividends and taxes savings. It discour-ages risk taking, entrepreneurship, and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5665April 25, 1995the creation of jobs. It is hostile to sav-ings and investment and tilted towardconsumption. It adds one-third to thecost of capital. It favors debt over eq-uity financing. It encourages corporatemanagement to neglect long-term in-vestment in favor of focusing on short-term profits.

The way a country taxes its peopledeeply influences its potential for eco-nomic growth and thus for prosperity.

Our current code penalizes savings bytaxing income when it is earned andthen taxing interest and dividends thatare generated by the initial invest-ment. When an activity is penalized inthe Tax Code, it stands to reason thatit influences behavior. Taxpayers doless of those disfavored activities, andthe current code is doing a good job ofdiscouraging savings. Americans areonly saving 2.8 percent of GDP.

This lack of savings leads to a short-age of investment which in turn leadsto insufficient growth, stagnating in-comes, and the loss of high-wage jobs.

The Congressional Budget Director,Robert Reischauer, testified before theSenate Budget Committee earlier thisyear. The report accompanying his tes-timony cautioned, and I quote:

. . . the best way for the nation to preparefor [the] future is to save and invest morenow. Greater investment, the main engine ofgrowth, would enlarge the future economicpie. . . Investment in turn, fundamentallydepends upon the available pool of saving,whether private (personal and corporate) orGovernment (federal, state and local).

Our current Tax Code taxes capitalgains far higher than our competitors.We have created a ‘‘backdoor’’ capitalgains differential by raising the toppersonal income tax rate to 39.6 per-cent but keeping the top rate on cap-ital gains at 28. Thus, if we have anycapital gains differential, it is that,and it is quite by accident and sort ofa backdoor.

The differential is subpar when com-pared to our competitors, be it Malay-sia, South Korea, Taiwan, or Belgium.They do not tax capital gains at all.Germany does not tax capital gains onassets held longer than 6 months. Can-ada, France, and Japan tax capitalgains at rates from 16 to 20 percent.

Our current Tax Code is far too com-plex. The tax industry absorbs more re-sources than the gross domestic prod-uct of a country like Ireland. Compa-nies complain about the IRS agentsbeing permanently housed in their cor-porate headquarters, and the IRS isyears behind in their auditing. Othersperversely brag about needingsupercomputers to calculate certainforeign tax computations.

As our Supreme Court Justice PotterStewart noted: ‘‘Our economy is ‘taxrelevant’ in almost every detail.’’Taxes have become an increasingly im-portant factor in investment decisionsas other barriers to international cap-ital flows have disappeared.

The philosophy of the USA tax Sen-ator NUNN and I introduce today is totax income that is not saved or in-

vested rather than to tax all incomethat is earned.

The best way to achieve a prosperousdestiny for our country is to improvethe Nation’s productivity through sus-tained investment by the private sec-tor. Job creation is especially depend-ent on new products entering new mar-kets, and we all know this. This doesnot happen automatically. It requireshard work and competition, and to agreat extent investments that must befinanced with equity capital.

Our tax proposal is a quest for thebest tax system we can develop, onethat should vastly expand the pool ofsavings and achieve significant sim-plicity in the bargain. We estimatethat of the 700 Internal Revenue Codesections, over 75 percent would dis-appear and be eliminated with theadoption of our proposed code.

The USA tax base is total gross do-mestic product. The business tax andthe individual tax are two parts of asingle tax on a single tax base. Thebusiness tax is intended to be the firstin a two-step tax collection process.The business tax would begin withgross domestic product—the sum of allgoods and services produced and soldby all businesses together, minus, inorder to avoid double taxation, thosethings that they have bought from oneanother.

The first taxable event would takeplace when businesses create income byproducing and selling goods and serv-ices; the second taxable event, when in-dividuals receive income, net of thebusiness tax, in the form of wages, sal-aries, interest, dividends, and similardistributions to the owners of business.

This is a new Tax Code. This is a to-tally new approach to taxing events inour economic life. It is not a concept.It is a totally new Tax Code built ontwo concepts and greatly simplifieswhat we have.

Now, at this point, while I have moreto say, Senator NUNN and I have ampletime and I am going to yield to myfriend from Georgia and first saythanks to him for all the work he hasdone and for the people he has broughtinto this fold who have helped us putthis together.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Georgia [Mr. NUNN], is recog-nized.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I think myfriend from New Mexico has explainedvery well the current Tax Code and allof its problems and what it is doing toAmericans’ competitive position in theworld and, most importantly, what itis doing to the real income of theAmerican people.

This bill that we are introducingtoday had its origin several years agowhen the two of us, on a bipartisanbasis, one Democrat and one Repub-lican, had the privilege of chairing theCSIS Strengthening of America Com-mission. The plan that our Commissionreleased a little over 2 years ago, andthat Senator DOMENICI and I cochairedwith a number of other people from

around the country as key members ofthat panel, was just that. It was a planto strengthen our Nation, to strength-en our country, to strengthen our peo-ple, to strengthen our economy, and tostrengthen our competitive position inthe world.

That plan had three key elements.The first element was to get our fiscalhouse in order by embarking on a long-term plan to balance the budget. Andwe proposed that plan without usingthe Social Security surplus as we dotoday, without relying on any kind ofdynamic scoring, without a constitu-tional amendment, and without a line-item veto. We proposed a plan thatwould lock in spending restraints first,before raising new revenues.

We have a long way to go to imple-ment that plan. The Senator from NewMexico and I have struggled in thisChamber for several years trying to getcaps on entitlement programs, and Isuspect he will be leading the chargeagain this year as chairman of theBudget Committee.

The key to this part of our plan iscontrolling the growth of entitlementprograms, as most of us who have stud-ied it understand, but which neitherCongress nor any administration,Democratic or Republican, has beenprepared to do.

The second element, which my friendfrom New Mexico and I are here to talkabout today, and a very important partof this overall plan, was to completelyreplace the individual and corporateincome Tax Code of this country andcreate in its place a tax code that pro-motes savings and investment, ratherthan discouraging savings and invest-ment, as does our current Tax Code.

The third element of our plan was aninvestment strategy that called for im-proved job training and apprenticeshipprograms to strengthen the workplace;national service; selected investmentsin infrastructure, including the so-called information highway; adequatefunding for programs to help youngchildren start school ready to learn,such as immunizations and Head Start;and a system of national educationalstandards. Some progress has alreadybeen made on many aspects of thisthird element of the Strengthening ofAmerica plan, thanks to the leadershipof President Clinton, who has workedvery hard on these areas, both beforeand since he became President.

The Commission was not saying thatGovernment alone can solve our Na-tion’s problems. In the final analysis,only the American people—workingthrough their Government, but moreimportantly working in their own com-munities—can strengthen America.These three elements, however—bal-ancing the budget, reforming the Fed-eral Tax Code, and making the neededinvestments in our future—representthe action items for the federal govern-ment. Government cannot do it alone,but if Government does not do its part,we will never get our economic housein order.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5666 April 25, 1995Even though the proposed constitu-

tional balanced budget amendment didnot pass the Congress this year, I be-lieve the Congress will still undertakea serious statutory effort this year tobegin to balance at least the unifiedFederal budget. I expect my colleaguefrom New Mexico will be one of thereal leaders in that effort. While that isa laudable goal, and I have supportedthe constitutional balanced budgetamendment every time the Senate hasvoted on it, I still believe, and ourCommission concluded, that we need todo more than that. We need to balancethe budget excluding the Social Secu-rity surplus.

The constitutional amendment wevoted on earlier this year would havecontinued to use the Social Securitysurplus as an offset to the operatingdeficit in the rest of the budget, whichmeans that this surplus would continueto be used to pay current bills ratherthan to prepare to pay for the retire-ment of the baby boom generation. Asmy colleague from Nebraska, SenatorKERREY, has made abundantly clear,we are facing—or rather, we are failingto face up to—a real crisis when theSocial Security trust fund begins torun annual deficits instead of sur-pluses.

The two most difficult tasks theCommission identified as the keys toputting our Nation’s fiscal house inorder—balancing the budget and re-forming the Federal Tax Code—arestill awaiting action. Today my col-league from New Mexico and I are in-troducing legislation that has been inthe works for quite awhile. It hastaken a good bit of time, more than weoriginally anticipated, because thislegislation would implement the mostrevolutionary part of the Commission’splan, and that is the complete replace-ment of the current individual and cor-porate Federal income tax.

THE TIME HAS COME FOR FUNDAMENTALREFORM

The House of Representatives, aspart of their Contract With America,has already passed and sent to the Sen-ate a bill that proposes to change sev-eral components of the current TaxCode—additional child care tax credits;expanded IRA proposals; increased de-preciation of investments; and a lowertax rate on capital gains—without at-tempting fundamental reform of theTax Code. This is an incremental, busi-ness-as-usual approach.

Senator DOMENICI and I, along withother people on the StrengtheningCommission, concluded that tinkeringwith our Tax Code will not get the jobdone. Our fear is that incrementalchanges, however well intentioned, willcomplicate an already Byzantine TaxCode without yielding the increasedsavings and investment we all seek.Helping working families is a worthygoal, but without steady economicgrowth there is little that child caretax credits can do to help the middleclass permanently raise its standard ofliving. Unlocking old capital is impor-

tant, but it is crucial that we also cre-ate new savings and investment.

My colleague from New Mexico and Ibelieve there is a better way. Today,Senator DOMENICI and I are introduc-ing, along with Senators KERREY andBENNETT, the USA Tax Act of 1995, acomprehensive tax reform proposalthat we believe represents the best wayto accomplish everything the other re-form proposals—both the incrementalapproach the House has passed, as wellas the other proposals to replace thecurrent income tax—are trying to ac-complish, and much more. We welcomedebate, comments, suggestions, andconstructive criticism on this legisla-tion.

Our tax system, Mr. President, needsmore than a Band-Aid. It needs a trans-plant. If we are serious about our Na-tion’s future, we have to scrap the cur-rent tax system and put in its place asystem that will work for our peopleand for our country.

Over the past 2 years, Senator DO-MENICI and I and others have beenworking on the details of such a sys-tem, the USA Tax System that we areintroducing today. We call it the USATax System because USA stands forunlimited savings allowance, which isthe key, fundamental part of this pro-posal. We believe it represents a fun-damental change in the way Americataxes itself, the way America saves,and the way America invests.

What do we mean by a tax systemthat works? We mean a system that en-courages savings and investment. Wemean a system that is perceived to befair and is fair. We mean a system thatis understandable. We mean a systemthat reduces the complexity of payingtaxes for ordinary Americans by takingless time, fewer forms, and fewer dol-lars to comply with. We mean a systemthat is attuned to the internationalcompetitive realities and gives U.S.companies and their employees achance to compete fairly in the globalmarketplace, which we do not havetoday.

We mean a tax system that is fiscallyresponsible. There is no point in creat-ing a system that increases the privatesector component of the national sav-ings with one hand, while further re-ducing the public sector component ofnational savings, by increasing the def-icit, with the other hand. We do not in-tend to increase the deficit under thisproposal.

Our plan is intended to be revenueneutral. And I would say from the out-set, if the official estimates indicatethat this is not revenue neutral, oneway or another that there will be ad-justments made so that it will indeedbe revenue neutral.

When Senator DOMENICI and I beganadvocating our concept of a completeoverhaul of the Tax Code 3 years ago,the prospect of fundamental reform ap-peared to be several years off at best.Today, however, the clock has movedup. It is clear that, while we are justbeginning the process of debating how

to change the Tax Code, there is al-ready a broad consensus in this coun-try and in this Congress that fun-damental reform is necessary.

In addition to our USA proposal,there are already two other proposalsto completely replace the current in-come tax code being discussed—a flattax and a national sales tax. In thecoming months, all these proposals,and perhaps others as well, are likelyto be discussed and examined. I amhopeful that as early as next year, Con-gress will attempt to enact one of theseproposals. We welcome this debate, andwe are introducing this legislationtoday to make sure that our proposalis fully included in this important na-tional debate.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SAVING

Mr. President, we believe the centralgoal of any reform of our tax systemshould be to raise the level of nationalsavings. We are proposing a tax systemthat we believe is smarter, and betterfor all taxpayers, because it removesthe current bias in our Tax Codeagainst the saving and investment thatis the key to higher living standards.Higher savings, Mr. President, lead tomore investment. More investmentmeans that we have more productivityfrom American workers. The more pro-ductivity we have from our workers,the more competitive we are in theinternational arena. The more com-petitive we are in the internationalarena, the better jobs we have. The bet-ter jobs we have, the higher income wehave as Americans.

That is a very important chain. Thatis the bottom line. The bottom line, inother words, is what happens to thereal income of the American people inthe future. There is a direct connectionbetween how much we save and thereal income of American people. Thatis the direct connection that we haveto make sure our country understands.If we cannot make that connection inthe American mind, there is no pointin talking about a fundamental reformof the tax system. If they do agree thatthis proposition is true, then I thinkthere is a tremendous opportunity hereto make the fundamental changes weare proposing.

There is a direct connection betweensavings and higher real income for ourpeople. That is the essence of our pro-posed USA Tax System.

The national savings rate in theUnited States is lower than that of anyof our major competitors. In the 1980’s,our savings rate dropped to an averageof 3.6 percent, half the level of the1960’s and 1970’s, and far below the com-parable figures of 10 percent in Ger-many and 18 percent in Japan. In thefirst 5 years of this decade, 1990 to 1994,the U.S. savings rate has fallen almost50 percent from the already low levelsof the 1980’s, to just 2.1 percent.

Without increased savings and in-vestment, we cannot raise our long-term standard of living, meet our fi-nancial obligations, and build a better

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5667April 25, 1995society for today and for the genera-tions that follow. The United Statescannot continue to be the major com-petitive force in the world if othercountries continue outsaving us andoutinvesting us. It simply cannot hap-pen over a long period of time. That isfundamental.

It is often said that the best way toincrease national saving is to reducethe Federal budget deficit. I agree withthat proposition. The Strengthening ofAmerica Commission concluded weneeded to do just that, but that weneeded to do more. We not only need toreduce the share of our national sav-ings being soaked up by the Federalbudget deficit—we also need more sav-ings. And we believe our proposal canturn the Tax Code from a major road-block to higher savings into an impor-tant tool to promote higher savings.

I do not believe anybody could arguethat the Tax Code is not used to en-courage socially desirable behavior.Would anybody argue that the deduc-tions for home mortgage interest andcharitable contributions that havebeen in the Tax Code for decades do notencourage home ownership and dona-tions to charities? Yet the current TaxCode not only fails to encourage pri-vate saving, which is vital to our fu-ture, it actually discourages it. Yetthere is no doubt that future genera-tions will not have the same level ofentitlement benefits from the Govern-ment that we have today. Our presententitlement programs are not sustain-able at their current growth rates.That means that Americans are goingto have to save more, to take more per-sonal responsibility for their own fu-tures.

That is why our Strengthening ofAmerica report contained a plan toboth balance the budget by reformingentitlement programs and to reformthe Tax Code to promote greater per-sonal savings. We need to get the TaxCode working for us, not against us, toget people to once again adopt thementality of savers who think abouttomorrow as well as today. We need tostart an education process in this coun-try to make saving a national issue—not just a tax issue. People need to un-derstand the fundamental importanceof saving, both for their own future andfor America’s future. We literally andfiguratively must save America.

The heart of our proposal, Mr. Presi-dent, is the unlimited savings allow-ance, or USA. That is why we call itthe USA Tax System. In essence, it al-lows individuals a deduction for theportion of income they save, and allowsbusinesses to expense their new invest-ments when they make them ratherthan depreciating them over a long pe-riod of time. If Americans want toconsume more, both now and in the fu-ture, then America must save more andinvest more. These new deductions forsavings and investment will providethe impetus for higher economicgrowth, higher productivity, higherpaying jobs, and a higher living stand-ard for all of us. I think a higher living

standard for all Americans is the ulti-mate test of fairness.

THE USA TAX SYSTEM IS A SINGLE TAX IN TWOPARTS

The USA proposal consists of a sin-gle, integrated tax in two parts: a pro-gressive tax on individual incomes, anda low, flat rate tax on all businesses.These two parts are meant to work to-gether. It is important that people nottry to consider the two parts sepa-rately, because if they do they will notgrasp the significance of the whole con-cept. It is a single tax levied in twoplaces: at the business level wherewealth is created and at the individuallevel where wealth is received.

This proposal allows an unlimited de-duction at the business level for capitalinvestment and, more important, itpermits all citizens an unlimited de-duction for the amount of their annualincome they save and invest. The USATax System directly and systemati-cally addresses our saving and invest-ment problem.

To the individual, our system says,‘‘If you choose to defer some of yourconsumption in favor of saving incomefor your future and the future of yourchildren, the Tax Code will not penal-ize you for doing so.’’

