Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there are two issues I will address, and I would be very interested in the response of my colleague. One is, and, again, I do not know what the exact amount of money is, my colleague says a small number of cases but there is a significant amount of money involved. If I do not know exactly how many plaintiffs are going to be hurt or denied what I think should be fair compensation, and I do not know exactly what impact this is really going to have on the problem that my colleague identifies--ob-gyn's practicing in some of our underserved communities--then I find it difficult to support this, especially since I struggle with two questions: One--and I will present both to my colleague so he can respond at once--I can remember, for example, when I was in North Carolina and we had our first son, David, there was a guy I was very close to, a graduate student, who had a son and went in for what was supposed to be regular surgery. Because of malpractice, his son was paralyzed in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. He was a student, he did not have a lot of money, but would anything above and beyond $500,000 for noneconomic damages be too much? That is my first question, and I am not willing to give up on that principle, especially when I do not really have any precise way of knowing what the benefits are of the amendment. And second, I say to my colleague from Minnesota, in 1986, the Minnesota Legislature enacted a $400,000 cap on intangible loss which was defined to mean embarrassment, emotional distress, so on and so forth, and we repealed it the following year because we felt it did not work at all. This may be good in Arizona, but why should this be applied to the State of Minnesota? We have tried something different. We have some of our own alternative dispute mechanisms, et cetera, et cetera. If it is good for Arizona, fine, but why the Federal preemption on this? Two questions, if you follow me: A, in all due respect--and, by the way, there is a lot of respect--I still feel like my colleague has not been able to spell out what exactly will be the pluses and the minuses of this, the losses and the benefits, who would benefit, who would not; and, B, therefore, I am a little reluctant to--more than a little reluctant--to give up on two principles, which are, I do not know why, in some cases, we say $501,000 is too much, and why preempt what Minnesota is doing?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I had a chance to speak at some length today, so I will not respond to my colleague from New Mexico. I appreciate his remarks. I tell him as a good friend, I should have known when he said it would be 2 minutes, it would be a little more than 2 minutes. But he is eloquent and he is a very, very important voice here in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Thomas amendment be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me simply say that this amendment deals with the National Practitioner Data Bank. The data bank contains really important information on adverse actions that are taken against doctors, and in some cases information on actual payments made in malpractice judgements. Mr. President, the problem is not most of the doctors in the country; most of the doctors are very good doctors. The problem is that this information right now is readily available to managed care plans and hospitals and medical societies but not available to consumers. I have talked with a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I think that this amendment which I have worked on for some time now really is an effort to provide consumers with this kind of information. I think it will be well received. We have done some good work on, first of all, strengthening the data collection; good work in responding to some of the concerns that have been raised by doctors; very good work in terms of responding to concerns raised by consumers across the country and by many consumer organizations. Mr. President, the idea, of course, is that we would ask the Secretary of HHS [Health and Human Services], within 6 months to develop essentially a plan to make sure that this information is available to consumers so that they could have some sense about the record of doctors who are treating them. Unfortunately, sometimes, too many times--and I have some really heart-rendering testimony by citizens in the country that have, in a tragic way, been on the receiving end of this--you will have a doctor who will move, who will have had an adverse action taken against him by a State medical society or hospital as a result of whole patterns of malpractice, and then move to another State, and sometimes even change his name. Then the same kind of egregious practice is committed again at great harm to consumers. It happens too often. There is just simply no reason why in this, if you will, more highly sophisticated data entry and computer age, we cannot make this information available to consumers. I say to my colleagues, that we are not talking about cases in which somebody has just launched a complaint against a doctor. We are talking about cases where there has actually been an adverse action taken against a practitioner's license or clinical privileges or where there has actually been a malpractice payment made with the record being clear. So I have submitted this amendment tonight, and I look forward to the debate on Monday. In 3 months, the HHS Secretary comes back to the Senate and then 3 months after that, the Secretary of Health and Human Services then has to have promulgated regulations to disclose the information to consumers in a useable way. So we have a real opportunity to do something that I think would be extremely important in preventing malpractice from taking place in the first place, which is really, I think, the goal of any kind of reform effort. I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from Washington for his courtesy. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I really look forward to what will be, I believe, broad-based support for this amendment. I say to my colleague from Washington, my understanding is that, hopefully, we will be able to submit amendments tonight, there will be time for debate on Monday, and sometime Monday we hope there will be votes on these amendments; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that would be fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I ask, are there other colleagues who want to speak right now? If not, I wonder if I could suggest the absence a quorum for a moment with the understanding that I would have the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Washington. Amendment No. 605 to Amendment No. 603 (Purpose: To modify provisions regarding reports on medical malpractice data and access to certain information)

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was at a gathering yesterday with citizens from all over the country. Their personal stories are often not a part of this debate, but they should be. Many of them have been injured, many of them have been hurt, some of them have lost loved ones. God forbid that any of this should happen to any of us or our families or our loved ones. Mr. President, the question that they were asking was: What is the purpose of the underlying bill, this ``Product Liability Fairness Act?'' I see nothing fair in it, and I will talk about that, or this amendment, the McConnell amendment, or the second-degree amendment to the McConnell amendment. What is this rush to somehow protect whom from claimants? Why the effort to tip the scales of justice against people who have been hurt, all too often in behalf of people who have been negligent, all too often on behalf of large corporations, insurance companies, you name it? Mr. President, I will get to the specifics of this medical malpractice amendment, and I will talk about the underlying bill as well, but I would like to start out on a more personal note as a Senator of Minnesota. Mr. President, let me first of all make it clear that in some editorials it has been suggested that this debate is really a debate between the trial lawyers of the United States of America and the rest of the country. That is just simply not true. There are many citizens, the consumers of this Nation, this debate. So with a little bit of hesitation, I will use some pictures--but this comes with the permission of Minnesotans, of the families affected--because I think the faces of people that are affected by this, I think the people themselves, their voice ought to reach into this Chamber now. Kristy Marie Brecount was a happy--``was,'' past tense--active 7- year-old girl from Edina when she went to the hospital to get her tonsils removed, as many children her age do. I do not know where the hospital was and in no way am I suggesting that this was in Edina. That is not the point. It was an elective procedure. The hospital personnel improperly hooked up the machine that was to provide the anesthesia for the operation. They attached the hoses backward. As a result, she received 10 times the amount of anesthesia she was supposed to get, leading to a fatal cardiac arrest. This is a picture of Kristy. Here are the questions I would ask about this amendment, as I understand it. And I have not even had a chance to look at all of it, because it just came up on the floor. If it was clear that the hospital personnel had acted intentionally or ``with conscious, flagrant disregard'' for Kristy's safety, do you think, I ask my colleagues, that $250,000 is enough to punish and deter the hospital personnel from doing it again? Is $250,000 too much? And if my colleagues say it all depends on the history or the size of the hospital, then I would say that is precisely the point. It is a case-by-case situation. So why at the Federal level preempt this? Why take away from aggrieved citizens their right to seek redress for grievances within our court system? Is $250,000 too much? And if you do not know the statistics, this does happen to citizens--80,000 deaths a year from negligence, 300,000 citizens hurt or injured a year. And we put caps on punitive damages? Gina Barbaro. Gina had just turned 6 when she got sick with flu-like symptoms. Her mother took her to a chiropractor. Her symptoms at the time were headaches, fever, vomiting, shakes, delirium, rash on her foot, ear, knees, and down her legs. The chiropractor prescribed herbs and oils and sent Gina home. By the way, we are not talking about the vast majority of doctors, chiropractors, you name it. We are talking about a few, sometimes, if you will, rotten apples in the basket. The chiropractor prescribed herbs and oils and sent Gina home. The next day she was back with worsened conditions and severe redness to her right eye. The chiropractor, believing the problem stemmed from Gina's pancreas, sent her home again. Her temperature reached 105, and the color of the iris of her right eye changed. Upon the third trip to the chiropractor, the chiropractor finally suggested that Gina go to the hospital for evaluation. The hospital staff determined Gina had a virulent strep infection that resulted in her losing the sight in her right eye. She also had numerous other complications. The eye had to be removed. A year and a half later, Gina continues to have continuing care, including cardiology, ophthalmology, infectious disease, and pediatrics. I just showed you a picture of Gina, and now I ask the following questions: Assuming that the jury finds that the chiropractor's negligence in failing to send Gina to a hospital sooner was 70 percent responsible for her damages, and the negligence of the practice for which the chiropractor worked was 30 percent responsible because they hired the chiropractor in the first place. The jury awards Gina $100,000 in noneconomic damages for her pain and suffering and disability and fear. If the chiropractor is unable to pay the full amount of his fair share, who should be stuck with the loss, Gina or the practice? And by the way, Mr. President, to go to one of the points that my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, made, in the Labor and Human Resources Committee, one of the more important things we did to the medical malpractice amendment yesterday is that we had an opt-out provision. In my State of Minnesota, we have struggled with this question of joint liability. I am not a lawyer, but I can see it is a really difficult question. The question: If you are not really responsible for the whole extent of the damage, and maybe only a small percentage because another party says they are insolvent, bankrupt or whatever, should you have to assume the whole cost? So we tried to work out different kinds of formulas at the State level. This amendment preempts States from doing that. I am, in part, here to fight for my State. And by the way, Mr. President, it makes no sense whatsoever to me that if you are going to have a Federal preemption-- and you should not--there are two issues: Why do we have a Federal preemption which, as I understand this amendment, goes in only one direction: States are preempted if they want to have stronger consumer protection than the norm we set here, but not preempted from having less consumer protection. Talk about a stacked deck. In any case, why would we not, as we did yesterday in committee, at least allow States to opt out of this? This amendment professes to reform medical malpractice, but it is less about cutting back on the incidence of medical malpractice --how do we prevent this in the first place--than it is about making it harder for people to avoid becoming the victims of medical malpractice, making it more difficult for those victims to receive compensation for their injuries and making it easier for those who commit medical malpractice to get away with it. This amendment is an attack on consumers. First and foremost--and I use the word ``attack'' carefully--it is an attack on the elderly and on families with children and on working Americans. Why else would this bill devalue compensation for low- and middle-income victims? That is right, this amendment says that when a person is hurt, it is their economic damages, usually including lost wages, that they have the best chance of getting back. But for noneconomic damages, it will be harder to get compensated. In other words, if your damages tend to be more in pain and suffering and less in lost wages, since you make less money, you are more likely to walk away with a smaller percentage of your compensation, and that is wrong if you have lost a child, or if you are infertile because of malpractice of a doctor, maybe an obstetrician. If you have been maimed, then I do not know why your loss is any less important than someone else's loss. Since when did we start making a calculation about justice based upon the income and wealth of families? Mr. President, with regard to the second-degree amendment, lessening standards so that an obstetrician does not have to live up to the same standards by way of consumer protection, thus making it more possible to be able to deliver that kind of care in rural areas, makes no sense whatsoever. I am from the State of Minnesota and greater Minnesota, rural Minnesota is an important part of our State. Minnesotans want to make sure that we have more doctors, nurses, advanced nurse practitioners in our communities delivering health care. But I do not believe the citizens in my State believe that the way to get that done is by moving away from consumer protection by lessening standards. People want affordable care, they want dignified care, they want humane care, and they want high-quality care. Mr. President, yesterday in committee I offered an amendment, and I certainly will offer this amendment on the floor of the Senate. I did not believe we were actually going to have a medical malpractice amendment on the floor. I offered an amendment in markup that would have opened up the National Practitioner Data Bank--and for those who are now listening to this debate, I need to spell out what that is-- granting consumers access to the same kind of information about their doctors that hospitals and HMO's currently receive. In other words, if we are really interested in the problem of medical malpractice and we want to prevent it, that is really what people want to see happen, that is what doctors and chiropractors and nurses and nurse practitioners want to see happen, then one would think that consumers could have the same information, access to the same kind of information about their doctors that hospitals and HMO's currently receive. Eighty thousand people should have the right to know whether or not there has been a finding against the doctor because of malpractice or if a doctor has essentially been barred from practicing at a hospital or, for that matter, within a State. By the way, sometimes--and I could give examples--doctors move to other States, change their names, and then harm other citizens in the country, and those citizens have no way of finding out, unless they want to go all around the States in 50 different court systems. But that amendment was defeated yesterday. Once again, consumers lose and a variety of different powerful trade associations and their Washington lobbyists win. I will most definitely, Mr. President, offer that amendment on the floor. Mr. President, the plaintiffs ask the question: Why the legislation? Why the legislation that essentially tips the scales of justice against us? Victims of malpractice do not know they are victims until they are injured. Perpetrators of malpractice know who they are. They have been sued before, and if they do it again, they can expect to be sued again. So they can walk the Halls of Congress in droves, but the victims--the people who will be affected by this amendment--do not even know who they are yet. We can only talk about them in the abstract, though I have tried to give specific examples. Mr. President, I recognize that many of my colleagues feel they have to vote for something they can call tort reform, so they can go home and tell their constituents that they have struck a blow against the lawyers. But I urge them to see past this temptation to the real truth. They are striking a blow, if they support this second-degree or its underlying amendment, against their own constituents, against regular people who, God forbid, one day will be the victim of a bad doctor, bad drug, or defective product. If we pass these amendments, we will be hurting people, and that is not something that any of us were elected to do. Mr. President, I have to say, on the health care front--and I have a few comments on this overall product liability bill as well--that it is amazing to me that we go through a health care debate for the better part of the last Congress and we have the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office and they talk about the trillion-dollar industry and how we can contain costs. As I remember the numbers, the cost of purchasing medical malpractice insurance, combined with defensive medicine--in other words, doctors say it is not just the cost of purchasing insurance--the total amounts to about 2 percent of the overall costs in the health care industry. Again, I, too, quote from a Business Week piece: On an average, only one malpractice claim was filed for every 7.5 patients who suffered a negligent injury, and only half of these were ultimately paid. So, ``the legal system is paying just one malpractice claim for every 15 torts inflicted in hospitals.'' Those suffering nonnegligent injuries--that is, caused by care not yet deemed inappropriate--got nothing. Thus, the study concludes that rather than a surplus, there is a litigation deficit because so many injured people wind up uncompensated. So many injured people wind up uncompensated--overall, a very small percentage. But let me shout this from the mountaintop that is the floor of the U.S. Senate: When the insurance industry moves into this debate and they want to get their way, they do quite well, apparently, given this kind of amendment. Last session we learned that the way you can most effectively contain health care costs would be to put some limit on what insurance companies charge. But nobody talks about that. That proposal is off of the table. That is not what we want to do. We do not want to focus on containing health care costs in some kind of fair, rational way. We do not want to focus on how to cover children and women expecting children. We do not want to focus on how we can move forward on home-based long-term care so that elderly people, people with disabilities, can live at home in as near to normal circumstances as possible and with dignity. We do not want to talk about situations where young people, because they have diabetes or because they have had a bout with cancer, find they are no longer covered by an insurance company, or their rates are so high they cannot afford to purchase that insurance. None of that is being done. We do not want to talk about the 40 million Americans that are uninsured. We do not want to talk about all of the American citizens in this country who are underinsured. We do not want to apply the standards we live by, where we have good coverage and make sure the citizens we represent get the same coverage. No. Instead, we have an amendment here that is stacked in favor of large companies and against consumers, against regular people, against people who are injured, against people whose loved ones, in fact, in some cases have died as a result of medical malpractice; there is no way people can have information and knowledge about those doctors who have been found guilty of this kind of practice. No, we do not do that, nor do we take any effort to prevent it. We do not do anything to protect the consumers. We move away from those standards and we have these caps on punitive damages; we say that when a child passes away, that is what she is worth. Not to mention the fact--and I hate to say this on the floor of the Senate because I admire the vast majority of the medical profession and, for that matter, the health care industry in this country--but, by golly, one of the ways you stop some of this practice by those who really have done irreparable harm to citizens, whether they be a doctor or a hospital or corporation, you name it, is you make sure that they know if there is a repeat of this, or they do it again, they will pay dearly. Mr. President, yesterday I took part in an event that I only wish could have been witnessed by every one of my colleagues in the Senate. Had they seen it, I cannot believe that we would be here today on the floor of the Senate considering this underlying product liability bill, much less these amendments. The event was a meeting of people who had been harmed by defective products and negligent doctors. All of these people have been claimants--the very people that this legislation is designed to protect against, the very people that these amendments are designed to protect against. They have all been through the legal process, and without its protections, they would not have gotten what compensation they did receive. Do not let me hear people frame this debate as if it is a debate between everybody in the United States of America versus the trial lawyers. Not true. Having been through the process and seen how difficult it is to even get compensation today for their injuries and punish those who hurt them, these people yesterday--and they are here today as well--have an angry question for supporters of this so-called Product Liability Fairness Act: Why are we doing this? Why are we trying to make it harder for citizens who have been injured by products or malpractice, or citizens who have sometimes even been killed because of this, to seek redress of grievances in our court system? These citizens I met with yesterday are not the ones with the money and sophistication. Rather, they are the ones that are taken advantage of. They are the ones that are hurt, the ones that wrongdoers try to force into unacceptable settlements. They were here yesterday bearing witness to the damage that could be wrought by manufacturers of defective products and negligent doctors. They represent the downside of supporting this amendment. They are a reminder of why we have a civil justice system that has been called the great equalizer. Why through this amendment and why through this underlying bill are we trying to move away from a court system that has been a great equalizer? It is especially so for citizens who have been hurt, for citizens who sometimes have died as a result of defective products or medical negligence. Mr. President, in this underlying bill there are three basic provisions that have people up in arms. I agree with them 100 percent. Limiting punitive damages--which is part of this amendment as well-- would have allowed corporations that hurt them to avoid punishment. It would have allowed industry to work them into what is called the death calculus. For those who were listening, that is the calculation by which a company can decide whether it that harms consumers. It is where a company can ensure that the bottom line is the only line. The cap on punitive damages in this bill also works to discriminate against lower- and middle-income plaintiffs. People--as I said before-- like the elderly, children, and the vast majority of working Americans. Under this bill, a manufacturers' egregious behavior will receive a lesser punishment if that behavior is against a person who makes less money and therefore has lower economic damages. Same with this amendment on medical malpractice. That is for exactly the same behavior, exactly the same harm and exactly the same defendant. This is an absurd result and it is an indefensible one. Mr. President, let me take an example. Jack, a data entry clerk, is severely injured by the explosion of a defective diesel generator made by the Acme Generator Co., leaving him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. His hospital bill is $40,000, but he misses out on 1 year of work, which amounts to $30,000 in lost wages. So his total economic damages are $70,000. The jury determines that Acme's behavior was egregious enough to merit $500,000 in punitive damages. But this bill operates to cap these damages at $250,000. On the other hand, Bob, who sells commercial real estate, receives the identical injury when he uses one of Acme's generators. His hospital bill also amounts to $40,000 and he, too, is confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. When he misses a year of work it costs him $200,000. When the jury tries to punish Acme with $500,000 in punitive damages in his case, the punishment sticks. This raises a good question: Why is it less punishable to hurt Jack? There is another good question. Was $250,000 enough to properly punish Acme? I say to my colleagues again, it also applied to the amendment on medical malpractice where there is a cap set and it applies again. If a person does not know, if a person has followed these two examples and the answer is they do not know because a person needs more details, then that person has no business voting to support this one-size-fits- all underlying legislation or this one-size-fits-all amendment. If the State of Minnesota and the State of Illinois have their own models and have attempted to deal with some of these tough problems so that we avoid some of the excessive litigation, so that we can figure out, I think, a really tough issue with joint liability, then we should let them do so. We certainly should not have an amendment or a bill that represents a Federal preemption against State standards only if those standards protect consumers or are stronger on consumer protection. Lower consumer protection is fine. This is the inevitability of a stacked deck. Mr. President, let me put a face on these questions. I want to make it clear I have thought long and hard about this. I feel so strongly that this debate has not dealt with people that I have sought permission for this, and I would not do it otherwise. Let me put a face on this. Think of LeeAnn Gryc, from my State of Minnesota, who was 4 years old when the pajamas she was wearing ignited, leaving her with second- and third-degree burns over 20 percent of her body. An official with the company that made the pajamas had written a memo 14 years earlier stating that because the material they used was so flammable, the company was ``sitting on a powder keg.'' When LeeAnn sued for damages, the jury determined that her economic damages were $8,500, and also awarded $1 million in punitive damages. This is a picture of LeeAnn, what happened to her. Let me ask, was the jury wrong? Should the company have gotten away with only $250,000 in punitive damages, as this bill would have required? Unless a person is comfortable answering the question yes, a person should not be supporting this underlying bill. Was this too great an award for this family? Unless a person is in favor of a cap and a person thinks more than $250,000 would be too much for this child and her family, a person should not support this bill. This legislation will have a very, very, real negative impact on consumers. It is unconscionable. Mr. President, when I saw the damage done by defective products to so many people as I did yesterday, I could not help but feel some of the pain they must have felt and still must be experiencing. What is it like to be blinded, confined to a wheelchair, unable to parent a child, lose a child, live with brain damage? These are real and palatable harms that many plaintiffs in product liability and medical malpractice actions have to deal with. We should not pass amendments or legislation that provide them with less protection or restrict their ability to seek legitimate and fair redress for grievances in compensation for what has happened to them and to prevent it from happening again to others. Historically, the primary goal of tort law was to compensate the victim, to make the victim whole. This reflects the view that it is better to have a wrongdoer who was partly responsible for the harm pay more than their fair share, if that is what is necessary to make sure that the victim is fully compensated. It is not an easy choice, Mr. President, to require somebody to pay more than their fair share. This is an issue that I really struggle with. But it is a choice that this legislation seems to be willing to let stand. If the harm is of a particular type, a type that can be shown in medical bills, lost wages, and other things that a person can get receipts for, that is one thing. But for noneconomic damages, like juries award for disfigurement, pain and suffering, and inability to bear children, the bill says that it is not important to make victims whole if that is the kind of damage they sustain. Two different standards between economic and noneconomic damages. I would be very interested in why some of my colleagues think that people who suffer that kind of harm should be relegated to second-class status. Mr. President, again, there are faces, there are real people who will be hurt by this legislation. Think of Nancy Winkleman from Minnesota who was in a car crash. I met her a few weeks ago. Because a defective car underride bar failed to operate properly, the hood of her car went under the back of a truck and the passenger compartment came into direct contact with the rear end of the larger vehicle. Without the benefit of her car's own bumper to protect her, she was severely injured, losing part of her tongue and virtually all of her lower jaw. Despite extensive reconstruction surgery, her face and her ability to speak will never be the same. Real people, real faces. I cannot imagine the pain that Nancy must have undergone, or the pain that she undergoes every day. If one of the responsible parties in her case was unable to pay its fair share, should she go uncompensated for some of that pain? Or should the other responsible parties have to make it up? Unless you are certain that it is more important to protect those other responsible parties than to compensate Nancy for her pain, you should not support this bill. If you do, you will be hurting people, real people. Finally, there is the statute of repose prohibiting suits to recover damages for harm caused by defective products that are over 20 years old. This is one of the most arbitrary and indefensible provisions of the bill. What possible justification is there for this? After all, if a product is defective and does not hurt anybody until it is over 20 years old, is the harm of the victim any less? Is the responsibility of the manufacturer any less? Here is a face you can attach to these questions as you consider them. Think of Jimmy Hoscheit--with his permission--who was at work on his family farm when he was a boy. Jimmy, too is a Minnesotan. I met him a few weeks ago. He was using common farm machinery, consisting of a tractor, a mill, and a blower, all linked together with a power transfer system much like the drive train on a truck. The power of the tractor is transferred to the other equipment by way of a spinning shaft, a shaft covered by a freely spinning metal sleeve. The sleeve is on bearings so that if you were to grab the sleeve it continue to powerfully rotate at a very high speed. Apparently when Jimmy leaned over the shaft to pick up a shovel, his jacket touched the sleeve and got caught on it. However, instead of spinning free of the internal shaft, the sleeve was somehow bound to the shaft, became wrapped in Jimmy's jacket and tore Jimmy's arms off. His father found him flat on his back on the other side of the shaft. The manufacturer could have avoided all of this if it had just provided a simple and inexpensive chain to anchor the shaft to the tractor. Now I ask you: Should Jimmy be able to bring a suit against the manufacturer? What if the product was over 20 years old? A similar question can be asked about 6-year-old Katie Fritz, another Minnesotan whose family I was actually privileged to meet yesterday. Katie was killed in 1989 when a defective garage door opener failed to reverse direction, pinning her under the door and crushing the breath out of her. I met the Fritz family yesterday, her mother Patty and her sons. It is a really courageous family. And it is really hard for them to talk about it. Patty Fritz had tears in her eyes--who would not? I am a father and a grandfather. Mr. President, you are a father. But you know Patty and her family have the courage to take what has happened to them and be able to speak out in behalf of others. We all know how long some of these machines can last. If that garage door opener was over 20 years old, Katie's family could not have sued the manufacturer. There would not be any question of capping punitive damages or having joint liability for noneconomic damages they simply would not be allowed in the courthouse door. That is what this legislation does. Explain to me the justice in that? What is the overriding public policy interest that is so important that this bill should shut Katie's family out of court, or other families like Katie's family, out of court? If you are not clear about this, if you are not sure that there is such a public policy interest here, you should not support this legislation. This legislation and these amendments right now before us will hurt people, real people. To me, as I look at this legislation and I look at this amendment before us, this is not a close call. At a time when many in Congress are bent on cutting back on regulations that protect the health and safety of our citizens and on reducing public support for people if they get hurt and need help, the courts are the last resort. We cut back on the regulation, we cut back on the protection, we cut back on the ability of public agencies to protect people, and now we shut off the courts, the last resort. That is where regular people can try to deal with wealthy, sophisticated defendants on a relatively level playing field. And now what we are trying to do is change that and make it an unequal playing field. And even now it is extremely hard to get a reasonable settlement or award. Why are we considering legislation to make it even harder? So I started out talking about the second-degree amendment. Then I talked about the McConnell amendment. Now I have talked about the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues from the bottom of my soul to please oppose not only these amendments, which I did not think would be on the floor, but this bill. Do not close your eyes. See the faces of the people the bill would hurt. See the faces of the people the bill would hurt. See their faces. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Would that be all right?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I am prepared to speak at length.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have the floor. I wonder if I could just for a moment have a discussion with my colleague from Connecticut. I know he was here for a while, but I stayed on the floor. I do not want to push in front of him. Would my colleague mind if I went forward with my remarks right now?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just want to thank Senator Hatfield for his graciousness in our negotiations. I wanted to say to the Senator and to my colleagues that this program, the insurance information counseling and assistance grant program, again, is a program that we have in every single State, with seniors receiving assistance from trained volunteers in dealing with all the Medicare forms and the Medigap policies to provide really good protection for people. It is a program, with very little by way of money, that has gone a long ways. I thank my colleague from Oregon for all of his help.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just want to express my appreciation to the Senators from Oregon, West Virginia, New Mexico, and Louisiana for their help in allowing this amendment to go forward. The amendment decreases the recission from renewable energy research and development by $10 million, paying for it by increasing the recission for the Army Corps' general construction activities by the same amount. This amendment reflects the growing recognition that funding for research and development of renewable energy technologies is money well-spent. The recission provided in the Committee Substitute was just too high. There is a nationwide movement toward funding only R&D that is going to lead to commercially viable, economically realistic technology in the relatively short-term. Renewable energy R&D fits that description. Renewable energy R&D has been and continues to be a major success story. Costs have declined, reliability has improved, and a domestic industry has been born. While the United States is currently the world leader in renewable energy technologies, other nations are investing heavily in this area. Given that many utilities are averse to investing in new technologies, the continued strength of DOE's programs is necessary to protect our position in the world market. ought to be a priority for Federal R&D funding. According to a December 1994 survey by RSM Inc., when asked what energy source should be highest priority for R&D spending, Americans overwhelmingly supported renewables. The top finisher was renewable energy, receiving 42 percent of the vote. Again, I appreciate the help of my colleagues in making acceptance of this amendment possible. It is time that our federal energy R&D dollars reflect the public's funding priorities. Amendment No. 490

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is difficult to cover the ground in less than 2 minutes. Let me just make three points. First of all, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Vermont. Second of all, I would like to focus on the import of this amendment, which is to restore as much funding as possible for public television. I go back to just one gathering in Appleton, MN, in southwest Minnesota, where it is just crystal clear for anyone who wants to look at public TV that it is far from a ``sandbox for the rich.'' Public television is so important to the enrichment of lives of citizens in our country, both urban and rural, but I think especially in the rural communities it is vitally important. Second of all, the community service for older Americans program is a huge success. The way I define ``success'' is we are talking about low- and moderate-income elderly people who, number one--it is kind of a marriage--are able to have the dignity of being able to work; and number two, their work is this service of community, whether it be delivery of meals to homebound, whether it be taking care of children, whether it be recreational services. I remember in talking with citizens in Willmar, MN, we can get a wonderful feel for how important this program is on the basis of investment of really very few dollars. I want to make it clear that I am in full support of this amendment and proud to be an original cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Would the Senator from Oregon yield for a moment?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I come before the Senate today to underscore the commitment that we must make to end domestic violence in America. Beginning today, every time a person in my State of Minnesota dies at the hands of an abuser, I will make sure that their story becomes part of the Congressional Record. I do this so that we all remember how deeply this violence scars our society and, most importantly, as a reaffirmation of our commitment to ending domestic violence. Indeed, if we are ever going to stop the violence in our communities and in our workplaces and on the street, we must begin in the home. I am here today with evidence that the brutal violence continues, and while it continues to be the single most important or the single most significant cause of injury to women, this violence knows no boundaries of age or gender or race or geography or income or education. The violence goes on year after year, generation after generation. In Minnesota in 1994, at least 19 women and 7 children were killed brutally by a spouse or former partner. With pain, but also with great determination, I ask that we honor the memory of the following individuals, and from my heart, I ask that we work to end the kind of violence that has cost these individuals, their families and their communities so much: Pamela Bennett, 