S6158 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 4, 1995 

the best government is that closest to 

the people. 

They keep quoting Jefferson around 

here, and instead of block grants like 

they have for crime and block grants 

for welfare back to the States, block 

grants for housing back to the States, 

here they want to take the authority, 

the 200-some-year authority from the 

States and relegate it to the Federal 

bureaucrats. 

I am finally getting in step with the 

contract. I thank the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise 

today to urge my colleagues to vote in 

support of cloture on the Gorton substitute for the product liability bill as 

amended. 

The American people support these 

commonsense changes to this bill. A 

majority of the Senate has supported 

these commonsense changes to the bill. 

But defenders of the status quo are now 

filibustering the bill and filibustering 

the changes Americans want. 

Who benefits if they win? Some—just 

some—of our Nation’s trial lawyers 

benefit: those who want to keep the 

status quo. 

Who benefits the most in the status 

quo? Who has the largest stake in 

maintaining this out-of-control civil 

justice system and its runaway punitive damages? I think most of my colleagues know who. Some of our Nation’s trial lawyers. And I believe most 

Americans understand that, as well. 

The opponents of change may want 

to shroud this issue under a smokescreen of high-blown rhetoric, but 

when the smoke clears we will see 

some of the Nation’s trial lawyers 

laughing all the way to the bank. Who 

else could defend a system where an 

undisclosed $601 paint refinishing of an 

automobile results in a $2 million punitive damage award? Who else could defend a system where an insurance 

agent’s misrepresentation about a 

$25,000 policy could result in a jury 

award of $25 million in punitive damages? 

We could go on and on. Now, the fact 

of the matter is, I am not talking 

about all trial lawyers, just some who 

literally have milked this system dry. 

Everybody knows we have to make 

these changes. There are excesses in 

the system, and these excesses are ones 

that only trial lawyers, some trial lawyers, could love. Runaway punitive 

damages is one of those excesses. 

I urge our colleagues to vote for cloture on this next vote and help us to 

bring about the change that all America wants and only a few trial lawyers 

want to avoid. 

Mr. President, I rise today to urge 

my colleagues to support cloture on 

the Gorton substitute to the product liability bill, as amended. The American 

people support commonsense change in 

our legal system. But the stubborn defenders of the status quo are now filibustering the change Americans want. 

Who benefits? Some of our Nation’s 

trial lawyers, that’s who. 

As I have mentioned earlier, this bill 

represents the culmination of a longstanding, bipartisan effort to correct 

some of the more egregious faults of 

our product liability and civil justice 

systems. The defects in our product liability system have been long recognized. 

We also passed a provision to apply 

punitive damage reform to all civil 

cases whose subject matter affects 

commerce. As I noted during that debate, punitive damage awards have 

grown out of control in this country. 

They have been out of control in all 

civil litigation—not just product liability cases. Even opponents of this legislation have pointed out time and again 

that excessive punitive damage awards 

in this country are most heavily evident in nonproduct liability cases. I 

agree. That is why I cosponsored the 

Dole punitive damages amendment, 

and why I was so pleased that a majority of my colleagues supported it. 

That amendment improves the underlying bill by addressing more completely the crippling litigation costs 

that have been imposed not only on our 

product manufacturers but on cities 

and counties, volunteer organizations, 

service providers, small businesses, and 

others. 

We have also added medical malpractice reform to the Gorton substitute. 

Mr. President, I have listened as the 

champions of the status quo have mislabeled this bill as a manufacturer’s 

bill. It is a pro-consumer bill. I have 

listened as these opponents of change 

in our civil justice system talk about 

the bill as narrowly drawn, covering 

only some participants in our national 

economy, even as they, ironically, resist efforts to have some provisions of 

the bill extended to cover all civil actions. These comments are, with all 

due respect, diversionary in their effect. 

Who benefits the most from the status quo? Who has the largest stake in 

maintaining, in place, this out of control civil justice system and a runaway 

punitive damages system? I think most 

of my colleagues know who—some of 

our Nation’s trial lawyers. I believe 

most Americans understand that, as 

well. 

The opponents of change may wish to 

shroud this issue under a smokescreen 

of high blown rhetoric. But when the 

smoke clears, there are some of the Nation’s trial lawyers, laughing all the 

way to the bank. Who else could defend 

a system where an undisclosed $601 

paint refinishing of an automobile results in a $2 million punitive damage 

verdict? Who else could defend a system where an insurance agent’s misrepresentation about a $25,000 policy 

could result in a jury award of $25 million in punitive damages? Who else 

could defend a $38 million punitive 

damage verdict over the handling of a 

car loan? Who else could defend a system where liability concerns impede 

volunteer organizations and are so 

costly to them? 

Now, I am not talking about all trial 

lawyers, and I understand the vital role 

lawyers play in vindicating individual 

rights. But lets face it: there are excesses in the system only some trial 

lawyers could love. 

Runaway punitive damages are one 

of those excesses. The pending measure 

fixes this problem, and others. I urge a 

vote for cloture and allow us to give 

the American people the commonsense 

legal reform they want. 

f 

CLOTURE MOTION 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the hour of 2:02 having arrived, the cloture motion having 

been presented under rule XXII, the 

Chair directs the clerk to read the motion. 

The assistant 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 

CALL OF THE ROLL 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has 

been waived. 

f 

VOTE 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the Gorton amendment No. 596 to H.R. 956, the product liability bill, shall be brought to a close? 

The yeas and nays are required. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL] is 

absent on official business. 

I further announce that, if present 

and voting, the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL] would vote ‘‘aye.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. 

SNOWE). Are there any other Senators 

in the Chamber who desire to vote? 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 47, 

nays 52, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.] 

YEAS—47 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Coverdell 

Craig 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS