April 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5591 

trial lawyer. I assume that for the investigation, for the interrogatories, for 

the discovery proceedings, for the actual trial, the settlement, conferences 

that we had, the actual trial of the 

case, the appeal, the printing of the 

briefs, the appearances, the entire time 

spent. Yes. These cases take—in serious cases—2 or 3 years to get them finally determined. This trial lawyer assumes all of those costs. If I win, I get 

a third. If I lose, I get nothing. I paid 

those costs. That is the system that 

has worked. 

If you are going to have the loser pay 

all, I am going to say, ‘‘Now, wait a 

minute. I have a wife and children. 

Now I have grandchildren. I like to 

help. But unless you can get me a bargain and assume the cost, I cannot go 

totally broke in this business. I have to 

have you take care of the costs in case 

we don’t prevail. I think you have better than an even chance to prevail.’’

However, I never can tell in the draw 

of a jury. That is what Judge Ito is 

having to deal with now, the mindset 

of jurors. I cannot tell the mindset. 

They could come in with selection of a 

jury, and I not know it and they have 

some peculiar feel or prejudice, and I 

get 11 but I do not get that 12th juror. 

I end up losing the case, and I have to 

pay it all. I think that at least you 

ought to be able to take care of your 

costs if you believe in your case that 

much. Yes. That is the day in court, 

the trial jury. 

The distinguished Senator from 

Washington says they all get their 

trial by jury. But you read this bill 

based on what evidence can be submitted, you read the test to be used 

and the thrust that they have and how 

they allocate some of these provisions 

not to manufacturers. You can read on 

page 36, line 7, ‘‘actions excluded.’’

Here is the unmitigated gall of this 

draftsmanship. 

Actions for damage to product or commercial loss, a civil action brought for loss of, or 

damage to, a product itself, or for commercial loss, shall not be subject to the provisions of this title governing product liability 

actions but shall be subject to any applicable 

commercial or contract law. 

The States have their volition as to 

the Uniform Commercial Code and how 

much and how they interpret it. They 

have their volition in the 50 States as 

to contract law. Yes. When it comes to 

manufacturers under this particular 

section, yes. We believe in States’

rights there. But when it comes to injured parties, you do as we say to do. 

They talk about a fair and balanced 

reasonable bill. Come on. They know 

better. They can read. We pointed this 

out at the hearings. They had no excuse for it. We pointed it out at the 

markup. They continue to insist upon 

it, and we will have amendments. We 

will have to come along I guess, if they 

get cloture because they do not want 

to have debate. They will have to have 

these amendments and we will have to 

vote on them. 

But I think the original document 

itself is a pretty good example of what 

they have in mind. It is not a balanced 

bill. They had no caps heretofore in 

previous Congresses on punitive damages. They have it in this one. They 

say they are going in a reasonable fashion, a more restrictive fashion. They 

have the misuse provision in here now 

that they never had before in the three 

previous Congresses. We will be able to 

go down on those things and see if they 

want to insist upon them. 

But I can tell you what we ought to 

do, in this Senator’s opinion, is table 

this bill and move on to those problems 

that are national problems. The State 

of Idaho is looking out for its people. It 

has a Governor. It has a legislature. It 

has juries that are sworn to listen to 

the facts and bring in a verdict in accordance with the facts. It has the option of the trial judge to set aside punitive damages, to restrict the actual 

damages. 

I am sure the States of Idaho, South 

Carolina, and Washington would much 

rather have its law than a national law 

up here wherein they think, yes, with 

the Contract With America crowd in 

town, that we are going to start being 

conservative. I can tell you here and 

now, that might last for a little while. 

But after a few years go you are going 

to find the liberal National Government—which has been persistent 

throughout the years as compared to 

the State government, State law, and 

State practices in tort, and with respect to criminal law and otherwise—

you are going to find there is a much 

more conservative government at the 

State level, and more responsible in my 

opinion, than the National Government. 

We do not have a national problem. 

That is the point. Yet. They have really been on a roll up here for big industry and against the individuals. They 

know how to handle the lawyers downtown. 

I hope to have perhaps an amendment on the interests of companies. 

Perhaps we ought to have that, and 

maybe some of my distinguished colleagues would like to sponsor an 

amendment on billable hours in addition to caps on punitive damages. Let 

us have caps on billable hours here in 

this town. Let us see if that lawyer 

crowd that is out trying to fix the U.S. 

Senate can go back to work and try 

their cases in court before a jury of 12 

jurors without meddling with the State 

precedents here in the United States. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington. 

Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as if 

in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

COMMEMORATING THE 80TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ARMENIAN 

GENOCIDE 

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, every year 

at this time, people of Armenian descent throughout the world commemorate the anniversary of the genocide 

perpetrated against the Armenian people between 1915 and 1923. This tragedy 

is one of the most horrible in the history of humankind, yet it is often overlooked. 

Eighty years ago today, on April 24, 

1915, the Ottoman Empire launched a 

systematic campaign to eradicate the 

Armenian people from Ottoman territory. In that year, hundreds of Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were rounded up, exiled, 

and murdered. During the next 8 years, 

an estimated 1.5 million Armenians 

were killed through executions, during 

death marches, or in forced labor 

camps. Many women, children, and elderly people were raped, tortured, or 

enslaved. In addition to those killed, 

an estimated 500,000 Armenians were 

exiled from the Ottoman Empire, many 

of whom found their way to freedom in 

the United States. 

Recently, the campaigns of ethnic 

slaughter in the former Yugoslavia and 

Burundi have focused much attention 

on crimes against humanity. Silence in 

the face of genocide effectively encourages those who would commit such 

atrocities in the future. As the horrors 

in Bosnia and Burundi demonstrate, 

ethnically based campaigns of murder 

are still possible, even as the world approaches the 21st century. 

Mr. President, despite a long history 

of persecution and tragedy, the Armenian people have demonstrated remarkable moral strength, resilience, 

and pride, as demonstrated by the successes of Armenian-Americans and the 

great contributions they have made to 

our society. These qualities are also 

evident in the effort of the newly independent state of Armenia to build a 

prosperous and democratic country 

after decades of Soviet oppression, and 

despite the ongoing conflict with Azerbaijan—an effort which I personally 

witnessed when I visited Armenia in 

January 1992. 

During the last year, there have been 

some hopeful signs with regard to the 

conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan—most notably the implementation of a cease-fire. I hope that the 

memory of the Armenian genocide, as 

well as the sight of the suffering of the 

Armenian and Azeri peoples, will spur 

a peaceful resolution to the dispute. 

The legacy of the Armenian genocide 

has not succeeded in deterring subsequent acts of genocide. However, it is 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

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