I must start my remarks by confessing that he really had me dead to rights on one of the comments that he made about the impact of his own amendment. I will have to confess error and then say that I believe that error strengthens my case rather than weakens it. I had said earlier during the course of this debate that the result of the passage of this amendment, giving litigants in every State two choices of different laws to enforce would simply mean, because of the restrictions included in the bill here, that all plaintiffs' lawyers would seek to bring their actions in the State courts in order to avoid the restrictions on punitive damages and on joint liability. And the Senator from Tennessee quite properly pointed out that there are a number of instances in which this bill, the Rockefeller-Gorton bill, treats plaintiffs' claimants more liberally than do the laws of various States. He took the statute of repose, which is 20 years in this bill, 10 to 12 years in most States that have a statute of repose--obviously, if the cause of action was based on a piece of machinery or a product that was 15 years old, the choice would be to go into Federal court and get the advantage of that more liberal provision.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Thompson amendment and its implications during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from T. Gorton
That was the intent of the Committee. This research is very promising and I thank you for bringing this point to our attention.
I was about to say, for the benefit of my friend from Nevada, isn't it fortunate that the Congress of the United States, in the first decade of the 19th century, didn't prohibit the development of a steam engine because it might explode…
The Senator from Nevada is entirely correct. If we can only take a quick vote on it with the Senators on the floor now, we would probably succeed. Unfortunately, we have yet to persuade all of our colleagues of this matter. The question…
Initially--that amount was subject to a 0.48 percent across-the-board reduction; consequently, the House-passed funding level is $24.282 million, or $377,000 more than what the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported.





