[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6305-S6306]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY AND LEGAL REFORM ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal standards and 
     procedures for product liability litigation, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Gorton amendment No. 596, in the nature of a substitute.
       Coverdell-Dole amendment No. 690 (to amendment No. 596), in 
     the nature of a substitute.
       Gorton-Rockefeller modified amendment No. 709 (to amendment 
     No. 690), in the nature of a substitute.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, as I stated at the outset of 
debate on this bill, I believe it makes sense to have some basic, 
national product liability standards that apply across the board. In 
1995, products manufactured in Illinois are no longer shipped down the 
street; instead, they are shipped throughout the 50 States, and beyond. 
The Constitution of the United States, in article 1, section 8, grants 
Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Where our product 
liability system acts as a disincentive to the manufacture and sale of 
goods in interstate commerce, Congress has not only a right, but a 
duty, to reform that system. I believe the Product Liability Fairness 
Act, while not perfect, is a good step in the reform process, and I am 
proud to cast my vote in favor of this bill.
  I would like to add how pleased I am that, during the past weeks, the 
Senate very carefully considered and debated each and every amendment 
that was offered to this bill. I am particularly pleased by the 
compromise amendment that will soon be offered as a substitute 
amendment. I believe that the amendment significantly improves the 
committee reported bill, and I know that it would not have been 
possible without the vigorous debate that surrounded this legislation.
  I strongly support the changes being made to the punitive damages 
section of the bill Rockefeller-Gorton substitute. While the original 
bill linked the calculation of punitive awards to economic damages, the 
amended bill instead links punitives to compensatory damages, a 
standard that is 
 [[Page S6306]]  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.


                          ____________________