And to the business enterprise,whether very small or very large, man-ufacturing, service, or agricultural, theUSA Tax System says, ‘‘If you chooseto invest your profits in a new machineor a new process that will help yougrow and put more people to work, theTax Code will help you.’’ The USA TaxSystem, by its very nature, would alignthe way we tax with our common de-sire to provide our children with a bet-ter tomorrow.

Mr. President, I will not go into de-tail on the individual and businesscomponent.

But there are other parts of the pro-posal that I think need some emphasisthis morning.

THE INDIVIDUAL TAX

Let me describe the key features ofthe individual part of our proposalfirst. The individual tax would functionin a manner similar to that of the cur-rent income tax. From your gross in-come, you would make subtractions be-fore you figure your tax, just as you donow. You would subtract personal ex-emptions, a new family living allow-ance, a new savings allowance, and alimited number of itemized deductions.Gross income would include wages, sal-aries, interest, dividends, earningswithdrawn from unincorporated busi-nesses, proceeds from asset sales—basi-cally the same concept of income wehave today.

First, the USA proposal contains afamily living allowance that is similarto the current standard deduction ex-cept that it is in addition to any item-ized deductions, not an alternative toitemized deductions. This family livingallowance exempts the first dollarsspent on consumption from taxation,because we know that people in low in-come brackets spend a higher propor-

tion of their incomes on necessitiesthan people in high income brackets.

In addition to the family living al-lowance, you would have personal ex-emptions just as you do under currentlaw. A family of four filing a joint re-turn would have its first $17,600 of in-come exempt from taxation by addingthis family living allowance to its fourpersonal exemptions.

THE UNLIMITED SAVINGS ALLOWANCE

In addition to these deductions, therewould be a new deduction for theamount of income that is saved calledthe unlimited savings allowance. Wedefine savings in this proposal as netnew savings. That is key. If you add tothe national savings pool, you woulddeduct that money before you paytaxes. In other words, to make it sim-ple, if someone makes $40,000 a yearand saves $5,000, they would pay taxeson $35,000, instead of today payingtaxes before the savings on the entire$40,000. That is fundamental. We en-courage people to save.

The unlimited savings allowance issimilar to the IRA concept, but it isunlimited. It is not limited to $2,000 orany other dollar amount. It is not lim-ited to saving for retirement. But it isfor net new savings. We do not give adeduction for merely shifting savingsaround. That has always been one ofthe problems with the IRA.

The unlimited savings allowance isfundamentally different from the cur-rent Tax Code, which penalizes savings.Under the present Tax Code, savingsare taxed twice, once when you earnthe income that you save, and againwhen you receive a return on thosesavings; consumption is taxed onlyonce.

The USA Tax System also reflects afundamentally different philosophy inthat we do not focus on where your in-come came from. We do not have dif-ferent rates for wage income or divi-dends or capital gains. Under the USATax System, the point is not where theincome comes from, it is what you dowith it. The portion of your incomeyou save, whether you are rich or poor,you do not pay tax on. The portion youspend, above the level for basic neces-sities, is subject to tax at progressiverates.

The deduction for individual savingalso permits a new perspective towarddesigning a business tax. Because ourproposal defers taxes on individual sav-ing until they are spent, we can elimi-nate enormous complexities in today’sTax Code. There is no reason to be con-cerned about people sheltering theirsavings in corporations, which createsa huge portion of the complexity in to-day’s Tax Code. We do not need elabo-rate rules to force businesses to dis-tribute sheltered saving.

I am sure some people say that thereis no proof that savings will respond tochanges in the Tax Code, so how do weknow your proposal will work? In re-sponse to that, I would say that first,you could just as easily argue is no

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5668 April 25, 1995proof regarding any proposition of eco-nomics. Economics happens in the realworld, with complex interactions thatwill never be exactly repeated, not in alab.

Second, it misses the point to com-pare the USA proposal to the experi-ence we had with individual retirementaccounts in the early 1980’s. With theIRA, you did not have to save more toget a deduction, you merely had tomove your savings into an IRA. Sincethe Government was handing out taxdeductions for moving savings fromyour right pocket to your left pocket,is it not surprising that those IRA pro-visions did not increase national sav-ings.

But there is a crucial difference be-tween the unlimited savings allowancethat Senator DOMENICI and I are pro-posing and the IRA’s of the 1980’s. Ourproposal rewards true increases in sav-ings and does not reward shifting as-sets from one type of account to an-other.

Finally, I would say that a perfectworld Tax Code would not affect peo-ple’s economic decisions at all. But weall know we do not live in such a per-fect world, and it is unlikely we everwill. We all know people do thingssometimes that do not make a lot ofsense, just to lower their taxes. To saythat people do not respond to economicincentives simply flies in the face ofeverything we know about economicsand human nature. What the Senatorfrom New Mexico and I are saying is,recognizing that it is human nature torespond to incentives like tax deduc-tions, let us give people an incentive todo the right thing, for our country andour economy, not the wrong thing.

OTHER DEDUCTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS

In addition to the family living al-lowance, the personal exemptions andthe savings allowance, we propose alimited number of additional itemizeddeductions. The higher the number ofdeductions, as we all know, the higherthe marginal tax rates would have tobe. So, there is a trade-off. We are pro-posing to retain a deduction for homemortgage interest and charitable de-ductions. We could have more deduc-tions, of course, and certainly we wel-come debate on which deductions peo-ple think should be added to, or sub-tracted from, our proposal—with oneword of caution. The higher the num-ber of deductions, the higher the rateswill have to be to avoid increasing thedeficit. There is a direct tradeoff be-tween the number of deductions andthe tax rate.

Our proposal does have one such ad-ditional deduction which I feel verystrongly about, and that is a deductionfor tuition expenses for post-secondaryeducation, whether it is college, tradeor vocational school, or remedial edu-cation. We feel it is important that thetax system provide a deduction for in-vestment in human capital that par-allels the deductions on the businessside for investments in physical cap-ital, since both investments raise the

productivity and real incomes of work-ers.

THE USA TAX SYSTEM IS PROGRESSIVE

The USA Tax System is a progressivetax. Our system will have three grad-uated rates. We are proposing a pro-gressive system, not a flat tax. We donot believe it is necessary to abandonthe principles of fairness and progres-sive taxation in order to get a simpler,more efficient, growth-oriented taxcode. It is important to keep in mindthat the graduated rates in the USATax System will not create the samedisincentives on saving and growth astoday’s tax system, since taxes will bedeferred on income that is saved andinvested.

There are four main elements thatmake the USA tax on individuals pro-gressive. First, we have progressiverates. Second, we have a family livingallowance that does not tax the firstseveral thousand dollars of consump-tion for basic necessities. Third, we re-tain some progressive elements of thecurrent code, such as an earned incometax credit—which we increase—and thetax exempt status of food stamps andother safety-net benefits. Finally, wehave a new payroll tax credit which Iwill discuss in a moment.

We would apply progressive tax ratesto the amount of income that isconsumed, after subtracting the familyliving allowance, personal exemptions,and deductions for mortgage interest,charitable contributions, and edu-cation expenses.

The tax rates in the USA system arenot directly comparable to the rates inthe current income Tax Code, however.I know people are going to find that alittle hard to understand at first, butthe reason why they are not com-parable is very important, and that isour payroll tax credit.

THE PAYROLL TAX CREDIT

Under the USA system, after you de-termine the amount of tax resultingfrom applying graduated rates to yourtaxable income, as I have just de-scribed, you would subtract from thatincome tax the amount withheld fromyour salary for the employee share ofyour Social Security payroll, or FICA,tax. We think that is a very importantfeature of the USA system that wouldreduce the regressive nature of thepresent payroll tax. The payroll tax,which is absolutely essential to fundSocial Security, to fund Medicare, alsohas become the most regressive part ofour Tax Code—the most regressive partof our Tax Code. It does not apply ex-cept to the first $60,000 of earnings.Higher income people do not pay itabove that except a limited portion onMedicare. But low-income people, me-dium-income people, are paying a verylarge percentage of their overall taxeson FICA tax.

In fact, there are literally millions ofAmericans today that pay more FICAtax than they do income tax.

Our payroll tax credit would be re-fundable so that if you had more with-held in payroll taxes than you owed in

taxes, as is the case for many people,the difference would be refunded toyou. Therefore, people with earned in-come can, in effect, subtract 7.65 per-cent, the amount of pay withheld forthe employee’s share of the Social Se-curity and Medicare payroll taxes,from our tax rates.

It is very important for people to un-derstand this. When you see a 20 per-cent tax rate or 19 percent or 27 per-cent tax rate under the USA proposal,the 7.65 percent credit has to be sub-tracted to get the real tax rate—a 20percent rate under the USA system is,in effect, equal to a marginal rate of12.35 percent under today’s systemafter you take the payroll tax credit.

The payroll tax is a perfect exampleof why fundamental tax reform is need-ed. As my colleague from New York,the ranking member of the FinanceCommittee, Senator MOYNIHAN, has sofrequently and eloquently pointed out,the payroll tax is a very regressive tax.It discourages hiring additional work-ers, especially lower wage workers. No-body designed the system that way, ofcourse.

The payroll tax started out at a lowrate, but that rate has grown consider-ably over the years. In the late 1960’sand early 1970’s, the payroll tax work-ing people paid grew considerably to fi-nance large cost of living increases forretirees that were enacted in years ofhigh inflation. It was increased againin the 1980’s, ostensibly to build up asurplus for the retirement of the babyboomers. Unfortunately, as SenatorMOYNIHAN has also pointed out, that isnot what the surpluses are actuallybeing used for.

So we now find ourselves with a com-bined employer-employee payroll taxrate of 15.3 percent a very high ratethat adds significantly to the cost oflabor. The system was set up for onepurpose—to provide income security inretirement—but it is actually hurtingworking people in ways that I am surewere never intended by the authors.

Mr. President, our proposal does notabolish the payroll tax. It does not af-fect the operation of the Social Secu-rity system in any way. What it doesdo is to offset the unintended negativeeffects of the payroll tax by creditingthe payroll tax against an individual’sor business’s tax liability under theUSA tax. The employer would also getthe 7.65 percent credit against theirtaxes —not a deduction, but a tax cred-it. Employees get a credit for the FICAtaxes against the individual incometax, and employers get a credit for theemployer share against the businesstax.

So the same amount of revenue willcontinue to be deposited in the SocialSecurity trust fund. We do not affectthat, but the payroll tax will be inte-grated into the income tax in a waythat offsets its regressive nature. Thisis important for fairness purposes. It isalso important so that we eliminateone of the major impediments to peo-ple with low skills being hired. Now

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5669April 25, 1995people with low skills, minimum-wage-type jobs, the employer has to lookvery, very carefully before they hirebecause they are not only paying forthe minimum wage, or whatever thewage is, they are also paying another,in effect, 15.3 percent because of thesevery high payroll taxes that continueto go up.

THE BUSINESS TAX

Mr. President, I will take just a mo-ment on the business side of the TaxCode because I know that SenatorKERREY from Nebraska, who has beenvery involved in this concept for a longtime and has been a major help to us,is on the floor and would like to speak.Let me make a few comments aboutthe business tax.

The second component of our new taxcode is the business tax. The businesstax would work like this: Under theUSA Tax System the business wouldadd up its sales receipts during theyear, then add up the cost of the goodsand services it purchased for use in itsbusiness. The cost of these businesspurchases would be subtracted fromthe sales receipts. The difference wouldbe subject to a business tax at a flatrate of 11 percent.

I am sure many people will ask,‘‘Why is the business rate so muchlower than current law?’’ The answer isthat the two rates are really not com-parable, because our tax would not beapplied to corporate income as cur-rently defined, but rather to a compa-ny’s gross profits. It is a fundamentallydifferent concept from what we havetoday, and it applies to all businesses,not just those that are incorporated. Ithink everyone who studies this busi-ness tax needs to understand we have afundamentally broader base for thebusiness tax so we are dramaticallylowering the rate but we are producingthe same amount of revenue. We arenot lowering the overall proportionthat businesses are paying. They arepaying the same proportion. But we areable to lower the rate because we aregreatly broadening the base, and thatneeds to be understood.

It is important also to understandthat under the USA Tax System, thecost of investment in plant and equip-ment and inventory would be fully de-ductible when spent. There would be noneed for depreciation schedules. Invest-ment would be deducted up front. In-vestment creates jobs. New plant andequipment creates productivity oppor-tunities and that increases the incomeof our people. So that is the behaviorwe should be encouraging rather thandiscouraging.

Investment in plant and equipment iswhat we need in this country, and yetthe amortization of these investmentsover a long period of time under cur-rent law discourages businesses frominvesting as much as they would other-wise.THE USA TAX PROMOTES U.S. COMPETITIVENESS

Another very important feature isthat our USA Tax System puts U.S.companies on the same footing with

our competitors. The USA business taxis territorial—meaning it applies to allsales on U.S. soil no matter where thebusiness is headquartered—and it isborder adjustable.

We want to encourage exports, andwe do in this proposal. We exclude theproceeds from export sales from tax-ation by rebating the tax on goods ex-ported for sale abroad. And when acompany, foreign or U.S. owned, manu-factures abroad and sells to the UnitedStates market, the company is,through the operations of a new importtax, taxed essentially the same as ifthe factory were located in the UnitedStates. That is border adjustability,the tax is rebated on exports and addedto imports, which is exactly the situa-tion American exporters to Europe andJapan face today. We believe our busi-ness tax will place American compa-nies and workers on an equal and levelplaying field.

This is no small matter, Mr. Presi-dent. The share of our economic outputthat is exported, and the share of ournational income that we spend on im-ports, have both doubled over the past25 years. Yet the current U.S. Tax Codehas not kept pace with the rapidlychanging face of international com-petition. While our economy has shift-ed dramatically since this Tax Codewas put into effect, our we have notmade a comparable shift in our TaxCode. We have simply tinkered with ityear in and year out.

Our tax system is a holdover fromanother era, when international tradewas a small component of our econ-omy, when having a tax rule that ap-plied to all American corporationsequally was enough. But today Amer-ican companies do not just competewith each other, they compete glob-ally. And the U.S. Tax Code puts ourcompanies at a disadvantage.

Under the rules of the General Agree-ment on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT,certain types of taxes can be levied onimports and rebated on exports—borderadjustability—while other types oftaxes cannot. Our competitors in Eu-rope and Japan have business taxesthat can be rebated under GATT, whilewe do not. We believe the USA businesstax is legal under the GATT, since itwould work essentially the same wayas European and Japanese value-addedtaxes, which are GATT-legal.

Let me give a simple example of howour business tax applies to exports andimports. If a company has $2.5 millionin sales, of which $500,000 are exportsales, for purposes of the business taxits receipts would be only the $2 mil-lion it had in domestic sales, not $2.5million. But it will not have to gothrough a lot of complicated calcula-tions to allocate its production costsbetween its domestic and foreign sales.All domestic input costs will be de-ductible regardless of whether the salesare domestic or export sales. Under ourproposal there will no longer be a taxincentive to move production overseas.

Conversely, if the facilities used forthe production of the $2 million in do-mestic sales are moved overseas andthe $2 million of goods are importedinto the United States, an 11 percentimport tax of $220,000 will be collectedon those goods.

In order to comply with the require-ments of the GATT, businesses wouldnot deduct wages. This is a key point,and I know there will be concern aboutthis. But there are two importantthings to remember. First, our ratesare much lower—11 percent —than therates currently imposed on corporateprofits.

The second thing that we need to re-member is that under our proposal, thededuction for wages would be replacedby the credit for the employer’s shareof the Social Security payroll tax—which is 7.65 percent of its payroll—which is the other half of the creditthat employees get under the individ-ual tax that I have already described.Businesses would get a credit back onthat tax up to the maximum Social Se-curity wage.

THE USA TAX IS DESIGNED TO BE DEFICIT-NEUTRAL

Under our proposal, the individualand the corporate shares of our totalrevenue would remain the same. We arenot trying to shift the tax burden frombusinesses to individuals, or vice versa.We are not trying to shift the burdenfrom the rich to the poor, or from thepoor to the rich. We are not looking forthe fellow behind the tree to tax. Weare designing this system to producethe same amount of revenue as the cur-rent Tax Code. It is not a proposal tocut taxes or raise taxes.

Because of the comprehensive natureof our proposal, and the enormousworkload the Joint Committee on Tax-ation has had this year, they were notable to perform an official revenueanalysis or a distributional analysis ofthis proposal before we introduced it.It is our intention that this system re-tain the progressivity of the currentsystem, and that it be revenue neutralcompared to the current system.Should the official estimates indicatethat the bill we have introduced failsto completely meet either of thosegoals, we intend to work with the JointCommittee to refine this proposal sothat we meet both, because we thinkthey are very important.THE USA TAX IS SIMPLER AND MORE EFFICIENT

The USA Tax System also makesgreat strides in making our Tax Codesimpler and more economically effi-cient. The USA tax eliminates the needto calculate depreciation year afteryear, because investments are expensedimmediately. We also eliminate thecomplicated, and in many cases coun-terproductive, alternative minimumtax, or AMT.

The USA business tax puts debt andequity financing on an equal footing.We treat all forms of businesses thesame—corporations, partnerships, andproprietorships.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5670 April 25, 1995One of the greatest contributions the

USA system will make to simplifica-tion is that no longer will people haveany reason to seek out unproductive,economically wasteful tax shelters inorder to cut their taxes. If you want tolower your taxes, put your money insavings where it can work for all ofus—buy a CD, invest in a mutual fund.It might take a few minutes to do yournet savings calculation once a year,but the net savings calculation shouldresult more efficient use of our na-tional income, as well as higher eco-nomic growth as saving and invest-ment increase.

In an economy with a gross domesticproduct of over $6 trillion, taxationwill never be a completely simple af-fair. But because the USA Tax Systemeliminates the need for rules againstsheltering income in corporations, andbecause it is based on cash rather thanaccrual accounting, it promises majoradvances in simplicity and clarity.

Under the USA system, we believewhole volumes of Tax Code complica-tions would fall away into welcome ob-livion. The tax shelter industry wouldshrink and compliance costs wouldplummet. All income would be treatedalike. The key is what they would dowith their income. If it is reinvested,then the taxation on it would be de-ferred. It is not reinvested, if it isconsumed, then ordinary tax rateswould apply. Those rules would be thesame for everyone; for the factoryworker and for the investor.

There would be no more need forfights over capital gains, investmenttax credits, individual retirement ac-counts, and other targeted incentivesfor saving. The USA Tax System elimi-nates these issues because it offers ablanket deduction for personal savingand business investment.

And under the USA system, tax-payers will not have to keep track ofthe basis of their newly purchased sav-ings assets such as stocks and mutualfunds, the way they do now, and mosttaxpayers will not have to worry aboutthe basis of savings assets they alreadyhold. Finally, the USA tax system willnot take a whole new bureaucracy toadminister.

THE USA TAX SYSTEM IS A REVOLUTIONARYCONCEPT

In a way, the USA Tax System couldbe described as simply taking the cur-rent tax system and adding a deductionfor savings. That may be the majorchange most people would notice. Butthe USA Tax System represents amuch more profound change in its ef-fects than in its form.

For any given level of income, thosewho save and invest more will paylower taxes. The taxpayers in the topbracket would pay roughly the sametotal amount of taxes they do now. Butwithin that bracket, there will be thosewho pay less and those who pay more.The same will hold true whether youare in a higher or a lower tax bracket.That is the essence of our proposal.Those who help our economy, help cre-

ate jobs, and boost productivity by sav-ing and investing, will pay less thantheir neighbors with similar incomeswho do not.

We are basically going to tax peopleon what they take out of the econ-omy—above a tax free level for neces-sities—rather than what they put intothe economy by working and saving.Our proposal represents a revolution inthe philosophy of the income tax sys-tem. But we do not have to makemajor changes to the system already inplace to administer the tax system tomake our proposal work.

By contrast, a consumption or ex-penditure tax, such as a value-addedtax, would impose enormous adminis-trative expenses on American busi-nesses, without the progressivity, andwithout creating the same incentive tosave and invest, that the USA Tax Sys-tem has.

The distinguished economist andformer chairman of the Council of Eco-nomic Advisers, Murray Weidenbaum,very clearly summarized the benefitsof moving to a tax system that, in hiswords ‘‘puts the fiscal burden on whatpeople take from society—the goodsand services they consume—ratherthan on what they contribute by work-ing and saving.’’

Professor Weidenbaum argues thatwe need a Tax Code that promotes sav-ing because saving is the seed corn foreconomic expansion. The money yousave does not just sit there, it worksfor all of us by being invested. In-creased savings and investment gen-erates more production of goods andservices, more employment, and ahigher living standard for all of us.

A tax system that exempts savingraises the same amount of revenue asthe existing tax system, with far lessdamage to the economy. We get a fast-er growing economy with more peopleworking, fewer people needing publicassistance, and the increased revenuesthat come from a growing tax base in-stead of from raising tax rates.

CONCLUSION

Mr. President, this is a revolutionaryconcept. The advantages are, I think,very, very important to our country.

The first advantage: This proposalwill increase national savings by elimi-nating the bias in the current Tax Codeagainst savings, without increasing thebudget deficit. Increasing the pool ofprivate savings will in turn allow in-creased investment at lower cost,which will increase the productivity ofour workers.

Second, it will level the inter-national playing field for U.S. compa-nies, and promote U.S. exports of do-mestically produced goods, by rebatingthe business tax on goods sold for ex-port, and it will equalize the tax treat-ment of American-made and importedgoods by having foreign companies paytheir fair share of taxes, just as Amer-ican exports are taxed when they aresold in foreign markets.

Third, it will make our Tax Codemore understandable and more effi-

cient which will save, I believe, bothmillions of dollars and millions ofhours preparing individual and busi-ness tax returns, and it will do so with-out sacrificing the principle of fairnessin allocating the tax burden.

Fourth, the USA tax credit for theemployer share of payroll taxes willhelp create jobs for workers who mightnot otherwise be hired by reducing thecurrent disincentive to hire low-skillworkers that results from the regres-sive payroll tax which applies to theentire wage of lower paid workers butto only part of the wage of higher paidworkers.

Finally, we believe it will fostergreater personal responsibility byclearly showing the costs and benefitsof saving versus consuming.

Today, Mr. President, every family inAmerica, if they are saving money fora washing machine, an automobile, ora college education, has to pay taxesbefore they save. We would give thepeople in the lower and middle-incomebrackets who need to save, but whothink they cannot afford to save—andwho do not have any incentive to saveunder the current Tax Code, becauseany money they do save out of theirafter-tax income is taxed again when itearns interest or dividends—we wouldgive them a way to save. I believe ourproposal will help all American fami-lies save, and that as a result, all of uswill be better off.

The current tax system is brokenand, in my opinion, it cannot be fixed.In a very real way, it has aided andabetted our irresponsible tendency tolive beyond our means. Our currentTax Code must be abolished and re-placed.

We must being anew. The USA TaxSystem provides a way to eliminatethe cynical complexities, the specialsubsidies, the crippling biases presentin the current Code. By enacting realreform of the tax system, this Congresscan take a giant step toward securingour future.

Mr. President, I thank the Senatorfrom New Mexico. Without his leader-ship there would have been noStrengthening America Commission,there would have been no tax proposaltoday. He has been a key player in thisfrom the very beginning. He is a pleas-ure to work with. I look forward toworking with him on this proposal, aswell as on his important responsibil-ities on the other side of our nationaleconomic challenge, and that is gettingour deficit under control, which alsodirectly drains our savings.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, it is aw-

fully difficult to estimate the economicimpact of tax law. I must say, it is alot easier for us to estimate the politi-cal impact of tax laws because we hearfrom a whole range of interest groupsconstantly that are concerned aboutpreserving some deduction or perhapsexpanding some deduction. So it isgenuinely difficult to estimate whatthe economic impact is going to be,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5671April 25, 1995though it is easy to estimate what thepolitical impact is going to be, of var-ious changes in the law.

What is not difficult with this par-ticular piece of legislation is to esti-mate what the impact is going to beupon American families who desire tosave and on American businesses whoare willing to make job-creating in-vestments.

Mr. President, this piece of legisla-tion, though I am quite certain therewill be critics who will point out de-fects in it—indeed, there may be plentyof room for improvement of this legis-lation—there is no question that thistax law change is allowed, in my judg-ment, by the rather dramatic change inthe political situation last November,which has permitted us, the Congress,to begin to consider things that hadpreviously been off limits. There is noquestion, in my judgment, that thispiece of legislation would have the im-pact of simultaneously allowing Amer-ican families to save more by providinga powerful incentive for them to save,and it would enable American busi-nesses to make job-creating invest-ments by enabling them to expense offthe cost of those investments.

Let me say, Mr. President, as a partof this debate, that I am continuing tobe one of the diminishing numbers ofthe Senate that is a Member of theDemocratic Party and should assertthat as a Member of the DemocraticParty, I do believe that labor is supe-rior to capital. By that, I mean youmust have people who are willing towork before the capital is worth any-thing; capital without labor is worth-less. So I believe in the superiority oflabor, and I believe in the training oflabor, and I believe in universal edu-cation and the preparation of people sothat they have the skills needed tocompete, so they have the skills neededto earn the living that they desire.

But I do not believe in declaring waron capital, nor do I believe in declaringwar on the wealthy. Indeed, it seems tome that the heart of the Democraticmessage ought to be that equal oppor-tunity means providing every singleAmerican, regardless of their status inlife, an opportunity to become wealthyin this country.

Unfortunately and regrettably, Mr.President, there is no shortcut to be-coming wealthy. There is no easy way,no free lunch to do it. In order to be-come wealthy, one must acquirewealth. And in order to do that, onemust save. Occasionally, there are peo-ple who hit the lottery or some bo-nanza of some sort. But, generallyspeaking, the acquisition of wealth oc-curs as a consequence of people beingwilling to defer gratification to setaside something they would like topurchase today in favor of the desire topurchase something later.

I remember, Mr. President, in 1988,during my first campaign for the U.S.Senate—I will not tell the gentlemen’sname—standing at a farm site at anevent thrown in my behalf, standing

next to a farmer approximately a gen-eration older than I, along with afriend of mine who is a salesman. Hewas talking to this farmer and he said,‘‘It is well known that you are one ofthe wealthiest men in the country.How did you get so wealthy?’’ He said,‘‘It is real simple. I do not spend mymoney.’’ And in making an observationabout this gentleman who was a sales-man, he said ‘‘You are wearing verynice clothes that cost you a lot ofmoney.’’ The salesman said, ‘‘I have toin order to do my work.’’ The farmersaid, ‘‘You will notice that I am wear-ing a very attractive shirt that Ibought for a dollar at your garage salelast fall.’’

Mr. President, in order to acquirewealth, individuals must be willing tosave. There is no short cut to it. Sen-ator SIMPSON and I will, in the next fewdays, I hope, if we can get the bill lan-guage put together, present legislationthat will reform a program that is sup-posed to be a savings program but it isnot, and that is our Social Securitysystem. One of the things I will do inthe process of describing the legisla-tion is describe the magic ofcompounding interest rates.

Mr. President, there are three vari-ables that will determine the impact ofyour savings and your acquisition ofwealth.

Variable number one is the length oftime that you contribute to that sav-ings account.

Variable number two is the amountof money you contribute.

Variable number three is the rate ofreturn.

The most important variable is num-ber one, the length of time that youcontribute. An individual that contrib-utes $75 a year starting at age 20, overa 50-year period, will have more at theend of that 50-year period than some-body who contributes $1,500 a year ifthey wait until they are age 50 to start.I am 51 and, generally, it occurs to youwhen you are about 50 that, Oh, mygosh, I am going to retire in 15 years,I have to start saving money. The di-lemma is that if you wait until you are50, you are giving up the significantimpact of compounding rates.

Let me give a little mathematics forthe listening audience. Mr. President,if you got a 10-percent real rate of re-turn by investing in equities, which isnot that difficult to do, that wouldmean that you would have a compoundevery 7.2 years. Thus, if your parentstook $1,000 and opened a savings ac-count for you when you were born, youwould get 10 compounds on that thou-sand dollars that would be worth a mil-lion dollars by the time you reach age70. This piece of legislation, in myjudgment, Mr. President, would changethe culture and attitude of savings inthe United States of America.

Mr. President, to be clear, there arenot very many situations where the in-terest of the individual and the inter-est of the Nation intersect, where theyare the same. As much as we talk

about it being the same, there are veryfew situations where that is the case.With savings, there is an intersection.It is in the interest of American fami-lies to acquire and accumulate wealth.It is in the interest of the Nation to dothe same. Unless both the individualhas an incentive to save and the Nationhas the discipline to save, then thestandard of living of the United Statesof America simply will not rise.

Mr. President, I will identify fourfeatures that I think unquestionablywill have a dramatic and powerful andpositive impact on the United States ofAmerica.

First, this piece of legislation per-mits a full and unlimited deferral ofthe taxation of savings. A clear signal,unequivocal. There would be no need toconsult with an accountant. You wouldknow precisely that if you save money,you can defer taxation on that savings.

Second, it allows wage earners an off-set for the employee portion of thepayroll tax. That is a very powerful in-centive. The payroll tax is extremelyregressive and very often uncalculatedwhen people are politicians and arelooking at the overall rates of tax-ation. It is an extremely regressive tax,difficult for individuals, and very oftena barrier for businesses to hire new em-ployees.

Third, Mr. President, it allows thoseindividuals who are willing to roll thedice, to sign their name on the dottedline to put some savings into land,building, equipment, which will hireand employ Americans. It allows them,in the operation of their business—arisky venture in the 1990’s—to expenseevery single one of their real invest-ments.

Fourth, Mr. President, it enables theUnited States of America to excludeexport sales from taxation imposed, aswell a tax on imports. Every single oneof our industrial competitors does pre-cisely the same thing. They have to belaughing under their breath as theylook at the taxation system of theUnited States of America that puts ourworkers at a competitive disadvantage,and puts our businesses at a competi-tive disadvantage as well.

Mr. President, I am pleased to jointhe distinguished Senator from NewMexico and the distinguished Senatorfrom Georgia as an original cosponsor.This is a piece of legislation that hasbeen several years in the making. It isa very thoughtful piece of legislation.It has been well thought through. I at-tended a number of these meetingslong before the issue was popular. TheSenator from New Mexico and the Sen-ator from Georgia were leading this ef-fort. I hope that, with the new permis-sion granted in this new Congress, thiskind of legislation, serious legislation,will not only be considered but will beenacted as soon as possible. Mr. Presi-dent, it will be good for American fam-ilies and good for American workers,and it will be good for American busi-nesses and, as a consequence of allthree, good for our country.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5672 April 25, 1995Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from New Mexico.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I

yield myself 5 minutes, and SenatorNUNN would like 5 to wrap this up, so Iwill yield 5 to him.

Mr. President, I would like Membersof the Senate and those interested inthis legislation to know that we setsome very difficult parameters forthose who helped us draft this. We saidwe want to replace the income tax sys-tem with a whole new system, and wewant to replace it both in substanceand in dollars. We want the exact sameamount of revenue to come in fromthis new code as before. No more, noless. We want it to be neutral. It was apretty hard mandate imposed on thosewho are doing the modeling, the ratemaking, and other things.

Second, we said to them that we havea tendency in the United States tojudge progressivity based on things weunderstand. So we took progressivityto mean that each 20 percent of theAmerican taxpayers—frequently calledquintiles—the low 20 and the high 20would pay the same proportion of thetotal tax when we were finished withthis as the current code—another verydifficult and onerous instruction, butwe did those two things because wewanted to prove that you could totallyoverhaul the income tax structure andget the same amount of revenue fromcorporations and businesses and thesame amount from each quintile —thatis, 20 percent of the American tax-payers in a progressive manner.

Now, obviously, we have followedthat rule religiously. Thus we havesome guidelines, some milestones, andproof that it can be done.

On the other hand, we suggest to thetax writers in the various committees,including our Ways and Means Com-mittee, our Finance Committee, andthe Ways and Means Committee in theHouse, that they might very well, intrying to adopt this major conceptchanges that are incorporated in de-tail, they might want to look at somevariance in those. But we wanted tosend it to them and say we have livingproof that it can be done and yet tre-mendously encourage savings and in-vestment.

The second point. All of the modelingand estimating was done on a basis ofstatic economics. That is, we used theconservative—acceptable to the CBOand everyone else—approach to the taxyields.

Not for a minute do Senator NUNNand I believe that the savings, that thetax yields over time will be preciselythe same. As a matter of fact, we be-lieve that in the future years—becauseof the savings and investment, wemight indeed have slightly less tax re-ceipts in early years and very signifi-cantly higher ones in future years withbetter jobs.

We do not take credit for that in themodeling and estimating. We do it onthis neutral, conservative basis.

Having said that, I want to say to myfriend, and certainly he is SenatorNUNN’s friend, Senator KERREY fromNebraska actually hit right at theheart of our proposal with his foursummary items.

There is no question that this is a to-tally new concept. We think it is bet-ter. As I view it, when people sitaround and decide what they are goingto do with their earnings, currentlythere is no real incentive to look atsavings and investment because we paydouble tax on both—the incentive isagainst it instead of in favor of it.

We only want a neutral arena. We un-derstand Americans must spend theirmoney. We understand we will beasked, ‘‘Are you sure you will not hurtthe economy by causing Americans tospend less?’’ We think, over time, thepluses are our way.

All we want to do is put that on alevel playing field. As we sit aroundand talk about disposable income wewant people to look at the unlimitedIRA’s that are part of this, or startingyour own investment money and leav-ing it there.

In conclusion, the concept is that thesavings and investment pool is good forAmerica. The bigger it is, the betterfor our working people, for jobs and forour children. So if the money is leftthere in the savings or investmentpool, you do not bring it back intoyour income and spend it, people donot pay taxes. It is deferred.

This seems to Washington to be rath-er revolutionary when coupled with thecorporate advantages with our borderadjustable. Clearly, American compa-nies will be given a better opportunityto use more of this savings pool here inAmerica, which many will ask, if weare going to have all these savings andinvestments, will American companiesget a fair shot?

What we will say, I think, is, ‘‘Abso-lutely yes.’’ We cannot keep all of ourmoney at home, but when we createthe advantages for American corpora-tions and take away the disadvantagesof engaging in world markets, I believewe will keep much of our money hereat home under this proposal.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Georgia has 9 minutes 40 sec-onds remaining.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I want tothank a few people, and I inadvertentlymay not name everyone. There havebeen many people involved in this ef-fort.

On my staff, Mike McCord and RockyRief; on Senator DOMENICI’s staff, BillHoagland and Denise Ramonas.

I would like to thank David Abshireand his entire team at CSIS—DickFairbanks, Debbie Miller, and JohnYochelson—who worked on theStrengthening of America report, andthe many people who have worked sohard to help us develop the concept weendorsed in that report into the de-tailed proposal we are introducingtoday.

Barry Rogstad and John Endean ofthe American Business Conferencehave helped immensely. Barry was onthe commission and we asked him towork with us after we came out withthis report. Ernest Christian of theCenter for Strategic Tax Reform, whohas been very, very, instrumental inhelping us turn this overall concept ina working tax system, because he hasgreat expertise in the tax area. I alsowant to thank Rudy Penner, theformer Director of the CongressionalBudget Office, who has done a greatdeal in coming up with rate structureand conceptual framework of the USAtax, and Lin Smith and Paul Burnhamwho are part of Rudy’s team at KPMGPeat Marwick.

Barry, Ernie, and Rudy in particularhave spent countless hours helpingSenator DOMENICI and I develop thisproposal. These key players deservegreat credit. I also want to thank BobLutz, Paul O’Neill, Barbara North andall the members of Alliance USA fortheir support.

While he has not reviewed the legis-lation we are introducing today, andmay not necessarily agree with every-thing in it, this proposal has benefitedfrom the pioneering conceptual work inthis area over the past 20 years byDavid Bradford.

The cash-flow business tax compo-nent of our proposal has also built onthe foundation of several years of workby our two distinguished friends andformer colleagues, Senator DAVIDBOREN and Senator JACK DANFORTH,and their very able staffers, Beth Gar-rett, and Mark Weinberger, who alsoserved as Chief of Staff of the Kerrey-Danforth Bipartisan Commission onEntitlement and Tax Reform.

I would also like to thank JimFransen and Mark Mathiesen of theSenate Legislative Counsel’s office,and the staffers from the Joint Com-mittee on Taxation, especially JonTalisman, Joe Mikrut, Tom Bowne,and Tom Barthold, who have spentmany hours working with us on thislegislation. I know that the LegislativeCounsel’s office and the Joint Commit-tee have both been extremely busy thisyear, and probably will continue to be,given the large numbers of both incre-mental and fundamental tax reformproposals being introduced, marked up,and debated this year.

I have no doubt that if we and theyhad the luxury of having all the timeneeded to produce a bill that containedevery detail necessary to implementsuch a comprehensive reform as theUSA Tax System, we would be able toimprove it still further. While all theseindividuals have shared their time andtalents with Senator DOMENICI and Iand our staffs, and we have spent hoursand days and weeks and months work-ing on this proposal, I would be thefirst to say that the legislation we areintroducing today is not complete, it isnot perfect, it is not the last word ontax reform that will ever need to bewritten.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5673April 25, 1995But we believe it is important to put

our proposal—which I believe is farmore detailed than any of the other re-form proposals being discussed—beforethe American people at this time sothat the American people can learnmore about our proposal, and so thatwe can learn from them. We believe ourproposal can and will be further im-proved as people study it and debate it.In the end, we believe we can make acompelling case why our USA proposalbest serves the needs of the Americanpeople, and addresses the competitiverealities of the global marketplace, forthe next century.

Let me see if I can summarize theUSA tax proposal in a very brief time.The fundamental premise is that theUnited States has a serious savingsproblem. The private savings in thiscountry have continued to go down,down, down, while the Federal deficithas eaten up the savings by going up,up, up.

We have the lowest savings rate inthe industrial world, as SenatorKERREY from Nebraska and SenatorDANFORTH from Missouri pointed out soclearly in their study, as we pointedout in the Strengthening of AmericaReport, and as many other commis-sions, including Warren Rudman, PaulTsongas, and PETE PETERSON of theConcord Coalition, who have done somuch work in that area, have reportedin the work they have done on tryingto reduce the Federal budget deficit.

The fundamental premise is we havemuch too low a rate of savings, and wehave to do something about that. Theother fundamental premise is thathigher savings is directly connectedwith real income, because higher sav-ings produces more investment, higherproductivity and improved competi-tiveness, better jobs, and a higherstandard of living for our Americanworkers.

The goals of our tax reform effort isto promote savings and investment; toensure fairness while we are doingthat; to not increase the budget deficit,which is enormously important; tostrengthen America’s competitive posi-tion—and I have talked about that atlength this morning on the export/im-port matter—to make our Tax Code assimple and as efficient as possible in acomplicated, complex world; to give in-dividual Americans at all income levelsa chance to save, to invest for their fu-ture, for their children’s future, and toraise the standard of living for them-selves and their families; and, finally,to produce the revenue required for theU.S. Government with the least det-rimental effect on our economicgrowth.

The advantages of the USA tax sys-tem are many. I will try to capturethose very briefly. No. 1, we eliminatethe bias against savings in the currentTax Code.

No. 2, we do not increase the budgetdeficit, we break even if there is ad-justment required. That is the fun-damental premise. We will adjust to

accommodate whatever tax estimatescome forward.

The third point is increase the na-tional savings and thereby we give our-selves an opportunity to increase in-vestment and to increase productivityand real income.

No. 4, we help level the internationalplaying field for U.S. business by nottaxing exports and by having the sametax on imports as on domestically-pro-duced goods.

This equalizes the tax treatmentwith our competitors. Both Japan andEurope have a value-added tax wherethey rebate on exports and they taxour imports. So we are doing the samething that they are doing, equally, andleveling the playing field. It gives ourAmerican producers a level playingfield with workers abroad. That isenormously important.

Finally, it makes our Tax Code moreunderstandable and more efficient.

The other dimension that I empha-sized this morning that I think bearsrepeating, is that this is a major steptoward giving unskilled people at thebottom end of the economic ladder achance to get started, to get the footon the bottom rung of the economicladder, and to get a job, because we ba-sically merge the FICA tax, the SocialSecurity, with the income tax and wegive full credit back to employees forthe portion of that tax they paid, evenif it is refundable. Even if their FICAtax exceeds the amount they owe on in-come tax, they will get a refund.

So this eliminates the most regres-sive feature of our current tax systemand removes a very large obstacle toemployment.

Mr. President, we welcome construc-tive criticism. We know that we do nothave a perfect Tax Code—there is nosuch thing. We understand that thereare going to be changes that need to bemade. We understand there are thingswe have overlooked. We welcome sug-gestions. We welcome constructivecriticism. I know we will have a lot ofdebate and discussion on this proposaland I am delighted, with my friendfrom New Mexico, as partners, to joint-ly send this proposal to the desk andask it be reported and properly re-ferred.

I also ask the cosponsors be listed:Mr. DOMENICI, introducing the bill withmyself, Senator KERREY, and SenatorBENNETT—so those will be the cospon-sors. I believe Senator LIEBERMAN hasindicated an interest and I believelater he would like to be added as a co-sponsor, but we have not yet heardfrom him. He has been enormously in-terested in this proposal.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The billwill be received and appropriately re-ferred.

The Senator from New Mexico.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I

thank the Senate for the time it gaveSenator NUNN and me this morning.Both of us have had opportunities inour Senate careers to do some excitingthings for our country, but I think we

both agree that if we can change thetax laws of the land to accomplish thegoals and purposes described here andget the Federal deficit down where in afew years it would be zero, I think wewould be rather satisfied that thesewould be major accomplishments inour time here in the U.S. Senate.

Does my colleague not agree?Mr. NUNN. I certainly agree with my

friend from New Mexico.Mr. President, I ask this legislative

proposal also be printed in the RECORD.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield the

remainder of our time.Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, we yield the re-

mainder of our time.∑ Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Iapplaud the efforts of the Senator fromGeorgia and the Senator from NewMexico. They have spent not weeks,not months, but years in developingthis USA tax proposal.

It should come as no surprise thatthis proposal was such a long time inthe making since it replaces our cur-rent individual and business incometax system. This was an enormoustask. But each year, American tax-payers face an enormous task of theirown—trying to make sense of the daz-zlingly unwieldy and frighteninglycomplex U.S. Tax Code.

In addition to being complicated, ourcurrent Tax Code does little to encour-age savings and investment and this isin a time when real incomes are down,making Americans even less certainabout their economic futures.

Our current Code discourages thesavings that create the savings poolfrom which investments can be made.In fact, our Code penalizes savings notonce, not twice but three times—firstby taxing that money before it can beinvested, second by taxing it again ascorporate profits, and third by taxingthat money when it is distributed asdividends to shareholders. By any yard-stick, the savings rate in this countryis at a near-crisis point. Our falling pri-vate savings combined with our risingdeficits have left our net national sav-ing—the amount available for invest-ment in job-creating activities—atrecord lows. That net national savingshas fallen from about 10 percent ofGDP in 1973 to less than 2 percent in1993.

As the Senator from Georgia hassaid, ‘‘by definition what we do as indi-viduals to invest in the collective fu-ture of our country comes from oursavings.’’ I agree with that observationand I would add to that observation bysaying that by definition what weshould be doing as the creators of theTax Code is to remove the disincen-tives in our Code that discourage thatinvestment.

The proposal that Senators NUNN andDOMENICI are introducing today clearlyprovides an incentive for that savingthat we as individuals, and we as acountry, so desperately need. This pro-posal imposes no taxes on savings—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5674 April 25, 1995until those savings are spent. It alsomaintains a few important deductionslike the home mortgage deduction andthe charitable contribution deduction.In addition the proposal adds a criti-cally important deduction to help fam-ilies pay for the cost of higher edu-cation—as a way to encourage this all-important human investment. And it issignificant to note that the proposalallows a full credit for the 7.65 percentof wages that workers pay into the So-cial Security system.

This proposal also goes to great painsto ensure fairness and progressivity. Itallows for a living allowance as well asthe deductions and credits I have out-lined—for a family of four, the livingallowance would mean that over $17,000a year in spending would be tax ex-empt. In addition, the figures that havebeen run on this proposal show that itwould actually decrease the tax liabil-ity for a family making less than$50,000 and leave the tax liability forthose making between $50,000 and$100,000 unchanged. In addition, the taxliability of those making between$100,000 and $200,000 would increase by 3percent and would increase by 4 per-cent for those making over $200,000. Italso ensures that the great majority ofpeople who have been saving all alongwill not be penalized when they with-draw those savings in their retirement.

On the business side, this proposalencourages capital investment by pro-viding for unlimited expensing and en-courages the reinvestment of capitalgains by deferring taxes on those gainsif those gains are reinvested. And whileit increases the overall pool of what issubject to the business tax, the pro-posal also lowers the tax rate overallon businesses.

This proposal holds out real promiseand I am grateful that my colleaguesfrom Georgia and New Mexico have de-voted so much time and effort to iron-ing out the thousands of necessary de-tails and putting this proposal into leg-islative form. I look forward to discuss-ing the proposal in greater detail withthem and, from what I have seen, theirproposal certainly moves us a big stepforward toward a tax system that issimpler and fairer as well as a systemthat increases our capacity as a coun-try to grow and create new jobs.∑

By Mr. KOHL (for himself andMr. SPECTER):

S. 724. A bill to authorize the Admin-istrator of the Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention Pro-grams to make grants to States andunits of local government to assist inproviding secure facilities for violentand chronic juvenile offenders, and forother purposes; to the Committee onthe Judiciary.

JUVENILE CORRECTIONS ACT

∑ Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise tointroduce the Juvenile Corrections Actof 1995, which I am proud to sponsorwith my friend and colleague, SenatorSPECTER. The act dedicates approxi-mately 10 percent of the 1994 CrimeAct’s adult prison resources to the con-

struction and operation of State andlocal juvenile corrections facilities.

Juvenile violence, as we all know, isat the heart of the crime problem inAmerica. Every 5 minutes a child is ar-rested for a violent crime in the UnitedStates; every 2 hours a child dies of agunshot wound. Unfortunately, there isgood reason to believe that this prob-lem may get worse before it gets bet-ter. Demographics tell us that betweennow and the year 2000, the cohort ofchildren between the ages of 14–17 willincrease by more than 1 million. Thelikely result: a serious increase in thenumber of violent juvenile offenders inthe coming years—above already unac-ceptable levels.

Despite this state of affairs, the Fed-eral Government has treated juvenilecorrections as the poor stepchild of theFederal anticrime effort. The 1994Crime Act contained billions of dollarsfor policing and adult prisons at theState and local level, but no significantprogram to help States alleviate theincreasing burdens on their juvenilecorrections systems.

These burdens are real and substan-tial, Mr. President. A recent Depart-ment of Justice survey indicated thatthe majority of juvenile corrections fa-cilities nationwide are seriously over-crowded and understaffed—in short,bursting at the seams. Between 1979and 1991, juvenile detention centersfaced a 30 percent increase in daily av-erage population—a gain of about 65,000youthful offenders. As a result of thedemographic trend we highlightedabove, we will probably see even worseovercrowding in the future.

Mr. President, the consequences ofovercrowding should trouble us all. Inpart due to the combination of over-crowding and understaffing, juvenileoffenders attacked detention facilitystaff 8,000 times in 1993. In countlessU.S. cities, juvenile offenders who re-quire detention are nonetheless re-leased into the community because of alack of space. And finally, it is clearthat overcrowding breeds violence andever more violent juvenile offenderswho, when eventually released, aremuch more dangerous to society thanwhen they were first institutionalized.

For all these reasons, we introducetoday the Juvenile Corrections Act.Our legislation provides crucialassitance—$770 million in funding over5 years—to State and local govern-ments for the construction, expansion,and operation of juvenile correctionsfacilities and programs. And, I shouldnote, the act has no impact on the defi-cit, as it draws its funding from the $8billion adult corrections component ofthe 1994 Crime Act.

Mr. President, we cannot afford toturn a blind eye to the juvenile correc-tions problem. So I hope my colleagueswill join with me and Senator SPECTERto enact the Juvenile Corrections Act.In light of the spiralling juvenile vio-lence problem, we believe it makesgood sense to dedicate roughly 10 per-cent of the crime act’s adult prison re-

sources to State and local juvenile cor-rections.∑

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for him-self, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. AKAKA,Mr. DORGAN, and Mr.WELLSTONE):

S. 725. A bill to amend title 38, Unit-ed States Code, to extend certain au-thorities relating to the provision ofcommunity-based health care by theDepartment of Veterans Affairs, andfor other purposes; to the Committeeon Veterans’ Affairs.

VETERANS’ COMMUNITY-BASED CARE ACT

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President,VA, like other Federal departments, istaking a hard look at its programs inorder to improve the way it operates,and in so doing, improve the services itprovides to its beneficiaries—in thecase of VA, veterans and their families.I am committed to providing VA withthe legislative authorities and manage-ment flexibility needed to renew itshealth care system to meet the currentand the future needs of our Nation’sveterans.

One of the steps VA must take is torevamp its infrastructure to use themost clinically appropriate, most effec-tive, and most efficient approaches tohealth care delivery available in thiscountry. VA plans to restructure byshifting from a system which is heavilyoriented toward inpatient hospitalcare, to a system which provides morecare in outpatient and noninstitutionalsettings, such as care in the commu-nity and in veterans’ homes.

The bill I am introducing today is de-signed to support VA’s reengineeringefforts by extending existing authori-ties to provide health care to eligibleveterans in community settings. I amproud that Senators DASCHLE, AKAKA,DORGAN, and WELLSTONE have joinedwith me as original cosponsors.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

Mr. President, this legislation con-tains amendments to title 38, UnitedStates Code, and to various public lawsthat would:

First, extend until December 31, 2000,VA’s authority to contract with non-VA halfway houses for treatment andrehabilitation services for veteranswith substance abuse problems.

Second, extend until December 31,2000, VA’s authority to conduct a pilotprogram of noninstitutional alter-natives to nursing home care.

Third, reauthorize until December 31,2000, VA’s Homeless Chronically Men-tally Ill Program, which provides out-reach and contract care in non-VA fa-cilities for homeless veterans with se-vere mental illnesses.

Fourth, reauthorize until December31, 2000, the Compensated Work Ther-apy/Transitional Residence Programfor certain veterans, including thosewho suffer from substance abuse prob-lems and homelessness.

Fifth, extend until December 31, 2000,VA’s authority to enter into enhanced-use leases.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5675April 25, 1995BACKGROUND

Clearly, veterans who are eligible forVA health care services need access toa full range of institutional andnoninstitutional services to meet theirmedical and health-related needs.Ideally, every patient would be pro-vided the most appropriate type andlevel of care needed, and that carewould be delivered in the most appro-priate and least restrictive setting.

TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUGDEPENDENCE OR ABUSE DISABILITIES

This legislation would extend VA’sauthority to contract with non-VAhalfway houses for treatment and reha-bilitation services for veterans withsubstance abuse problems. Current lawauthorizes VA, through December 31,1995, to provide veterans who are suf-fering from substance abuse disabil-ities with care on a contract basisthrough community halfway houses.Such community facilities provide asupervised, substance-free environ-ment, maintain residents’ health, andhelp residents improve their independ-ent living and social skills.

This contract program provides animportant step in a veteran’s transi-tion from inpatient substance abusetreatment and detoxification to inde-pendent living in a community. Thecontract program currently operates at106 medical centers; 6,300 veterans weretreated through the program in fiscalyear 1994. First authorized in 1979, theprogram has been an integral step inthe treatment of substance abuse forveterans.NONINSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES TO NURSING

HOME CARE

This legislation would extend VA’sauthority to provide health and health-related services for veterans needinglong-term care. Under current law, thisprogram will expire on September 30,1995.

Authorized by Public Law 101–366 andexpanded by Public Law 103–452, theprogram is targeted to those veteranswho, but for the receipt of these serv-ices, would need to be placed in a nurs-ing home. Homemaker and homehealth aide services furnished underthis program provide veterans with as-sistance in performing fundamental ac-tivities of daily living, such as eating,bathing, dressing, transferring, andother personal care activities. VA staffprovide the case management, and pub-lic and private sector agencies deliverthe services in veterans’ own homes.Veterans can continue to live at homeand receive, at less cost to VA and tothe taxpayer, the same type of servicesthat would otherwise be provided in ahospital or nursing home.

With a budget of $10 million in fiscalyear 1994, 110 VA medical centers pur-chased homemaker and home healthaide services for more than 3,000 veter-ans.

HOMELESS CHRONICALLY MENTALLY ILLPROGRAM

This legislation would reauthorizefor 5 years the Homeless ChronicallyMentally Ill [HCMI] program. Under

current law, the HCMI program will ex-pire on September 30, 1995.

The HCMI program, one of the twomajor VA homeless programs, author-izes VA outreach workers to contacthomeless veterans in the community,assess and refer veterans to communityservices, and place eligible veterans incontracted community-based residen-tial treatment facilities. The HCMIprogram was enacted in 1987 as a pilotprogram with a budget of only $5 mil-lion. Since that time, the program hasgrown significantly. In fiscal year 1994,it had a $24.5 million budget and oper-ated out of 57 medical centers in 31States and the District of Columbia.Similar to the contract program forveterans with chronic substance abuseproblems, the HCMI program continuesto prove its worth.

COMPENSATED WORK THERAPY/TRANSITIONALRESIDENCES

This legislation would reauthorizethrough fiscal year 2000 a demonstra-tion program that provides veteranswith compensated work therapy andtransitional residence [CWT/TR]. Thecurrent authority for this program ex-pires on October 1, 1995.

Currently, section 7 of Public Law102–54, enacted in 1991, authorizes VAto conduct a CWT/TR demonstrationprogram with two components. Underone component, VA is authorized topurchase and renovate no more than 50residences as therapeutic transitionalhouses for chronic substance abusers,many of whom are also homeless, job-less, and have mental illnesses. Underthe second component, VA is author-ized to contract with nonprofit cor-porations which would own and operatethe transitional residences in conjunc-tion with existing VA compensatedwork therapy programs.

Under both components, veterans payrent from money earned by working forprivate businesses or Federal agencieswhich have contracts with VA to em-ploy the veterans. Once the residence isfully renovated and operational, therent collected from the veterans par-ticipating in the program is intendedto pay the operating costs of the resi-dence.

Thirty-six transitional residencesrun by VA were fully operational in1994. Fourteen additional residencesare currently in the process of beingpurchased or of activating operationalbeds. A preliminary VA evaluation ofthe existing programs indicates thatwell over half of participating veteranscomplete the program and have en-joyed substantially better sobriety,employment, and housing status thanbefore entering the program. The anal-ysis notes that, while these programsneed additional study, they seem tohave enjoyed some initial success.

While VA has implemented the firstcomponent of the demonstration pro-gram as originally envisioned by theCongress, I note that VA has only im-plemented the second component ofthis program, which requires VA toenter into agreement with nonprofitsto purchase and run the transitional

houses, as part of its HCMI program. Ofthe 29 VA contracts with nonprofits forthe HCMI program, VA provides com-pensated work therapy at 27 of them. Iremain concerned that VA has not for-mally implemented the second compo-nent of the demonstration program.

ENHANCED-USE LEASE AUTHORITY

This legislation would extend the au-thority for VA to enter into enhanced-use leases for an additional 5 years.This authority will expire on December31, 1995. Under current law, the Sec-retary has the authority to enter intoenhanced-use leases under which an-other party can use VA property solong as at least part of the propertywill provide for an activity which con-tributes to the mission of the Depart-ment and enhances the use of the prop-erty.

This program was enacted in 1991 as atest program in an effort to fund cost-effective alternatives to the manner inwhich VA traditionally acquired andmanaged its facility and capital hold-ings. The program was based on theconcept that by out-leasing underusedVA property on a long-term basis tonon-VA users for uses compatible withVA programs, the Department wouldbe able to obtain facilities, services, ormoney for VA requirements that wouldotherwise be unavailable orunaffordable.

According to VA, the initial resultsof this program are promising, andhave significantly reduced costs to theDepartment and provided correspond-ing benefits to the local community.For example, through enhanced-useleasing, a Veterans Benefits Adminis-tration regional office is scheduled toopen at the VA Medical Center inHouston, TX, this spring, at 56 percentof the cost initially appropriated fortraditional acquisition, plus an annualincome to VA. This summer, the De-partment is expected to open a newchild care facility at the Washington,DC, VA Medical Center operated by aprivate child care provider; child carewill be provided at a discounted cost toVA employees—all at no cost to VA.

The Department is pursuing otherenhanced-use leasing projects, includ-ing child care projects for nine sitesbased on the Washington, DC, VA Med-ical Center model; parking garages atVA medical centers in St. Louis (JohnCochran), Chicago (West Side), andPittsburgh; training on emergency pro-cedures at the West Palm Beach VAMedical Center; a Managed Care Clini-cal Research and Education Center atthe Minneapolis VA Medical Center;new research space, a new outpatientclinic, and added parking at the Dur-ham VA Medical Center; a new energyfacility at the North Chicago VAMC;shared energy agreements at variousVAMC’s; and potentially, a continuouscare retirement community at theMurfreesboro VAMC.

CONCLUSION

Mr. President, many veterans whohave suffered from chronic illnesses

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5676 April 25, 1995have, in the past, had little, if no,choice as to where they could live andreceive the long-term care they needed.Fortunately, there are more optionstoday, including receiving care in one’sown home. A long-term illness is nolonger synonymous with institutional-ization. If medical, health-related, andsocial services are available, it canmake the difference between a veteranbeing able to live his or her last yearsin the comfort of his own home, or hav-ing to be placed in an institution.Among other goals, the Veterans Com-munity-Based Care Act of 1995 will helpmake this possible for the men andwomen who have worn the country’suniform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that the text of the bill be printedin the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

S. 725

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘VeteransCommunity-Based Care Act of 1995’’.SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EXPIRING AUTHORITIES

RELATING TO COMMUNITY-BASEDCARE.

(a) ALCOHOL OR DRUG DEPENDENCE ANDABUSE.—Section 1720A(e) of title 38, UnitedStates Code, is amended by striking out ‘‘De-cember 31, 1995’’ and inserting in lieu thereof‘‘December 31, 2000’’.

(b) NONINSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES TONURSING HOME CARE.—Section 1720C(a) ofsuch title is amended by striking out ‘‘Sep-tember 30, 1995,’’ and inserting in lieu thereof‘‘December 31, 2000,’’.

(c) COMMUNITY-BASED RESIDENTIAL CAREFOR HOMELESS CHRONICALLY MENTALLY ILLVETERANS AND OTHER VETERANS.—Section115(d) of the Veterans’ Benefits and ServicesAct of 1988 (38 U.S.C. 1712 note) is amendedby striking out ‘‘September 30, 1995’’ and in-serting in lieu thereof ‘‘December 31, 2000’’.

(d) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM OF COM-PENSATED WORK THERAPY.—Section 7(a) ofPublic Law 102–54 (38 U.S.C. 1718 note) isamended by striking out ‘‘fiscal years 1991through 1995’’ and inserting in lieu thereof‘‘the period beginning on October 1, 1990, andending on December 31, 2000’’.SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR EN-

HANCED-USE LEASES OF REALPROPERTY.

Section 8169 of title 38, United States Code,is amended by striking out ‘‘December 31,1995’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘Decem-ber 31, 2000’’.

f

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORSS. 256

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the nameof the Senator from Indiana [Mr.COATS] was added as a cosponsor of S.256, a bill to amend title 10, UnitedStates Code, to establish procedures fordetermining the status of certain miss-ing members of the Armed Forces andcertain civilians, and for other pur-poses.

S. 356

At the request of Mr. SHELBY, thename of the Senator from Pennsylva-nia [Mr. SANTORUM] was added as a co-

sponsor of S. 356, a bill to amend title4, United States Code, to declare Eng-lish as the official language of the Gov-ernment of the United States.

S. 440

At the request of Mr. WARNER, thename of the Senator from Kentucky[Mr. FORD] was added as a cosponsor ofS. 440, a bill to amend title 23, UnitedStates Code, to provide for the designa-tion of the National Highway System,and for other purposes.

S. 457

At the request of Mr. SIMON, thename of the Senator from Wisconsin[Mr. KOHL] was added as a cosponsor ofS. 457, a bill to amend the Immigrationand Nationality Act to update ref-erences in the classification of childrenfor purposes of United States immigra-tion laws.

S. 495

At the request of Mrs. KASSEBAUM,the name of the Senator from Wyoming[Mr. THOMAS] was added as a cosponsorof S. 495, a bill to amend the HigherEducation Act of 1965 to stabilize thestudent loan programs, improve con-gressional oversight, and for other pur-poses.

S. 607

At the request of Mr. WARNER, thename of the Senator from North Caro-lina [Mr. FAIRCLOTH] was added as a co-sponsor of S. 607, a bill to amend theComprehensive Environmental Re-sponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct of 1980 to clarify the liability ofcertain recycling transactions, and forother purposes.

S. 615

At the request of Mr. AKAKA, thenames of the Senator from Alaska [Mr.STEVENS], the Senator from New Jer-sey [Mr. BRADLEY], and the Senatorfrom Florida [Mr. MACK] were added ascosponsors of S. 615, a bill to amendtitle 38, United States Code, to requirethe Secretary of Veterans Affairs tofurnish outpatient medical services forany disability of a former prisoner ofwar.

S. 626

At the request of Mr. HATFIELD, thename of the Senator from Washington[Mrs. MURRAY] was added as a cospon-sor of S. 626, a bill to amend the Water-shed Protection and Flood PreventionAct to establish a waterways restora-tion program, and for other purposes.

S. 641

At the request of Mr. KENNEDY, thenames of the Senator from Maryland[Ms. MIKULSKI] and the Senator fromIndiana [Mr. LUGAR] were added as co-sponsors of S. 641, a bill to reauthorizethe Ryan White CARE Act of 1990, andfor other purposes.

S. 650

At the request of Mr. SHELBY, thenames of the Senator from South Caro-lina [Mr. HOLLINGS] and the Senatorfrom Arizona [Mr. KYL] were added ascosponsors of S. 650, a bill to increasethe amount of credit available to fuellocal, regional, and national economic

growth by reducing the regulatory bur-den imposed upon financial institu-tions, and for other purposes.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 31

At the request of Mr. HATCH, thename of the Senator from New Mexico[Mr. DOMENICI] was added as a cospon-sor of Senate Joint Resolution 31, ajoint resolution proposing an amend-ment to the Constitution of the UnitedStates to grant Congress and theStates the power to prohibit the phys-ical desecration of the flag of the Unit-ed States.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 3

At the request of Mr. SIMON, thenames of the Senator from Pennsylva-nia [Mr. SPECTER] and the Senatorfrom South Dakota [Mr. PRESSLER]were added as cosponsors of SenateConcurrent Resolution 3, a concurrentresolution relative to Taiwan and theUnited Nations.

SENATE RESOLUTION 110

At the request of Mr. NICKLES, thenames of the Senator from Nevada [Mr.REID], the Senator from New Mexico[Mr. BINGAMAN], the Senator fromSouth Carolina [Mr. HOLLINGS], theSenator from New Jersey [Mr. BRAD-LEY], and the Senator from Maryland[Ms. MIKULSKI] were added as cospon-sors of Senate Resolution 110, a resolu-tion expressing the sense of the Senatecondemning the bombing in OklahomaCity.

At the request of Mr. BIDEN, his namewas added as a cosponsor of SenateResolution 110, supra.

At the request of Mr. WELLSTONE, hisname was added as a cosponsor of Sen-ate Resolution 110, supra.

f

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

COMMONSENSE PRODUCTLIABILITY FAIRNESS ACT

ABRAHAM (AND MCCONNELL)AMENDMENT NO. 597

Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself and Mr.MCCONNELL) proposed an amendmentto amendment No. 596 proposed by Mr.GORTON to the bill (H.R. 956) to estab-lish legal standards and procedures forproduct liability litigation, and forother purposes; as follows:

At the end of the pending amendment addthe following new title:

TITLE III—EQUITY IN LEGAL FEESSEC. 301. EQUITY IN LEGAL FEES.

(a) DISCLOSURE OF ATTORNEY’S FEES INFOR-MATION.—

(1) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub-section—

(A) the term ‘‘attorney’’ means any natu-ral person, professional law association, cor-poration, or partnership authorized underapplicable State law to practice law;

(B) the term ‘‘attorney’s services’’ meansthe professional advice or counseling of orrepresentation by an attorney, but such termshall not include other assistance incurred,directly or indirectly, in connection with an

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5677April 25, 1995attorney’s services, such as administrativeor secretarial assistance, overhead, travelexpenses, witness fees, or preparation by aperson other than the attorney of any study,analysis, report, or test;

(C) the term ‘‘claimant’’ means any natu-ral person who files a civil action arisingunder any Federal law or in any diversity ac-tion in Federal court and—

(i) if such a claim is filed on behalf of theclaimant’s estate, the term shall include theclaimant’s personal representative; or

(ii) if such a claim is brought on behalf ofa minor or incompetent, the term shall in-clude the claimant’s parent, guardian, orpersonal representative;

(D) the term ‘‘contingent fee’’ means thecost or price of an attorney’s services deter-mined by applying a specified percentage,which may be a firm fixed percentage, agraduated or sliding percentage, or any com-bination thereof, to the amount of the settle-ment or judgment obtained;

(E) the term ‘‘hourly fee’’ means the costor price per hour of an attorney’s services;

(F) the term ‘‘initial meeting’’ means thefirst conference or discussion between theclaimant and the attorney, whether by tele-phone or in person, concerning the details,facts, or basis of the claim;

(G) the term ‘‘natural person’’ means anyindividual, and does not include an artificialorganization or legal entity, such as a firm,corporation, association, company, partner-ship, society, joint venture, or governmentalbody; and

(H) the term ‘‘retain’’ means the act of aclaimant in engaging an attorney’s services,whether by express or implied agreement, byseeking and obtaining the attorney’s serv-ices.

(2) DISCLOSURE AT INITIAL MEETING.—(A) IN GENERAL.—An attorney retained by

a claimant shall, at the initial meeting, dis-close to the claimant the claimant’s right toreceive a written statement of the informa-tion described under paragraph (3).

(B) WAIVER AND EXTENSION.—The claimant,in writing, may—

(i) waive the right to receive the statementrequired under subparagraph (A); or

(ii) extend the 30-day period referred tounder paragraph (3).

(3) INFORMATION AFTER INITIAL MEETING.—Subject to paragraph (2)(B), within 30 daysafter the initial meeting, an attorney re-tained by a claimant shall provide a writtenstatement to the claimant containing—

(A) the estimated number of hours of theattorney’s services that will be spent—

(i) settling or attempting to settle theclaim or action; and

(ii) handling the claim through trial;(B) the basis of the attorney’s fee for serv-

ices (such as a contingent, hourly, or flat feebasis) and any conditions, limitations, re-strictions, or other qualifications on the feethe attorney determines are appropriate; and

(C) the contingent fee, hourly fee, or flatfee the attorney will charge the client.

(4) INFORMATION AFTER SETTLEMENT.—(A) IN GENERAL.—An attorney retained by

a claimant shall, within a reasonable timenot later than 30 days after the date onwhich the claim or action is finally settledor adjudicated, provide a written statementto the claimant containing—

(i) the actual number of hours of the attor-ney’s services in connection with the claim;

(ii) the total amount of the fee for the at-torney’s services in connection with theclaim; and

(iii) the actual fee per hour of the attor-ney’s services in connection with the claim,determined by dividing the total amount ofthe fee by the actual number of hours of at-torney’s services.

(B) WAIVER AND EXTENSION.—A client, inwriting, may—

(i) waive the right to receive the statementrequired under subparagraph (A); or

(ii) extend the 30-day period referred tounder subparagraph (A).

(5) FAILURE TO DISCLOSE.—Except with re-gard to a claimant who provides a waiverunder paragraph (2)(B) or (4)(B), a claimantto whom an attorney fails to disclose infor-mation required by this section may with-hold 10 percent of the fee and file a civil ac-tion for damages resulting from the failureto disclose in the court in which the claim oraction was filed or could have been filed.

(6) OTHER REMEDIES.—This subsection shallsupplement and not supplant any otheravailable remedies or penalties.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This title shall takeeffect and apply to claims or actions filed onand after the date occurring 30 days after thedate of enactment of this Act.

HOLLINGS AMENDMENT NO. 598

Mr. HOLLINGS proposed an amend-ment to amendment No. 597 proposedby Mr. ABRAHAM to the bill (H.R. 956)to establish legal standards and proce-dures for product liability litigation,and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of the matter proposed to be in-serted, add the following:SEC. 302. LIMITATIONS ON FEES.

If an attorney at law brings a civil actionor is engaged to defend against any civil ac-tion, the attorney may not be compensatedfor the legal services provided in connectionwith that action at a rate in excess of $50 anhour.

BROWN AMENDMENT NO. 599

Mr. GORTON (for Mr. BROWN) pro-posed an amendment to amendmentNo. 596 proposed by Mr. GORTON the billH.R. 956, supra; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the follow-ing new section:SEC. . REPRESENTATIONS AND SANCTIONS

UNDER RULE 11 FEDERAL RULES OFCIVIL PROCEDURE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Rule 11 of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(3) by striking out ‘‘or,if specifically so identified, are likely tohave evidentiary support after a reasonableopportunity for further investigation or dis-covery’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘or arewell grounded in fact’’; and

(2) in subsection (c)—(A) in the first sentence by striking out

‘‘may, subject to the conditions statedbelow,’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘shall’’;

(B) in paragraph (2) by striking out thefirst and second sentences and inserting inlieu thereof the following: ‘‘A sanction im-posed for violation of this rule may consistof reasonable attorneys’ fees and other ex-penses incurred as a result of the violation,directives of a nonmonetary nature, or anorder to pay penalty into court or to aparty.’’; and

(C) in paragraph (2)(A) by inserting beforethe period ‘‘, although such sanctions may beawarded against a party’s attorneys’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The provisions ofthis section shall take effect 30 days afterthe date of the enactment of this Act.

f

NOTICE OF HEARINGCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL

RESOURCES

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Iwould like to announce for the infor-

mation of the Senate and the publicthat the hearing scheduled before theCommittee on Energy and Natural Re-sources for Thursday, April 27, in roomSD–366 to consider S. 537 and H.R. 402,bills to amend the Alaska NativeClaims Settlement Act, will begin at9:45 a.m. instead of 9:30 a.m., as pre-viously scheduled.

f

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TOMEET

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Commit-tee on Labor and Human Resources beauthorized to meet for an executivesession, during the session of the Sen-ate on Tuesday, April 25, 1995, at 9:30a.m.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Sub-committee on Strategic Forces of theCommittee on Armed Services be au-thorized to meet on Tuesday, April 25,1995 at 2 p.m. in open session to receivetestimony on the Department of Ener-gy’s Environmental Management Pro-gram in review of the defense author-ization request for fiscal year 1996 andthe future years defense program; De-fense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boardreauthorization.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

f

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

MORRIS K. UDALL PARKINSON’SRESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND AS-SISTANCE ACT

∑ Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, sincethe introduction of the Morris K. UdallParkinson’s Research, Education, andAssistance Act, S. 684, on April 6, 1995,I have received subsequent letters ofsupport from many groups and individ-uals around the country.

I ask that a list of these groups andindividuals be printed in the RECORDfollowing a letter of support from thechairman of the National ParkinsonFoundation, Inc.

The material follows:NATIONAL PARKINSON FOUNDATION, INC.,

Miami, FL, March 27, 1995.Hon. MARK HATFIELD,U.S. Senator,Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR HATFIELD: The NationalParkinson Foundation was founded with adual purpose. Firstly, to find the cause andcure of Parkinson’s Disease and secondly, toimprove the quality of care for Parkinsonpatients and their caregivers.

Our fifty thousand square foot head-quarters building, located in Miami, Florida,comprises clinical offices, research facilities,therapeutic departments and a Parkinsonday care center.

In addition, our dedication has caused usto create and to support twenty additional

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5678 April 25, 1995centers located in the most prestigious medi-cal schools in the United States as well as tocreate seven more such centers world wide.

Thus, it is evident how all encompassingour representation is in and for the Parkin-son community.

I assure you of the utmost support of theentire National Parkinson Foundation orga-nization on behalf of the ‘‘Morris K. UdallParkinson’s Research, Assistance, and Edu-cation Act of 1995’’.

I also wish to assure you that I personallyam available in any manner you see fit to as-sist you in support of the bill.

Sincerely,NATHAN SLEWETT,

Chairman.

LETTERS OF SUPPORT

Letters of support were received from: Or-ange Elderly Services, Inc., Orange, CA; theGrand Strand Parkinson’s Support Group,Calabash, NC; The Parkinson’s Disease andMovement Disorders Center at the GraduateHospital, Philadelphia, PA; Parkinson’s Sup-port Group of Santa Maria, CA; Parkinson’sand Other Neurological Discorders, Inc., Jop-lin, MO; Social Service Federation, Parkin-son’s Support Group, Englewood, NJ; Par-kinson’s Disease Support Group, Sioux Val-ley Hospital, Sioux Falls, SD; San JoaquinValley Parkinson Support Group, Turlock,CA; Parkinson’s Support Group of GreaterSyracuse, NY; Tri-State Pittsburgh Chapter,American Parkinsons Disease Association,Pittsburgh, PA; Houston Area Parkinson So-ciety; Houston, TX; Chestnut Hill Rehabili-tation Hospital Parkinson’s Disease SupportGroup, Wyndmoor, PA; Parkinson Founda-tion of Harris County, Houston, TX; Amer-ican Parkinson Disease Association Informa-tion and Referral Center, National CapitalArea, Fairfax, VA; Norfolk Parkinson Sup-port Group, Norfolk, NE; Parkinson SupportGroup of Tarrant County, TX, Fort Worth,TX; Lake County, Illinois Parkinson’s Sup-port Group, Mundelein, IL; Wellness Inter-action Network, Encino, CA; Palo Alto Par-kinson’s Support Group, Palo Alto, CA; Par-kinson Partners of NW Pennsylvania, Erie,PA; South Sound Parkinson’s SupportGroup, Olympia, WA; Rockford, Illinois Par-kinson’s Support Group, Rockford, IL;Greater Daytona Parkinson’s SupportGroup, Ormond Beach, FL; American Par-kinson Disease Association, Oahu chapter,Honolulu, HI; Greencroft Retirement Com-munity Parkinson’s Support Group, Goshen,IN; Parkinsonian Publications; HarveyCheckoway, PhD, Professor of Environ-mental Health and Epidemiology, Universityof Washington, Seattle, WA; Walter C. Low,Ph.D., professor of neurosurgery, Universityof Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; ParsippanyParkinson Support Group, Parsippany, NJ;Wise Young, Ph.D., MD, professor of neuro-surgery, physiology, and biophysics, NewYork University Medical Center, New York,NY; Chico Parkinson’s Support Group,Chico, CA; Colonial Club Senior Center Par-kinson’s Support Group, Sun Prairie, WI;American Parkinson Disease Association In-formation and Referral Center, SuffolkCounty, Smithtown, NY; Longmont, Colo-rado Parkinson’s Disease Support Group,Longmont, CO; North Central MississippiParkinson’s Support Group, Greenwood, MS;Central New York Parkinson Support Group,Herkimer, NY; Erwin B. Montgomery, Jr.,MD, associate professor of neurology, theUniversity of Arizona Health Sciences Cen-ter, Tucson, AZ; Nebraska Parkinson’s Ac-tion Information Network, Lincoln, NE; Par-kinson Support Group of North Jersey,Verona, NJ; Parkinson’s Enrichment Pro-gram Support Group, New York, NY; WilliamC. Koller, MD, Ph.D., Professor and chair-man, department of neurology, the Univer-

sity of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City,KS; Dallas Area Parkinsonism Society, Dal-las, TX; the Movement Disorder Society,Houston, TX; Eisenhower Medical CenterParkinson Center of Excellence, Rancho Mi-rage, CA; American Parkinson Disease Asso-ciation Information and Referral Center,Reno, NV; Parkinson Support Group Founda-tion of Long Island, Inc., Rockville Centre,NY.∑

f

MCKENDREE COLLEGE’S NEWPRESIDENT

∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, James W.Dennis will be inaugurated asMcKendree College’s 32d president onApril 29. Whether as a faculty memberor administrator, Dr. Dennis has hadan exceptional commitment to youngpeople.

Throughout his career, Dr. Dennishas been active in both the academicand nonacademic communities. For in-stance, Dr. Dennis founded the Na-tional Youth Program which offerseducational and sports opportunities todisadvantaged youth. He has also pro-vided learning opportunities for highschool and college educators by estab-lishing the educational seminars. Aworld class advocate and educator, Dr.Dennis has promoted student volunta-rism and supported area alcohol anddrug-abuse education efforts.

As Illinois’ oldest college, McKendreewill prosper with Dr. Dennis’ activismand commitment. I extend my bestwishes to Dr. Dennis and McKendreeCollege.∑f

TRIBUTE TO LOUISVILLE MALEHIGH SCHOOL

∑ Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, Iwould like to recognize Louisville MaleHigh School, from Kentucky, who wonfirst place at the State competition ofthe We the People . . . The Citizen andthe Constitution. This victory entitlesthese young scholars to compete in thenational finals held in our Nation’sCapital.

The members of the Louisville MaleHigh School team are: Shannon Bend-er, Josh Bridgwater, Shilo Burke,Katie Callender, Scott Embry, JessiFollowwill, Adam Greenwell, JohnGrissom, Christy Jones, JonathanKeith, Stephanie McAlmont, StephenMcAlmont, Shannon McMillan, TravisMoore, Kristi Mosier, Adam Pedigo,Melanie Rapp, Amber Rowan, ChrisRutledge, Shannon Simms, Eric Ste-vens, April Stivers, Ricky Suel,Danyaun Vandgrift, Shaniqua Wade.

I would also like to recognize theirteacher, Sandra D. Hoover, who de-serves much of the credit for the suc-cess of the team. The district coordina-tor, Tommy Dowler, and the State co-ordinator, Tami Dowler also contrib-uted a significant amount of time andeffort to help the team reach the na-tional finals.

The We the People . . . the Citizenand the Constitution program, fundedby Congress, is designated to educateyoung people about the Constitution

and the Bill of Rights. The 3-day na-tional competition simulates a con-gressional hearing in which students’oral presentations are judged on thebasis of their knowledge of constitu-tional principles and their ability toapply them to historical and contem-porary issues. Members of Congress andtheir staff enhance the program by dis-cussing current constitutional issueswith both students and teachers.

Mr. President, I would like my col-leagues to join me in recognizing thesestudents. It is refreshing to see youngpeople wanting to gain an informedperspective about the history and theprinciples of the United States con-stitutional government. I wish themembers of the Male High School Wethe People team the best of luck andlook forward to their future in politicsand government.∑

f

JAMES R. SCHLESINGER: PAUL H.NITZE AWARD RECIPIENT

∑ Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, theCenter for Naval Analyses in Alexan-dria, VA, annually presents the Paul H.Nitze Award in recognition of impor-tant contributions to national andinternational security affairs. Thisyear’s recipient of the Nitze Award isthe Honorable James R. Schlesinger,who received the award on April 6, 1995.

Dr. James Schlesinger is of courseone of the most experienced and ablepublic servants of our time. A distin-guished economist, he served duringthe Nixon administration in severalprominent capacities in the Bureau ofthe Budget, ascending to Assistant Di-rector in 1970, when the Bureau becamethe Office of Management and Budget.And, as Senators are well aware, hewent on to become Director of CentralIntelligence and Secretary of Defensein the Nixon and Ford administrations,and Secretary of Energy under Presi-dent Carter. Dr. Schlesinger has alsoserved for many years as senior advisorat Lehman Brothers, and he is widelyrespected for his scholarship arisingout of his long association with theCenter for Strategic and InternationalStudies at Georgetown University.

On receiving the Paul H. NitzeAward, Jim Schlesinger delivered anoutstanding lecture on ‘‘AmericanLeadership, Isolationism, andUnilateralism’’ in which he points outthe need for close attention to theleadership role of the United States ininternational affairs in the post-cold-war era.

Mr. President, when a scholar andpublic eminence of James Schlesinger’swisdom and stature addresses himselfto an issue of such significance toworld affairs, I believe it is incumbenton all of us to take notice. Every Sen-ator will benefit from a careful readingof Dr. Schlesinger’s speech, and I there-fore ask that it be printed in theRECORD.

The speech follows:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5679April 25, 1995SOME REFLECTIONS ON AMERICAN LEADERSHIP,

ISOLATIONISM, AND UNILATERALISM

Ladies and Gentlemen: It is a special pleas-ure as well as an honor to have been chosento receive the Paul H. Nitze Award. It is aspecial pleasure because Paul and I havebeen collaborating directly for almost aquarter of a century—and indirectly for evenlonger. I started working for Paul in theearly 60’s, when I was at the RAND Corpora-tion, and he was head of International Secu-rity Affairs at the Pentagon. Years laterwhen I was Secretary of Defense, Paul alsoworked for me. That clearly was the way itread on the organization chart, though, forthose of you who may not be aware of this,such charts do not necessarily convey thewhole of reality.

Of course, it is also a great honor for rea-sons that must be obvious—Paul’s many con-tributions to this nation, his keenness of in-tellect (not the most common characteristicamong high officials), his abiding role as asenior statesman. But perhaps one of Paul’smost remarkable strengths is the cool anddetached view that habitually he has takenwith regard to national security affairs—ris-ing above the hubbub of controversy. Thatcharacteristic has been displayed mostprominently in matters such as the Pal-estine crisis of 1947, the Watergate crisis, anda ‘‘walk in the woods’’. Paul has displayednot only staying power, but (to avert to anissue that first brought us together) greatthrowweight in national security affairs. Soit is a distinct honor as well as a personalpleasure to have been selected for this year’sNitze Award.

As most of us will recall, Paul Nitze wasone of the principal authors of NSC–68,which, in the aftermath of World War II,charted that transformed role for the UnitedStates in international affairs—of leadershipand continuous engagement. In a sense, theintellectual underpinnings of NSC–68 guidedAmerican policy for more than 40 years. Butwe all realize the era of NSC–68 is now over.It ended, rather abruptly, with the demise ofthe Soviet Union. Of course, it was Sovietmisbehavior in the postwar world thatformed the national consensus which gavesustenance to the design that underlay NSC–68. It manifested itself in the Greek-Turkishaid program, the Marshall Plan, the NATOAlliance—and, shortly later, the response toaggression in the Korean peninsula and theU.S.-Japan Security Treaty.

Yet, with the fall of the Soviet Union, thisnation has been stripped both of guidepoststo our foreign policy and of the national con-sensus that underpins that policy. Both theuncertainties and the challenges are sub-stantial. This nation is deeply enmeshed inworld affairs. For better or worse, it is theleading world power. No longer is it free, asit felt itself to be through much of its his-tory, to stand aloof, to isolate itself from po-litical events abroad. Yet, the clear guide-lines that marked those past period of en-gagement are now lacking.

