May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6335

set an alternative ceiling of $250,000, or

twice the amount of compensatory

damages. And then the judge, under

the additur provision, decides if that is

not enough, to take it up. So there is

no floor.

We are not talking about treating

people unfairly. In fact, I think we are

trying to talk, for the first time in a

long time, about treating people fairly.

To highlight some more information

about the suggestion of the Senator

from Iowa that there is any sort of special protection for businesses which are

tempted to make defective or unsafe

products, everybody needs to remember

that juries under our bill can award

compensatory damages in amounts

that span from hundreds of dollars to

millions and millions of dollars.

I have made this point several times,

but I will make it again and I will give

you a few more examples this time. I

have already talked about the State of

the Senator from Washington, not even

considering punitive damages at all,

and within the last 5 or 6 weeks there

was an award of $40 million. I have no

idea what the circumstances were. But

that was economic plus noneconomic—

compensatory damages, $40 million.

You do not need punitive damages to

get a big award. I am for the punitive

damages, but you do not need them to

get major awards.

There was a $70 million compensatory award, again, not even considering punitive, to the family of a woman

who died when a defective helicopter

crashed—in, as it turns out, Missouri.

But that did not stop the jury from

awarding $70 million. So we are not

kidding here. We are not doing anything fun here.

There was a $15 million compensatory award—again, not even considering punitive damages; but a compensatory award—to a boy in a case involving a defective seat belt. Now, I do

not know the circumstances. This was

in Los Angeles County, 1993. I do not

know the circumstances, but this is

just compensatory award.

Almost $20 million, Mr. President, in

compensatory damages was awarded to

a man injured in some circumstances

in which a motorcycle spun around on

the ground during a turn. My eloquence cannot exceed that, unfortunately, because I do not know what it

was. But the man was injured by a motorcycle and got almost $20 million—I

say again, in compensatory damages

alone.

So there is no kind of joking around

here. We are trying to do the right

thing.

I might say, on the other side of it—

and I do not want to stretch this out—

that there are a lot of things that are

not happening in this country because

of the fact that our punitive damages

situation is scaring people away from

new products, new research, new improvements, or whatever.

I have used this case before and I will

use it again, because I think it is devastatingly powerful.

I care a lot about health care and I

have worked a lot on health care. I

have been into kidney dialysis clinics.

They are not a lot of fun to go into.

The former Governor of Missouri

knows what I am talking about, the

Presiding Officer. It is kind of dark and

people are lying back in chairs, and

their blood is being completely

changed. It is kind of depressing to be

there. I do not think they enjoy it

much. Nobody is talking to anybody

else. They cannot work. They are tied

into these huge machines which rise up

beside them and behind them.

This was carried a little step further

and they developed a dialysis machine

that you could take home with you so

that if you worked within 2 or 3 miles,

or 4 or 5 miles away, you could come

home to that dialysis machine, do it

yourself and then go back to work. It

was a tremendous improvement, because you could go back to work, if

your work was close enough so that

you could come back two or three

times to do that.

But then Union Carbide comes along

and really comes up with the answer.

They put the whole thing into a suitcase-sized dialysis machine that you

can take to your job with you and do

the dialysis on the job.

My 15-year-old son has one of his best

friends who, a couple of years ago, we

discovered had diabetes. That is not a

lot of fun for a young kid to find something like that out. I cannot get over

the way that young man, 12 years old

at the time, simply adjusted to his new

circumstances and was able to give

himself insulin; just disappear for a few

minutes and do it. His courage—he actually grew, grew in my eyes, and I

think he grew in his own realization in

the sense of mortality and what he

could do and how precious everything

was. He is a remarkable boy. In fact, I

think his aunt is Madeleine Albright,

our Ambassador to the United Nations—a wonderful boy.

But Union Carbide, when they came

up with this same kind of you-can-doit-right-on-the-spot kidney dialysis

machine, had to sell their business to a

foreign company where uniform product liability laws did not give the same

litigation potential because Union Carbide, an enormous company, determined that the potential liability risk

made the product uneconomical.

So I have to assume there are hundreds of thousands of people who need

these blood changes in this country

who are deprived of that now because

Union Carbide could not do that.

I have 20 examples. I will not give

them. It is late.

So I know that the amendment has

sort of a nice, populist ring to it—

CEO’s salary. But this is dead-serious

business that we are involved in.

Product liability reform is something

I have fought for as a nonlawyer because I want to see people’s lives get

better and I want to see products developed and I want to see—just on personal grounds, my mother spent years

dying from Alzheimer’s disease. There

is a cure out there, but somebody has

to put the money up to find that cure.

It is probably not going to be the Federal Government, because we are cutting back.

So all of this is deadly serious. This

is not a bill that should be used to beat

up on business. This is a bill that

should be used to beat up on a legal

system which is failing us and, as the

Senator from Washington said, in

which the lawyers get 50 to 70 percent

of the money. I do not respect that. I

do not like that. I want to change that.

And for that, among other reasons, I

oppose the amendment of the Senator

from Iowa.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask

MORNING BUSINESS

funanimous consent that there now be a

period for the transaction of morning

business, with Senators permitted to

speak for up to 5 minutes each.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

NOMINATION OF JOHN DEUTCH TO

BE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INfTELLIGENCE [DCI]

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in

strong support of the nomination of

John Deutch to become Director of

Central Intelligence [DCI]. As a longtime member of the Senate Armed

Services Committee, I have enjoyed

working with him in his various roles

at the Department of Defense—and I

look forward to working with him as

DCI. Dr. Deutch has an extremely impressive re ́sume ́, and I ask unanimous

consent that a copy of his biography be

included in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, his background and training clearly indicates

that Dr. Deutch brings a broad background to the DCI position. His scientific background makes him particularly prepared to deal with the many,

formidable technical issues confronting

the Intelligence Community from satellites to signals intelligence [SIGINT].

Dr. Deutch also brings significant administrative and national security expertise to the DCI job from his past and

current senior management experiences at the Defense Department. His

toughness in making difficult decisions

and his knowledge of, and experience

in, national security matters will make

him a very capable manager of the U.S.

Intelligence Community.

I have been especially pleased with

the principal purposes Dr. Deutch has

articulated for the Intelligence Community: Striving to assure that the

President and other national leaders
S6336 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 9, 1995

have the best information available before making decisions; providing adequate support to military operations;

the need for intelligence to address the

growing problems of international terrorism, crime, and drugs; and that our

counterintelligence capabilities are

able to assure that America’s enemies

do not penetrate our national security

apparatus.

The new CIA Director comes along at

an important time for the U.S. intelligence community. For almost half a

century, the intelligence community—

indeed our Nation’s entire national security infrastructure—has been focused

primarily on the Soviet threat. And

during the cold war period, our Government viewed most national security issues—justifiable or not—through the

prism of the United States-Soviet competition.

Obviously, this is no longer the case

as America is coming to terms with a

rapidly changing world. And having a

robust and effective intelligence community is an indispensable means to

that end. Timely and accurate intelligence forms the foundation of our foreign policy and defines the threat to

U.S. national security that is—or

should be—the basis of our defense

spending.

Yet with the end of the cold war,

some have argued that the CIA is a

relic which has outlived its usefulness,

and we should do away with it. I

strongly disagree with such views. In

this unprecedented time of enormous

change and uncertainty in the world—

as the on-going problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and recent acts of terrorism at

home and around the world clearly

demonstrate, our need for the intelligence community and a robust intelligence budget is greater than ever before.

The requirement for an intelligence

capability is by no means a cold war

aberration. This year, we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the end of

World War II. And history has ultimately revealed to the public the important role of intelligence in that war.

Mr. President, like all veterans of

that conflict, the 50th anniversary

commemorations of specific events of

World War II have special meaning to

me. One of the most moving ceremonies I have ever attended was last

June’s ceremony in France commemorating the D-Day invasion of Normandy.

And unsurprisingly, intelligence

made an extraordinary contribution to

the success of D-Day’s planning and

implementation. Intelligence agents

acquired an accurate map of the German Atlantic Wall fortifications, and

an intelligence deception operation

code-named Body Guard used German

spies captured in England as double

agents who sent false messages to the

Nazis regarding the precise location of

the planned invasion of Europe. This

latter operation also successfully

passed along false information regarding the location of Allied invasion

forces in England.

Intelligence played a decisive role in

Allied victory in World War II in many

ways. Signals intelligence [SIGINT],

for example, played an instrumental

role in winning World War II as Allied

intelligence successfully broke German

and Japanese codes.

And as we enter one of the most unpredictable and dangerous periods in

world history, we must ensure that our

SIGINT as well as human intelligence

[HUMINT] and other intelligence capabilities will be able to meet the intelligence challenges of tomorrow.

Mr. President, in addition to the

other recommendations being made to

Dr. Deutch, as DCI, I would like to add

one more.

Next March, the Commission on the

Roles and Capabilities of the United

States Intelligence Community—which

was initiated by this committee last

year—will issue its report, including

recommendations to reorganize the intelligence community in the postcold

war era. While I look forward to reviewing the Commission’s report, I

must admit that I have been somewhat

skeptical over the years about the utility of Government by ‘‘Blue Ribbon

Panel’’—and have sought to educe the

number of such commissions through

oversight action of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, where I am

now the ranking member.

As Dr. Deutch assumes his duties as

DCI and he perceives significant problems—organizational and otherwise—

that are impending the intelligence

community’s ability to meet its requirements, I sincerely hope that he

will act expeditiously to remedy these

problems and not wait for the Commission’s report next March.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues

to vote in support of Dr. Deutch as

DCI.

EXHIBIT 1

JOHN M. DEUTCH

The Honorable John M. Deutch was sworn

in as Deputy Secretary of Defense on 11

March 1994, following a unanimous vote in

the Senate. He previously served as the

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and

Technology) from 15 April 1993 until his confirmation as Deputy Secretary.

Prior to his nomination to these positions,

Mr. Deutch served in a number of educational government posts. Mr. Deutch became a member of the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970 and

since then has been an associate professor

and professor of chemistry, chairman of the

Department of Chemistry, dean of science,

provost, and Institute Professor.

His government assignments include service in the Department of Energy as Director

of Energy Research, Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology, and Under

Secretary of the Department. In recognition

of his contributions, he was honored with the

Secretary’s Distinguished Service Medal and

the Department’s Distinguished Service

Medal. He has been a member of the White

House Science Council, the Defense Science

Board, the Army Scientific Advisory Panel,

the Chief of Naval Operations Executive

Panel, the President’s Commission on Strategic Forces, the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and the President’s

Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee. He

also served as a consultant to the Bureau of

the Budget.

He has been a trustee of the Urban Institute, a member and Chair of the National

Science Foundation Advisory Panel for

Chemistry, an overseer of the Museum of

Fine Arts in Boston, a trustee of Wellesley

College, a director of Resources for the Future, a member of the Trilateral Commission, and a member of the Governor of Massachusetts Technology and Economic Development Council.

A graduate of Amherst College with a B.A.

in history and economics, he earned both a

B.S. in chemical engineering and a Ph.D. in

physical chemistry from M.I.T. He holds

honorary doctoral degrees from Amherst

College and the University of Lowell. Mr.

Deutch has been a Sloan Research Fellow

and a Guggenheim Fellow and is a member of

Sigma Xi and the American Academy of Arts

and Sciences.

Mr. Deutch was born in Brussels, Belgium,

and became a U.S. citizen in 1946. He has

three sons, and his permanent residence is in

Belmont, Massachusetts.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

fMessages from the President of the

United States were communicated to

the Senate by Mr. Thomas, one of his

secretaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

fAs in executive session the Presiding

Officer laid before the Senate messages

from the President of the United

States submitting sundry nominations

which were referred to the Committee

on Armed Services.

(The nominations received today are

printed at the end of the Senate proceedings.)

EXECUTIVE AND OTHER

COMMUNICATIONS

fThe following communications were

laid before the Senate, together with

accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred as indicated:

EC–880. A communication from the Under

Secretary of Defense (Acquisiton and Technology), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the M1A2 Abrams Upgrade;

to the Committee on Armed Services.

EC–881. A communication from the Under

Secretary of Defense (Acquisiton and Technology), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the Maneuver Control System; to the Committee on Armed Services.

EC–882. A communication from the Under

Secretary of Defense (Acquisiton and Technology), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the ADDS, C-17, and Javelin

programs; to the Committee on Armed Services.

EC–883. A communication from the Deputy

and Acting Chief Executive Officer of the

Resolution Trust Corporation, transmitting,

pursuant to law, a report relative to the Affordable Housing Disposition Program for

calendar year 1994; to the Committee on

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

EC–884. A communication from the President and Chairman of the Export-Import