[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S3207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I support the motion to go to conference on 
S. 1004, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996. Both the House and 
the Senate have passed versions of this bill. The House called for a 
conference with the Senate to resolve differences in the bill and 
appointed conferees. The Senate must respond to this request. We need 
to do this before the recess so staff can meet and have issues ready 
for the conferees to vote on in early April.
  My colleague from South Carolina opposes going to conference on this 
bill. I do not understand why he is so opposed to going forward with 
this basic process. Last time I checked, conference is the process to 
resolve differences between the House and the Senate. The House has its 
bill. We have the Senate bill. Conferees sit down together to iron out 
the differences. Why should he object?
  I know there is a provision in the House-passed Coast Guard bill that 
my colleague opposes. Each year, hundreds of foreign crewmembers file 
suit in U.S. courts against foreign ship owners in U.S. courts. Since 
1989, 724 of these cases have been filed in one Florida county alone. 
The House bill includes a provision that would address this flood of 
nonresident crew cases against ship owners being brought in the United 
States. The House passed this provision as part of the Coast Guard bill 
twice.
  Mr. President, I happen to agree with the House provision. There is 
no public or private policy reason to litigate these cases in the U.S. 
legal system.
  These cases: Contribute to the overcrowding of court dockets, 
frustrate the ability of U.S. citizens to obtain timely resolution of 
their claims, and require citizens to serve as jurors on cases which do 
not affect U.S. public or private interests.
  In Dade County, FL, it costs about $3,000 a day to conduct a jury 
trial. The U.S. taxpayer and consumer should not bear the cost of 
litigating these cases in our courts.
  Of course we know who opposes this provision--the trial lawyers. 
There is no reason for these foreign cases to be heard in U.S. courts 
at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer, but a small handful of trial 
attorneys enriched by these cases resist any change. The trial lawyers 
as a group resist this tiny change because they see it as the camel's 
nose under the tent.
  We have seen this from the trial lawyers before:
  We saw it with reform of the general aviation liability laws. The 
lawyers nearly wrecked a whole industry before Congress was able to 
enact a very modest reform.
  We saw it with modest efforts to reform securities laws. The 
President vetoed this measure at the urging of the trial lawyers and 
sustained his first veto override.
  We saw it as recently as last week with efforts to oppose reasonable 
product liability laws. The trial lawyers may prevail on the President 
to veto this as well.
  To take a quote from a former candidate, the trial lawyers will 
oppose any legal reform until hell freezes over, and then they will 
fight on the ice. That is what is happening here.
  The trial lawyers do not care what is good for the country, what 
makes sense for consumers and businesses, what the burden is to the 
taxpayer. They only care if it enhances their ability to rake in huge 
contingency fees. If a change affects that ability, they will oppose it 
no matter how reasonable or meritorious.
  A recent Florida Supreme Court case highlighted the problem created 
in Florida by lawyers using its courts for the whole world's 
litigation. In Kinney System, Inc. versus The Continental Insurance 
Co., the Florida court noted that the growing trend of lawyers filing 
suit in the United States for injuries occurring outside the United 
States was growing to abusive levels. The court was concerned about the 
burden these cases impose on trial courts. The court concluded, 
``(n)othing in our law establishes a policy that Florida must be a 
courthouse for the world, nor that the taxpayers of the State must pay 
to resolve disputes utterly unconnected with this State's interests.'' 
I agree.
  Mr. President, the forum selection provision in the House Coast Guard 
bill is a reasonable legal reform that attempts to address part of the 
problem described in the Kinney case.
  The provision will: Help assure the U.S. courts are available for 
U.S. citizens, provide an alternative to devoting scarce judicial 
resources to cases utterly unconnected to the Nation's interests, and 
assure that nonresident alien seamen receive fair treatment.
  It does not affect the ability of U.S. citizens or permanent resident 
aliens to bring suit in U.S. courts.
  It does not leave foreign crewmembers without a remedy. The provision 
would honor forum selection provisions in foreign employment contracts 
where there is an adequate remedy available to the seaman. And these 
remedies are available in other countries. Contrary to what the trial 
lawyers may want to believe, the United States is not the only 
civilized nation in the world. I have a whole stack of letters from 
different countries outlining the remedies available to seamen: 
Jamaica, Canada, Greece, Italy, Norway.
  Mr. President, I could go on, but this issue should be resolved in 
conference. Its in the House bill--its not in the Senate bill. We need 
to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate on this 
important bill and go on and send it to the President. The only way we 
are going to do this is agree to the House request for a conference and 
appoint conferees. I urge my colleagues to do that and let the Senate 
get on about its business.

                          ____________________