T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is the third in a series. This is a technical amendment that tolls the statute of limitations in connection with a possible claim against a wholesaler when a manufacturer is bankrupt or judgment proof. It has been cleared by Senator Rockefeller and by the opponents to the bill. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask for a division vote on the resolution of ratification.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the European Affairs Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 3, 1995, at 2 p.m. to hear testimony on Paths/Impediments to NATO Enlargement: Interests/Perceptions of Allies, Applicants, and Russia.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this falls under the same category, dealing with the definition of a rental. I have checked it out with Senator Hollings and it is acceptable and agreed to and not controversial.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk for immediate consideration, and I ask the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is a corrective amendment with respect to the subrogation provisions of the workmen's compensation section. I have checked this out with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. It is not controversial.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON. I move to table the Thompson amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, almost 6 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court decision named Erie Railroad versus Tompkins did all it possibly could to consolidate and rationalize the law relating to actions brought or removed to Federal courts under diversity of jurisdiction by ruling that Federal courts were required to follow State law in such cases. So that it would cut back on forum shopping by lawyers who were looking for a more favorable law than within their own State by choosing between State or Federal courts. For almost 60 years that has been the law and it has worked well. This bill is designed to reduce further the lack of uniformity, shopping among the various States. The Thompson amendment instead of having 50 different jurisdictions and rules with respect to product liability litigation would result in 100 because the rule of the Federal court in Connecticut would be different from the rule in the State court in Connecticut. The rule in the Federal court in West Virginia would be different than the rule in the State court in West Virginia or Washington or Maine. So we would have more confusion, more forum shopping, and less uniformity. That is why primarily the Thompson amendment should be defeated ending this debate. Madam President, I ask for the regular order.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I had earlier announced I would move to table the Thompson amendment at 5:45. I do see on the floor my distinguished colleague and cosponsor, the Senator from Connecticut, who has not spoken on any of these issues today. I ask him if he would like to do so? I am going to certainly defer my motion to table.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I will not make a motion to table until the Senator from South Carolina has all the time he wishes to speak.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to make a few remarks on the Thompson amendment. Before that, I want to see whether or not we can accommodate a number of Members. Rather than seeking a unanimous- consent agreement on a vote for a time certain, I hope that we will be able to debate the Thompson amendment fully. At the same time, there is another amendment that will be proposed by the Senators from Michigan and Kentucky. I hope that we will be able to set aside the present amendment and allow them to speak. I know the Senator from Kentucky is the chairman of the Ethics Committee and must meet with that committee between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. I would like to know whether or not the proponents of the Thompson amendment will permit that amendment to be introduced, for them to speak, and then speak back and forth on both of them--however they want to utilize their rights to continue debate on in this amendment.

Mr. GORTON. I suggest the Senator file it and discuss it with the principal opponents to the overall bill, and perhaps we can do it in 1 or 2 minutes. It looks to me that they do not know what it is about.

Mr. GORTON. This Senator is perfectly willing to deal with the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska, with which he is familiar. I am not sure that the other Senators here are, however. So I do not know that it is cleared yet.

Mr. GORTON. Parliamentary inquiry. Is the rule that all amendments must be filed or formally introduced by 1 o'clock?

Mr. GORTON. Yes, I will.

Mr. GORTON. If that is the case, I obviously will defer asking for such a unanimous-consent but will hope that with support of the amendment we will agree to one. The debate will ultimately be terminated, perhaps, or at least dealt with by a motion to table. But if we can plan the afternoon and evening, it will be helpful.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, first, I should like to inquire of the Senator from Tennessee, and those who support his amendment, whether or not we might reach a time agreement for the disposition of this amendment.