[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 73 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6141-S6142]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE AMENDMENT ON JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to take a couple of minutes today 
to speak once again in support of the amendment that I have introduced 
along with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.
  The purpose of our amendment which we will soon be voting on is to 
try to expand the portion of the underlying bill on product liability 
that pertains to joint and several liability beyond the realm of 
product liability to other aspects of civil actions.
  As I spoke yesterday on several occasions, and as I have argued in 
quite a variety of settings over the last few weeks during this debate, 
what we are talking about here is what I believe is an underlying 
principle of the American legal process, the principle of fairness and 
the principle of justice. These principles, it seems to me, tend to be 
out of sync in the area of joint and several liability.
  As I have demonstrated in the floor statements I have made, we have 
countless incidents where persons who are only minimally responsible 
for the damages involved in a court action, or other legal action, find 
themselves shouldering all or most of the responsibility for paying 
damages because of the fact that they are the deep pocket.
  Unfortunately, this is not just something that afflicts defendants 
who are big businesses. As I demonstrated, it is also a problem for 
municipal governments, for county governments, for State governments. 
It is a problem that all too often afflicts nonprofit organizations, 
charitable organizations, and the like.
  We heard talk during the debate yesterday that somehow the amendment 
we are speaking of would be adverse to women. But the fact is that 
women do not just find themselves as plaintiffs in legal actions; they 
often find themselves as defendants. They, too, could be victimized by 
the joint and several liability process that we have today. Indeed, 30 
percent of the small businessowners in this country today are women. It 
is the small businesses who are most at risk, in my judgment, unless we 
repair this defect in the legal system at this time.
  For those reasons, Mr. President, I just wanted to conclude the 
debate on this topic--at least from my perspective--by reiterating the 
arguments I made yesterday and by calling on those 
[[Page S6142]] people who have been supportive of reform of the joint 
liability process in the context of product liability, to support this 
effort to expand this notion beyond product liability.
  Every argument that makes sense in the product liability context, 
where the people who are likely to be beneficiaries are the producers 
and manufacturers of products, also makes sense when the people who are 
likely to be aided are average American families, small businesses, 
charitable organizations and municipal governments. If this reform 
makes sense for product manufacturers, I think it equally makes sense 
for the small businesses, the charitable and nonprofit organizations, 
and for the local governments of this country.
  For that reason, I sincerely hope that those individuals who will 
support the product liability legislation will support the expansion of 
this particular provision of that legislation to help the small 
businesses, the cities and towns of America, the average American 
families and, I think most importantly, the communities of our country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are in 
the closing minutes of morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

                          ____________________