S5592 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE April 24, 1995 

only by continuing to remember and 

discuss the horrors which befell the Armenian and other peoples that we can 

hope to achieve a world where genocide 

is finally relegated to the realm of history books, rather than newspaper 

headlines. I hope my colleagues and 

leaders throughout the world will join 

me in commemorating the anniversary 

today, and thus ensure that the tragedy of the Armenian genocide will not 

be forgotten. 

f 

DIMINISHING PROSPECTS FOR 

PEACE IN THE BALKANS—A FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE 

STAFF REPORT 

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, during the 

recess, two members of my Foreign Relations Committee staff traveled to 

Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia to examine 

the wide range of issues related to the 

conflicts in the region, and their implications for United States policy. 

The situation in Bosnia is unraveling 

quickly, and with the Senate likely to 

consider legislation concerning Bosnia 

in the coming weeks, I think it is important for my colleagues to be aware 

of the staff’s findings. 

Among other things, the staff found 

that as the situation in Bosnia deteriorates, the United Nations may be 

forced to withdraw from Bosnia and 

Croatia for any number of reasons, including: a worsening security situation, a shortage of world food stocks, a 

loss of local employees to the draft, or 

a lifting of the arms embargo. 

The United States has pledged to participate in a NATO effort to withdraw 

U.N. troops. According to the staff report, a NATO operation in Bosnia 

would be costly, would require a long 

lead time, and would likely occur 

under hostile circumstances. The report finds that NATO is not prepared to 

extract U.N. troops immediately 

should that become necessary. 

The report also raises some serious 

questions about the federation agreement between Bosnia’s Croats and Moslems as well as about Croatia’s intentions. It questions the prospects for 

peace negotiations regarding the Serbheld Krajina region of Croatia. 

Finally, the report finds that Serbia 

is continuing to fuel both the Krajina 

and Bosnian Serb war machines. Despite this fact, last Friday, the United 

Nations voted to extend sanctions relief for 75 days. The report recommends 

that the United Nations resist further 

sanctions relief until Serbia ends all 

assistance to the Bosnian and Krajina 

Serbs. 

Mr. President, as I mentioned, we 

may be asked next month to vote to 

life the arms embargo against the Bosnian Government. I believe that the 

staff report may be a useful resource as 

we move into the debate. Accordingly, 

I ask unanimous consent that the key 

findings of the report be printed in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC, April 24, 1995. 

Hon. JESSE HELMS, 

Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, 

Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR HELMS AND SENATOR PELL: 

On behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations, we travelled to Croatia, Bosnia, and 

Serbia from April 7 through 15 to examine 

the wide range of issues related to the conflicts in the region, and their implications 

for U.S. policy. 

In Croatia, we visited Zagreb, Osijek, and 

in Sector East, Vukovar, the border crossings at Batina Bridge, Lipovac, and other 

areas. We visited Mostar, the largest city in 

the part of Bosnia controlled by the MuslimCroat federation. We were unable to visit Sarajevo as planned due to the closing of the 

Sarajevo airport as our plane was enroute to 

the city. The airport remained closed 

throughout our visit to the region. In Serbia, 

we visited Belgrade and the Sremska Raca 

border with Bosnia. 

We met with Croatian and Serbian government officials, opposition leaders, religious 

leaders, foreign and local journalists, academics, local citizens, military and civilian 

representatives of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees 

(UNHCR), NATO, and of international and 

local non-governmental organizations. We 

also met representatives of U.S. and foreign 

embassies, the European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM), Sanctions Assistance Monitors (SAMs), and monitors of the 

International Conference on former Yugoslavia (ICFY). 

We are grateful to Ambassador Peter W. 

Galbraith and his staff in Zagreb as well as 

to Rudolph Perina, the U.S. Chief of Mission 

and his staff in Belgrade. Their cooperation 

was instrumental to this report. We would 

particularly like to thank Foreign Service 

officers Rick Holtzapple, Andrew Hamilton, 

and Madeline Seidenstricker as well as Tim 

Knight, of the Disaster Assistance Response 

Team (DART), for their able assistance. 

The conclusions in this report are our own, 

and do not necessarily reflect the views of 

the Committee on Foreign Relations or its 

Members. 

Sincerely, 

EDWIN K. HALL, 

Minority Staff Director 

and Chief Counsel. 

MICHELLE MAYNARD, 

Minority Professional Staff 

Member for European Affairs. 

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The situation in Bosnia is unraveling. The 

Bosnian Serbs are responding to recent limited Bosnian Government military gains 

with brutal attacks against civilians and 

U.N. peacekeepers. 

The United Nations may be forced to withdraw from Bosnia and Croatia for any number of reasons, including: a deteriorating security situation, a shortage of world food 

stocks, a loss of local employees to the draft, 

or a lifting of the arms embargo. 

The United States has pledged to participate in a NATO effort to withdraw U.N. 

troops. A NATO operation in Bosnia would 

be costly, would require a long lead time, 

and would likely occur under hostile circumstances. NATO is not prepared to extract 

U.N. troops immediately should that become 

necessary. 

Croatia is supporting a federation between 

Bosnian Croats and Muslims as a means to 

retake Serb-controlled territory by force and 

to annex Hercegovina. 

Croatia’s military strategy, if continued, 

will make impossible the successful conclusion of peace negotiations and lead to full 

scale war in the Serb-held Krajina region of 

Croatia. 

The agreement bringing an end to fighting 

between Bosnian Muslims and Croats was a 

tremendous achievement for U.S. diplomacy. 

That being said, however, Croats and Muslims have made no progress in implementing 

a political and economic alliance. Despite 

significant U.S. and European financial and 

political support for the Bosnian federation, 

prospects for such an alliance appear dim. 

Serbia is continuing to fuel both the 

Krajina and Bosnian Serb war machines. The 

land border between Serbia and Bosnia may 

be ‘‘effectively closed’’ as called for by U.N. 

Security Council Resolutions 943 (1994) and 

970 (1995) but oil, military equipment, and 

other sensitive material pass daily from Serbia through Croatia’s Sector East and into 

other parts of Serb-held Croatia and Bosnia. 

The United Nations recently voted to extend 

sanctions relief for 75 days. It should resist 

further sanctions relief until Serbia ends all 

assistance to the Bosnian and Krajina Serbs. 

International sanctions against Serbia and 

Montenegro are not working. Belgrade is 

awash in consumer goods; gasoline costs less 

than it does in Germany; and Serbia’s basic 

infrastructure continues to function. 

Sanctions against Serbia appear to have 

strengthened rather than weakened President Slobodan Milosevic, who effectively 

uses the state-controlled media to blame 

Serbia’s economic conditions on the West. 

Even if sanctions are not having their desired impact, Serbia should not be rewarded 

with a lifting of sanctions unless it recognizes the borders of all the states of the 

former Yugoslavia and ends its support for 

the Bosnian and Krajina Serbs. 

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I yield the 

floor and suggest the absence of a 

quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been noted. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY AND LEGAL REFORM ACT 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

am pleased that the Senate is considering the Product Liability Fairness 

Act this week. The time for legal reform is long overdue. I am anxious, as 

one Senator, to get this debate underway. I particularly want to congratulate the bill’s chief sponsors, Senator 

GORTON and Senator ROCKEFELLER, for 

guiding the bill swiftly through the 

Commerce Committee, and I applaud 

Senator DOLE’s leadership in bringing 

the issue promptly to the floor. 

I might say, having been involved in 

this issue for now 11 years, going back 

to a prior period of Republican majority as chairman of the Court Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, we listened to lots of hearings 

and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

April 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5593 

lots of talk, and I am glad we may finally have a realistic shot at civil litigation reform in this country. 

Mr. President, while I am a cosponsor 

of S. 565, I also support the effort that 

will be made this week to broaden the 

scope of this bill. The American people 

are frustrated with our legal system. 

Everywhere I turn, I read and hear 

about terrible experiences people have 

when they find themselves inside the 

liability maze. People with real injuries too often do not get fairly treated. 

Meanwhile, too many frivolous cases 

clog the courts. The truth is the litigation system is like a day in Las Vegas 

or Atlantic City: Sometimes you can 

win big, but more often the house—

that is the system, the lawyers and the 

courts—win the biggest profits. And 

the money that goes to the lawyers and 

the court system is significantly more 

than the money received by the injured 

parties. According to the Rand Corp., a 

full 57 cents of every dollar spent in the 

liability system is eaten up by the system itself. The injured get less than 

half, only 43 cents, Mr. President, of 

every dollar. 

What does this mean for the American people? It means they pay more 

for the goods and services they buy in 

the economy, and it also means that 

businesses develop fewer new products, 

pursue less innovation and create fewer 

jobs. 

The tort tax, Mr. President, is real, 

and reforming our legal system would 

mean a real tax break for the American 

people, a tax cut that will not require 

an offset and will not risk the Social 

Security System trust fund. One firm, 

Tillinghast, estimates that the litigation system costs every individual in 

our Nation $1,200 annually. 

In a recent study, the Rand Corp. 

looked at the overuse and abuse of our 

health care system which is driven by 

the litigation system. In examining 

only the auto tort system—just for 

automobiles, Mr. President—Rand 

found that excess medical claiming, 

driven by the prospect of reaping a 

windfall from the legal system, consumed $4 billion worth of health care 

resources in 1993 alone. That is the 

same year Mrs. Clinton’s task force 

proposed a restructuring of our health 

care system. Evidently, the real answer 

is right here in our legal system. That 

same Rand study estimated consumers 

paid in 1993, $13 billion to $18 billion in 

excess auto insurance premiums because of the litigation craze. 

So, make no mistake about it. This 

debate is about the economy and it is 

about taxes. If we are serious about tax 

relief for the middle-class family, let 

us reform our legal system. Let us cut 

the cost of an 8-foot ladder by 20 percent or the doctor’s fee for a tonsillectomy by 33 percent. We can do it by reforming the legal system. 

The American people want us to 

change our civil justice system. Survey 

after survey show the frustration of 

the American people with our legal 

system. For example, a couple months 

ago, U.S. News & World Report wrote 

that 69 percent of Americans find that 

lawyers are only sometimes or not 

often honest. Can you imagine? Honesty in the legal profession is not seen 

as normative behavior. As a lawyer 

myself, I have to say that I am horrified that such a huge majority of the 

American people have reached that 

conclusion. Yet, the organized bar resists any serious or meaningful 

changes to the legal system. 

Last month, the Luntz Research 

Group found that an overwhelming 83 

percent of the American people think 

our liability lawsuit system has major 

problems and needs serious improvement. Sixty-four percent of the people 

believe the liability system is out of 

control, costing everyone a lot of 

money and doing a whole lot of damage 

to our economy. And 79 percent to 83 

percent of Americans support specific 

reforms, such as reasonable limits on 

punitive damages, abolishing joint liability for noneconomic damages, and 

loser pays where the judge finds the 

case to be completely frivolous. 

Two generations ago, lawyers acted 

as statesmen who moderated their clients’ behavior. In that bygone era of 

the 1950’s, there was 1 lawyer for every 

695 people. Today, there is 1 lawyer for 

every 290 people; and since lawyers 

thrive on conflict, they operate as 

gladiator-litigators, ‘‘ransack[ing] the 

legal cupboard for nostrums to rectify 

every wrong, to ward off every risk and 

to cure every social and economic ill,’’

as Harvard Professor Mary Ann 

Glendon has written in her new book, 

‘‘A Nation Under Lawyers: How the 

Crisis in the Legal Profession Is Transforming American Society.’’

The result is a sue-happy America, 

destructive to our democratic culture 

of debate, persuasion, accommodation, 

and tolerance. 

So, make no mistake about it. We 

have embarked on a fundamental debate about the nature of American society. The legal system, and law in 

general, is too pervasive a force in people’s lives. The reforms debated this 

week will be about returning the legal 

system to its appropriate place and to 

restoring fairness and certainty to the 

liability system. 

The product liability arena is a good 

place to start. This bill will give some 

relief to those who sell goods but have 

no role in their manufacture. 

The injured party will be able to recover, but only from the company that 

caused the injury, that is, the company 

that made the product. Sellers will 

only be liable for those warranties they 

make, or if they commit some act of 

negligence regarding the product, or in 

the rare situation that the manufacturer cannot be sued or has no money 

to pay the damages. 

This bill also relieves defendants of 

liability where the plaintiff was primarily responsible for his or her own 

injuries due to the use of alcohol or 

drugs. And, the manufacturer will have 

limited liability if the plaintiff has 

misused or altered the product. The 

bill also restores the element of punishment to punitive damages, by linking them to the economic harm caused. 

And, it will eliminate the deep pocket lawsuits, where a defendant with a 

remote connection to the injuring 

event is held responsible for all the 

harm caused. For noneconomic damages, the bill provides for several, not 

joint, liability. 

This bill also includes an important 

title on biomaterials access, an issue 

championed by Senator LIEBERMAN and 

one which we included in our medical 

malpractice reform bill. 

Excessive litigation is causing important suppliers of raw materials used in 

medical devices to withdraw their raw 

materials from the marketplace. The 

result is that individuals with rare 

medical disorders find themselves 

without access to lifesaving medical 

implants. 

The bill will shield these raw materials suppliers from liability, where 

they can establish they had no involvement in the design or production of the 

medical device. Without this reform, 

the litigation system will bear the responsibility for the death and injuries 

of countless Americans. We cannot 

allow our runaway liability system to 

harm innocent people. 

So, this is a good place to start the 

debate. We will have a number of 

amendments, including the addition of 

medical malpractice reform to this 

bill, as well as amendments to broaden 

the punitive damages and joint and 

several liability provisions, and some 

provisions from a bill I introduced earlier this session with Senator ABRAHAM, on attorneys’ fees and an early 

offer or rapid recovery mechanism. 

This will be a watershed debate in 

the Senate. There will be many accusations thrown at the reformers this 

week. The opponents will charge that 

we reformers just want to deprive injured people of fair compensation. 

Nothing could be further from the 

truth. The proponents of reform want 

to give the American people what they 

deserve: a legal system that is rational 

and fair, one that is available when 

they need it to resolve disputes, and 

that has some predictability and certainty to it, affording the injured in 

our society fair and adequate compensation, and holding those truly responsible for the injuries properly accountable. 

The American people will be watching us and waiting for results. 

Again, Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Washington, 

Senator GORTON, the Senator from 

West Virginia, Senator ROCKEFELLER, 

my colleague from Michigan, Senator 

ABRAHAM, who has also been heavily 

involved in this issue and thank them 

for the contributions that they have 

made and to say I look forward with 

great anticipation to the week’s debate 

on this most important subject. 

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S5594 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE April 24, 1995 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

KYL). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, 

the issue of product liability reform is 

very well known now to Senators after 

many years. I look forward to the debate that we begin today and in these 

coming days, because I believe the bill 

we are going to be considering, S. 565, 

Product Liability Fairness Act, builds 

upon past deliberations of this body to 

achieve reform in the moderate, bipartisan fashion which has been the nature in which we have approached this 

problem. 

I want to pause for a moment to 

thank my remarkable colleague and 

friend, SLADE GORTON, for all of his efforts and counsel in crafting this bill 

and for setting a feeling about it which 

is efficient, temperate, wise, 

unemotional and lends itself to the collection of votes. 

In addition, Senator LIEBERMAN, Senator DODD, Senator HATCH, Senator 

MCCONNELL, have played really critical 

roles in rating this legislation and 

bringing us to this point in our deliberation. The Senate has considered the 

topic of product liability reform for 

over 14 years. And six times the Commerce Committee has reported bills favorably to the floor. Most recently, the 

committee reported out the current 

bill, S. 565, by a vote of 13 to 6 on April 

6. We have persisted in our efforts to 

reform the laws governing product liability because we believe that the current system is broken and that we can 

make changes that will benefit both 

consumers and makers of products. We 

have tried and, I think, succeeded, in 

achieving balance in our effort to 

streamline the law along these lines. 

We have simultaneously reduced costs 

and delays for both plaintiffs and defendants. 

In 1985, when I first came to the Senate—that was my first year in the Senate—and joined the Commerce Committee, I in fact voted against a product liability reform measure pending 

at that time. The committee vote, because of my vote, was tied and the 

vote, therefore, failed. I felt strongly 

that the version of the bill then being 

considered aided manufacturers at the 

expense of safe products for American 

consumers. That was my view. 

Since then, the product liability effort has changed 180 degrees. The legislation has evolved gradually into an 

evenhanded, moderate approach that 

we are considering here today. Senator 

GORTON and I have worked diligently 

over recent months to hone the bill 

that we are looking at today to ensure 

that it strikes the right balance between the interests of both consumers 

and business, and we do mean that. Adjustments were made to reflect substantive and other concerns which we 

concluded were obstacles to the enactment of this bill. We believe we have 

significantly improved the legislation 

from earlier drafts and have been responsive to the issues which prevented 

earlier enactment of this legislation. 

Let me draw my colleagues’ attention to the substantive changes made 

in this year’s bill compared with the 

version introduced in the last Congress. The most significant change addresses concerns that have been raised 

about excessive punitive damages, 

damages that are awarded to punish 

and to deter wrongdoing. This year’s 

bill establishes a standard for awarding 

punitive damages that is essentially 

unchanged from last year’s bill. We 

have, however, added a provision that 

requires punitive damages to be awarded in proportion to the harm caused, at 

a ratio of three times the claimant’s 

economic loss, or $250,000, whichever is 

greater. I might say that this approach 

to punitive damages is well within the 

construct of the law in many areas. 

Our rationale for this ratio is the goal 

of bringing to punitive damages some 

relationship between the size of the 

harm and the punishment, a goal supported by the American Bar Association, the American College of Trial 

Lawyers, the American Law Institute 

and, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Also concerning punitive damages, 

we eliminated the Government standards defenses in last year’s bill, referred to as the FDA and FAA defenses, 

which would have prevented punitive 

damages for instances in which certain 

classes of products such as drugs, medical devices, or certain types of aircraft 

had been certified by the Federal Government as safe. While I remain supportive of the concept of a Government 

standards defense, nevertheless, a number of Senators expressed reservation 

during last year’s debate about this 

provision, and we have accommodated 

those concerns by removing the provision. 

Another change in this year’s legislation concerns the statute of repose 

which we have slightly modified to include a category of products known as 

durable goods used in the workplace. 

Last year’s bill was restricted to workplace capital goods, a slightly narrower 

category. Workplace durable goods are 

defined as having an economic lifespan 

of 3 years, or being depreciable under 

the Tax Code. The workplace distinction, identical to last year’s bill, preserves the intent of increasing incentives for employers to maintain the 

safety of equipment used in the place 

of employment, rather than shifting 

that responsibility off to a manufacturer even after the useful life of the 

product in question has expired. In addition, we have moved the statute of 

repose period to 20 years. Last year it 

was 25 years. People will say, well, that 

is 5 years less. Well, it may be, but it 

is still longer than any State statute of 

repose anywhere in the Nation by at 

least 5 years. I think the average is 

around 10 to 12 years. One State has 15 

years. Ours is 20 years. We think that 

is trying to lean a little bit toward the 

consumer. 

The third significant change made 

prior to introduction of this year’s bill 

concerns the addition of a provision 

that had been part of last year’s House 

companion bill that requires a reduction of a claimant’s award due to unforeseeable misuse or alteration of the 

product. For example, if someone purchases a hair dryer that has attached 

to it a large warning label stating 

‘‘please do not use this in the bath 

tub,’’ and the purchaser immediately 

uses the hair dryer in the bath tub with 

probable adverse consequences, it does 

not make sense to hold the manufacturer liable for such misuse, and this 

provision would prevent that. 

In addition to the changes made prior 

to introduction, several substantive 

changes were made in the Commerce 

Committee markup of the bill itself. 

First, we incorporated a bill, S. 303, the 

Biomaterials Access Assurance Act, introduced by Senator LIEBERMAN and 

Senator MCCAIN, as title II of our committee-reported product liability bill. 

This title of the bill is designed to ensure that needed raw materials are 

available to the manufacturers of medical devices by limiting the liability 

for firms that supply biomaterials. The 

title only limits liability for suppliers 

who have done nothing wrong. The 

ability of consumers to recover from 

negligent device manufacturers is preserved. 

We made several other substantive 

changes in the committee markup. We 

modified our product seller provision 

to extend protection to blameless rental and leasing companies. This will address the fact that in 11 States car 

rental companies can be forced to pay 

for damage caused by people who rent 

their cars, even though the car rental 

companies obviously did not make the 

car and did not do anything wrong. We 

made a change to the statute of repose 

that will ensure that manufacturers 

keep their promise by enabling injured 

workers to sue for damage caused by 

products over 20 years old if the manufacturers guaranteed their product’s 

safety for a longer period. 

Finally, we modified our alternative 

dispute resolution provision which 

gives States an incentive to create 

proplaintiff, voluntary, nonbinding arbitration mechanisms. 

This provision contains a penalty for 

defendants who unreasonably refuse to 

participate in the arbitration. A criticism was raised during our committee 

hearings on the bill that greater specificity was needed for the definition of 

unreasonable refusal, so a set of factors 

was added to address that concern. 

Mr. President, I will have a lot more 

to say about the substance of the bill 

as this debate unfolds, but I know 

there is at least one other Senator who 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

April 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5595 

wishes to speak, so I will keep my remarks brief. Let me conclude by stating the reasons we must pass product 

liability reform this year after all of 

these years. 

Under our current system, injured 

consumers often find it impossible to 

get just and prompt resolution. Just as 

frequently, blameless manufacturers 

are forced to spend thousands of dollars 

on baseless lawsuits. The system frequently allows negligent companies to 

avoid penalties and even rewards 

undeserving plaintiffs. 

Product liability law should deter 

wasteful suits and discipline culpable 

practices, but not foster hours of waste 

and endless, endless, endless litigation. 

The adverse effect of having a hodgepodge of rules is severe for everyone. In 

fact, is a rather major fact in American 

life, I might add. 

Injured persons and those who make 

products alike face a 55-unit roulette 

wheel when it comes to determining 

rights and responsibilities. The results 

hurt everyone. 

Injured persons have testified that 

they may be unable to obtain needed 

medical devices for their continued 

health and well-being, and there is a 

lot of very powerful testimony on that 

front. Manufacturers have indicated 

that good and useful products are not 

placed on the market. The Brookings 

Institution has documented many instances where safety improvements 

were not made because of fears about 

uncertainties in our legal system, 

which brings up the sort of fascinating 

concept that manufacturers will decline to improve a product for fear that 

that lends the implication that the 

product that they previously had was 

somehow insufficient. 

It is now a fact of life in many places 

where they simply, therefore, do not 

improve the product so as not to make 

themselves liable to that interpretation, all of which, of course, is absolutely ridiculous. Included in the 

Brookings discussion were, for example, built-in child seats and air bags. 

As I have studied this complex area, 

I found incentives for preventing accidents are often not in the right place. 

In formulating our bill, we have striven 

to place incentive on the person who 

can best prevent an injury. This is a 

matter that has not been given adequate attention during past debates, 

but given the opportunity to carefully 

study our bill, Senators, I believe, will 

see that care and thought has been invested to assure that no wrongdoer 

goes unpunished and that positive 

prosafety behavior is encouraged. 

For all of these reasons I very much 

look forward to our debate. I welcome 

the criticisms, the insights, and the 

suggestions for improvements that I 

am sure our colleagues will contribute 

during the process of this debate. 

I yield the floor. 

TRAGEDY IN OKLAHOMA—THE 

LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I rise 

today to express on my own behalf, and 

on behalf of the people of the State of 

Ohio, our deepest sympathy with and 

for the people of the State of Oklahoma 

as they cope with the devastating tragedy that took place last Wednesday. 

Our hearts go out to victims and the 

victims’ families. No one, Mr. President, could watch yesterday’s memorial service and see the pictures of the 

victims, the pictures of the children, 

without a lump in their throat or having to turn away from the screen. 

