S5730 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE April 26, 1995

July 29, 1994, which stated that any solution must be based on a single State

of Cyprus with its independence and

territorial integrity safeguarded; calls

for the withdrawal of all foreign

troops; states that proposals for a total

demilitarization of Cyprus would enhance the security of all the Cypriot

people and merits support; and urges

the Security Council and the United

States Government to consider alternative approaches to promote a resolution to the long-standing dispute, including incentives to encourage

progress or sanctions against recalcitrant parties.

Mr. President, two decades ago, Turkey’s brutal invasion drove more than

200,000 Cypriots from their homes and

reduced them to the status of refugees

in their own land. More than 2,000 people are still missing, including five

American citizens. The Turkish Army

seized 40 percent of the land of Cyprus,

representing 70 percent of the island’s

economic wealth. Today, Turkey continues to maintain over 35,000 troops

on the island, which forms the bedrock

of the continuing political impasse.

The phrase ‘‘35,000 Turkish troops’’

may sound familiar, because this is the

number of troops Turkey has used,

with tragic sameness, in its invasion

last month of U.N.-protected Kurdish

areas of northern Iraq. For the benefit

of the Kurdish people of Iraq, who have

been subject to genocidal attacks by

their own government, I only hope that

they will not suffer the same fate as

the people of Cyprus. On Cyprus, Turkey initially pledged to stay only for a

brief time to protect the Turkish-Cypriot minority on Cyprus. Now, we are

beginning the third decade of Turkish

occupation.

In an effort to transform this paradigm of deadlock, last year Cypriot

President Glafcos Clerides offered to

totally demilitarize the island of Cyprus in the context of a Turkish military withdrawal and political agreement to reunify the country. The Government of Cyprus, then, has volunteered to entirely disband its military

forces, giving up this fundamental sovereign attribute for the purpose of

peace.

The need to transform the terms of

the debate over Cyprus is self evident

for all who choose to see. I was first

elected to the House in 1978, 4 years

after the Turkish invasion. That was

the same year that President Carter

succeeded in getting the United States

arms embargo on Turkey lifted on the

promise of an imminent breakthrough

on ending the tragic and illegal division of the island.

Every year I have been in Congress I

have noted a sad, cynical process unfold. Each year, there are hints of

movement and glimmering hopes of

ending the Turkish occupation and reuniting Cyprus. The most recent opportunity has been the U.N.-sponsored

talks over ‘‘Confidence Building Measures,’’ which would certainly be constructive if the talks had been undertaken in good faith by all sides and if

they could set the stage for moving

rapidly toward a final resolution of the

dispute. But neither has been the case,

so the talks ultimately atrophied into

endless discussions and disagreements

over the same kind of modest halfmeasures that have been the subject of

endless talk ever since 1974.

Mr. President, we must continue to

press for a negotiated settlement to

the illegal division of Cyprus, and we

must neither accept nor become comfortable with the status quo. This resolution is moderate in tone, and refrains

from laying blame on any party. I believe that all parties can and must

take a new look at the problem of Cyprus and work in good faith to bring

this tragedy to an end. But as this resolution makes clear, our Nation must

also be prepared to work alone or

through the Security Council to ensure

that all parties also understand that a

continued impasse on Cyprus will not

be tolerated.

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

∑

fTHE COMMONSENSE LEGAL

STANDARDS REFORM ACT OF 1995

ABRAHAM (AND OTHERS)

AMENDMENTS NOS. 600–601

(Ordered to lie on the table.)

Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr.

MCCONNELL, and Mr. KYL) submitted

two amendments intended to be proposed by them to amendment No. 596

proposed by Mr. GORTON to the bill

(H.R. 956) to establish legal standards

and procedures for product liability

litigation, and for other purposes; as

follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 600

Strike out section 109 and insert in lieu

thereof the following new section:

SEC. 109. SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR NONECONOMIC DAMAGES

(A) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) because of the joint and several liability doctrine, municipalities, volunteer

groups, nonprofit entities, property owners,

and large and small businesses are often

brought into litigation despite the fact that

their conduct often had little or nothing to

do with the harm suffered by the claimant;

(2) the imposition of joint and several liability for noneconomic damages frequently

results in the assessment of unfair and disproportionate damages against defendants

that bear no relationship to their fault or responsibility;

(3) producers of products and services who

are only marginally responsible for an injury

risk bearing the entire cost of a judgment for

noneconomic damages even if the products

or services originate in States that have replaced joint liability for noneconomic damages with proportionate liability, because

claimants have an incentive to bring suit in

States that have retained joint liability; and

(4) the unfair allocation of noneconomic

damages under the joint and several liability

doctrine disrupts, impairs and burdens commerce, imposing unreasonable and unjustified costs on consumers, taxpayers, governmental entities, large and small businesses,

volunteer organizations, and nonprofit entities.

(b) GENERAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any

other section of this Act, in any civil action

whose subject matter affects commerce

brought in Federal or State court on any

theory, the liability of each defendant for

noneconomic damages shall be several only

and shall not be great.

(c) AMOUNT OF LIABILITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each defendant shall be

liable only for the amount of noneconomic

damages allocated to their defendant in direct proportion to the percentage of responsibility of the defendant (determined in accordance with paragraph (2)) for the harm to

the claimant with respect to which the defendant is liable. The court shall render a

separate judgment against each defendant in

an amount determined pursuant to the preceding sentence.

(2) PERENTAGE OF RESPONSIBILITY.—For

purposes of determining the amount of noneconomic damages allocated to a defendant

under this section, the trier of fact shall determine the percentage of responsibility of

each person, including the claimant, responsible for the claimant’s harm, whether or not

such person is a part to the action.

(d) APPLICABILITY.—Nothing in this section

shall be construed to—

(1) waive or affect any defense or sovereign

immunity asserted by the United States, or

by any State, under any law;

(2) give rise to any claim for joint liability;

(3) supersede or alter any Federal law;

(4) preempt, supersede, or alter any State

law to the extent that such law would further limit the applicability of joint liability

to any kind of damages;

(5) affect the applicability of any provision

of chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code;

(6) preempt State choice-of-law rules with

respect to claims brought by a foreign nation

or a citizen of a foreign nation; or

(7) affect the right of any court to transfer

venue or to apply the law of a foreign nation

or to dismiss a claim of a foreign nation or

of a citizen of a foreign nation on the ground

of inconvenient forum.

(e) FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION NOT ESTABLISHED.—Nothing in this section shall be

construed to establish any jurisdiction in the

district courts of the United States on the

basis of section 1331 or 1337 of title 28, United

States Code.

(f) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section:

(1) The term ‘‘claimant’’ means any person

who brings a civil action and any person on

whose behalf such an action is brought. If

such action is brought through or on behalf

of an estate, the term includes the decedent.

If such action is brought through or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, the term includes the legal guardian of the minor or incompetent.

(2) The term ‘‘commerce’’ means commerce

between or among the several States, or with

foreign nations.

(3)(A) The term ‘‘economic damages’’

means any objectively verifiable monetary

losses resulting from the harm suffered, including past and future medical expenses,

loss of past and future earnings, burial costs,

costs of repair or replacement, costs of obtaining replacement services in the home

(including, without limitation, child care,

transportation, food preparation, and household care), costs of making reasonable accommodations to a personal residence, loss

of employment, and loss of business or employment opportunities, to the extent recovery for such losses is allowed under applicable State law.

(B) The term ‘‘economic damages’’ shall

not include noneconomic damages.

(4) The term ‘‘harm’’ means any legally

cognizable wrong or injury for which damages may be imposed.
April 26, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5731

(5)(A) The term ‘‘noneconomic damages’’

means subjective, nonmonetary loss resulting from harm, including pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional

distress, loss of society and companionship,

loss of consortium, injury to reputation, and

humiliation.

(B) The term ‘‘noneconomic damages’’

shall not include economic damages or punitive damages.

(6) The term ‘‘punitive damages’’ means

damages awarded against any person or entity to punish such persons or entity or to

deter such person or entity, or others, from

engaging in similar behavior in the future.

(7) The term ‘‘State’’ means any State of

the United States, the District of Columbia,

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the

Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any

other territory or possession of the United

States, or any political subdivision of any of

the foregoing.

AMENDMENT NO. 601

Strike out section 109 and insert in lieu

thereof the following new section:

SEC. 109. SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR NONECONOMIC DAMAGES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) because of the joint and several liability doctrine, municipalities, volunteer

groups, nonprofit entities, property owners,

and large and small businesses are often

brought into litigation despite the fact that

their conduct often had little or nothing to

do with the harm suffered by the claimant;

(2) the imposition of joint and several liability for noneconomic damages frequently

results in the assessment of unfair and disproportionate damages against defendants

that bear no relationship to their fault or responsibility;

(3) producers of products and services who

are only marginally responsible for an injury

risk bearing the entire cost of a judgment for

noneconomic damages even if the products

or services originate in States that have replaced joint liability for noneconomic damages with proportionate liability, because

claimants have an incentive to bring suit in

States that have retained joint liability; and

(4) the unfair allocation of noneconomic

damages under the joint and several liability

doctrine disrupts, impairs and burdens commerce, imposing unreasonable and unjustified costs on consumers, taxpayers, governmental entities, large and small businesses,

volunteer organizations, and non-profit entities.

(b) GENERAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any

other section of this Act, in any product liability or libel action whose subject matter

affects commerce brought in Federal or

State court on any theory, the liability of

each defendant for noneconomic damages

shall be several only and shall not be joint.

(c) AMOUNT OF LIABILITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each defendant shall be

liable only for the amount of noneconomic

damages allocated to the defendant in direct

proportion to the percentage of responsibility of the defendant (determined in accordance with paragraph (2)) for the harm to the

claimant with respect to which the defendant is liable. The court shall render a separate judgment against each defendant in an

amount determined pursuant to the preceding sentence.

(2) PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSIBILITY.—for

purposes of determining the amount of noneconomic damages allocated to a defendant

under this section, the trier of fact shall determine the percentage of responsibility of

each person, including the claimant, responsible for the claimant’s harm, whether or not

such person is a party to the action.

(d) APPLICABILITY.—Nothing in this section

shall be construed to—

(1) waive or affect any defense of sovereign

immunity asserted by the United States, or

by any State, under any law;

(2) give rise to any claim for joint liability;

(3) supersede or alter any Federal law;

(4) preempt, supersede, or alter any State

law to the extent that such law would further limit the applicability of joint liability

to any kind of damages;

(5) affect the applicability of any provision

of chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code;

(6) preempt State choice-of-law rules with

respect to claims brought by a foreign nation

or a citizen of a foreign nation; or

(7) affect the right of any court to transfer

venue or to apply the law of a foreign nation

or to dismiss a claim of a foreign nation or

of a citizen of a foreign nation on the ground

of inconvenient forum.

(e) FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION NOT ESTABLISHED.—Nothing in this section shall be

construed to establish any jurisdiction in the

district courts of the United States on the

basis of section 1331 or 1337 of title 28, United

States Code.

(f) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section:

(1) The term ‘‘claimant’’ means any person

who brings a civil action and any person on

whose behalf such an action is brought. If

such action is brought through or on behalf

of an estate, the term includes the decedent.

If such action is brought through or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, the term includes the legal guardian of the minor or incompetent.

(2) The term ‘‘commerce’’ means commerce

between or among the several States, or with

foreign nations.

(3)(A) The term ‘‘economic damages’’

means any objectively verifiable monetary

losses resulting from the harm suffered, including past and future medical expenses,

loss of past and future earnings, burial costs,

costs of repair or replacement, costs of obtaining replacement services in the home

(including, without limitation, child care,

transportation, food preparation, and household care), costs of making reasonable accommodations to a personal residence, loss

of employment, and loss of business or employment opportunities, to the extent recovery for such losses is allowed under applicable State law.

(B) The term ‘‘economic damages’’ shall

not include noneconomic damages.

(4) The term ‘‘harm’’ means any legally

cognizable wrong or injury for which damages may be imposed.

(5)(A) The term ‘‘noneconomic damages’’

means subjective, nonmonetary loss resulting from harm, including pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional

distress, loss of society and companionship,

loss of consortium, injury to reputation, and

humiliation.

(B) The term ‘‘noneconomic damages’’

shall not include economic damages or punitive damages.

(6) The term ‘‘punitive damages’’ means

damages awarded against any person or entity to punish such persons or entity or to

deter such person or entity, or others, from

engaging in similar behavior in the future.

(7) The term ‘‘State’’ means any State of

the United States, the District of Columbia,

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the

Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any

other territory or possession of the United

States, or any political subdivision of any of

the foregoing.

ABRAHAM (AND OTHERS)

AMENDMENT NO. 602

(Ordered to lie on the table.)

Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr.

MCCONNELL, and Mr. KYL) submitted

an amendment intended to be proposed

by them to an amendment to the bill

H.R. 956, supra; as follows:

In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted, insert the following:

SEC. 109. SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR NONECONOMIC DAMAGES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) because of the joint and several liability doctrine, municipalities, volunteer

groups, nonprofit entities, property owners,

and large and small businesses are often

brought into litigation despite the fact that

their conduct often had little or nothing to

do with the harm suffered by the claimant;

(2) the imposition of joint and several liability for noneconomic damages frequently

results in the assessment of unfair and disproportionate damages against defendants

that bear no relationship to their fault or responsibility;

(3) producers of products and services who

are only marginally responsible for an injury

risk bearing the entire cost of a judgment for

noneconomic damages even if the products

or services originate in States that have replaced joint liability for noneconomic damages with proportionate liability, because

claimants have an incentive to bring suit in

States that have retained joint liability; and

(4) the unfair allocation of noneconomic

damages under the joint and several liability

doctrine disrupts, impairs and burdens commerce, imposing unreasonable and unjustified costs on consumers, taxpayers, governmental entities, large and small businesses,

volunteer organizations, and non-profit entities.

(b) GENERAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any

other section of this Act, in any civil action

whose subject matter affects commerce

brought in Federal or State court on any

theory, the liability of each defendant for

noneconomic damages shall be several only

and shall not be joint.

(c) AMOUNT OF LIABILITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each defendant shall be

liable only for the amount of noneconomic

damages allocated to the defendant in direct

proportion to the percentage of responsibility of the defendant (determined in accordance with paragraph (2)) for the harm to the

claimant with respect to which the defendant is liable. The court shall render a separate judgment against each defendant in an

amount determined pursuant to the preceding sentence.

(2) PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSIBILITY.—For

purposes of determining the amount of noneconomic damages allocated to a defendant

under this section, the trier of fact shall determine the percentage of responsibility of

each person, including the claimant, responsible for the claimant’s harm, whether or not

such person is a party to the action.

(d) APPLICABILITY.—Nothing in this section

shall be construed to—

(1) waive or affect any defense of sovereign

immunity asserted by the United States, or

by any State, under any law;

(2) give rise to any claim for joint liability;

(3) supersede or alter any Federal law;

(4) preempt, supersede, or alter any State

law to the extent that such law would further limit the applicability of joint liability

to any kind of damages;

(5) affect the applicability of any provision

of chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code;

(6) preempt State choice-of-law rules with

respect to claims brought by a foreign nation; or
S5732 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE April 26, 1995

(7) affect the right of any court to transfer

venue or to apply the law of a foreign nation

or to dismiss a claim of a foreign nation or

of a citizen of a foreign nation on the ground

of inconvenient forum.

(e) FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION NOT ESTABLISHED.—Nothing in this section shall be

construed to establish any jurisdiction in the

district courts of the United States on the

basis of section 1331 or 1337 of title 28, United

States Code.

(f) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section:

(1) The term ‘‘claimant’’ means any person

who brings a civil action and any person on

whose behalf such an action is brought. If

such action is brought through or on behalf

of an estate, the term includes the decedent.

If such action is brought through or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, the term includes the legal guardian of the minor or incompetent.

(2) The term ‘‘commerce’’ means commerce

between or among the several States, or with

foreign nations.

(3)(A) The term ‘‘economic damages’’

means any objectively verifiable monetary

losses resulting from the harm suffered, including past and future medical expenses,

loss of past and future earnings, burial costs,

costs of repair or replacement, costs of obtaining replacement services in the home

(including, without limitation, child care,

transportation, food preparation, and household care), costs of making reasonable accommodations to a personal residence, loss

of employment, and loss of business or employment opportunities, to the extent recovery for such losses is allowed under applicable State law.

(B) The term ‘‘economic damages’’ shall

not include noneconomic damages.

(4) The term ‘‘harm’’ means any legally

cognizable wrong or injury for which damages may be imposed.

(5)(A) The term ‘‘noneconomic damages’’

means subjective, nonmonetary loss resulting from harm, including pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional

distress, loss of society and companionship,

loss of consortium, injury to reputation, and

humiliation.

(B) The term ‘‘noneconomic damages’’

shall not include economic damages or punitive damages.

(6) The term ‘‘punitive damages’’ means

damages awarded against any person or entity to punish such persons or entity or to

deter such person or entity, or others, from

engaging in similar behavior in the future.

(7) The term ‘‘State’’ means any State of

the United States, the District of Columbia,

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the

Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any

other territory or possession of the United

States, or any political subdivision of any of

the foregoing.

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO

fMEET

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Finance

Committee be permitted to meet

Wednesday, April 26, 1995, beginning at

9:30 a.m. in room SD–215, to conduct a

hearing on child welfare programs.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Select

Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the

Senate on Wednesday, April 26, 1995, at

10 a.m. to hold an open confirmation

hearing on the nomination of John

Deutch to be Director of Central Intelligence.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND PUBLIC LAND

MANAGEMENT

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land

Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted

permission to meet during the session

of the Senate on Wednesday, April 26,

1995, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled

to begin at 9:45 a.m. The purpose of

this oversight hearing is to review the

coordination of and conflicts between

the Federal forest management and

general environmental statutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

fA CHANCE FOR JUSTICE IN EAST

TIMOR

∑ Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on January 12 of this year, the Indonesian military tortured and murdered six unarmed civilians in Liquisa, near Dili, in

East Timor.

The Indonesian Army Chief of Staff,

while reportedly admitting ‘‘procedural violations,’’ claimed the victims

were supporters of the guerrillas. However, the National Human Rights Commission of Indonesia, which released a

scathing report on March 2, accused

the military of ‘‘unlawful’’ killings of

innocent civilians.

As anyone who follows events in East

Timor knows, the Liquisa shootings

were not an isolated incident. They

were part of a pattern of political violence on the island in which Indonesian

troops have been implicated for decades.

However, the fact that the National

Human Rights Commission published

such a conscientious report is encouraging. The Indonesian Government now

has two choices.

One choice is to repeat its mistakes

after the November 1991 Dili massacre.

Many here will recall how back then,

the unarmed demonstrators were sentenced to long prison terms, while a

handful of lower ranking soldiers who

fired the deadly shots went to jail for a

few months and the officers who gave

the orders and tried to cover up the

crime went scot free.

The other choice is to take responsibility, and use this opportunity to

punish severely all those implicated in

these crimes, and by doing so deter

others from committing such atrocities

in the future. Only when the impunity

ends will the abuse of human rights

end.

Let us hope that the Indonesian Government seizes this opportunity to

demonstrate that no one is above the

law, because it is long overdue in a

country that seeks to be accepted as a

respectable world power.

f∑

TRIBUTE TO RAYMOND J. LANDRY

∑ Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to

pay tribute to one of New Hampshire’s

finest law enforcement officials, Raymond J. Landry, chief of police of the

city of Nashua, on the occasion of his

retirement on May 1, 1995.

As a veteran of the U.S. Navy, I am

particularly proud of the distinguished

professional accomplishments of Chief

Landry, who is a Navy man himself.

A Nashua native, Chief Landry has

held progressively more responsible positions within the Nashua Police Department since he first joined it in

1964. After serving as a front line police

officer for 7 years, Chief Landry was

promoted to sergeant in 1971.

Less than 2 years later, in 1973, Chief

Landry became a lieutenant. Five

years after that, in 1978, Chief Landry

was promoted to captain. by 1984, he

was named major. Finally, Mr. Landry

attained his current high rank as chief

of police of the city of Nashua in 1988.

By any measure, Chief Landry has

had a most impressive career in the

law enforcement field. Throughout his

career, he has demonstrated the initiative, dedication, and foresight to gain

the best available training to serve the

citizens of Nashua. A graduate of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]

National Academy, Chief Landry also

is an alumnus of the Command Training Institute and the Advanced Management Practices Program of Babson

College. Finally, Mr. President, Chief

Landry is a graduate of the Police Executive Development Program of the

Pennsylvania State University.

Beyond his first-class training and

professional development efforts, Chief

Landry has been active in numerous

leadership organizations in the law enforcement field. He is a member of the

International Association of Chiefs of

Police, the New England State Police

Information Network, the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police,

the New England Association of Chiefs

of Police, and the Hillsborough County

Chiefs Association. In addition, Chief

Landry serves on the executive board

of the drug task force of the office of

the attorney general of New Hampshire.

Mr. President, I understand that

there will be a surprise gathering of upwards of 700 people in Nashua on May 5

to honor Chief Raymond Landry as he

retires. Law enforcement officials from

throughout New Hampshire, as well as

State and local dignitaries, will be in

attendance.

Mr. President, our Nation’s police officers richly deserve the respect in

which they are held by our citizens.

They serve quietly and effectively, protecting the public and keeping the