May 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6231

was in sight, devoted followers professed their determination to continue.

A Nazi-controlled newspaper said at

the time:

The heart which beat only for us, the will

which blazed only for us, the creative genius

which thought and acted only for us, the

voice which so often galvanized us—all this

no longer exists! However low fate has

brought events, Hitler’s achievements will

illuminate, far into the distant future, the

epoch which began with him.

Now, 50 years later, these words offer

an ominous warning. Modern-day paranoia, built upon elaborate conspiracy

theories and fears, I am sorry to say, is

still very much alive today.

For several years, we have seen an

escalation in fundamentalist-inspired

killings in Egypt and Algeria, the rise

of neo-Nazism in Germany, nationalistic fervor in former Communist States,

severe anti-immigrant backlash in

France, and poison gas attacks in

Japan.

The rise of fanaticism and the terrorism it spawns is ever increasing right

here in the United States as well.

I think no event embodies this more

than the Oklahoma City bombing.

Whatever the final outcome of the investigation into the bombing, a new—

and, I believe eye-opening—look at the

growing trend of extremism is taking

place across the world.

In this country, so-called militias are

growing in numbers, stockpiling vast

arsenals, preaching hate and violence

against this Government.

Here are some examples:

The Federal Emergency Management

Agency has orders for Hispanics and

African-Americans to be ‘‘rounded up

and detained’’ in the event of a State of

domestic national emergency.

That is false.

They say tax protesters, demonstrators against Government military

intervention outside United States borders, and people who maintain weapons

in their homes are the next targets.

That is false.

They say that FEMA advocates ‘‘the

rounding up and transfer to ‘assembly

centers or relocation camps’ of at least

21 million American Negroes.’’

That is false.

They say there are black helicopters

with no markings spying on citizens.

They say police officers were met by

‘‘armed men in black uniforms,’’ reportedly from the Federal Government.

That is false.

They say U.N. troops are training to

suppress America’s people.

That is false.

They say Somalia was simply a practice run for occupying the United

States.

That is false.

They point out that Russian trucks

and personnel carriers are being imported as well as ‘‘100-car trains filled

with United Nations equipment.’’

That is false.

They even say that Crips and

Bloods—gangs that dominate some

urban areas—are being trained to serve

as something called ‘‘shock troops’’

and ‘‘cannon fodder’’ for house-tohouse searches conducted by ‘‘New

World Order officers.’’

That is false.

So theories about black helicopters,

modern day concentration camps, and

mass raids abound, we find, throughout

this land of the free and home of the

brave. Even on Internet, this system is

used to spread conspiracy theories

across our land. Even a terrorist handbook is run on the Internet on how to

build a bomb. I read this handbook, and

they tell you how to break into university chemical labs, how to find the

chemicals you need, and how to steal

those chemicals.

Finally, we see neo-Nazism, even

signs popping up here and there saying

‘‘whites only,’’ and on and on and on.

One must ask the question on this

very special day: Will the threats, the

fear mongering, and the paranoia eventually fuel major bloodshed? Was it responsible for encouraging the terrible

Oklahoma City bombing?

Two years ago, militia members

warned about U.N. troops poised along

the United States-Canadian border,

ready for invasion. Thirty years ago,

the John Birch Society warned of Chinese troops in box cars along the Mexican border. Fifty years ago, the most

deadly of all wars ended.

History can teach us lessons if we

want to learn. Or we can be doomed to

repeat history time and time again.

We all pray that the Oklahoma City

bombing is a one-time-only event.

Yet, as a country, this is a time for

us to come together, to heal, to begin

anew, to straighten with truth vicious

lies, to look for what unites us and

strengthens us as a people, an American people, to strengthen these bonds,

rather than to seek what divides us.

The wounds of the past can guide us

in the future. We simply need the determination and the political will to

fight the fear and the paranoia that is

still so strong in our society.

V–E Day is a chance to celebrate the

conclusion of one of the darkest eras in

our history. It is a chance to say thank

you to those who gave their lives so

that we might remain a free people.

Let us use this day to also look deeply at America as it exists today. There

is a great deal of work to do to sort it

out, to pull this country together before fear and intolerance rips us apart.

It is with the loving memory of the

millions and millions of victims of

World War II—and the hundreds of victims of the Oklahoma bombing—that I

make these remarks today. And I give

thanks to those who fought and died in

Europe so that we may know freedom.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota [Mr.

GRAMS], is recognized.

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, for the

last 2 weeks we have had a serious debate over our Nation’s broken liability

system.

We have heard stores from supporters

of the plaintiff’s bar who claim that

manufacturers are putting products on

the market with little regard for

consumer safety.

And we have also heard from supporters of manufacturers who have anecdotes of honest individuals who were

sued for multimillion-dollar awards

and settled out of court to avoid more

costly legal fees, even when they were

innocent.

Later today or tomorrow, there will

be an effort by supporters of product liability reform to end debate, but before

we do that, I wanted to make sure this

body heard comments from a few of my

constituents

An all-too-familiar story from America’s small businesses is exemplified in

a letter from Trade Mart Furniture’s

Jerry Johnson, a constituent from

Rochester, MN.

Jerry writes:

I’ve experienced firsthand the effects of a

frivolous lawsuit. After two years of court

appearances, legal fees and countless hours, I

won. It cost almost $10,000 to defend myself.

I thought the legal system was created to

protect the citizen, not the profiteer.

Ann Hartman of Hartman Tree

Farms in Victoria, MN, states, ‘‘I am

tired of seeing lawyers make so much

money off the tragedies of others.’’

And a couple from Menahga, MN,

who own Burkel Turkey Farms writes:

The system now is a free-for-all for the

money-hungry and the lawyers. There are far

too many people out there that feel the system owes them something.

We are at the mercy of dishonest people

who are only out for a buck. It’s different if

a person has a legitimate claim, but something must be done to maintain a fair legal

system for the honest people of this world.

Mr. President, these are just a few of

the comments I have received throughout my tenure as a representative from

Minnesota, and as a small businessman

myself, I understand the effects of the

threat of a potential lawsuit.

The fact is that almost 90 percent of

all U.S. companies can expect to be

named in a product liability lawsuit.

The present liability system costs

Americans $300 billion a year and like

most Americans, my Minnesota constituents are concerned about the devastating effects the liability system

has on them.

Recent polls continue to show strong

support for liability reform: 83 percent

believe the present liability system has

problems and should be improved,

while 89 percent believe that ‘‘too

many lawsuits are being filed in America today.’’

Our current system benefits the lawyers and the dishonest. It treats both

plaintiffs and defendants unfairly. Inconsistent laws force both sides to sacrifice time and money on unpredictable
S6232 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 8, 1995

litigation. Both consumers and manufacturers end up losers. Consumers lose

because they receive inadequate compensation. Some estimates have shown

that our tort system consumes 57 cents

of every $1 awarded in lawsuits.

In addition, consumers wait unreasonable amounts of time before they

receive compensation, and often pay

outrageous fees to their attorneys.

Manufacturers lose because liability

concerns stifle research and development.

A recent survey showed that because

of fear of litigation, 47 percent of companies had withdrawn products from

the market; 25 percent had discontinued some kind of research; and 8

percent actually had laid off workers.

In fact in 1 year alone, Texas lost

79,000 jobs due to the cost of the liability system.

Each year there are more than 70,000

product liability lawsuits filed in the

United States—yet Great Britain only

has an average of 200.

Now, this is only one of the reasons

liability insurance costs are 20 times

higher in the United States than in Europe.

As a result of this well-known liability gold-rush, the United States as a

nation loses as well.

According to the Product Liability

Coordinating Committee, the cost of

product liability ranges from $80 to

$120 billion per year.

These costs are passed directly on to

you and me as consumers. Appropriately, this is known as the tort tax.

For example, manufacturers of football helmets add $100 to the cost of a

$200 helmet. Auto manufacturers add

$500 to the price of a new car, and the

markers of a $100 stepladder will add

another $20 to its cost, just to cover potential liability.

I know many of my colleagues have

mentioned this, but I want to reiterate

the fact that right here in Washington,

DC, the Girl Scout Council must sell

87,000 boxes of Girl Scout cookies each

year just to cover the cost of their liability insurance.

In my own State of Minnesota, Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III,

the son of Minnesota’s great U.S. Senator, recently testified before the State

legislature that his office spent $340,000

in 1994 defending Minnesota against

frivolous lawsuits. Attorney General

Humphrey offered a top-10 list of lawsuits from Minnesota inmates. These

are just a few of the ridiculous claims

that prisoners have filed:

One prisoner claimed he had a constitutional right to a computer in his

jail cell. One claimed that the President gave him a fungus.

