May 3, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6109

[Mr. LOTT] was added as a cosponsor of

S. 607, a bill to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to

clarify the liability of certain recycling transactions, and for other purposes.

S. 615

At the request of Mr. AKAKA, the

names of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. HOLLINGS] and the Senator

from Mississippi [Mr. LOTT] were added

as cosponsors of S. 615, a bill to amend

title 38, United States Code, to require

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to

furnish outpatient medical services for

any disability of a former prisoner of

war.

S. 694

At the request of Mr. KYL, the name

of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. DEWINE]

was added as a cosponsor of S. 694, a

bill to prevent and punish crimes of

sexual and domestic violence, to

strengthen the rights of crime victims,

and for other purposes.

S. 722

At the request of Mr. DOMENICI, the

name of the Senator from Missouri

[Mr. ASHCROFT] was added as a cosponsor of S. 722, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restructure

and replace the income tax system of

the United States to meet national priorities, and for other purposes.

SENATE RESOLUTION 97

At the request of Mr. THOMAS, the

names of the Senator from Indiana

[Mr. LUGAR] and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KERRY] were added as

cosponsors of Senate Resolution 97, a

resolution expressing the sense of the

Senate with respect to peace and stability in the South China Sea.

SENATE RESOLUTION 103

At the request of Mr. DOMENICI, the

names of the Senator from New York

[Mr. D’AMATO] and the Senator from

North Carolina [Mr. HELMS] were added

as cosponsors of Senate Resolution 103,

a resolution to proclaim the week of

October 15 through October 21, 1995, as

National Character Counts Week, and

for other purposes.

SENATE RESOLUTION 113—TO AUTHORIZE REPRESENTATION BY

fSENATE LEGAL COUNSEL

Mr. GORTON (for Mr. DOLE, for himself, and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the

following resolution; which was agreed

to:

S. RES. 113

Whereas, in the case of Committee for Judicial Review v. The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Senator Orrin Hatch,

No. 1:95CV0770, pending in the United States

District Court for the District of Columbia,

the plaintiff has filed a complaint, seeking,

among other relief, to restrain the Committee on the Judiciary from conducting confirmation hearings on the nomination of

Peter C. Economus, who has been nominated

to be a United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Ohio;

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and

704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of

1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1)(1994),

the Senate may direct its counsel to defend

committees and Members of the Senate in

civil actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is

authorized to represent the Committee on

the Judiciary, its chairman, Senator Orrin

G. Hatch, and the other members of the

Committee on the Judiciary in the case of

Committee for Judicial Review v. The United

States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Senator Orrin Hatch.

SENATE RESOLUTION 114—TO

REFER S. 740 TO THE U.S. COURT

fOF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Mr. GORTON (for Mr. HATCH) submitted the following resolution; which was

agreed to:

S. RES. 114

Resolved, That the bill S. 740 entitled ‘‘A

bill for the relief of Inslaw, Inc., and William

A. Hamilton and Nancy Burke Hamilton’’

now pending in the Senate, together with all

the accompanying papers, is referred to the

chief judge of the United States Court of

Federal Claims. The chief judge shall proceed with the same in accordance with the

provisions of sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28,

United States Code, and report thereon to

the Senate, at the earliest practicable date,

giving such findings of fact and conclusions

thereon as shall be sufficient to inform the

Congress of the nature and character of the

demand as a claim, legal or equitable,

against the United States or a gratuity and

the amount, if any, legally or equitably due

to the claimants from the United States.

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

fTHE COMMON SENSE LEGAL

STANDARDS REFORM ACT OF

1995 COMMON SENSE PRODUCT

LIABILITY REFORM ACT OF 1995

DODD AMENDMENT NO. 624

(Ordered to lie on the table.)

Mr. DODD submitted an amendment

intended to be proposed by him to the

bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal standards and procedures for product liability litigation, and for other purposes;

as follows:

At the appropriate place insert the following:

SEC. . UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR AWARD OF

PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

(a) GENERAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any

other provision of this Act, punitive damages

may, to the extent permitted by applicable

State law, be awarded against a defendant in

an action that is subject to this Act if the

claimant establishes by clear and convincing

evidence that the harm that is the subject of

the action was the result of conduct that was

carried out by the defendant with a conscious, flagrant indifference to the safety of

others.

(b) Bifurcation and Judicial Determination.—

(1) In general.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of this Act, in an action that is

subject to this Act in which punitive damages are sought, the trier of fact shall determine, concurrent with all other issues presented, whether such damages shall be allowed. If such damages are allowed, a separate proceeding shall be conducted by the

court to determine the amount of such damages to be awarded.

(2) Admissible evidence.—

(A) Inadmissibility of evidence relative

only to a claim of punitive damages in a bifurcated proceeding.—Notwithstanding any

other provision of this Act, in any proceeding to determine whether the claimant in an

action that is subject to this Act may be

awarded compensatory damages and punitive

damages, evidence of the defendant’s financial condition and other evidence bearing on

the amount of punitive damages shall not be

admissible unless the evidence is admissible

for a purpose other than for determining the

amount of punitive damages.

(B) PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO PUNITIVE

DAMAGES.—Evidence that is admissible in a

separate proceeding conducted under paragraph (1) shall include evidence that bears on

the factors listed in paragraph (3).

(3) FACTORS.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of this Act, in determining the

amount of punitive damages awarded in an

action that is subject to this Act, the court

shall consider the following factors:

(A) The likelihood that serious harm would

arise from the misconduct of the defendant

in question.

(B) The degree of the awareness of the defendant in question of that likelihood.

(C) The profitability of the misconduct to

the defendant in question.

(D) The duration of the misconduct and

any concealment of the conduct by the defendant in question.

(E) The attitude and conduct of the defendant in question upon the discovery of the

misconduct and whether the misconduct has

terminated.

(F) The financial condition of the defendant in question.

(G) The total effect of other punishment

imposed or likely to be imposed upon the defendant in question as a result of the misconduct, including any awards of punitive or

exemplary damages to persons similarly situated to the claimant and the severity of

criminal penalties to which the defendant in

question has been or is likely to be subjected.

(H) Any other factor that the court determines to be appropriate.

(4) REASONS FOR SETTING AWARD AMOUNT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any

other provision of this Act, with respect to

an award of punitive damages in an action

that is subject to this Act, in findings of fact

and conclusions of law issued by the court,

the court shall clearly state the reasons of

the court for setting the amount of the

award. The statements referred to in the preceding sentence shall demonstrate the consideration of the factors listed in subparagraphs (A) through (G) of paragraph (3). If

the court considers a factor under subparagraph (H) of paragraph (3), the court shall

state the effect of the consideration of the

factor on setting the amount of the award.

(B) REVIEW OF DETERMINATION OF AWARD

AMOUNT.—The determination of the amount

of the award shall only be reviewed by a

court as a factual finding and shall not be

set aside by a court unless the court determines that the amount of the award is clearly erroneous.

DODD AMENDMENT NO. 625

(Ordered to lie on the table.)

Mr. DODD submitted an amendment

intended to be proposed by him to

amendment No. 596 proposed by Mr.

GORTON to the bill H.R. 956, supra; as

follows: