S6294 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 9, 1995

can have 50 different States with 50 different statutes of repose and 50 different standards for a person who is injured to have to worry about. That is

not uniformity at all.

The statute of repose, of course, says

that after a product has been in place

for a period of time you can no longer

bring a cause of action against that

product because it is defective. My

amendment says let us make it uniform, 25 years across the country, nationwide; it is the same in every State.

That brings about uniformity both for

the person who manufactured the product and uniformity for the person who

may be injured by a defective product.

I think that makes sense and is the

right way to go.

The third area I think they are defective in, in their suggestion, is on the

question of joint and several liability.

What they are trying to do is address

the problem of a manufacturer or defendant that is just a little bit responsible, just a little bit negligent. Their

argument is if someone is only responsible for 3 percent of the injury he or

she should not be liable for 100 percent

of the damages for noneconomic damages, that is the pain and suffering

type of injuries that a person would receive from a defective product. But the

way they have tried to handle this

problem is say you are not going to

have any joint liability for noneconomic damages and that will take

care of the problem. Yes, that takes

care of the problem. It wipes out the

possibility of an injured person, perhaps, from getting any recovery at all.

What I am going to suggest in my

amendment is simply this—and this is

the language, again, that has been suggested by Senator SPECTER, who has

come up with I think a very good idea

to solve this problem. I picked some

from Democratic colleagues, Senator

DODD, some from our Republican colleagues, Senator SPECTER, and tried to

put them together because that is what

we have been talking about for the last

several days. Senator SPECTER’s suggestion, which I have included in my

suggestion, is simply to say there is a

de minimis standard. If a defendant is

responsible for less than 15 percent of

the injuries that were caused, they

cannot be held jointly liable, they can

only be held liable for that percentage

of the damages that it has been determined they are at fault for, that they

caused. If it is 3 percent they can only

be responsible for 3 percent. But after

that threshold, if they are 20 to 30 to 40

percent responsible, then they can be

held jointly liable. I think that takes

care of the so-called de minimis problem, whereby we should not hold someone responsible for the whole amount

of damages if they only caused a very

small, de minimis, portion of those

damages. But after a certain point,

joint liability should prevail.

We picked up Senator SPECTER’s suggestion, which I think is a very good

one, that says if a person is 15 percent

or more responsible for these losses,

then they can be held jointly liable for

noneconomic losses that they caused.

That defendant, of course, has a cause

of action for anybody else who is liable

for the other portion of the damages.

That is what normally occurs. The defendant then brings in the other party

and they can be held responsible—to

the defendant who has paid the entire

amount—for their portion. So the system works very well. But my suggestion, I think, takes care of the de

minimis concern that has been expressed by many of our colleagues.

I will offer this amendment and will

be able to offer it if the cloture motion

is voted down. I think it would be a big

mistake, when we are so close to coming up with a compromise agreement,

to at this time invoke cloture and prevent the opportunity to offer this

amendment with a chance of it becoming law. This is really an attempt to

try to reach a legitimate compromise.

We can debate this for a long time. We

could continue to prevent cloture from

being invoked.

I think it is time the Senate bring

this measure to a close. What I have

tried to do is pick some of the best

ideas from my colleagues. I continue to

emphasize that many of the things I

have in my legislation are the product

of the suggestions of some of my colleagues—Senator SPECTER in particular

with this de minimis standard, my colleague Senator DODD with the concept

of punitive damages being set by the

judge after a trial has occurred that determines that punitive damages would

be justified. I think that makes good

sense, to try to incorporate Republican

ideas and Democratic ideas, to put together a package which is truly a compromise.

One of the things the advocates of

this so-called tort reform legislation

have advocated is a national standard

when it talks to punitive damages. I

have incorporated their ideas on the

national standard being in fact that

the plaintiff must show a conscious and

flagrant indifference to safety concerns, and the plaintiff must do it and

show it by clear and convincing evidence. That will be a national standard

now for punitive damages in product liability cases. I have incorporated that

suggestion. That is the same as in the

Gorton-Rockefeller legislation.

In fact, much of what this substitute

that I will offer really incorporates is

the better features from the GortonRockefeller language. But it also tries

to address the three major areas in

which I think they were defective, and

those are how punitive damages are

set, how they deal with joint and several liability, and how they deal with

the statute of repose.

So I hope when we come to the floor

to vote on cloture this morning, which

has already been set, our colleagues

will know there is an effort among

many of us who have been involved to

some extent in this legislation to try

to put together a package of amendments that is truly a genuine compromise, that tries to treat people who

are injured by defective products on

the same level playing field that we are

trying to treat defendants who in fact

have manufactured defective products.

It is improper for this body to try to

give advantage to one group over the

other group. If we conclude there

should be some national standards,

then the national standards should

apply both to those who are injured as

well as to those who make the product

that has caused injury, in the same

way. It would be unfair and improper

to say one side is going to get more fair

treatment than the other. I am concerned the provisions that are pending

in the Gorton-Rockefeller substitute in

fact are not fair; in fact they do allow

for more loopholes to be created with

the 25-employee limitation, they do

create some other problems with regard to the establishment of punitive

damages, they encourage more trials,

and they encourage, I think, abuse of

how punitive damages would be set.

We have tried to offer something that

addresses all these problems in a fashion that truly represents a fair and just

compromise. But we do need to ask our

colleagues—who may be trying to figure out the situation as to where we

are—ask them to vote against the cloture motion and allow us to come in

with a compromise that I think for

once and for all will settle this very,

very difficult, very emotional set of issues that we have struggled with for so

many days.

The alternative I will offer, and hope

to be joined by a number of our colleagues, will be something that will

give everybody an opportunity to say

we made some reforms but we did it ultimately and finally in a fashion that

is fair to everyone involved. With that,

Mr. President, is there any time left on

the leader time?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty

seconds.

Mr. BREAUX. I will just reserve that

30 seconds in case the leader needs it.

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.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs.

HUTCHISON). Without objection, it is so

ordered.

NRA’S FUNDRAISING LETTER

fMr. LEVIN. Madam President, recently, the National Rifle Association

issued a widely circulated fundraising

letter over the signature of Executive

Vice President Wayne LaPierre and

that letter is full of questionable overheated language. I wish to focus on one

paragraph in particular. The letter

states, and I am quoting exactly:

In Clinton’s administration, if you have a

badge, you have the Government’s go-ahead
May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6295

to harass, intimidate, and even murder lawabiding citizens.

Now, as if the force of the words

‘‘even murder’’ as applied here were

not repugnant enough, the letter underlines the words ‘‘even murder.’’

This assertion that the U.S. law enforcement personnel have been authorized by President Clinton ‘‘to harass,

intimidate, even murder law-abiding

citizens’’ is without foundation, and it

is an offensive outrage that should be

condemned by members of the NRA

and all other decent Americans.

On April 28, I wrote a letter to the

president of the NRA, Mr. Tom Washington, asking that the statement be

retracted. The statement is inflammatory; it is inappropriate. I do not

think there is a single Member of this

body who would stand in the Chamber

of the Senate and speak such words, asserting that our President has authorized law enforcement personnel to murder law-abiding citizens. I do not believe the overwhelming majority of

NRA members would countenance such

language.

My letter to Mr. Washington asked,

‘‘Can you honestly justify your organization’s characterization of law enforcement officials with such language,

describing them as on a mission sanctioned by the Government to murder

law-abiding citizens?’’

Madam President, on May 3, I received a reply from Mr. Washington,

and his letter says:

While I concede that some of the language

in the NRA fundraising letter might have

been rhetorically impassioned—as is most

political direct mail—that in no way disparages the NRA, nor diminishes the seriousness of the alleged federal law enforcement

abuses to which the letter refers.

The letter goes on to relate the history of the NRA’s interest in the investigation of Federal law enforcement

abuse. The letter concludes with the

statement that ‘‘blaming the rhetoric,

whether in a fundraising letter or anywhere else in political discourse, serves

only to silence dissent and aggravate

that distrust.’’

Well, Madam President, I have no interest in silencing dissent. I never

have. There is nothing more American

than the conscientious expression of

dissent. There is no more sacred right

guaranteed by our Constitution to all

Americans than freedom of speech, and

I will defend the NRA’s right to say

what it said. The point is that the

reply that I have received from Mr.

Washington did not answer the question that I asked. I asked Mr. Washington, ‘‘Can you honestly justify your organization’s characterization of law enforcement officials with such language,

describing them as on a mission sanctioned by the Government to murder

law-abiding citizens?’’ The question

was not answered.

I ask unanimous consent, Madam

President, that the NRA letter written

by Executive Vice President Wayne

LaPierre and my letter of April 28 to

Mr. Washington and Mr. Washington’s

letter of May 3 to me be printed in the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

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

RECORD, as follows:

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC, April 28, 1995.

Mr. TOM WASHINGTON,

President, National Rifle Association,

Lansing, MI.

DEAR TOM: Over the years we have agreed

on some things, like protecting our Great

Lakes, and disagreed on others, like the ban

on assault weapons. But no matter what positions we have on assault weapons, I hope

you will agree that the language of the

NRA’s recent fundraising letter over the signature of Executive Vice President Wayne

LaPierre is highly inflammatory and totally

inappropriate.

In one passage, Mr. LaPierre writes, ‘‘In

Clinton’s administration, if you have a

badge, you have the government’s go-ahead

to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.’’ Can you honestly justify your

organization’s characterization of law enforcement officials with such language, describing them as on mission sanctioned by

the government to ‘‘murder law-abiding citizens’’?

This is but one example of the inflammatory, hateful rhetoric in this letter. I will

defend Mr. LaPierre’s right to free speech,

but the public also has a right to expect the

NRA to retract hateful and inflammatory

statements issued in its name. I urge the

NRA to retract the LaPierre letter.

Thank you for giving this request your

consideration.

Sincerely,

CARL LEVIN,

U.S. Senate.

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION.

DEAR FELLOW AMERICAN: I’ve worn out a

lot of shoe leather walking the halls of Congress. I’ve met key leaders, I’ve talked with

old allies, I’ve met with the new Congressmen and many staff members.

What I’m hearing and seeing concerns me.

Many of our new Congressmen are ignoring

America’s 80 million gun owners. Some have

forgotten what we did to elect them. Others

say our demands to restore our Constitutional freedoms are politically out of line.

Don’t get me wrong, not all of them are

like this. Senator Phil Gramm, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Congressmen Bill

McCollum, Bill Brewster and Harold Volkmer are all coming to our aid. But too many

others are not.

And without a major show of force by

America’s 80 million gun owners, America

will resume its long march down the road to

gun bans, destruction of the Constitution

and loss of every sacred freedom.

I want you to know I’m not looking for a

fight.

But when you consider the facts of our current situation, you too, will see we have no

other choice.

FACT #1: The Congress’ leading anti-gunners, Senators Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy and Congressmen Charles Schumer and

Major Owens all survived their last elections.

They’ve pledged to fight to the bitter end

for Brady II and its ammo taxes, licensing

and registration schemes, gun rationing, bureaucrats with the power to determine if you

‘‘need’’ a gun and yes, the repeal of the Second Amendment.

It doesn’t matter to them that the Brady

Law is a failure.

It doesn’t matter to them that the Brady

Law has become one more tool that government agents are using to deny the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.

It doesn’t matter to them that the semiauto ban gives jack-booted government

thugs more power to take away our Constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize

our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.

Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Owens and

the rest of the anti-gunners want more and

more gun control.

It can be something small and subtle like

a regulation expanding the disqualification

criteria for the Brady Law. They’re fighting

for anything that makes it harder for you to

own a gun.

The gun banners simply don’t like you.

They don’t trust you. They don’t want you

to own a gun. And they’ll stop at nothing

until they’ve forced you to turn over your

guns to the government.

Fact No. 2: If the anti-gunners fail to

achieve their goals in Congress, they have a

fall-back position in Bill Clinton, the most

anti-gun President in American history.

In two short years, Bill Clinton launched

two successful attacks on the Constitution.

He signed two gun control bills into law. He

has sworn to veto any repeal of the semiauto ban and any restoration of our Constitutional rights.

His Interior and Agriculture Departments

have set their sights on closing hunting

lands.

And his Environmental Protection Agency

is attempting to take jurisdiction over existing uses of lead. This, of course, includes gun

ranges and spent shot.

What’s more, gun owners aren’t the only

ones Clinton’s EPA has set its sights on.

They’re after fishermen, too. They want to

BAN the use of small lead fishing sinkers

and, of gravest concern, they want to stop

the home casting of these sinkers.

If fishing sinkers are on the Clinton bureaucrat’s list, you know what’s next: lead

shot, lead bullets, bullet casting and reloading.

Clinton’s State Department is also adding

to the attacks on gun owners and our Constitutional freedoms. In December, he signed

the Summit of the America’s agreements

which pledges that the U.S. Government will

push for additional gun control.

Over in the Justice Department, Clinton’s

Attorney General Janet Reno has signaled

her intent to ‘‘squash’’ the states’ rights

movement an deny states their Constitutional power.

And worst of all,

Fact No. 3: President Clinton’s army of

anti-gun government agents continues to intimidate and harass law-abiding citizens.

In Clinton’s administration, if you have a

badge, you have the government’s go-ahead

to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.

Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge . . . Waco

and the Branch Davidians . . . Not too long

ago, it was unthinkable for Federal agents

wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black

storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens.

Not today, not with Clinton.

Our calls to investigate these outrageous

assaults on our Constitutional freedoms are

routinely silenced by the anti-gun media.

But that’s no surprise.

Fact No. 4: They’ve launched a new wave of

brainwashing propaganda. . .

CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, Time, Newsweek and The New York Times have

launched another round of phony polls and

slanted stories to help the anti-gunners

achieve their goals.

Their latest phony poll shows 70% of America support the ‘‘semi-auto’’ assault weapon

ban.
S6296 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 9, 1995

That’s simply not true. When it’s explained

that ‘‘semi-autos’’ are used in less than a

fraction of one percent of crimes; that the

ban only affects the law-abiding; and, that

the ban is only one more way to deny Constitutional rights to the law-abiding, support

for the ban drops to 30%.

But the media still uses this 70% statistic

to trumpet the call for gun control.

What scares me the most about this 70%

number is that the media has brainwashed

70% of Americans into believing that the

government—and not each individual—is responsible for their personal protection.

Even worse, this 70% number means that

there are enough people who can be brainwashed by the media to vote for a repeal of

the Second Amendment if it were put to a

vote.

The media, Clinton, the anti-gunners in

Congress . . . This combination is a powder

key that could blow at any moment and it’s

set squarely underneath the Constitution.

And what this means is:

FACT #5: Congress must be forced to restore the Constitution, repeal the gun bans,

investigate abuse by government agents and

focus the public debate on criminal control,

not gun control . . .

. . . Or what we’re seeing now will only be

a momentary patch of sunshine on the road

to doom for the Second Amendment and our

Constitution.

There is hope, though. Despite the current

situation, I’m encouraged by you and your

fellow NRA members.

Everywhere I go, to every gun show, every

NRA–ILA grassroots operation, every

Friends of NRA Dinner, even in cabs and airports around the country, I run into NRA

members who understand the stakes and

stand ready to fight.

The question I hear from almost every one

of these NRA members is the same: ‘‘What

can I do next?’’

If you’re one of those members, I want to

thank you for your courage, your conviction

and your spirit. You keep me going. You

keep me on the road. You give me strength

to lead the battle.

And if you want to join me in taking the

next step, I need you to do these two things

today.

First, I need you to sign the enclosed Petitions to the United States Congress.

These petitions are addressed to the leaders of the U.S. Congress, Senator Robert

Dole and Speaker Newt Gingrich, and your

U.S. Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan,

Alfonse M. D’Amato and Congresswoman Sue

Kelly.

Please be sure to sign all five petitions,

then fold them and place them in the enclosed, postage-paid envelope addressed to

me at NRA Headquarters.

These petitions spell out, in black and

white, our agenda of repeal, reform, investigate and limit government power.

In the first amendment of the Bill of

Rights, we are guaranteed the right to ‘‘petition our Government for a redress of grievances.’’

And that’s exactly what we’re going to do:

redress our grievances in the biggest and

most powerful display of political clout and

commitment to the Constitution.

I want to personally deliver your five petitions, and the petitions of all 3.5 million of

your fellow NRA members—17.5 million petitions in all—to Congress.

And I want to show the leadership in Congress, and your Senators and Congressmen

from New York, that the number one priority in their Contract with America must be

defending and restoring our Constitutional

freedoms.

17.5 million Petitions to Congress is the

largest ‘‘redress of grievances’’ since the

Constitution and the Bill of Rights were

written.

So I KNOW Congress will get the message.

And I know they’ll act on our agenda of Repeal, Reform and Investigate if only you and

I speak out.

Your Petitions to Congress also sends another message—a message not spelled out on

the Petitions themselves.

Each Congressman, on the average, will receive 8,000 Petitions from NRA members demanding action. 8,000 messages from angry

voters sounds an alarm in every Congressman’s head.

You see, most Congressional elections were

won or lost by 5,000 votes or less. So, they’ll

realize that failing to defend the Second

Amendment and failing to retake the Constitutional freedoms lost to the anti-gunners, could result in big losses at the next

election!

That’s why it’s critical you take a few

minutes to sign your Petitions to Congress

and return them to me as soon as possible.

These petitions are our D-Day.

Armed with these petitions and our First

Amendment rights, we are going to storm

Congress, knock out anti-gunner strongholds

and recapture every bit of ground we lost

since Bill Clinton took office.

And if we’re successful, these petitions will

be the turning point in the history of the

Constitution . . . A day when our sacred

right to keep and bear arms will be secure

for the next generation of law-abiding Americans.

Second, when you return your signed Petitions to Congress, I need you to make a special contribution to the NRA of $15, $20, $25,

$35, $50 or the most generous amount you can

afford.

Most Americans don’t realize that our freedoms are slowly slipping away.

They don’t understand that politicians and

bureaucrats are chipping away at the American way of life.

They’re destroying business, destroying

our economy, destroying property rights, destroying our moral foundation, destroying

our schools, destroying our culture . . . Destroying our Constitution.

And the attack, either through legislation

or regulation, on the Second Amendment is

only the first in a long campaign to destroy

the freedoms at the core of American life.

You can see it in the gun bans, certainly.

But you can also see it in closed ranges,

closed hunting lands, confiscated collectors’

firearms, banned magazines and ammunition

taxes.

You can see it when jack-booted government thugs, wearing black, armed to the

teeth, break down a door, open fire with an

automatic weapon, and kill or maim lawabiding citizens.

America’s gun owners will only be the first

to lose their freedoms.

If we lose the right to keep and bear arms,

then the right to free speech, free practice of

religion, and every other freedom in the Bill

of Rights are sure to follow.

I am one American who is not going to sit

on the sidelines and watch this happen.

And if you want to help me stop this destruction of the Constitution, then I hope

you can make that special contribution of

$15, $20, $25, $35 or $50 to the NRA today.

With your special contribution, I’ll have

the financial ammo I need to keep Congress

focused on the mission we’ve assigned them.

First, with your help, I will expand out petition campaign to involve as many of America’s 80 million gun owners as possible.

If we can double the number of Petitions

flooding Congress, we’ll double the speed

Congress deals with our demands to repeal,

reform and investigate. And with double the

show of clout, we’ll wipe out anti-gunner opposition.

Second, with your special contribution, I

can increase the NRA’s public exposure on

talk shows, at rallies and shows, in radio and

T.V. advertising and through broadcasts like

the NRA’s Town Meeting that first sounded

our alarm in 16 million households, last summer.

Part of our problem is that far too few

Americans understand what’s at stake in

these battles.

My ultimate goal is to educate the American people that this issue is not just about

guns, not just about hunting, not just about

personal protection; this issue is about freedom—your freedom.

I want to use the power of T.V. and radio

to show the American people that, if the

NRA fails to restore our Second Amendment

freedoms, the attacks will begin on freedom

of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from

unreasonable search and seizure. . .

And that unless we take action today, the

long slide down the slippery slope will only

continue until there’s no freedom left in

America at all.

I know you see it. The elbow room you

have to hunt, shoot and live life the way you

see fit is slowly disappearing.

And the truth is, NRA members have been

hardened by legislative battles. And only

NRA members have the courage, the conviction to draw the line in the sand.

That’s why I’m hoping you can take a few

moments to sign and date the enclosed petitions and return them to me with your special contribution of $15, $20, $25, $35, $50 or

more in the enclosed postage-paid envelope

today. Or, you can charge by phone by calling 800–547–4NRA today.

You know, besides going shooting, I love to

go to football games. And every time I go, I

always hear my fellow fans talk about the

impact of ‘‘the 12th man.’’

The 11 players calling the plays and doing

the hitting get a lot of their motivation from

the 12th man in the stands. I’m talking

about the crowd who cheers wildly when our

team is on offense, and drowns out the signals of the opposing team when they’re on

the defense.

I need you to be that 12th man.

I need you to sign your petitions to Congress and return them to me today. That

simple act will give our allies the political

courage to do what’s right, to push ahead

with our agenda of Repeal, Reform, and Investigate.

Likewise, your signed petitions to Congress will confuse and demoralize the antigun team and their agenda of bans, taxes, intimidation, harassment and destruction of

the Constitution.

I know I’ve said what I’m about to say before. But this is a message that resonates

with NRA members across the land. It’s

something I hope you, too, will say whenever

you have the occasion to defend our Constitutional freedoms.

This, the battle we’re fighting today, is a

battle to retake the most precious, most sacred ground on earth. This is a battle for

freedom.

Please tell me you’re ready to take the

next step by returning your signed petitions

to Congress and special gift to me in the enclosed postage-paid envelope today.

Thank you, I look forward to hearing from

you soon.

Yours in Freedom,

WAYNE LAPIERRE,

Executive Vice President.

P.S. As a special thank you for making a

special contribution of $25 or more, I’d like

to send you a copy of my national best-selling book, Guns, Crime, and Freedom. Guns,

Crime, and Freedom is 263 pages of truth
May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6297

about guns, gun control, gun owners, the

anti-gun media and what’s happening to our

freedoms.

I hope you’ll read it and use it in your own

personal campaign in New York to defend

the Constitution. Use Guns, Crime, and Freedom to help you keep the pressure on Congress, write letters to the editor and teach

other Americans about the battle we’re

fighting today. Thanks again for your support and friendship.

NATIONAL RIFLE

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,

Fairfax, VA, May 3, 1995.

Hon. CARL LEVIN,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR LEVIN: While I concede that

some of the language in the NRA fundraising

letter you refer to might have been rhetorically impassioned—as is most political direct mail—that in no way disparages the

NRA, nor diminishes the seriousness of the

alleged federal law enforcement abuses to

which the letter refers. And it is certainly in

no way related to the terrorist bombing in

Oklahoma City.

You asked if we can ‘‘honestly justify’’

rhetoric decrying such abuses of federal

power. That’s what we want to find out. In

January 1994, the American Civil Liberties

Union, the National Rifle Association and

others wrote to President Clinton, petitioning him to appoint a commission to investigate 25 documented cases of alleged federal

law enforcement abuse. Our request was ignored. So again in January 1995, the ACLU,

NRA and others petitioned the President. All

we ask is a full, fair and open examination

the facts—a request that, so far, has been denied.

This isn’t just some petty gripe against the

enforcement of anti-gun laws by the Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. On the

contrary, the inquiry we requested was to

focus on all 53 federal law enforcement agencies, and on charges ranging from the denial

of basic civil rights, to the confiscation and

destruction of property, to the improper use

of deadly force against unarmed civilians.

I agree, senator, that the partisan posturing and political exploitation of the Oklahoma City tragedy is reprehensible and

should stop. But before you condemn NRA’s

criticism of federal law enforcement abuses

as ‘‘totally inappropriate,’’ I urge you to

help us find out if it really is.

Let’s get all the facts out on the table regarding these cases. If the accusations

against federal law enforcement are baseless,

let’s expose them as such and vindicate the

officers accused. If, on the other hand, particular officers are operating outside the

rule of law, let’s find them, remove them and

prosecute them for the good of the whole.

Whatever the case, let’s put the grievances

to rest once and for all.

Doing so, I believe, could help reverse the

public’s documented and growing distrust of

federal power. Blaming the rhetoric—whether in a fundraising letter or anywhere else in

political discourse—serves only to silence

dissent and aggravate that distrust.

Sincerely yours,

THOMAS L. WASHINGTON,

President,

National Rifle Association of America.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will

defend LaPierre’s, Mr. Washington’s,

and the NRA’s right to free speech, but

I continue to hope that the membership of the NRA and the American public will demand that this patently false

statement that the President has authorized the murder of law-abiding

citizens be retracted. There is a crucial

difference between what someone has a

right to say and what it is right to say.

This statement in the NRA letter is

wrong. It deserves to be condemned,

and it should be withdrawn.

Madam President, I believe I have an

allotted amount of morning business

time, and if so I would yield 3 minutes

to my friend from Rhode Island.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized

for 3 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair. I

thank the distinguished senior Senator

from Michigan for giving me a few

minutes.

Madam President, I believe the tactics used by Mr. LaPierre in his recent

fundraising letter for the National

Rifle Association are just plain wrong.

This letter does not contribute to any

informed debate. Instead, it is inaccurate and irrational. It borders on the

hysterical. And this kind of hysteria

only encourages paranoia, which we

certainly do not need at this time in

our Nation.

Madam President, I know that the

Senator from Michigan has touched on

some of the quotes from the letter, but

I would just like to mention a few that

stand out. Here is one paragraph from

the letter:

It doesn’t matter to them that the semiauto ban gives jack-booted government

thugs more power to take away our Constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize

our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.

This is another paragraph:

In Clinton’s administration, if you have a

badge, you have the government’s go-ahead

to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens. Not too long ago, it was unthinkable for Federal agents wearing nazi

bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens.

And another:

They’ve launched a new wave of brainwashing propaganda aimed at further destroying our Constitutional freedoms.

And on it goes, Madam President.

Now, Madam President, the apocalypse described in this fundraising letter is not familiar to me. The Government described in these pages is not familiar to me. This is not a description

of reality. It is a description of terror

designed for one purpose: to provoke a

visceral reaction against the U.S. Government—and at the end of the day, to

raise money.

There are many powerful and ugly

words used in this letter. They are insulting to American law enforcement

and to American citizens. Why does

Mr. LaPierre use them? I suppose in

order to tap into the rage that some

feel against the U.S. Government, to

feed that rage, and to use that rage to

gain donations.

In various interviews, Mr. LaPierre

has acknowledged the NRA letter went

too far. I believe it behooves him and

the leadership of the NRA to apologize

to the men and women in Federal law

enforcement and to the American people for this letter’s rhetoric, and to refrain from this kind of inflammatory

prose in the future.

I thank the distinguished Senator

from Michigan for giving me a few

minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from

Rhode Island for his comments on this

letter.

Madam President, on another matter, we have a bill pending before us

which I would like to briefly address as

part of my time.

THE PRODUCT LIABILITY

FAIRNESS ACT

fMr. LEVIN. Madam President, the

bill that we will be voting on later this

morning is called the Product Liability

Fairness Act of 1995. One of the arguments for it is that we need uniformity

in a tort system. As a matter of fact,

Madam President, the bill is carefully

structured to authorize States to diverge from these standards in order to

provide more favorable treatment to

defendants than the bill provides, but

the bill prohibits States from providing

more favorable treatment to plaintiffs.

In other words, this bill does not provide us with uniformity. When we look

down the provisions in the bill, we will

see in a moment that the bill does not

assure that there will be a uniform application of these provisions to all

plaintiffs and all defendants. The bill

prohibits a State law attempting to

provide more favorable treatment to

those who have been injured, but it allows State laws that are more favorable to those who allegedly cause the

injury.

Now there is a reasonable argument

for uniformity in product liability law,

since many products are sold across

State lines. But, this bill does not provide that uniformity. States can be

more restrictive than the so-called national standards in the bill. A patchwork of State laws is still permitted,

provided that the divergences are in

the direction of greater restriction on

the injured party.

For instance, the bill contains a socalled statute of repose barring any

product liability action against a manufacturer of a product that is more

than 20 years old. This provision prohibits States from providing a longer

period for those who are injured. But

the bill expressly authorizes States to

adopt a shorter and more restrictive

period in order to benefit defendants.

Similarly, the bill contains standards

for the imposition of punitive damages,

but the provision by its own terms only

applies to the extent that punitive

damages are permitted by State law.

The committee report states that:

It is not the committee’s intention that

this act preempt State legislation or any

other rule of State law that provides for defenses or places limitations on the amount of

damages that may be recovered.

In other words, if a State has more

lenient standards for the award of punitive damages, the bill overrides those