Another prisoner claimed underwear

was not provided, and when it was provided, it was so tight that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

If you think these lawsuits are laughable, try Mr. Humphrey’s No. 1 frivolous lawsuit: One prisoner claimed that

his primary reason for filing a lawsuit

was ‘‘pure delight in spending taxpayers’ money.’’ I understand that

suits like these may be rare. However,

they typify the problems with our current system.

The Gorton-Rockefeller Product Liability Fairness Act will address many

of the problems faced by well-intentioned, honest manufacturers.

This legislation will establish alternative dispute resolution, extend protection to product sellers, provide an

absolute defense for injuries received

when the plaintiff was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and prevent

automobile rental companies from

being held liable for damages caused by

the renters of its cars when the company is not at fault.

In addition, the Gorton-Rockefeller

bill will provide much-needed relief to

suppliers of biomaterials. Currently,

raw material suppliers who have no direct role in the raw material’s ultimate

use as a biomaterial share extraordinary and irrational liability risk

with device manufacturers.

Companies such as DuPont, Dow

Chemical, and Dow Corning have decided to stop supplying manufacturers

of medical devices with raw materials

for fear of lawsuits. This legislation is

progress, and is the first step in the

right direction.

While I am encouraged by the hard

work of the Senators from Washington

State and West Virginia, I am concerned that we may be opening up a

new can of worms, when this legislation is signed into law.

While it will offer protection for

product manufacturers, my fear is that

it will leave the service industry as the

only remaining deep pocket.

I believe the Senate should continue

moving forward to reform our liability

system, making sure that individuals

who deserve compensation are made

whole and that individuals who are not

at fault are not held liable for someone

else’s actions.

Mr. President, we should take this

historic opportunity today to approve

the Product Liability Fairness Act,

and in doing so ensure that our liability system is fair to all parties involved, not just those who are looking

for their golden nugget in the liability

gold-rush.

EXTENSION OF MORNING

fBUSINESS

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that morning business be extended until the hour of 12:10.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Hearing no objection, so ordered.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would

NEI ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN

flike to bring to the attention of my

colleagues an advertisement currently

getting wide circulation by the nuclear

power industry.

This advertisement touts the virtues

of legislation introduced for the nuclear power industry to address the industry’s nuclear waste problem.

As many of my colleagues are aware,

the industry’s solution to its waste

problem has, for a number of years,

been very simple: ship the waste to Nevada.

Since 1982, Nevada has been the target of the nuclear powder industry’s efforts to move its toxic high-level waste

away from reactor sites.

Under current law, Yucca Mountain,

90 miles north of Las Vegas, is being

studied, supposedly to determine its

suitability as a site for a permanent

geologic repository.

The repository program has had immense problems.

With $4.5 billion spent to date on the

program, Yucca Mountain is no closer

to accepting the nuclear power industry’s waste than it was 13 years ago,

when Congress passed the first Nuclear

Waste Policy Act.

I am not alone in my opinion that a

repository will never be built at Yucca

Mountain.

The nuclear power industry is also

frustrated.

In a curious juxtaposition from the

Nevada perspective, the industry

thinks the DOE is being too careful,

paying too much attention to environmental concerns, and simply not moving fast enough.

While the nuclear power industry

still maintains that Nevada is perfectly

suitable to host their repository, it has

come to the conclusion that Yucca

Mountain will never solve its highlevel waste problem.

The nuclear power industry has a

new solution, and of course, Nevada is

once again the victim.

The nuclear power industry’s new

strategy is to designate Nevada as the

site for its interim storage, beginning

in 1998.

While the ‘‘interim’’ designation is

supposed to imply a temporary facility,

the nuclear power industry defines ‘‘interim’’ as 100 years, subject to renewal.

The motive is patently transparent:

ship high level nuclear waste to Nevada

as soon as possible, without any regard

for the health and safety of Nevadans,

and then forget about it.

The type of public relations campaign being mounted here is nothing

new.

While we in Nevada have long experience with such campaigns by the nuclear power industry and its hired

flacks, I have to admit that this latest

advertisement is a masterpiece of deception and misinformation.

The headline alone reveals the deceptiveness of the advertisement.

‘‘There are 109 good reasons to store

nuclear waste in 1 place’’ proclaims the

nuclear industry’s advertisement.

The headline appeals to the logic of

the reader—of course, the reader

thinks, 1 site is better than 109.

The problem is, of course, that the

advertisement does not tell the true

story.