S6254 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 8, 1995

the House bills, and considered in separate bills over there and everything

else of that kind, is being and is going

to be reinserted. And so when they get

to conference, just like this bill started

as a product liability measure; it soon

became a malpractice, a medical malpractice measure. And just as soon as

it became a medical malpractice measure, the next thing you look around it

was all civil cases that it would apply

to. And that is exactly how the conference would go if we did exactly as

they wish, and that is let us get this

little change here and that little

change there, and we will all be happy.

We all have been working hard. We

have been on this for several years.

And the plea is to what you committed. Laws are really passed at campaign time. Too often it is that these

eminent organizations come—the National Federation of Independent Businesses—for one thing only, your vote

on their bill. Necessarily you want

their support. In fact, they give you a

little award, a little statue, and that is

the NFIB award. And it is the treasure

board award that you get from that

small business group.

They have thousands of mailouts. I

can tell you, trial lawyers do not have

any thousands of mailouts. The others,

as well, including consumer organizations, do not mail out anything. They

just do not have any PAC’s at the supreme courts of the 50 States. The

American Bar Association, which opposes this measure, does not have any

PAC. They do not have political

mailouts. But the NFIB mails out; the

chamber of commerce has its meetings

as well as the mailouts. The National

Association of Manufacturers is strong

in my State. They come around, and

they have not only mailouts but special manufacturers come around and

meet with you and everything else of

that kind.

So if you are not studied as to the individual rights of injured parties, you

may not realize how horrendous this

legislation is, and the detrimental impact it will have on our Nation’s civil

justice system. What’s worse is that it

is based on a total distorted record.

They lament and lament about punitive damages. However, according to

the hearing record, the amount of all of

product liability punitive damage

awards in the last 30 years adds up to

only a fraction of the $3 billion Pennzoil versus Texaco verdict, or the $3

billion verdict in the Exxon Valdez

case.

Are they really concerned about consumers? Are they really concerned

about the injured parties?

Mr. President, of all civil filings,

torts represent 9 percent, and of those

tort filings only 4 percent of the 9 percent, are product liability cases—.38—

thirty-eight one-hundredths—percent.

And this thing has taken 2 weeks now.

To do what? To take it away from the

States that have had jurisdiction for

230 years, the English law and everything else of that kind, or the regular

statutes, the regular burdens of proof,

the greater weight of the preponderance of evidence, all 12 jurors have to

find it and on appeal and everything,

injured party on a contingent basis. It

has worked. The States themselves

over the past 15 years have reformed

their laws, and there is no question in

my mind that they are handling it and

handling it well. My judges tell me so,

particularly my Republican judges that

we have confirmed that I am proud of

because I voted for their confirmation.

But I wanted to make absolutely sure

that we did not have that problem. I

am assured of it. But they are trying

now to get their foot in the door, and

the ultimate goal is to restrict, if not

totally eliminate, as they have in England, trial by jury.

I yield the floor.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

CRAIG). The absence of a quorum has

been noted. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

VISIT TO THE SENATE BY PRIME

MINISTER OF ISRAEL YITZHAK

fRABIN

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have

the honor of presenting to the Senate—

and I shall do that in a minute—the

distinguished Prime Minister of Israel,

Mr. Rabin.

RECESS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senate

stand in recess for 5 minutes so that

Senators may greet our distinguished

guest.

There being no objection, the Senate,

at 4:02 p.m., recessed until 4:07 p.m.;

whereupon, the Senate reassembled

when called to order by the Presiding

Officer (Mr. C

fRAIG).

COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY AND LEGAL REFORM ACT

The Senate resumed consideration of

the bill.

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

ORDER FOR CLOTURE VOTE TO BEGIN AT 4:20 P.M.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my

understanding that a couple of our colleagues, one on each side of the aisle,

may not be available until 4:15 or 4:20.

I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote scheduled for 4 p.m. today be

postponed to occur at 4:20 p.m.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would

also ask unanimous consent that the

pending Gorton substitute be modified

to reflect to ‘‘Strike all after the first

word, and insert,’’ and on page 20, line

6, strike ‘‘or (2)’’ and on line 14, strike

‘‘or (2)’’.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I

have discussed this with the leadership.

I would have to object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate we were trying to clear up a procedural problem. The Senator certainly

has every right to object. It may mean

that this will be corrected tomorrow, if

cloture is not invoked today. I hope

cloture will be invoked today.

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE

SENATE ON 50TH ANNIVERSARY

fOF V–E DAY

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today is a

very important day for a number of

people on this Senate floor. It is V–E

Day. May 8, 1945, was a very important

day. We have a V–E Day resolution

that I think deserves a rollcall. I hope

my colleagues would agree that, immediately after the cloture vote, we would

have a vote on the V–E Day resolution.

I send that resolution to the desk and

ask that it be read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 115) expressing the

sense of the Senate that America’s World

War II veterans and their families are deserving of this nation’s respect and appreciation on the 50th anniversary of V–E Day.

The resolution is as follows:

Whereas on May 7, 1945 in Reims, France,

the German High Command signed the document of surrender, surrendering all air, land

and sea forces unconditionally to the Allies;

Whereas President Harry S Truman proclaimed May 8, 1945 to be V–E Day:

Whereas May 8, 1995 is the 50th Anniversary of that proclamation:

Whereas, the courage and sacrifice of the

American fighting men and women who

served with distinction to save the world

from tyranny and aggression should always

be remembered; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the United States Senate

joins with a grateful nation in expressing our

respect and appreciation to the men and

women who served in World War II, and their

families. Further, we remember and pay tribute to those Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice and gave their life for their

country.

The Senate proceeded to consider the

resolution.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is a very

brief resolution. I have taken the liberty of adding World War II veterans as

cosponsors. If some do not want to—I

have Senator EXON, Senator HOLLINGS,

Senator GLENN, Senator INOUYE, Senator STEVENS, Senator HELMS—I think

there are a couple of others—Senator

HEFLIN.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Senator THURMOND.

Mr. DOLE. Senator THURMOND. I will

furnish those names at the desk.

So I hope, unless there is some objection on the other side, that that vote

could follow immediately the vote on

cloture.