For this reason I want to spend some timethis evening reflecting on American leader-ship, on isolationism, and on unilateralism.In his inaugural Nitze Award lecture, Sir Mi-chael Howard looked back in time to reviewlessons from the Cold War Period. I seek tolook forward—to what comes next. Of late,one may have noticed the demands for‘‘American leadership’’ and the charges of‘‘isolationist’’ that have reverberated acrossthe political landscape. That the charge of‘‘isolationist’’ is so widely used as a politicalepithet reveals that the notion that Americacan stand aloof has little resonance with theAmerican public. The public fully acceptsthat its economic ties, its political interests,even its residual vulnerability in an era ofnuclear weapons, preclude a wholesale Amer-

ican withdrawal from international affairs.Moreover, even if we could stand aside, thevoice of conscience insists that it would notbe right for America to be indifferent to po-litical travail, particularly when it affectslong-time allies of the United States.

By contrast to these rejected charges ofisolationism, the image of American leader-ship has a grand resonance. Unhappy eventsoverseas, whether or not there is any seriousAmerican interest, are regularly blamed onthe ‘‘failure of American leadership’’. Every-body seems to urge American leadership.Americans like to flatter themselves withthe notion that this country is the ‘‘sole sur-viving superpower’’—and expect action tomake those unhappy events go away—solong as it does not cost us very much. OurEuropean allies—sometimes rightly, some-times wrongly—have demanded: Where isAmerican leadership? (Of late that cry hasdiminished in intensity, as European expec-tations regarding American leadership havefaded.) Our Asian associates have resentedour continuous preaching, yet all are con-cerned that an erosion over time of Amer-ican power in the Pacific will allow an insta-bility from which until now they have beenprotected. Preachers, teachers, editorialwriters, if not little children in the street,seem to presuppose American leadership—but fundamentally treat it as a panacea—asa ready antidote for most, if not all, of theworld’s problems.

Thus, the real issue comes down, not towithdrawal or isolation—those are epithets—but to when, where, and how we choose to in-tervene. In part the charge of isolation real-ly comes down to a suspicion of unilateralmoves by the United States on the inter-national scene. For those who embracemultilateralism and who prefer to workthrough international bodies, the charge ofisolationist comes readily as a riposte tothose who do not agree with them. Butmultilateralism can readily be a cover for in-action. It can also be, and frequently is, a ve-hicle for ineffective action. Of course, thosewho instinctively prefer to work throughinternational bodies are frequently rightthat their opponents are short sighted oreven blindly chauvinistic. But their actionsare scarcely isolationist. Rightly or wrongly,they are regularly intended to achieve inter-national objectives. But such unilateralistimpulses may be equally flawed or ineffec-tive.

The Clinton Administration has chided itsfoes for being isolationists. It is perhapsmerely the most recent assertion of ‘‘asser-tive multilaterialism’’. Their critics, in turn,have responded in kind. The Administrationmay fervently believe in the collaborationamong nations, yet it has shown a distinctproclivity to become embroiled in quarrelswith individual nations, sometimes includ-ing old allies, over issues which are eitheronly remotely our business or over which ourinfluence is modest. Endangering ties withthose that have been reliable allies, alongwith ineffectual, if irritating, advocacy ofpolicies over which our influence is slightruns the risk of weakening the ties betweenourselves and other nations—in effect isolat-ing the United States. In terms of its acco-lades to international engagement, the Ad-ministration is clearly beyond criticism. Itis only those specific actions that the Ad-ministration takes, which properly comesout and which understandably alarms itscritics. Irrespective of the good intentions,such actions may weaken the internationalposition of the United States.

Thus, the question is not one of isolationor withdrawal. The question is where, when,and on what terms does the United Statesbecome engaged. What is our foreign policyto be—now that the conceptually easy task

of containment has come to an end. It is per-haps unnecessary to remind this audiencethat such questions are antecedent to theissue of shaping our military forces. Theshaping of those forces depends upon the rolethat the United States wishes to play in theworld—and the circumstances under whichthose forces may become engaged.

II

Thus, we seek a new paradigm for an effec-tive foreign policy. We seek, in effect, a suc-cessor to NSC–68. But it is not easy to comeby. Some of the difficulty in finding thatnew paradigm is inherent. It is probably un-avoidable that we flounder to some degree athistoric turning points. We did so afterWorld War II. It was not until 1947–1948 thatwe began to find our bearings—and to dothat we had the indispensable help of JosephStalin. Now the international scene is vastlymore complex and yet there is much less di-rect danger to the United States. Thoughthere are numerous eruptions on the inter-national scene, there is little to concentratethe mind.

In every such eruption, somewhere some-one will call on the United States to dosomething. ‘‘Concentrating the mind’’ is in-dispensable to some degree. It is better thatwe recognize that simple fact rather thanhaving reality thrust upon us. No nation cando everything; we would be wise not to as-pire to do so.

I can recall over 40 years ago listening toa debate at Harvard regarding the resolutionof one of our seemingly perennial steelstrikes—during which John Dunlop, laterSecretary of Labor, commented: ‘‘It is im-portant for a democracy not too frequentlyto demonstrate its own ineffectiveness’’. Ihave never forgotten that injunction. Butwhat is true for domestic policy is even moretrue for foreign policy. Becoming engaged innumerous disputes, particularly if one lackspublic backing, is the high road to ineffec-tiveness.

Perhaps it is obvious to say that the prob-lem is especially difficult for the UnitedStates, which, as a world power, might findits attention drawn in any one of many di-rections—and for which public backing is asometime thing and must be carefully fos-tered.

In the past and for other great powers, thechoice of foreign policy tendered to be farsimpler. For most it was geographically de-termined. There likely would be an historicenemy. For, say, France or Germany, therewas little uncertainty as to who one’s foemight be and where one must be prepared tofight. To be sure, for Britain, whose imperialinterests were more far-flung, the problemwas broader: to protect communicationswith the empire and to prevent any singlepower from dominating the Continent. Yetfor the United States today, our interestsare even more diverse, and the challenge ofbeing a world power has grown since the eraof European dominance.

Moreover, the task was far easier in an-other respect. Given what was seen as clearnational interests, the unquestioned rule forthe European powers stressed the priority tobe assigned to foreign policy. The phrasefrom Bismarckian German puts it simply:das Primat der Aussenpolitik—the primacyof foreign policy. Yet, the primacy was fareasier to establish in a dynastic regime.Even in the case of England, the problem wasnot insuperable—in light of its clearly de-fined foreign policy, the preservation of thebalance of power, and a continued willing-ness of the British public to defer to a stronggoverning class.

But here in the United States we now showsigns of turning das Primat der

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5680 April 25, 1995Aussenpolitik on its head and allowing for-eign policy to be determined by domesticpolitics. In any democracy that is a continu-ing temptation; it is particularly a problemin the United States where the vicissitudesof public opinion can so easily determinepublic policy. And, particularly is this so inthe absence of an overriding fear (as with theSoviet Union) or an overriding anger as withJapan or Spain in an earlier era (RememberPearl Harbor, Remember the Maine). In sus-taining public support, it is frequently help-ful if the anger has focused on a weak foe(Mexico, Spain, or Grenada) for then one cancount on public exultation in a ‘‘glorious lit-tle war’’.

When, however, there is no clear and for-midable foe and when only a few MiddleEastern countries seem to generate publicanger, it is difficult to sustain a priority inforeign policy (as George Bush belatedly dis-covered). It is thus seductively easy to ac-cept the primary of domestic politics.

In addition to the absence of a clear focusand the existence of diverse areas of poten-tial responsibility for the United States,which alone is a world power, there is a fur-ther problem. There are too many distrac-tions, most of them transitory in nature. Itis difficult to concentrate on those issuesthat might represent ‘‘permanent interests’’,given the worldwide domain of televisionwith a power, if not an agenda, that exceedsthat of ‘‘yellow journalism’’ in the past.Rather than permanent interests, we experi-ence sudden passionate interest in theBosnians, the Kurds, the Rwandans, theflight of Haitian or Cuban refugees, then theKurds again that lasts a few weeks ormonths at most—until the story pales, thepublic tires of it, and then moves on. Surelythat complicates the task of selecting thoseinterests and issues to which we should ad-here. It makes the challenge of sustainingsupport for long term interests, as opposedto momentary distractions, immensely dif-ficult.

Need I add that these factors also makeimmensely difficult the task of force plan-ning. There is uncertainty as to what ourforeign policy may be. Consequently, there isan uncertainty as to where we might fight.Choosing two major regional conflicts as‘‘representative’’ is hardly an ideal solu-tion—reminding us of the locale of past con-flicts rather than of the likely future con-flicts. Moreover, under these circumstancesthere are genuine conflicts regarding specificforeign objectives. With respect to our Asianpolicies, for example, the DOD’s Inter-national Security Affairs opines: ‘‘the UnitedStates remains dedicated to strengtheningalliances and friendships’’. Yet, this scarcelydescribes the motives that guide the actionsof the U.S. Trade Representative, who is pre-disposed to confrontations with the sameAsian states—by implicitly, if not explicitly,threatening to weaken those alliances andfriendships. In U.S. policy there is a growingmixture of economic rivalry and alliance re-assurance. Perhaps this is unavoidable, yetclearly it undercuts any joint planning withthose allies on whom we should be able tocount.

III

I have now devoted some time to explain-ing why in this postwar world the inherentdifficulties for this nation shaping its for-eign policy have grown. Now let me turn toanalyzing how our own actions have beencompounding those difficulties inherent inthis altered world—and have seemed to un-dercut that role of world leader which we os-tensibly cherish. But first I must portray thegeneral behavior and the style necessary tosustain the role of world leader. One does notrequire any special knowledge or eruditionto understand these requirements; they

should be obvious to any long time observerof politics.

First, to be accepted as a leader, a nationmust be seen not to be acting primarily forits own account. It must understand andtake into account the interests of its fol-lowers. It must also be seen to be genuinelyinterested in international affairs—ratherthan blindly follow the dictates of its owndomestic politics. AND it must focus on mat-ters of real consequence.

Second, it must be reasonably consistent.Changes in policy should be few in number—and taken for what are seen as valid reasons.One must be steadfast. A great power doesnot lightly enter into commitments, butwhen it does so it must be with the seriousintent of carrying them out. In brief thosewho wish to retain a position of leadershipmust avoid capriciousness. Otherwise one’scredibility rapidly diminishes, and one’s in-fluence fades with almost equal rapidity.

Of late the United States has failed to ob-serve these obvious rules. While we flatterourselves as the world’s sole remaining su-perpower, we seem to be amazed that our in-fluence seems to be shrinking. To be sure,some such shrinkage is inherent in thechange of circumstances. With the demise ofthe Soviet threat, other nations, previouslydependent upon the United States for protec-tion, are now less dependent and so less in-clined to defer to our wishes. But the erosionof our influence proceeds more rapidly thanrequired by the circumstances. If we are toarrest that decline, we must understand thecauses.

If a nation is to lead, it must seem to begenuinely concerned about international af-fairs—and not driven primarily by domesticpressures. Nonetheless, in recent years ourpolicies being driven by domestic constitu-encies appear to be the rule rather than theexception. In Northern Ireland, in Haiti, inrespect to Cuba or Haitian refugees, in muchof the Middle East, our policies seem to bedriven by domestic pressures—and we appearlargely indifferent regarding the inter-national repercussions. A hungerstrike andpressures from the Black Caucus brought ashift in our policies toward Haiti. A seniorofficial backgrounds to the press that: ‘‘Noone will get to the right of us on Iran’’. ThePresident’s National Security Advisor re-veals that the United States will attemptonce again to tighten sanctions on Libya bypersuading our European partners to ceasebuying Libyan oil. This revelation occurs,not in a regular diplomatic forum, but in ameeting with the families of the victims ofPan Am 108.

Disappointed as they may have been, Euro-peans were not really surprised that theUnited States did not regard Bosnia as pri-marily our business. (Especially was this soin light of the European Union’s having pre-viously told us that Europe would handleBosnia, and there was no need for our inter-vention.) They were, however, non-plussedthat we would regard the affairs of NorthernIreland as primarily our business. NorthernIreland is, after all, a province of the UnitedKingdom, part of its sovereign territory. Forus to butt in (no other expression seems suit-able!) for domestic political reasons appearedboth ignorant and bumptious. Such behavioris scarcely consistent with the solidarity ofNATO, let alone the ‘‘special relationship’’. Icannot overstate the dismay of other Euro-peans regarding our treatment of the Brit-ish. The general reaction is: If the Americanswill behave this way to their most intimatepartner, what can the rest of us expect? Thediplomat’s word for this episode is: ‘‘dis-appointment’’.

This Administration is explicitly vulner-able to the conservative charge that it issoft—most notably soft on Saddam Hussein.

For this reason it seeks, with ever lesseningsupport and growing desperation to maintainthe sanctions on Iraq that were adopted in1990. Three of the five permanent members ofthe Security Council have now introduced aresolution to terminate those sanctions.Even Iraq’s neighbors regard our policy as nolonger productive, though they are reluctantto say so to our highest officials. If the Unit-ed States is seen primarily for domestic po-litical reasons to be stretching out sanctionsbelieved to be unproductive, if not unjust,how ready will others again be to followAmerican leadership in imposing sanctions?The answer is clear. A willingness to put do-mestic pressures in front of internationalconsiderations will undermine the very mul-tilateral mechanisms that the Administra-tion believes ideal for abiding internationalstability. Indeed, with respect to Libya, Iran,and Iraq, rather than achieving its declaredgoal isolating those countries, our diplomacytends to isolate the United States itself.

The effect of these altogether too manycases of putting domestic politics first is toobscure those instances in which the Admin-istration has rightly focused our policies onthe longer term interests both of this nationand of international stability—most notablyour relations with Russia and the spread ofnuclear weapons. Other nations doubt thatwe understand their interests, let alone takethem into adequate account. When the Unit-ed States proclaims that providing (6000thermal megawatts of) light water reactorsto North Korea is the best remedy for curb-ing North Korea’s drive to acquire nuclearweapons, it makes it somewhat difficult, tosay the least, to persuade the Russians thatproviding light water reactors in Iran cre-ates an open road to nuclear spread. To be ef-fective, even with respect to common long-term interests, a leader needs to maintainits credibility.

The problem goes well beyond the Admin-istration. One can think of many advantagesof divided government—invetting domesticproposals. However, I myself can think ofvirtually no advantages in divided govern-ment with respect to international affairs. Itweakens the voice of any Administration—and it undermines the credibility of Amer-ican diplomacy. This Congress now seems in-clined to inflict on the Clinton Administra-tion’s policies regarding Bosnia and regard-ing Russian aid the same kind of cavaliertreatment with which its Democratic prede-cessor treated President Bush’s policies to-ward China after Tiananmen Square. What-ever the merits or defects of our policy onthe so-called Mexican bail out or towardIran, Congressional intervention does notseem likely to improve them.

Our policies have been changeable ratherthan consistent. Our commitments do notappear to be reliable. Our policies appear ex-cessively driven by domestic constituencies.The result is that the call for American lead-ership is diminishing in strength. Increas-ingly American leadership appears to be aproblem rather than a solution.

We are tempting fate. Some years ago PaulNitze suggested that ‘‘other nations can beexpected to coalesce to cut us down to size’’.Unless we are prepared to deflect our own do-mestic pressures, to take international con-siderations primarily into account, to under-stand the differing interests of other nations,and to pursue worthy long-term, common in-terests, we shall regrettably accelerate thatprocess. Writing in 1950 in his splendid work,‘‘American Diplomacy,’’ George Kennan ob-served: ‘‘history does not forgive us our na-tional mistakes because they are explicablein terms of our domestic politics’’. He alsostates: ‘‘A nation which excuses its own fail-ures by the same sacred untouchableness of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 5681April 25, 1995its own habits can excuse itself into com-plete disaster’’.

With the end of the totalitarian threat,with the remarkably changed internationalcircumstances, the danger to the UnitedStates has visibly receded, and there is littlelikelihood of a ‘‘complete disaster’’. None-theless, despite the lessened danger, the pos-sibility remains of cumulative small set-backs and the erosion of our position. Wemay ignore such possibilities—and it is un-likely to be fatal. Still the rules are quitesimple. To be a leader, a nation must sustainits credibility.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you have been morethan patient. I must draw to a close—andmust also offer a few conclusions.

During the Cold War the stakes were im-mense: the preservation of the Western de-mocracies and, if I may say so, the substan-tial preservation of Western Civilization it-self of which the United States was the secu-rity mainstay. (I say this despite the prob-able assault of the multiculturalists.) Butwith the end of the cohesion and menace ofthe Soviet empire, the stakes have nowshrunken. The United States, the world’smost powerful nation, is in a sense free to becapricious, to be irresponsible. Yet, it willnot soon fall into direct and serious danger.Nonetheless, there are restraints—and thereare prospective consequences of our actions.The price of capriciousness will inevitably bea loss of credibility—and of our position ofleadership.

While the United States is a powerfulcountry, it is not all-powerful. At the closeof the Nineteenth Century, Secretary ofState Richard Olney could declaim duringthe Venezuelan dispute with Great Britainthat the United States’ ‘‘word was fiat onthis continent’’. Whatever we may wish, it isnot fiat around the world. To pretend other-wise will make us look foolish. The focus ofour foreign policy concern, as Paul Nitze hassaid, should be ‘‘what kind of relationsamong the leading powers’’. We must be cau-tious about involving ourselves in matters oflesser consequences. We should be restrainedin word as well as deed. The United States isnot obliged to comment on everything. Med-dling in issues in which our interests areonly tangentially involved, nagging othersabout their defects, real or imaginary, maymake us feel good for the moment. It is notthe road to successful or long-term leader-ship.

To provide long-term leadership, other na-tions must understand that we do not speakcasually or loosely. When we do choose tomake a commitment, other nations need toknow that we can and probably will live upto it. Always remember: leadership is not aninheritance; it must be earned anew, eachdecade, each year.∑

f

TRIBUTE TO MARTHA COMER

∑ Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, Irise today to pay tribute to an out-standing Kentuckian who has been se-lected for induction into the KentuckyJournalism Hall of Fame. Mrs. MarthaComer of Maysville, KY, is devoted toher profession, to the Ledger-Independ-ent, formerly the Daily Independent,and to her community.

Martha Comer was born in 1906, thesame year that her father founded theDaily Independent. It is not surprisingthat Martha displayed her journalisticqualities at a young age. She served asthe editor of the school annual atMaysville High School. Upon her grad-uation from high school she began

working on the editorial staff of theDaily Independent. She assumed theduties as editor in 1935, although hername did not appear as editor until1941.

In 1968 the Daily Independent wassold to the Maysville Publishing Corp.and became the Ledger-Independent.At this time Martha became the editorand was responsible for publishing boththe morning and afternoon editions.Although Mrs. Comer retired on Janu-ary 7, 1977, she continued to remain onas an editorial consultant. For manyyears she continued to write a dailycolumn and editorials. And to this day,Martha Comer still writes editorialcommentary two or three times a weekfor the Labor-Independent.

Mrs. Comer’s editorial involvementallowed her to become actively in-volved with her community. She hascampaigned tirelessly for many organi-zations and causes, such as advocatingpublic policy and teaching in the lit-eracy program.

Mr. President, I would like my col-leagues to join me in paying tribute toMartha Comer, a new inductee into theKentucky Journalism Hall of Fame. Iam positive that Mrs. Comer will con-tinue to display the great qualities inwhich she has in the past. I know thather community appreciates her in-volvement and dedication.∑

f

TRIBUTE TO DENNIS GRIFFIN

∑ Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, Irise today to pay tribute to DennisGriffin, a resident of Bowling Green,KY, who is being recognized as one ofthe top local developers in the Nation.Mr. Griffin is 1 of 10 economic devel-opers who received a leadership awardfrom the American Economic Develop-ment Council.

Mr. Griffin has been president of theBowling Green-Warren County Cham-ber of Commerce since 1986, the sameyear he moved to Kentucky. Since tak-ing over as president of the chamber ofcommerce the local economy hassoared. Mr. Griffin is best described byBowling Green Mayor Johnny Webb ina recent article in the Daily News.Mayor Webb said,

Things were not going too well in BowlingGreen. It had been some time since we hadrecruited a new industry. It was almost likea lightbulb coming on when (Griffin) came inand got his feet on the ground. He is the cat-alyst to development.

Mr. President, during the last 9years, Mr. Griffin has worked hard todevelop the region. He is responsiblefor starting 56 new companies, and es-tablishing 6,000 new jobs; an invest-ment of more than $400 million in thecommunity. But that’s not all, Mr.Griffin also worked hard to help 72 ex-isting industries expand, which createdan additional 2,500 jobs, investing an-other $100 million in the community.

Mr. Griffin, just like the EnergizerBunny, is still going strong even after9 years of service. In the last yearalone, 10 new plants have decided to

call Bowling Green their home and 9companies have expanded.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues tojoin me in paying tribute to this out-standing Kentuckian. I think that allwill agree that through his hard workand dedication for his community, Mr.Griffin proves that he truly deservesthe honor of being one of the country’stop local developers.∑

f

MORNING BUSINESS

ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMSSETTLEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Senateproceed to the immediate consider-ation of Calendar No. 43, H.R. 421, theCook Inlet Region bill, that the bill bedeemed read a third time, passed, thatthe motion to reconsider be laid uponthe table, and that any statements re-lating to the bill be placed at the ap-propriate place in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, theSenate is about to take up H.R. 421, theAlaska Native Claims Act AmendmentAct of 1995. I wish to take a few mo-ments to describe H.R. 421 and impor-tance of passing the bill this evening.

On March 15, 1995, the Committee onEnergy and Natural Resources unani-mously reported nearly identical legis-lation for consideration by the fullSenate.

The bill allows the Cook Inlet RegionIncorporated Native corporation,called CIRI, to consider creating a sys-tem to buy back the stock of willingsellers, provided that stockholders voteto set up such a system. It will serve asa test for an alternate system of stockdistribution that could later be ex-panded for use by any of the State’sNative regional corporations.

The goal of H.R. 421 is simple: to pro-vide a responsible middle ground sothat shareholders will have access tothe capital value of their stock, whilepreserving the Native control and own-ership of the ANCSA corporations.

Originally under the 1971 Alaska Na-tive Claims Settlement Act, Nativeshareholders were prevented from sell-ing their stock for 20 years. This was togive the corporations time to mature.As part of a series of 1991 amendmentsto the corporations, Congress changedthe law, at the request of the Natives,so that stock restrictions onalienability—the right of Natives tosell their shares—automatically con-tinued unless and until the sharehold-ers of a corporation voted to removethem.

H.R. 421 will provide another alter-native. Shareholders will be able to selltheir stock back to the corporation,helping preserve Native control if:First the corporation’s board votes toparticipate; second, the majority of theentire membership of the corporationvotes to permit buybacks; and third, if

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 5682 April 25, 1995individual shareholders then want toparticipate. All three conditions mustbe met before any sale of stock is pos-sible.

When the legislation was consideredin the House, an issue arose regardingthat section of the bill that providesprotection from liability to CIRI, itsdirectors and officers and evaluationadvisors when making an offer to pur-chase stock. I have reviewed theamendment and find it acceptable. Itcontains the protection needed byCIRI, and is consistent with the AlaskaNative Claims Settlement Act. Theprotections from liability provided inthe language are intended to apply toall causes of action under any provi-sions of State or Federal law and arelimited to stock re-purchase offeringsmade pursuant to this legislation.

H.R. 421 provides a test case for Na-tive corporation stock distribution.Senator STEVENS and myself have pro-posed this bill at the request of CIRIand the Alaska Federation of Natives.The other corporations have said theywould like to see how this works inCIRI’s case before deciding whetherthey would like the option extended tothem.

The important thing to remember isthat this legislation has several safe-guards to ensure that any stockrepurchases will be conducted fairly—the biggest safeguard is that the pro-gram can’t happen unless approved bya majority vote of shareholders.

This bill provides a fair alternatemeans for distributing corporation

stock while preserving Native controlof the ANCSA corporations.

I have worked with Alaska’s Nativecommunity for the last 15 years and Iam sure that the Native people aremore than capable of making their owndecisions that affect their own cor-porate affairs. The Alaska Native peo-ple should have the same choices thatall other stockholders in America have.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R.421.

The bill (H.R. 421) was deemed readthree times and passed.f

ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL26, 1995

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that when the Sen-ate completes its business today itstand in recess until the hour of 10:30a.m. on Wednesday, April 26, 1995; that,following the prayer, the Journal ofproceedings be deemed approved todate; the time for the two leaders bereserved for their use later in the day;and the Senate then immediately re-sume consideration of H.R. 956, theproduct liability bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.f

PROGRAM

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for theinformation of my colleagues, underthe provisions of the agreement en-tered earlier, at 5 p.m. tomorrow theSenate will begin 60 minutes of debateto be followed by two consecutive roll-

call votes. Members should, therefore,be aware that there will be two stackedvotes at approximately 6 p.m. Therewill be no rollcall votes prior to thosevotes in order to accommodate Mem-bers attending the funeral of SenatorStennis.

f

RECESS UNTIL 10:30 A.M.TOMORROW

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, if thereis no further business to come beforethe Senate, I now ask that the Senatestand in recess under the previousorder.

There being no objection, the Senate,at 8:21 p.m., recessed until tomorrow,Wednesday, April 26, 1995, at 10:30 a.m.

f

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received bythe Senate April 25, 1995:

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

MOSINA H. JORDAN, OF NEW YORK, A CAREER MEMBEROF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY ANDPLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICATO THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC.

LANNON WALKER, OF MARYLAND, A CAREER MEMBEROF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF CAREERMINISTER, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY ANDPLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICATO THE REPUBLIC OF COTE D’IVOIRE.

SANDRA J. KRISTOFF, OF VIRGINIA, FOR THE RANK OFAMBASSADOR DURING HER TENURE OF SERVICE AS U.S.COORDINATOR FOR ASIA PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERA-TION (APEC).

THE JUDICIARY

TERENCE T. EVANS, OF WISCONSIN, TO BE U.S. CIRCUITJUDGE FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, VICE RICHARD D.CUDAHY, RETIRED.

WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, OF CALIFORNIA TO BE U.S. CIR-CUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, VICE WILLIAM AL-BERT NORRIS, RETIRED.

D 512

Tuesday, April 25, 1995

Daily DigestSenate

Chamber ActionRoutine Proceedings, pages S5619–S5682Measures Introduced: Four bills were introduced,as follows: S. 722–725. Page S5664

Measures Passed:Condemning Oklahoma City Bombing: By a

unanimous vote of 97 yeas (Vote No. 133), Senateagreed to S. Res. 110, expressing the sense of theSenate condemning the bombing in Oklahoma City,Oklahoma. Page S5638

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Senatepassed H.R. 421, to amend the Alaska NativeClaims Settlement Act to provide for the purchase ofcommon stock of Cook Inlet Region, clearing themeasure for the President. Page S5682

Product Liability Fairness Act: Senate continuedconsideration of H.R. 956, to establish legal stand-ards and procedures for product liability litigation,taking action on amendments proposed thereto, asfollows: Pages S5638–59

Pending:(1) Gorton Amendment No. 596, in the nature of

a substitute. Page S5638(2) Abraham Amendment No. 597 (to Amend-

ment No. 596), to provide for equity in legal fees. Pages S5653–54

(3) Hollings Amendment No. 598 (to Amend-ment No. 597), to establish a limitation on attor-neys’ fees in all civil actions to $50 per hour. Page S5657

(4) Gorton (for Brown) Amendment No. 599 (toAmendment No. 596), to restore to rule 11 of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure the restrictions onfrivolous legal actions that existed prior to 1994. Page S5663

A unanimous-consent time agreement was reachedproviding for further consideration of HollingsAmendment No. 598 and Abraham AmendmentNo. 597, listed above, with votes to occur thereon,on Wednesday, April 26. Page S5663

Senate will continue consideration of the bill onWednesday, April 26, 1995.Nominations Received: Senate received the follow-ing nominations:

Mosina H. Jordan, of New York, to be Ambas-sador to the Central African Republic.

Lannon Walker, of Maryland, to be Ambassadorto the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire.

Terence T. Evans, of Wisconsin, to be UnitedStates Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit.

William A. Fletcher, of California, to be UnitedStates Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.

Sandra J. Kristoff, of Virginia, for the rank ofAmbassador during her tenure of service as U.S. Co-ordinator for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation(APEC). Page S5682

Communications: Page S5664

Executive Reports of Committees: Page S5664

Statements on Introduced Bills: Pages S5664–76

Additional Cosponsors: Page S5676

Amendments Submitted: Pages S5676–77

Notices of Hearings: Page S5677

Authority for Committees: Page S5677

Additional Statements: Pages S5677–81

Record Votes: One record vote was taken today.(Total–133) Page S5638

Recess: Senate convened at 9:30 a.m., and recessedat 8:21 p.m., until 10:30 a.m., on Wednesday, April26, 1995. (For Senate’s program, see the remarks ofthe Acting Majority Leader in today’s RECORD onpage S5682.)

Committee Meetings(Committees not listed did not meet)

AUTHORIZATION—DEFENSECommittee on Armed Services: Subcommittee on Strate-gic Forces resumed hearings on proposed legislationauthorizing funds for fiscal year 1996 for the De-partment of Defense and the future years defenseprogram, focusing on the Defense Nuclear FacilitiesSafety Board and the Department of Energy’s envi-ronmental management program, receiving testi-mony from Thomas P. Grumbly, Assistant Secretaryof Energy for Environmental Management; John T.Conway, Chairman, and Jack Crawford, Member,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D 513April 25, 1995

both of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board;and Robert W. Galvin and Henry W. Kendall, bothon behalf of the ‘‘Galvin’’ Task Force on AlternativeFutures for the Department of Energy National Lab-oratories, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board.

Subcommittee recessed subject to call.

BUSINESS MEETINGCommittee on Labor and Human Resources: Committeeordered favorably reported the following businessitems:

S. 454, to reform the health care liability systemand improve health care quality through the estab-lishment of quality assurance programs, with anamendment in the nature of a substitute; and

The nomination of Harriet M. Zimmerman, ofFlorida, to be a Member of the Board of Directorsof the United States Institute of Peace.

h

House of RepresentativesChamber Action

The House was not in session today. Its nextmeeting will be held at 12:30 p.m. on Monday,May 1.

Committee MeetingsNo committee meetings were held.f

COMMITTEE MEETINGS FORWEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1995

(Committee meetings are open unless otherwise indicated)

SenateCommittee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior,

to hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscalyear 1996 for energy conservation, 9 a.m., SD–116.

Subcommittee on Interior, to hold hearings on pro-posed budget estimates for fiscal year 1996 for fossil en-ergy, clean coal technology, Strategic Petroleum Reserve,and the Naval Petroleum Reserve, 10:15 a.m., SD–116.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommitteeon Forests and Public Land Management, to resume over-sight hearings on the U.S. Forest Service land manage-ment planning process, focusing on the coordination ofand conflicts between Federal forest management andgeneral environmental statutes, 9:45 a.m., SD–366.

Committee on Finance, to resume hearings to examinewelfare reform proposals, focusing on programs for chil-dren, 9:30 a.m., SD–215.

Select Committee on Intelligence, to hold hearings on thenomination of John M. Deutch, of Massachusetts, to beDirector of Central Intelligence, 10 a.m., SH–216.

HouseNo committee meetings are scheduled.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST

Congressional Record The public proceedings of each House of Congress, as reported bythe Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to directionsof the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate

provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, excepting veryinfrequent instances when two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed at one time. ¶ The Congressional

Record is available as an online database through GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. The online database isupdated each day the Congressional Record is published. The database includes both text and graphics from the beginning of the 103dCongress, 2d Session (January 1994) forward. It is available on a Wide Area Information Server (WAIS) through the Internet and viaasynchronous dial-in. The annual subscription fee for a single workstation is $375. Six month subscriptions are available for $200 and onemonth of access can be purchased for $35. Discounts are available for multiple-workstation subscriptions. To subscribe, Internet usersshould telnet swais.access.gpo.gov and login as newuser (all lower case); no password is required. Dial in users should use communicationssoftware and modem to call (202) 512–1661 and login as swais (all lower case); no password is required; at the second login prompt, login asnewuser (all lower case); no password is required. Follow the instructions on the screen to register for a subscription for the CongressionalRecord Online via GPO Access. For assistance, contact the GPO Access User Support Team by sending Internet e-mail tohelp@eids05.eids.gpo.gov, or a fax to (202) 512–1262, or by calling (202) 512–1530 between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday throughFriday, except Federal holidays. ¶The Congressional Record paper and 24x microfiche will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free ofpostage, at the following prices: paper edition, $112.50 for six months, $225 per year, or purchased for $1.50 per issue, payable in advance;microfiche edition, $118 per year, or purchased for $1.50 per issue payable in advance. The semimonthly Congressional Record Index may bepurchased for the same per issue prices. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, directly to theGovernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. ¶Following each session of Congress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed,permanently bound and sold by the Superintendent of Documents in individual parts or by sets. ¶ With the exception of copyrighted articles,there are no restrictions on the republication of material from the Congressional Record.

UNUME PLURIBUS

D 514 April 25, 1995

Next Meeting of the SENATE

10:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 26

Senate Chamber

Program for Wednesday: Senate will resume consider-ation of H.R. 956, to establish legal standards and proce-dures for product liability litigation.

Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

12:30 p.m., Monday, May 1

House Chamber

Program for Monday: Legislative program will be an-nounced later.