S5602 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE April 24, 1995 

concern or negligence, if plaintiff is 50 

percent responsible then either there 

should be comparative negligence or 

contributory negligence should preclude a recovery. It should not just be 

limited in that one situation. In fact, I 

can think of far more egregious actions 

on the part of the plaintiff than simply 

being drunk or under the influence of 

alcohol. 

Third, there is a provision that I 

spoke to earlier that says that, in a 

product liability case, the seller should 

not have to pay for the manufacturer’s 

liability. It seems to me that should 

apply in any kind of situation. In no 

case should the seller be required to 

pay for the manufacturer’s liability 

simply because you cannot find the 

manufacturer or the manufacturer does 

not have insurance to pay. If the seller 

was not responsible in any way, then 

the seller should not have to pay the 

damages. 

As I said, notwithstanding these 

areas in which I believe S. 565 could be 

broadened, I think it is important we 

not allow the perfect to be the enemy 

of the good, and therefore we should 

support whatever reforms we can accomplish. In the last 5 years cloture 

motions have effectively barred votes 

on the merits of bills similar to this 

that were supported by a majority of 

the Senate. We should not allow this to 

happen again. 

So I would like to close by addressing 

one of the most frequently cited and 

most unpersuasive arguments employed by the opponents of the national legal reform, only one, but I 

think it is important to establish this 

right up front because it has the superficial sense of States rights about it 

and suggests that those of us who support this legislation do not trust the 

States. 

As someone who is a very strong 

States’ rights supporter, who is very 

interested in allowing local decisionmaking, I want to make very clear our 

basis for supporting this legislation. 

This legislation would not prohibit a 

State from enacting more restrictive 

provisions so we are not saying the 

Federal Government should take over 

this area of law to the exclusion of the 

States at all. We are simply establishing a standard. If the States wish 

to be more restrictive they are entitled 

to do so. 

It is not appropriate to argue it 

would be an unconstitutional preemption of State authority if we were to 

act in this fashion. The commerce 

clause clearly grants the United States 

the authority to act. No individual 

State can solve the problems created 

by abusive litigation of the kind we 

have been discussing here and that is 

particularly true with product liability 

where a product may be manufactured 

in one State, sold in another State, and 

cause injury in a third State. In fact, 

Government figures establish that on 

average over 70 percent of the goods 

manufactured in one State are shipped 

out of State for sale and use. So it is 

clear that a national solution is required and justified by the fundamental interstate character of produce 

commerce. 

The threat of disproportionate unpredictable punitive damages awards exerts an impact far beyond the borders 

of individual States, and this threat influences investment strategies, it 

dampens job creation and prevents new 

products from reaching the marketplace. In an increasingly integrated national and international economy, the 

confusing inconsistent patchwork of 

State liability awards has created a 

major obstacle to America’s economic 

strength. And I think this is precisely 

the kind of problem the Framers gave 

Congress the power to address through 

the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Framers clearly realized 

the National Government needed the 

power to prevent the chaos that would 

result if every State could regulate 

interstate commerce. That is one of 

the reasons, as a matter of fact, that 

the Articles of Confederation were required to be amended. 

Opponents of legal reform profess 

concern about the preemption of State 

law and interference with States 

rights, but I note that many of these 

same interests are enthusiastic supporters of intrusive Federal regulations 

imposed on the States by OSHA, by the 

FDA, by the EPA, and other Federal 

regulators. In truth, States rights is 

not what is being defended here but 

rather the status quo or else. 

Why is the multimillion-dollar litigation industry the only segment of the 

economy that opponents of legal reform believe is beyond the reach of 

Federal law? Legal reform will not 

cause the creation of a single new Federal program or the expenditure of a 

single new appropriation. Legal reform 

will not impose new taxes or new regulations on our citizens. Legal reform 

will simply create clear, consistent 

legal standards covering civil actions 

brought in State and Federal court. It 

will enhance the essential principle of 

due process and, as the U.S. Supreme 

Court has said, due process, criminal 

and civil, is fundamental to our concept of ordered liberty. 

So, Mr. President, I hope we keep 

these thoughts in mind as we debate 

this important, and as I said at the beginning, historic legislation, and that 

in the end we will have found the wisdom and courage to make these reforms so we can pass them on to the 

President for his signature and begin 

the process of restoring more sensibility, more common sense, more fairness into the U.S. tort system. 

I yield the floor, Mr. President. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have several announcements and requests for 

unanimous consent. I would note all of 

these have been cleared with the minority and therefore I wish to make 

them at this time. 

First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine 

morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes 

each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE RECEIVED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT 

Under the authority of the order of 

January 4, 1995, the Secretary of the 

Senate on April 7, 1995, during the adjournment of the Senate received a 

message from the House of Representatives announcing that the Speaker has 

signed the following enrolled bills: 

H.R. 889. An act making emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions to preserve and enhance the military readiness of 

the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes; 

S. 178. An act to provide for the safety of 

journeymen boxers, and for other purposes; 

and 

S. 244. An act to further the goals of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act to have Federal 

agencies become more responsible and publicly accountable for reducing the burden of 

Federal paperwork on the public, and for 

other purposes. 

The enrolled bills were signed on 

April 7, 1995 by the President pro tempore (Mr. THURMOND). 

Under the authority of the order of 

January 4, 1995, the Secretary of the 

Senate on April 12, 1995, during the adjournment of the Senate received a 

message from the House of Representatives announcing that the Speaker has 

signed the following enrolled bill: 

H.R. 1345. An act to eliminate budget deficits and management inefficiencies in the 

government of the District of Columbia 

through the establishment of the District of 

Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, and for other 

purposes. 

The enrolled bills were signed on 

April 12, 1995 by the President pro tempore (Mr. THURMOND

f 

). 

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT 

Messages from the President of the 

United States were communicated to 

the Senate by Mr. Thomas, one of his 

secretaries. 

f 

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED 

As in executive session the Presiding 

Officer laid before the Senate messages 

from the President of the United 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS