Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. The Federal court can follow the substantive law of the State.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, that is correct. It occurs to me on that point that States have learned, for example, from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and I believe also perhaps the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Federal courts adopted rules that proved to be effective, and after a period of time States like Tennessee and others adopted State rules that resemble very much or in some cases are identical to the Federal rules, because over a period of time they proved to be salutary and desirable.

Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct.

Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct.

Mr. THOMPSON. I think that is correct.

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, this is part of the underlying bill, as I understand it, the McConnell amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON. Does the Senator from Kentucky need to proceed before 4 o'clock? Otherwise, I believe we can finish in short order. We need a very few minutes. I think that will probably wind us up.

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, the Senator was talking about punitive damages, and that is the subject of my question. And then the clinic sought to cover up. Finally, one of them called 911. They did several things totally, totally that would constitute gross misconduct. They finally called 911, and then tried to cover up the records. They were caught. A lawyer represented them, charged 30 percent, incidentally, financed the litigation out of his own pocket for 2 years because the plaintiffs did not have the money to do that. Finally, they got to court. The defense, the insurance company, would not settle the case until they got to court. The mother broke down in court and they found out what they were up against in there and settled the case for $3 million. Under this legislation, if this passed, I wonder what the Senator would tell that sobbing mother who was in my office last week in terms of whether or not we ought to tell the State of Tennessee they cannot allow a jury in Tennessee any longer to make that kind of award in a punitive damage case.