Mr. President, I want to congratulate 

the rescue workers and all the volunteers, as well as the police—both the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation and 

the local police officers—who have 

proven to a concerned America that we 

will, in fact, fight back against terrorism. 

Mr. President, when Oklahoma State 

trooper Charlie Hanger arrested one of 

the suspects in Oklahoma, he was acting on behalf of all Americans. He did 

not know at the time, of course, that 

he was arresting a terrorist. He was 

simply doing his job, the job that he 

does day in and day out. 

He pulled over a motorist apparently 

for suspicion of speeding. The motorist 

said he was driving cross-country—but 

the officer noticed the driver had not 

gotten comfortable the way most 

cross-country drivers do. He still had 

his jacket on. He did not have any luggage. 

Mr. President, noticing details like 

that is the very heart of good police 

work. When the motorist leaned over, 

the policeman saw the bulge of a concealed weapon and at that point arrested him. 

Officer Hanger brought in the suspicious motorist. Subsequently, it 

turned out that the man he arrested for 

carrying a concealed weapon was one of 

the most wanted individuals in America. All in a day’s work. 

That, Mr. President, is really what 

police work is. It is not glamorous. In 

fact, many times it is downright laborious, boring. To get that one terrorist, 

it takes thousands of police chasing 

down thousands of leads. Most of the 

leads do not go anywhere, but they all 

have to be pursued so that ultimately 

the guilty can be captured. I am sure, 

Mr. President, in the days since this 

tragedy occurred, thousands and thousands of police officers thousands of 

thousands of different times across this 

country have analyzed what they were 

doing and tried to identify the composite picture and have done things 

that they do in their good police work, 

things that in most cases turn out not 

to lead anywhere, but they know that 

they have to do that. 

Mr. President, the pursuit of the suspects in the Oklahoma City bombing 

proves the immense value of hard work 

and patience in American police work. 

It also proves the awesome importance 

of technology in the war against terrorism and other kinds of crime. 

Technology and good police work 

have really been the key to making the 

progress that has been made thus far in 

solving the mystery of this horrible 

tragedy. Federal agents recovered a 

confidential vehicle identification 

number from a fragment of a truck 

found at the bombing scene. This number led the FBI to a Ryder truck rental 

office in Junction City, KS—and that is 

where the composite pictures of the 

suspects were made. 

Mr. President, we need to do everything we can at the Federal level to 

promote the kind of cutting-edge Federal technology that makes this possible. I will be introducing in the near 

future a comprehensive Federal crime 

bill that would help hook up all of 

America’s police departments into this 

Federal information data bank. It will 

help maintain a national DNA bank to 

allow the local law enforcement officers to identify and capture sex offenders and other violent criminals. It will 

be a data base, Mr. President, that 

deals not only with DNA, but also with 

fingerprints, also with ballistic comparisons, and also with information 

about individuals who have been convicted of serious offenses. 

Mr. President, as we deal with the 

aftermath of the bombing in Oklahoma 

City, I think there are three important 

tasks ahead for the U.S. Senate. 

First, the Senate does need to increase the availability of crime-fighting technology to make this available 

to every law-enforcement officer in 

every town and every community in 

the country. 

Second, the Senate needs to take a 

very close look at how we deal with the 

entry into the United States of individuals who are affiliated with international terrorist groups. We must 

look, also, at what we should do when 

we determine aliens already in this 

country are members of such groups. 

Third, the Senate needs to examine 

the issue of domestic terrorist groups 

to figure out the best way to infiltrate 

these extremist groups and then to 

keep tabs on their dangerous activities. 

Mr. President, over the next few days 

I will be discussing my own legislation 

in greater detail. I think that the level 

of attention the Senate gives these 

issues in the days to come will be one 

factor, a major factor, lessening the 

chance of another tragedy of the kind 

that took place this past week. 

Again, Mr. President, let me offer to 

the victims, the families of the victims, the loved ones, our deepest sympathy for this horrible and senseless 

tragedy. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who 

seeks to be recognized? 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS