May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6305

(At the request of Mr. DOLE, the following statement was ordered to be

printed in the RECORD.)

∑ Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I

would like to express my strong support for the nomination of John

Deutch to serve as Director of Central

Intelligence.

I have had the privilege of working

with Secretary Deutch since 1993 in his

various capacities in the Department

of Defense, first as Under Secretary of

Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and most recently as Deputy

Secretary of Defense. 3

Secretary Deutch has served his Nation well in these assignments, and I

am pleased that he will be bringing his

considerable expertise to the Nation’s

intelligence community.

This is a time of great challenge for

the various elements of the intelligence community and, in particular,

for the Central Intelligence Agency. As

it continues the process of adapting to

the intelligence challenges of the postcold-war world, the CIA has been

rocked recently by a number of problems—from the Aldrich Ames spy scandal to the recent revelations of possible

problems with CIA activities in Guatemala. I am concerned about the wellbeing of this agency, and the morale of

the fine intelligence professionals who

serve our country—at great personal

risk—at the CIA. The work of the CIA,

and the many other agencies of the intelligence community, remains vital to

the security of our great Nation. We

should not lose sight of this basic fact

as we contemplate reforms.

I am pleased that Secretary Deutch

will be taking over stewardship of the

intelligence community at this critical

time. I was encouraged by Secretary

Deutch’s testimony at his confirmation

hearing regarding the changes that he

believes should be made at the CIA. I

wish him well as he undertakes a difficult task which is so important to the

future well-being of this Nation.∑

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise to

support the nomination of Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch to be

the Director of Central Intelligence. I

have had the opportunity to meet with

Secretary Deutch on a number of occasions to discuss defense and intelligence issues and am impressed with

his ability in both of these critical

areas.

As the President’s new senior advisor

on intelligence, John Deutch will have

the responsibility of placing before the

Congress a vision for the intelligence

profession that embodies the lessons

learned from the cold war and lessons

from recent unfortunate mistakes

within the agency. He will also be required to steadfastly guard against the

politicization of the intelligence mission by government officials who would

use intelligence resources for other

ends, at the expense of the core programs. My impression of John Deutch

is that he is well prepared to meet

these challenges.

I believe John Deutch will be someone who is prepared to think seriously

about the place and purpose of intelligence in a democracy, both as he fulfills his responsibilities as a senior

Government official and as he lays the

President’s plans and programs before

the Congress. In short, Madam President, I believe John Deutch will be a

fine Director of Central Intelligence

and have every confidence in his ability to lead the intelligence community

into the 21st century. I wholeheartedly

support his nomination.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I

ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a

sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is, Will the Senate advise and

consent to the nomination of John M.

Deutch, of Massachusetts, to be the Director of the Central Intelligence

Agency? On this question, the yeas and

nays have been ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. WARNER] is

necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. MOYNIHAN] is

necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present

and voting, the Senator from New York

[Mr. MOYNIHAN] would vote ‘‘yea.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 98,

nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 155 Ex.]

YEAS—98

Abraham

Akaka

Ashcroft

Baucus

Bennett

Biden

Bingaman

Bond

Boxer

Bradley

Breaux

Brown

Bryan

Bumpers

Burns

Byrd

Campbell

Chafee

Coats

Cochran

Cohen

Conrad

Coverdell

Craig

D’Amato

Daschle

DeWine

Dodd

Dole

Domenici

Dorgan

Exon

Faircloth

Feingold

Feinstein

Ford

Frist

Glenn

Gorton

Graham

Gramm

Grams

Grassley

Gregg

Harkin

Hatch

Hatfield

Heflin

Helms

Hollings

Hutchison

Inhofe

Inouye

Jeffords

Johnston

Kassebaum

Kempthorne

Kennedy

Kerrey

Kerry

Kohl

Kyl

Lautenberg

Leahy

Levin

Lieberman

Lott

Lugar

Mack

McCain

McConnell

Mikulski

Moseley-Braun

Murkowski

Murray

Nickles

Nunn

Packwood

Pell

Pressler

Pryor

Reid

Robb

Rockefeller

Roth

Santorum

Sarbanes

Shelby

Simon

Simpson

Smith

Snowe

Specter

Stevens

Thomas

Thompson

Thurmond

Wellstone

NOT VOTING—2

Moynihan Warner

So the nomination was confirmed.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, this

matter has been cleared with the

Democratic leader. I ask unanimous

consent that the motion to reconsider

the vote by which the Deutch nomination was confirmed be tabled and that

the President be immediately notified

of the Senate’s action.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The SenLEGISLATIVE SESSION

fate will now return to legislative session and resume consideration of H.R.

956.

COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY AND LEGAL REFORM ACT

fThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal standards and procedures for product liability litigation, and for other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of

the bill.

Pending:

Gorton amendment No. 596, in the nature

of a substitute.

Coverdell-Dole amendment No. 690 (to

amendment No. 596), in the nature of a substitute.

Gorton-Rockefeller modified amendment

No. 709 (to amendment No. 690), in the nature

of a substitute.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam

President, as I stated at the outset of

debate on this bill, I believe it makes

sense to have some basic, national

product liability standards that apply

across the board. In 1995, products

manufactured in Illinois are no longer

shipped down the street; instead, they

are shipped throughout the 50 States,

and beyond. The Constitution of the

United States, in article 1, section 8,

grants Congress the power to regulate

interstate commerce. Where our product liability system acts as a disincentive to the manufacture and sale of

goods in interstate commerce, Congress has not only a right, but a duty,

to reform that system. I believe the

Product Liability Fairness Act, while

not perfect, is a good step in the reform

process, and I am proud to cast my

vote in favor of this bill.

I would like to add how pleased I am

that, during the past weeks, the Senate

very carefully considered and debated

each and every amendment that was

offered to this bill. I am particularly

pleased by the compromise amendment

that will soon be offered as a substitute

amendment. I believe that the amendment significantly improves the committee reported bill, and I know that it

would not have been possible without

the vigorous debate that surrounded

this legislation.

I strongly support the changes being

made to the punitive damages section

of the bill Rockefeller-Gorton substitute. While the original bill linked

the calculation of punitive awards to

economic damages, the amended bill

instead links punitives to compensatory damages, a standard that is
S6306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 9, 1995

much fairer to low-income workers,

women who don’t work outside the

home, children and the elderly, who

may not have a great deal of economic

damages. I have no objection to making punitive damages proportionate to

the harm caused by the product, the

goal that the punitive damage limitation is intended to accomplish. That

harm should not, however, be limited

to out of pocket costs or lost wages.

Non-economic damages can often be

difficult to calculate, but that does not

make them any less real.

Indeed, these compensate individuals

for the things that they value most—

the ability to have children, the ability

to have your spouse or child alive to

share in your life, the ability to look in

the mirror without seeing a permanently disfigured face. As a notion of

fundamental fairness, any congressional attempts to create a punitive

damage standard should include both

economic and noneconomic damages in

its formula, as the Rockefeller-Gorton

substitute now does.

In addition, the amended bill contains a provision that will allow a

judge to increase the amount of a punitive damage award, if an increased

award is necessary to either adequately

punish a defendant for its past conduct,

or to adequately deter a defendant

from engaging in such conduct in the

future. I know there have been concerns raised during the course of this

debate that, in some cases, punitive

damages awarded pursuant to the formula will not be sufficient to either

punish or deter. I believe this judge

additur provision addresses these concerns, and I want to thank Senators

ROCKEFELLER and GORTON for their

willingness to add this provision to

their legislation. In my opinion, it

makes a good bill even better, and it

demonstrates their willingness to respond to the concerns of those of us ‘‘in

the middle.’’

Madam President, last year I stood

on the Senate floor, after the Senate

failed to invoke cloture on the Product

Liability Fairness Act, and stated my

desire not to filibuster this bill again.

What I wanted to do was debate what

alterations the Federal Government

should make in the area of product liability law, and to act on a narrow,

moderate product liability bill. I am

pleased to have a chance to act on such

a bill today.

But reporting a bill out of the Senate

is only half of the battle; I also want to

see this legislation enacted in to law. I

believe that can happen, as long as a

House-Senate conference committee

keeps the bill limited to the subject of

product liability, and rejects the draconian, anti-consumer provisions included in legislation which passed the

House of Representatives. The votes in

the Senate during the past 2 weeks

should send a strong signal to the

House that the U.S. Senate does not intend to restrict the ability of ordinary

citizens to access the courts, under the

guise of civil justice reform.

If our colleagues in the House of Representatives truly want a product liability reform bill, I have no doubt

that we can obtain one. Our votes in

the Senate spell out very clearly what

will and will not be acceptable to this

body, and I urge my House colleagues

to consider those votes very carefully.