Mr. THOMPSON. That seems to be the result of it.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I submit on behalf of myself and Senators Cochran and Simon an amendment that would limit applicability of the product liability to cases in federal court. As currently before the Senate, H.R. 956 would seriously jeopardize the balance between state and federal governments that the Founding Fathers established in the Constitution. States have had responsibility for developing their own rules of tort law--free of federal interference--for more than 200 years. In an unprecedented fashion, the product liability bill would displace state law governing an area always reserved to the states, even when the case is brought in state court. I am troubled by a Washington knows best approach to product liability. Even worse, the displacement of state law is selective. H.R. 956 prevents states from providing less protection to defendants, but not from providing more. This one-size-fits-all bill overlooks both that individual Americans are unique and that states have their own right to determine the law that should apply to their special situations. The bill raises federalism problems in a very practical sense. Because state law would still govern many aspects of product liability law under H.R. 956, there would be numerous questions to litigate concerning the relationship between the federal law and existing state laws. New, different, and inconsistent interpretations of the federal law and the state laws would result. Under the bill, resolution of these issues would be provided from a federal court of appeals. Those courts, not state courts, would ultimately determine the scope and meaning of state law as it interacts with this bill. Moreover, those appeals courts would be deluged with litigation at a time when years elapse before trial of a civil case in federal court, and when Americans rightly demand that federal courts apply swift and certain justice in criminal cases. By contrast, my amendment recognizes that interstate commerce is the justification for a federal product liability bill. It is interstate commerce that justifies federal court jurisdiction in cases brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another. I believe that the rationale of the bill corresponds precisely with the reasons underlying federal diversity jurisdiction. Despite the claims made, no one truly knows the effect of this bill on the ability of injured Americans to recover adequate compensation for injuries caused by defective products. Nor will anyone know whether competitiveness of American business will be enhanced or whether insurance premiums will fall if H.R. 956 is enacted. At the same time, the bill would displace 200 years of law based on actual experience. If the bill failed to achieve its objectives, there would be almost no means of unscrambling the federalized egg. By contrast, applying the bill only to federal court cases would provide an opportunity to experiment. If H.R. 956's ideas work, states can adopt these rules as their own. Potentially, a preemptive approach might then make sense. But if the bill created numerous practical problems, well-tested state law would remain undisturbed while Congress acted to fix the problems in the federal law. The practical effect of my amendment would be that defendants sued out of state in many instances would be able to remove their cases to federal court and obtain the federal rule. Defendants sued in their home state would not be able to remove the case to federal court. Thus, those defendants would be governed by their own state law as applied by their own state court. I believe this is to be a much more sensible approach than the one now before the Senate, and one consistent with the federal system the Constitution created.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. I, first of all, wish to also commend the Senator from Arizona. I think his remarks concerning the need for our strong law enforcement agencies was most timely and most eloquent. Before I address the main point I wanted to make, I must reinforce that. I think too often in this country, whether it be our law enforcement agencies or our military, once we pass a crisis, it is as if we do not need them anymore; once we have won a war, it is as if we do not need the military anymore. And historically we have downsized too rapidly and too much. I think sometimes when things are peaceful here domestically, we feel we do not need a strong CIA, we do not need a strong FBI and law enforcement authorities. These people are out here every day and, as the Senator pointed out, they need our support on a continuous basis. They need the support of the Congress on a continuous basis, not just when there is a crisis, when people tend to overreact. So I am very proud of these agencies. We must do everything we can to make sure that they remain strong, not talking about cutting back the budgets of these agencies, certainly not talking about eliminating them as some have done because they have gotten in a little trouble, and certainly they need oversight. But I think the tragic events of the last several days have just gone to underscore the fact that we must remain strong both domestically and with regard to foreign matters. I was also impressed with what my colleague from Arizona said concerning the time he had over this last recess. I shared many of the same experiences he had. We ran the last campaign based on a very simple notion, and that was the notion of changing the way we do business in this town, in the Congress of the United States. And now we begin to see in newspaper articles, people have gone back home, and the President indicates that some people are not so sure, maybe things are moving too fast, people are not willing to make sacrifices--sure, they want these things done in the broad sense of the word, but when it comes to them, individuals are too selfish to be willing to make any kind of incremental adjustment if it affects them directly; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That is not my experience. I have gone back to Tennessee every weekend since I was elected to the Senate. These last few days have been no different than any other days I have spent out in the country, in country stores, in cafes, talking to people. The message that I get consistently is that this is no time to go lukewarm on our basic commitments, on basically what we ran on. It is not time to go soft on our commitment for a balanced budget amendment. It is not time now to get cold feet on deregulation. It is not time to get lukewarm on welfare reform. These things are our commitments, these things they expect us to follow up on, and they look forward to the leadership that they think we are providing. They only ask that we be fair. I have never talked to a grandparent in the State of Tennessee who was not willing to make some incremental adjustment if they thought it would go to the benefit of their grandchild. And that is the message we have to bring back here. For all of those among our colleagues and in the media who think that Americans are so individually self-centered and selfish that we are not willing on an individual basis to do the things necessary to make for a stronger country, to make a stronger country for our children and grandchildren, I will have to point out to them that they are very much mistaken. The House of Representatives, of course, has been very active and very busy. They have gotten a lot of attention over their agenda and what they have done. individual might think about the Contract With America or any particular provision of the contract, the House of Represenatives did a very, very significant thing that overshadows any individual provision in that contract or the contract in its totality, and what they did was what they said they were going to do. Never before in the history of this country was a program so plainly and simply laid before the American people which said, if we get elected, this is what we will do. They got elected and then they went about doing it. Now it has come to the Senate. It has been pointed out many times that the Senate is not the House. It has been pointed out that things will move slower in the Senate because that is what it is designed to do. This is where the coffee is poured into the saucer to cool. All of that is true. All of that is well and good. I have no problem in spending days on end in the Senate debating the national issues, debating the issues of strong contention where people have legitimate concerns over issues of broad policy that affect the future of this country. I have no problem with debating those matters on end. We do not have any agenda over here except to do the right thing in the right amount of time. What I have problems with is taking days on end on matters which essentially are not controversial, where at the end of the day they pass by 90 or 95 votes to 5. I see no reason why we should get hung up on delay over here for delay's sake. I hope that does not happen. If we have controversial matters that take days, let us take them. But if we have things that we know the American people want and we know that most of the Members of this body want, I say let us get on with it.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the committees have between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on Tuesday, April 18, to file legislative or executive reported items.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the conference report be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on H.R. 889 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following nominations on the Executive Calendar, en bloc: Calendar Nos. 49, 51, 63, 67 through 100, 102, 103, and 104. I further ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of the nomination of Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers to be Inspector General, Department of State; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the nominations be confirmed, en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc; that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record; and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of Senate Resolution 102, expressing the sense of the Senate concerning Pakistan and the visit of Prime Minister Bhutto; further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be deemed read a third time and passed, as amended; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Grassley and Hatch.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to consideration of H.R. 1240, just received from the House.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 49, H.R. 1345.