T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. What is the pending business? Are we operating under any unanimous-consent agreement?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I should like to say how much I appreciate the thoughtful presentation of my colleague, usually seatmate, the chairman of the Labor Committee, on which I serve, the Senator from Kansas, in this connection. She has felt the necessity of moderate, not extreme, reforms in medical malpractice legislation for many years. And she now, I believe, has had the first opportunity ever to discuss legislation of that sort on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I strongly suspect it may not be the last such time, but it at least marks a thoughtful and balanced beginning presentation of a serious challenge to our entire health care system.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota is correct. That is what we are trying to do.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. They can offer amendments on Monday. But I suggest to the leader that there be at least an hour before 11 o'clock for Members to summarize their amendments.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield? Will the Senate come in on Tuesday and have any time before 11 o'clock on Tuesday in which Members can speak to their amendments?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on Overview of Vocational Education, during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 27, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to hold a hearing on Thursday, April 27, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. The focus of the hearing is the Small Business Administration's 7(a) Business Loan Program. For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey at 224-5175.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 27, 1995, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:45 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider S. 537 and H.R. 402, to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet on Thursday, April 27, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct our final hearing on welfare reform.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 27, 1995, for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to approve the creation and jurisdiction of a new subcommittee.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 27, 1995 at 2 p.m.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 27, 1995 at 8 a.m.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 27, 1995, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on The Future of NATO.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to table the Hollings amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, is there a pending amendment? amendment No. 599 offered by the Senator from Washington on behalf of the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we are engaged in the debate over the public liability bill. The pending business is an amendment basically sponsored by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], having to do with rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There will be no votes until at least 6 o'clock this evening, at which time there will be votes both on an amendment by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham], and a second-degree amendment to that amendment sponsored by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings]. As a consequence, there are essentially three amendments to the basic product liability bill before the Senate at this point. It is appropriate to debate each one of them. In addition, I wish all Senators and their staffs who are listening to this debate to understand that while many Members of the Senate are in Mississippi for the funeral of our former colleague, Senator Stennis, it is appropriate at any time during the day to come and speak to any potential future amendment to this bill. We know that it is controversial. We know that there will be amendments to narrow the bill. We know that there will be amendments to broaden the bill. Anything that Members can do to discuss some of their proposals or their general attitudes on the bill itself during the course of the day will be appreciated. How long this evening the majority leader will wish to keep us in session I do not know. But I do know that we will vote on the Hollings second-degree amendment and the Abraham first-degree amendment at approximately 6 o'clock. I know that the majority leader hopes thereafter to deal with the Brown amendment by vote today. After that, under the order, the majority leader himself will present an amendment broadening the scope of the bill as it respects punitive damages. That will be a major amendment to the bill, and it is perfectly appropriate for people to express their views on that subject at any time during the day, even before the amendment itself is adopted. Simply to summarize, this is the first time that the Senate has actually dealt with amendments, engaged in a formal debate on the subject of product liability or, more broadly, tort reform. In spite of the fact that there have been product liability bills introduced and sometimes reported by the Commerce Committee, at least since 1982, and perhaps earlier than that, the bill, in my view and that of my colleague, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], is a balanced approach, balancing the interest of judgment and the prosecution of claims and product liability cases against the undoubted negative impact of product liability litigation on the creation of jobs, on American competitiveness, on the research and development of new products, of the marketing of valid products. The impact of product liability litigation on the marketplace has been distinctly negative. It has dramatically reduced the number of producers of many important medicines, of commodities like football helmets, for example--almost anything that is ever associated with dangerous kinds of activities. We hope not to restrict the access to the courts on the part of people who are injured by the genuine negligence of manufacturers but to see to it that there is a balance in that litigation, a balance which more greatly encourages economic development in this country and encourages fairness by not subjecting manufacturers or wholesalers or retailers to litigation over matters which are not their fault or which subjects them to charges beyond their fault in the case of any such accident. Mr. President, I spoke in general terms the day before yesterday, when this debate began, to the proposition that we now had precise information as to the impact of product liability legislation and did not have to deal with this question entirely in the abstract. In spite of my statement just a few moments ago, there has, in fact, been action by this Congress on one very narrow, focused field of product liability in one very narrowly focused area. For almost a decade, our colleague, the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] has attempted to get relief for the manufacturers of small aircraft. Finally, last year, this Congress passed, with respect to small aircraft, one aspect of this product liability legislation: simply a statute of repose, an 18-year statute of repose, which frustrated lawsuits against the manufacturer with respect to aircraft more than 18 years in age. The fact of so much product liability litigation against those aircraft manufacturers had reduced the production of private aircraft in the United States by companies like Piper and Cessna by some 95 percent over a period of about 20 or 30 years--95 percent, Mr. President. For all practical purposes, that business was defunct in the United States of America, not only, of course, harming the companies, their employees, and their past employees, but limiting the availability of such aircraft to those who wished to purchase them and to fly them. The mere passage into law 1 year ago of a statute of repose for that type of aircraft has already had a remarkably positive impact. Quoting from testimony by the president of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association on this bill, the bill that is before us right now: After stopping the production of piston engine aircraft in 1986 because of spiraling liability costs, Cessna Aircraft recently announced construction of a new production facility for piston-powered airplanes in Independence, Kansas. Cessna plans to build 2,000 planes per year at the new facility and create over 1,500 new jobs. This will generate thousands of additional jobs among suppliers and vendors in Kansas and throughout the United States. Piper Aircraft, which was forced into bankruptcy in 1991 largely due to the costs of product liability suits and the threat of future litigation, is now planning to emerge from bankruptcy in the near future. Piper has increased both its employment and production schedules by thirty percent. There is further testimony on Mooney Aircraft in Kerrville, TX. But, Mr. President, if a modest statute of repose of that nature in one industry, albeit one graphically impacted by product liability litigation, can have such an immense recovery, benefiting, obviously, not only itself, its employees, and its suppliers, but obviously the people, the market out there for these aircraft, how much greater impact--100 times greater, or 1,000 times greater, we do not know--can general, fair, and balanced product liability legislation have in the United States of America, legislation that includes a statute of repose slightly longer, a statute of repose of 20 years, but one which also limits the arbitrary nature of punitive damage awards, one of the greatest fears of all manufacturers, but particularly small manufacturers, in the United States. One such manufacturer who testified before the Commerce Committee shrugged his shoulders and said: ``A single such lawsuit could drive me out of business and destroy the work of an entire lifetime, whether I really had a major responsibility or not.'' Not only because of the unlimited nature of potential punitive damage awards but because of the doctrine of joint liability under which, when there is more than one defendant, one, the deep pocket, can have imposed on it the entire judgment, even though the responsibility of that defendant was, say, only on the order of some 10 percent. So reforms in joint liability, reforms in punitive damages, reforms by reason of a statute of repose, the removal of responsibility from a wholesaler for judgments against the manufacturer, each of these is an important step forward, which not only does not undercut justice but advances the cause of justice. At the same time, reforms can have an impact, perhaps not as dramatic as these to which I have spoken in private business driven aircraft, but across our entire economy vitally important and positive. This, Mr. President, is an important bill. The general subject of legal reform beyond this is important, as well. Just yesterday afternoon, the Senate Labor Committee reported a bill similar to this on the subject of medical malpractice, a vitally important element in any health care reform, in the view of this Senator. So I hope that, certainly by sometime next week, we will be able to But, in order to do so, we need the cooperation of Members. We need them to appear. We need them to speak to their amendments or speak to the bill, to let their views be known, to carry on the debate in the better traditions of the Senate. So, Mr. President, I summarize by saying we are open and ready for business and any Member who wishes to do business will be welcome through the door. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. GORTON. I enjoyed the description by the Senator from Illinois of the Senator from Arkansas. I agree with it. I may also say I believe the Senator from Illinois has described himself.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to comment very briefly on the eloquent remarks of my friend from Colorado. His remarks are equally and highly thoughtful and persuasive. There is no question but that this Senator strongly supports his judgments with respect to rule 11 and the desirability of a return to a much more fair and balanced such rule. At the same time, Mr. President, I must say that rule 11 has little if anything to do with the subject before the Senate, the product liability bill, which almost universally will apply to litigation brought in State courts and, therefore, whether or not it is appropriate to be included with this bill is a question which I think relates primarily to the attitude of Members of the body itself. This is an extremely controversial bill. Should this strengthen its chances for passage, it would be welcome. If it weakens the chance for passage of something as important as product liability, I hope at some point or another the bill would be withdrawn and dealt with at a more appropriate time. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet Wednesday, April 26, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on child welfare programs.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 26, 1995, at 10 a.m. to hold an open confirmation hearing on the nomination of John Deutch to be Director of Central Intelligence.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 26, 1995, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:45 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to review the coordination of and conflicts between the Federal forest management and general environmental statutes.