S6306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 9, 1995

much fairer to low-income workers,

women who don’t work outside the

home, children and the elderly, who

may not have a great deal of economic

damages. I have no objection to making punitive damages proportionate to

the harm caused by the product, the

goal that the punitive damage limitation is intended to accomplish. That

harm should not, however, be limited

to out of pocket costs or lost wages.

Non-economic damages can often be

difficult to calculate, but that does not

make them any less real.

Indeed, these compensate individuals

for the things that they value most—

the ability to have children, the ability

to have your spouse or child alive to

share in your life, the ability to look in

the mirror without seeing a permanently disfigured face. As a notion of

fundamental fairness, any congressional attempts to create a punitive

damage standard should include both

economic and noneconomic damages in

its formula, as the Rockefeller-Gorton

substitute now does.

In addition, the amended bill contains a provision that will allow a

judge to increase the amount of a punitive damage award, if an increased

award is necessary to either adequately

punish a defendant for its past conduct,

or to adequately deter a defendant

from engaging in such conduct in the

future. I know there have been concerns raised during the course of this

debate that, in some cases, punitive

damages awarded pursuant to the formula will not be sufficient to either

punish or deter. I believe this judge

additur provision addresses these concerns, and I want to thank Senators

ROCKEFELLER and GORTON for their

willingness to add this provision to

their legislation. In my opinion, it

makes a good bill even better, and it

demonstrates their willingness to respond to the concerns of those of us ‘‘in

the middle.’’

Madam President, last year I stood

on the Senate floor, after the Senate

failed to invoke cloture on the Product

Liability Fairness Act, and stated my

desire not to filibuster this bill again.

What I wanted to do was debate what

alterations the Federal Government

should make in the area of product liability law, and to act on a narrow,

moderate product liability bill. I am

pleased to have a chance to act on such

a bill today.

But reporting a bill out of the Senate

is only half of the battle; I also want to

see this legislation enacted in to law. I

believe that can happen, as long as a

House-Senate conference committee

keeps the bill limited to the subject of

product liability, and rejects the draconian, anti-consumer provisions included in legislation which passed the

House of Representatives. The votes in

the Senate during the past 2 weeks

should send a strong signal to the

House that the U.S. Senate does not intend to restrict the ability of ordinary

citizens to access the courts, under the

guise of civil justice reform.

If our colleagues in the House of Representatives truly want a product liability reform bill, I have no doubt

that we can obtain one. Our votes in

the Senate spell out very clearly what

will and will not be acceptable to this

body, and I urge my House colleagues

to consider those votes very carefully.

For despite my desire to enact a product liability reform bill, nothing has

changed about my underlying commitment to equal justice under law. I remain just as opposed to loser-pays provisions, caps on noneconomic damages,

or changes that would restrict the

right of individuals to bring suit for

civil rights violations, employment

discrimination, and sexual harassment,

among other issues, as I have been in

the past, and I will be compelled to oppose any legislation that returns from

a conference including these provisions.

Madam President, in closing, I would

like to commend Senators ROCKEFELLER and GORTON for all of their hard

work to enact a product liability reform bill, not only this year, but in

past Congresses as well. They are to be

commended for championing an issue

that needs to be addressed, and for

doing so in a way that is balanced and

fair. During the past 3 weeks, they

have demonstrated a willingness to listen and resolve the concerns raised by

myself and other Senators, and have

taken steps to improve this legislation.

I commend them for their leadership,

and I am pleased to vote with them

today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

CLOTURE MOTION

fthe previous order, the cloture motion

having been presented under rule XXII,

the Chair directs the clerk to 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 pending substitute amendment to H.R. 956, the

Product Liability bill.

Slade Gorton, Dan Coats, Richard G.

Lugar, John Ashcroft, Rod Grams, Kay

Bailey Hutchison, Judd Gregg, Strom

Thurmond, Trent Lott, Rick

Santorum, Larry E. Craig, Bob Smith,

Don Nickles, R.F. Bennett, John

McCain, Connie Mack.

fVOTE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the Coverdell-Dole

amendment, No. 690, 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 bill clerk called the roll.

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. WARNER] is

necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. MOYNIHAN] is

necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there

any other Senators in the Chamber

who desire to vote?

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 60,

nays 38, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]

YEAS—60

Abraham

Ashcroft

Bennett

Bond

Brown

Burns

Campbell

Chafee

Coats

Cochran

Coverdell

Craig

DeWine

Dodd

Dole

Domenici

Dorgan

Exon

Faircloth

Feinstein

Frist

Gorton

Gramm

Grams

Grassley

Gregg

Hatch

Hatfield

Helms

Hutchison

Inhofe

Jeffords

Johnston

Kassebaum

Kempthorne

Kohl

Kyl

Lieberman

Lott

Lugar

Mack

McCain

McConnell

Mikulski

Moseley-Braun

Murkowski

Nickles

Nunn

Pell

Pressler

Pryor

Robb

Rockefeller

Santorum

Smith

Snowe

Stevens

Thomas

Thompson

Thurmond

NAYS—38

Akaka

Baucus

Biden

Bingaman

Boxer

Bradley

Breaux

Bryan

Bumpers

Byrd

Cohen

Conrad

D’Amato

Daschle

Feingold

Ford

Glenn

Graham

Harkin

Heflin

Hollings

Inouye

Kennedy

Kerrey

Kerry

Lautenberg

Leahy

Levin

Murray

Packwood

Reid

Roth

Sarbanes

Shelby

Simon

Simpson

Specter

Wellstone

NOT VOTING—2

Warner Moynihan

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

INHOFE). Are there any Senators who

wish to change their vote? If there are

no other Senators desiring to vote, on

this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are

38. Three-fifths of the Senators duly

chosen and sworn, having voted in the

REGARDING THE VISIT BY PRESIaffirmative, the motion is agreed to.

DENT LEE TENG-HUI OF THE REfPUBLIC OF CHINA ON TAIWAN TO

THE UNITED STATES

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous

consent that the Senate now turn to

the consideration of Calendar No. 103,

House Concurrent Resolution 53, relative to the visit by the President of

China on Taiwan, and that no amendments be in order to the resolution or

the preamble.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection? The Chair hears none, and it

is so ordered.

The clerk will report the resolution

by title.

The assistant legislative clerk read

as follows:

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 53)

expressing the sense of the Congress regarding a private visit by President Lee Teng-hui

of the Republic of China on Taiwan to the

United States.

The Senate proceeded to consider the

resolution.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.