For despite my desire to enact a product liability reform bill, nothing has

changed about my underlying commitment to equal justice under law. I remain just as opposed to loser-pays provisions, caps on noneconomic damages,

or changes that would restrict the

right of individuals to bring suit for

civil rights violations, employment

discrimination, and sexual harassment,

among other issues, as I have been in

the past, and I will be compelled to oppose any legislation that returns from

a conference including these provisions.

Madam President, in closing, I would

like to commend Senators ROCKEFELLER and GORTON for all of their hard

work to enact a product liability reform bill, not only this year, but in

past Congresses as well. They are to be

commended for championing an issue

that needs to be addressed, and for

doing so in a way that is balanced and

fair. During the past 3 weeks, they

have demonstrated a willingness to listen and resolve the concerns raised by

myself and other Senators, and have

taken steps to improve this legislation.

I commend them for their leadership,

and I am pleased to vote with them

today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

CLOTURE MOTION

fthe previous order, the cloture motion

having been presented under rule XXII,

the Chair directs the clerk to read the

motion.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

CLOTURE MOTION

We the undersigned Senators in accordance

with the provisions of rule XXII of the

Standing Rules of the Senate do hereby

move to bring to a close debate on the pending substitute amendment to H.R. 956, the

Product Liability bill.

Slade Gorton, Dan Coats, Richard G.

Lugar, John Ashcroft, Rod Grams, Kay

Bailey Hutchison, Judd Gregg, Strom

Thurmond, Trent Lott, Rick

Santorum, Larry E. Craig, Bob Smith,

Don Nickles, R.F. Bennett, John

McCain, Connie Mack.

fVOTE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the Coverdell-Dole

amendment, No. 690, to H.R. 956, the

product liability bill, shall be brought

to a close?

The yeas and nays are required.

The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk called the roll.

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. WARNER] is

necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. MOYNIHAN] is

necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there

any other Senators in the Chamber

who desire to vote?

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 60,

nays 38, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]

YEAS—60

Abraham

Ashcroft

Bennett

Bond

Brown

Burns

Campbell

Chafee

Coats

Cochran

Coverdell

Craig

DeWine

Dodd

Dole

Domenici

Dorgan

Exon

Faircloth

Feinstein

Frist

Gorton

Gramm

Grams

Grassley

Gregg

Hatch

Hatfield

Helms

Hutchison

Inhofe

Jeffords

Johnston

Kassebaum

Kempthorne

Kohl

Kyl

Lieberman

Lott

Lugar

Mack

McCain

McConnell

Mikulski

Moseley-Braun

Murkowski

Nickles

Nunn

Pell

Pressler

Pryor

Robb

Rockefeller

Santorum

Smith

Snowe

Stevens

Thomas

Thompson

Thurmond

NAYS—38

Akaka

Baucus

Biden

Bingaman

Boxer

Bradley

Breaux

Bryan

Bumpers

Byrd

Cohen

Conrad

D’Amato

Daschle

Feingold

Ford

Glenn

Graham

Harkin

Heflin

Hollings

Inouye

Kennedy

Kerrey

Kerry

Lautenberg

Leahy

Levin

Murray

Packwood

Reid

Roth

Sarbanes

Shelby

Simon

Simpson

Specter

Wellstone

NOT VOTING—2

Warner Moynihan

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

INHOFE). Are there any Senators who

wish to change their vote? If there are

no other Senators desiring to vote, on

this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are

38. Three-fifths of the Senators duly

chosen and sworn, having voted in the

REGARDING THE VISIT BY PRESIaffirmative, the motion is agreed to.

DENT LEE TENG-HUI OF THE REfPUBLIC OF CHINA ON TAIWAN TO

THE UNITED STATES

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous

consent that the Senate now turn to

the consideration of Calendar No. 103,

House Concurrent Resolution 53, relative to the visit by the President of

China on Taiwan, and that no amendments be in order to the resolution or

the preamble.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection? The Chair hears none, and it

is so ordered.

The clerk will report the resolution

by title.

The assistant legislative clerk read

as follows:

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 53)

expressing the sense of the Congress regarding a private visit by President Lee Teng-hui

of the Republic of China on Taiwan to the

United States.

The Senate proceeded to consider the

resolution.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.