34 years of age, January 5, Bemidji, MN. Pamela and her boyfriend of Bemidji were traveling together in Oregon when they stopped at a rest stop. Hoagland reported to authorities that a hit- and-run driver struck Pamela at the rest stop as she exited the restroom. She was dead upon arrival at the hospital. When police found no evidence of an accident, Hoagland told authorities that he had lied about the accident and that she fell beneath their travel trailer as he pulled away from the rest stop without her. Hoagland was charged with filing a false police report, assault and harassment. In late March, Hoagland pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges in her death. He was sentenced to 5 months in jail. Pamela Kay Currie, 45, January 14, St. Francis, MN. Pamela was found stabbed to death in her home by police who were called by her husband, Gary Currie. He reported awaking in the morning and finding his wife dead on the bed and a knife sticking out of his own chest. He told authorities he remained in bed for almost a whole day before calling 911 because he hoped he would die. Curry was charged with second-degree murder. Mary Sue Oberender, 46, February 16, Watertown, MN. Mary Sue was found shot to death in her home by her husband, Lawrence. Authorities discovered the car in Minneapolis and, within a half an hour, arrested two youths. The youths, Mary Sue's teenage son, Christian, 14, and a friend, also 14, were arrested. They indicated the shooting stemmed from a minor difference one of them had had with the mother. Police said the shooting appeared somewhat planned, as if by ambush. There were no signs of struggle. Mary Sue was a volunteer for Scouts at a local elementary school. Her husband is a Watertown-Mayer school board member. Gertrude Bestor, 86, February 19, Granger, MN. And finally, some murders of children: Lydia Healy, 4 years of age. Police officers found Lydia lying on her living room floor after her mother, Judey Healy, reported to police that Lydia wasn't breathing. Lydia was hospitalized for 8 days before she died. Her injuries included massive swelling of the brain caused by shaking or hitting; large black-and-blue marks on the tops of her feet; marks on her legs; bruises on her stomach and chest; a burned hand; bruises on her face; two large welts above an eye and on her cheek; and a burn or cut on her chin. Lydia's 11-year-old brother told police that his mother beat Lydia with a spatula and was left sitting in a bathtub of cold water. The next morning, neither he nor his mother were able to wake Lydia. Judey Healy was charged with second-degree murder. Geneva Broaden, 15, March 10, 1995, St. Paul. Alfred Robinson, 51, the live-in companion of Geneva's mother, summoned authorities to their home and reportedly confessed to beating Geneva. Robinson told police he punched Geneva and kicked and stomped on her after she fell down because of a dispute over use of the telephone. When found, Geneva was not breathing and was transported to a medical center where she was pronounced dead. Police described the assault as ``a very vicious attack.'' Adriana Whiteside, age 4, March 11, 1995, St. Paul. Adriana was found stabbed inside her father's apartment. She was stabbed near her heart with a pocketknife and was rushed to the hospital where she died a short time later. A 14-year-old boy, Randy Burgess, who was babysitting Adriana and her infant stepsister, was seen by neighbors running through the building, carrying Adriana screaming, ``Call 911. I stabbed a baby.'' He was arrested at the scene. He allegedly told police he was planning to kill someone when he found himself alone with Adriana. Randy Burgess was charged with intentional second-degree murder. And finally, Jessica Turner, age 8, March 31, 1995, St. Paul. Jessica died after being stabbed in the chest and tumbling down a flight of stairs in her parent's apartment. Her stepfather, who had been released from a chemical dependency center on March 24, was drinking when he allegedly stabbed Jessica and her mother. He was found 5 hours after the stabbings, arrested and was charged with second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. Madam President, as I went over the names of these Minnesotans who died at the hands of an abuser--and as I say, I want their story to become a part of the Congressional Record because I want us to honor them, I want us to make a commitment to stopping this violence--I realize that I did not read the circumstances of Gertrude Bestor, 86. Gertrude's daughter went to her mother's house after a signal had been sounded by Gertrude's medical alert alarm. As she approached the house, she saw a pickup truck speeding away and found Gertrude lying on her bedroom floor beaten to death. The daughter recognized the truck as belonging to Gertrude's step- great-grandson. He was arrested about an hour later after police stopped him in his pickup truck and noticed bloodstains on his clothes and hands. He was charged with two counts of second-degree murder and a count of first-degree murder. Madam President, I would like to end this presentation with a quote from my wife, Sheila: We will not tolerate the violence, we will not ignore the violence, we will no longer say it is someone else's responsibility. I urge all of my colleagues, and I have two great colleagues out here on the floor with me right now, the Senator from Oregon and the Chair, the Senator from Kansas, to work with the survivors, the advocates, the medical professionals, the justice system in our own States, and to support full community involvement in ending the violence. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to work with passion and conviction to make this a priority for our work of the Senate. We must do everything we can to make homes the safest places that they can be. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the Senator from Mississippi is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business. an amendment, he is just going to speak in morning business?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.