May 2, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5995 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GORTON). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the pending 

amendment be set aside. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 622 TO AMENDMENT NO. 617

(Purpose: To provide protection for individuals, small businesses, charitable organizations and other small entities from excessive punitive damage awards.) 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I send 

an amendment to the desk and ask for 

its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DEWINE], for 

himself and Mr. ABRAHAM, proposes an 

amendment numbered 622 to amendment No. 

617. 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 3, line 23, strike ‘‘loss.’’ and insert 

in lieu thereof: ‘‘loss; 

‘‘except that if the award is against an individual whose net worth does not exceed 

$500,000 or against an owner of an unincorporated business, or any partnership, corporation, association, unit of local government, or organization which has fewer than 

twenty-five full-time employees, that 

amount shall not exceed $250,000.’’

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I offer 

this amendment on behalf of Senator 

ABRAHAM and myself. It really is an 

amendment that is a small business 

amendment. 

I expressed yesterday on the floor a 

concern, a twofold concern: One, that 

we make sure that the cap was sufficiently high so that larger businesses 

would in fact be deterred by the proper 

awards juries would make in regard to 

punitive damages, and that we not lose 

that deterrent effect; but I also expressed a concern that small business 

not be unduly penalized by punitive 

damages. 

I have talked to small business men 

and women throughout Ohio who do 

have this very legitimate concern and 

who really live in fear literally every 

day of something happening where 

they would have a huge award that 

would literally put them out of business; that what would become a punitive damage award which, for a big 

business, might, in fact, be a deterrent, 

might, in fact, be for a small business 

actually the death penalty. 

This particular amendment provides 

an exception for small business. And 

small business is defined in the amendment as any business that has 25 or 

fewer employees or has a net worth of 

not over one-half million dollars. If 

this amendment is agreed to, a punitive damage award could not exceed 

$250,000. 

I think this amendment makes a 

great deal of sense. I think it will take 

care of one of the problems that we 

have today, a problem expressed to me 

many, many times by small business. 

I hope that tomorrow it will, in fact, 

be adopted. 

Mr. President, at this time, I ask 

unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside for the moment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 623 TO AMENDMENT NO. 617

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I send 

another amendment to the desk and 

ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DEWINE] proposes an amendment numbered 623 to amendment No. 617. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 4 line 11 strike the semicolon after 

the word ‘‘awarded’’ through line 15 and insert a period. 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, this 

amendment will, I believe, clean up the 

bill and it will finish a process that was 

begun several days ago. That was a 

concern that I expressed on the floor 

yesterday in regard to the way the bill 

was originally drafted, which said that 

juries no longer could consider the assets that a corporation had when that 

jury made its decision about what was 

the appropriate level of punitive damages. 

As I indicated yesterday, that type of 

preemption of State law makes absolutely no sense because punitive damages have always been intended to do 

basically two things: One, to serve as 

punishment and, second, to serve as a 

legitimate deterrent. 

A jury cannot make that determination unless the jury knows all the 

facts. One of the pertinent facts has to 

be what the assets of the corporation 

might be, and other relevant financial 

information. 

The danger of the way the bill was 

written was not only that we might 

lose that deterrent effect. Because a 

jury would not really know what assets 

the company had, it might have just 

the opposite effect. You might have a 

jury assuming that a company had a 

great deal of assets and the company 

did not have those assets. The jury 

then would make a disproportionate 

award. And so it could hurt really on 

both sides. 

What this amendment does is really 

complete the process that was started 

several days ago, by providing and taking out of the bill that preemption. So 

if this amendment would be passed, we 

would be back to where we were before 

in regard to what juries could consider 

in regard to making their decision 

about punitive damages; namely, we 

would be back to State law, which I 

think is where we need to go. 

So, in this case, I hope that tomorrow, when we vote on this particular 

amendment, we will agree to it. I think 

it is only equitable and fair. I urge my 

colleagues to do so. 

At this point, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

DEWINE). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

CLOTURE MOTION 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send 

two separate motions to invoke cloture 

on the Gorton amendment No. 596 to 

the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will 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 Gorton Amendment No. 596 to H.R. 956, the 

Product Liability bill. 

Bob Dole, Slade Gorton, Rick Santorum, 

Jim Inhofe, Conrad Burns, Pete V. 

Domenici, Hank Brown, Spencer Abraham, Paul D. Coverdell, Larry E. Craig, 

Dirk Kempthorne, Bob Smith, Trent 

Lott, Chuck Grassley, Judd Gregg, 

Mitch McConnell. 

f 

CLOTURE MOTION 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will now read the second 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 Gorton Amendment No. 596 to H.R. 956, the 

Product Liability bill. 

Bob Dole, Slade Gorton, Orrin G. Hatch, 

Dirk Kempthorne, Pete V. Domenici, 

Conrad Burns, John Ashcroft, Dan 

Coats, Bill Frist, Olympia J. Snowe, 

Spencer Abraham, Nancy Landon 

Kassebaum, James J. Jeffords, Ted Stevens, Mark O. Hatfield, Frank H. Murkowski. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

(During today’s session of the Senate, the following morning business 

was transacted.) 

f 

REMEMBERING GINGER ROGERS 

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the 

Op-Ed page of Friday’s Washington 

Post featured an irresistible account 

by Philip Geyelin, ‘‘When I Danced 

With Ginger Rogers.’’ The occasion was 

the Gridiron Club dinner of March 28, 

1981. With the advent of Ronald Reagan’s presidency ‘‘Hooray for Hollywood’’ was the evening’s theme, and 

Miss Rogers its most illustrious guest. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS