[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour 
of 10:15 a.m. having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration 
of S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 4) to promote the industrial competitiveness and 
     economic growth of the United States by strengthening and 
     expanding the civilian technology programs in the Department 
     of Commerce, and so forth, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to S. 
4, the National Competitiveness Act, which would establish a 15-year 
statute of repose for general aviation aircraft. I am offering this 
amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Dole, Danforth, Gorton, 
Hatch, and McCain. I would also like to mention, Madam President, that 
the general aviation revitalization legislation has 50 cosponsors.
  In some ways I suppose this seems like deja vu all over again. We 
have been trying for many years to get this particular piece of 
legislation to a vote on the Senate floor. This is identical to the 
legislation that was introduced earlier this year, which, as I 
mentioned, now has 50 cosponsors.
  I believe this amendment is germane to the underlying bill because, 
if passed, it will create thousands of well-paying engineering and 
manufacturing jobs in the United States which is the very purpose of S. 
4.
  Madam President, if I may, I would just like to go through a bit of a 
history on why there are so many of us who feel so strongly that this 
legislation is important.
  When I came to the Senate in 1979, the United States was a world 
leader in the production of piston-powered aircraft. At that time, the 
U.S. companies were selling 13,000 piston-powered airplanes annually. 
Today, U.S. companies deliver closer to 500 piston-powered planes per 
year. This reduction in sales has decimated employment in the industry. 
The President's Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline 
Industry estimates that more than 100,000 jobs have been lost in 
manufacture, sales, service, and related general aviation industries.
  Madam President, when an industry that is important to our Nation's 
future collapses, we need to identify the cause of the collapse and 
develop a remedy. According to virtually every source familiar with 
general aviation, including an independent panel of experts assembled 
by the President, the industry's collapse is primarily the result of 
U.S. laws which, among other things, continue to hold domestic 
manufacturers liable for design and manufacture of planes that were 
built 30, 40, or 50 years ago.
  Subjecting U.S. plane manufacturers to this indefinite liability 
significantly increases the cost of domestically produced planes and 
gives foreign manufacturers a competitive advantage over U.S. 
companies. I should like to suggest, Madam President, that we are 
losing what has been the cutting edge in many ways of our manufacturing 
sector in aviation, which is general aviation airplanes, to foreign 
development today simply because it has become so expensive for 
manufacturers to manufacture piston-powered airplanes and for most 
people to purchase them. Many first-time fliers learn to fly and have 
gone into the field over their lifetime to be contributors to aviation 
because they started with a piston-powered airplane they were able to 
afford.
  Never-ending liability increases the cost of domestically produced 
planes by requiring manufacturers to pay the costs associated with 
insuring a very large fleet of older planes. As the cost of insuring 
the older planes increases, the only way to generate the money needed 
to cover that business expense is to increase the selling price of the 
newly manufactured planes. Industry surveys have shown that product 
liability costs paid by domestic manufacturers are approximately 
$70,000 per plane. That is as much as a piston-powered plane used to 
cost 20 years ago. Now just the insurance per plane is $70,000.
  These high liability costs now make it virtually impossible for 
domestic manufacturers to produce airplanes that are affordable for 
flying clubs, aviation schools, and those, as I mentioned earlier, who 
are starting out and wishing to make a career in aviation or be able to 
just utilize a smaller, less expensive plane for communication. Many 
farmers, many people living in rural areas had these small piston-
powered planes.
  Foreign plane manufacturers, on the other hand, are not significantly 
burdened by high liability costs. These companies are relative 
newcomers to the general aviation industry so they do not have a large 
fleet of 20 to 50 airplanes to insure.
  Consequently, the liability expenses they must build into the cost of 
their new plane is dramatically less than American companies. Foreign 
plane manufacturers enjoy an additional competitive advantage because 
the European Community and a number of other countries have established 
the 10-year statute of repose. Since foreign manufacturers sell a 
substantial portion of their planes outside of the United States, a 
large bulk of their aging fleet is shielded from indefinite liability 
expense. United States manufacturers are not so fortunate. Most of 
their planes are flown in the United States where the liability 
continues forever.
  Even when U.S. planes were purchased and flown abroad, domestic 
manufacturers can often be sued in the United States under U.S. laws 
since this is where the plane was manufactured. Thus, domestically 
produced planes do not enjoy the full benefits of foreign statutes of 
repose.
  Madam President, in case anyone is confused about what a statute of 
repose is, I would like to take a few minutes to explain it. For 
nonlawyers such as myself, it may be easiest to think of a statute of 
repose as essentially a statute of limitations. In effect, a statute of 
repose says that products which last a significant period of time prove 
themselves safe for their intended use. In other words, the product's 
durability proves the quality of its design and construction. Products 
with design or manufacturing flaws do not last long. Products without 
design or manufacturing flaws do.
  A statute of repose says that once a product has proven itself over 
many years the company that produced it should not have to go bankrupt 
defending itself against charges that the product was poorly 
manufactured. The product may have been improperly maintained or 
improperly used. But when a product such as an airplane lasted for 15 
years, it is not improperly designed or manufactured.
  A statute of repose for general aviation aircraft that I am offering 
today would prevent lawsuits against general aviation airframes and 
component parts which are more than 15 years old. When a component part 
is replaced, the 15-year statute of repose must begin anew for that 
particular part. For example, a ball bearing on a piston engine 
airplane is replaced when the plane is 14 years old. Four years later, 
when the plane is 18, the plane crashes, and the ball bearing that was 
replaced is found to be the cause of the accident. In this situation, 
the company which manufactured the faulty ball bearing will be liable 
because it did not last for 15 years. However, companies which 
manufactured other parts on the airplane that have lasted for over 15 
years cannot be sued by a plaintiff who is simply looking for deep 
pockets.
  I cannot overstate the need for this legislation, Madam President. 
Lawsuits against manufacturers for planes that were built decades ago 
are killing the production of piston engine airplanes in the United 
States. Beech Aircraft has determined that it spends over $500,000 per 
case defending itself in lawsuits where the National Transportation 
Safety Board has already determined that its airframe was not the cause 
of the accident.
  The amendment I am offering today, along with my cosponsors, who feel 
just as strongly and passionately about this issue as I do, is narrow 
in scope and would not change product liability laws related to the 
rules of evidence, joint and several liability, punitive damages, 
standards of care, or the allocation of damages according to 
comparative fault.
  Instead, it would simply create a rolling 15-year statute of repose 
on civil actions brought against aircraft manufacturers or 
manufacturers of general aviation component parts. It is a very simple 
piece of legislation that will have enormous benefits for the public 
and for the general aviation industry.
  It has been changed and revised through the years that we have 
attempted to offer it and get a vote on the Senate floor in ways that I 
think it has become a very precise and a simple piece of legislation; 
just a 15-year statute of repose.
  U.S. airplane manufacturers should not be indefinitely held 
responsible for products that are operated, repaired, serviced, and 
modified by others. To do so is to punish domestic airplane 
manufacturers for the durability of their product. A 15-year statute of 
repose would limit the manufacturer's liability to a reasonable time 
period, reduce the cost of new planes, and create thousands of jobs. 
Cessna, the world's largest producer of piston airplanes, until 
liability exposure forced the company to cease its production in 1986, 
has already announced that it will hire 2,000 workers and immediately 
begin producing piston aircraft once a 15-year statute of repose is 
passed. Many other companies have expressed similar plans.
  Madam President, just over a decade ago, U.S. manufacturers were the 
world's leaders in the production of piston airplanes, but as sales 
have decreased, tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost. 
The amendment now pending would add no cost to the Federal Government 
and would bring many of those jobs back.
  The National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline 
Industry calls the measure one of the most important jobs and 
international competitiveness issues in its entire report. John 
Peterpaul, of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
Workers, has stated that this legislation ``will restore our 
competitiveness at home and abroad. It will create thousands of new, 
high-paying jobs in the stable private sector without costing the U.S. 
Treasury a dime. It gives employment opportunities, without expensive 
retraining, to defense workers who are, or will be, seeking 
employment.''
  This amendment has the support of manufacturers, labor, and aviation 
consumer groups. This legislation is good for America, and I urge its 
adoption.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I want to compliment the distinguished 
Senator from Kansas for her leadership on this issue. This is an 
extremely important issue. It has to do with whether or not our piston 
aviation industry is going to survive; frankly, whether thousands and 
thousands of jobs will be permanently lost in our country. And without 
her leadership I do not think it would be this far along.
  I understand that the Judiciary Committee, upon which I sit and am 
the ranking minority member, has asked for a sequential referral on 
this. Ordinarily, I would agree with that. But frankly, I do not think 
we should delay this bill or this amendment by waiting for a sequential 
referral. I think we ought to go forward with it and face the problems 
right now. These are not complicated problems, these are not 
incomprehensible problems, and these are not problems that really 
should wait for a solution. It is really kind of a simple, 
straightforward, yet effective amendment.
  Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very 
important issue, and as an original cosponsor of the General Aviation 
Revitalization Act of 1993 with Senator Kassebaum, I offer my strong 
support for Senator Kassebaum's amendment.
  Senator Kassebaum's efforts have been stellar over the years in 
attempting to secure congressional approval for product liability 
reform for the general aviation industry. I commend her again for her 
leadership on this issue here today.
  Madam President, as we debate the Kassebaum amendment, let us not 
forget the broader issue that has brought all of us here today, 
competition, and the ability we have as a nation to be competitive in a 
global economy. We have to ask ourselves whether or not we think that 
passing a 15-year statute of repose will help to increase the 
competitiveness of our general aviation industry throughout the world.

  I am here to tell you that not only will a 15-year statute of repose 
improve the industry's competitiveness in both domestic and global 
markets, but it will also mark the first step toward realizing the 
importance of establishing a reasonable liability standard that serves 
to balance the rights of consumers with the ability of our Nation's 
industries to grow and maintain growth.
  Madam President, if we do not realize the dire importance of 
liability reform to our ability to be competitive, we risk driving our 
country into economic ruin. In a recent poll by the Aircraft Owners and 
Pilots Association of its members, product liability was identified 
overwhelmingly as the most distressing issue facing its members.
  This fact is extremely significant when you consider that the AOPA 
membership is comprised of consumers who are the likely victims of 
accidents involving general aviation. Therefore, although AOPA 
maintains strong interests in providing an adequate and fair 
compensation system, it recognizes the need for reform in this area and 
has strongly endorsed the 15-year statute of repose.
  There have been strong endorsements for reform in general aviation 
product liability from virtually all aviation-related industry groups, 
including the International Association of Machinists, the Airplane 
Pilots Association, and other labor groups. In addition, the 
President's Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry 
recommended in its report to the President that a 15-year statute of 
repose for the general aviation industry be enacted.
  Madam President, let us look at exactly why there is so much support 
for a statute of repose. Telling indicators of the exponential growth 
in product liability for the aviation industry include the fact that 
from 1979 to 1986, damages and litigation costs paid by manufacturers 
of Federal Aviation Administration-approved aircraft increased more 
than 800 percent, going from $24 million to $210 million in that period 
of time.
  In 1986, Cessna Aircraft Corp. stopped all production of piston 
airplanes due to high liability costs. And Piper Aircraft, a great 
company, declared bankruptcy in 1990, citing liability costs as the 
primary factor.
  Madam President, we all understand that economic factors play a role 
in every industry in the country, and we also understand that it is not 
feasible or desirable to attempt to rescue every industry that 
experiences some hard times due to economic cycles. Yes, there have 
been ups and downs in the general aviation industry over the past 
decade, and there will continue to be ups and downs. However, product 
liability costs have risen quickly and steadily over the past 10 to 15 
years, and since 1978 shipments of general aviation aircraft have 
declined 95 percent.
  Contrast this scenario with what is happening to foreign production 
of piston aircraft. Certainly, piston aircraft are not becoming 
obsolete. Rather, production is shifting to other countries due to the 
unrelenting liability suits and their attendant cost increases in the 
United States.
  For example, in 1980 there were 29 domestic piston airplane 
manufacturers and 15 foreign manufacturers. Today, there are 29 foreign 
manufacturers and 9 domestic manufacturers. It is interesting to note 
that the European Community has enacted a 10-year statute of repose. 
This becomes a very significant factor when you consider that over 90 
percent of the total world production of piston aircraft now comes from 
Europe.
  I could go into much more detail regarding the plight of the general 
aviation industry over the past decade or so. However, in the interest 
of accommodating many of my colleagues, who I know want to speak in 
support of the Kassebaum amendment, I would like to limit my comments 
to two specific areas.
  First, I have the feeling that many Members of Congress may be 
harboring fears that creating a statute of limitations in the area of 
general aviation product liability will be opening a Pandora's box. 
Therefore, I want to make it very clear what this amendment will and 
will not do.
  Let me state for the Record that the Kassebaum amendment does not 
create a Federal standard of liability; it does not limit the 
jurisdiction of any State court; and it does not attempt to change 
existing State laws regarding joint and several liability, comparative 
fault, or punitive damages.
  It is no secret that I would like to see reforms in all of these 
areas. In fact, I cosponsored, earlier in this session, a much more 
comprehensive piece of legislation that attempts to deal with these 
very issues on a broader scale. However, I recognize that there is 
significant reluctance among many of my colleagues to support more 
drastic reforms. Therefore, the statute of repose offers a more than 
reasonable compromise while creating a needed boost to the general 
aviation industry--an industry that has lost 50 percent of its 
employees over the past decade.
  This brings me to my second and final point, which is jobs. This is 
an issue in which everybody in this body is extremely interested. Mr. 
Russ Meyer, chairman and CEO of Cessna, has recently indicated that if 
the statute of repose is passed, Cessna will increase production by 
1,500 to 2,000 aircraft. This would mean the creation of several 
thousand jobs all across the Nation in the general aviation industry. 
That may not be counting the spinoffs that come from the manufacturing 
itself.
  In my home State of Utah alone, it is estimated by one engine 
manufacturer that if the statute of repose legislation is passed, it 
will create at least 150 new jobs. And this is not to mention potential 
benefits at another Utah manufacturing facility and many other service-
related facilities within Utah.
  Madam President, in this time of increased business costs, increasing 
global competition, and general downsizing in many industries in this 
country--all resulting in job losses--I hope the Senate will realize 
the importance of supporting this amendment. It will not cost even a 
dime of the taxpayers' money. We do not have to struggle with offsets, 
or budget points of order.
  It is time that we lift these barriers in our ability to compete, 
which is the very reason we are here today with this legislation.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1477

                 (Purpose: To add a title to the bill.)

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], for herself, Mr. 
     Dole, Mr. Danforth, Mr. McCain, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Hatch 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1477.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the committee substitute add the following:

               TITLE VII--GENERAL AVIATION REVITALIZATION

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``General Aviation 
     Revitalization Act of 1994''.

     SEC, 702. TIME LIMITATION ON CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST AIRCRAFT 
                   MANUFACTURERS.

       Title XI of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 
     App. 1510-1518) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 1119. TIME LIMITATION ON CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST 
                   AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS.

       ``(a) In General.--No civil action for damages for death or 
     injury to persons or damage to property arising out of an 
     accident involving a general aviation aircraft may be brought 
     against the manufacturer of the aircraft or the manufacturer 
     of any component, system, subassembly, or other part of the 
     aircraft, if the accident occurred--
       ``(1) more than 15 years after--
       ``(A) the date of delivery of the aircraft to its first 
     purchaser or lessee, if delivered directly from the 
     manufacturer; or
       ``(B) the date of first delivery of the aircraft to a 
     person engaged in the business of selling or leasing such 
     aircraft; or
       ``(2) with respect to any component, system, subassembly, 
     or other part which replaced another product originally in, 
     or which was added to, the aircraft, and which is alleged to 
     have caused the claimant's damages, more than 15 years after 
     the date of the replacement or addition.
       ``(b) General Aviation Aircraft Defined.--For the purposes 
     of this section, the term `general aviation aircraft' means 
     any aircraft for which a type certificate or an airworthiness 
     certificate has been issued by the Administrator, which, at 
     the time such certificate was originally issued, had a 
     maximum seating capacity of fewer than 20 passengers, and 
     which was not, at the time of the accident, engaged in 
     scheduled passenger carrying operations as defined under 
     regulations issued under this Act.
       ``(c) Relationship to Other Laws.--This section supersedes 
     any Federal or State law to the extent that such law permits 
     a civil action described in subsection (a) to be brought 
     after the applicable deadline for such civil action 
     established by subsection (a).''.

  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, perhaps this single amendment, more than 
any single other element in the wide-ranging debate over product 
liability and medical malpractice, illustrates better than any other 
the devastating impact that unlimited and unchecked litigation can have 
on an industry.
  The general aviation industry--and particularly the industry which 
produces piston driven aircraft--has literally been destroyed by 
product liability litigation, litigation which often involves aircraft 
manufactured decades before that litigation has begun.
  We have hurt our international competitiveness and our balance of 
trade. We have destroyed thousands of jobs, and we have almost 
destroyed a historic and important American industry by our inattention 
to this issue over the course of the last decade.
  The amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Kansas will 
allow us to take a step in the right direction, a step which is backed 
not only by the business enterprises, the manufacturers, but by the 
labor unions and by the other people who work in this industry, and by 
the primary organization representing the owner's private aircraft.
  Just look once again at some of the statistics. An industry which 
produced 18,000 aircraft in 1978 now produces roughly 900 aircraft--a 
tiny percentage; an industry which was faced with product liability 
costs of $24 million in the mid-1970's per year, 10 years later, had 
multiplied by almost 10 times that amount to $210 million.
  One company is completely out of business. Another company is 
producing less than 20 percent of what it produced before. A third 
company is producing 2 percent of what it had produced before.
  This is an interesting insight, Madam President. The National 
Transportation Safety Board, an organization we created to look into 
accidents, and in this case aircraft accidents, reported that in 203 
accidents which resulted in litigation against the Beech Aircraft Co. 
between 1983 and 1986, design or manufacturing error was not a cause of 
any of the accidents. Yet the average cost of each one of those 
lawsuits to the manufacturer was $530,000--$530,000 multiplied by 203 
lawsuits--in which the expert outside board determined that 
manufacturing and design defects were not the cause of the accident.
  What do we have on the other hand, Madam President? Should we grant a 
15-year statute of repose? One company says that within 5 years, more 
than 25,000 jobs would be created at no cost to the Government--25,000 
jobs by this one piece of legislation. No wonder the labor unions who 
represent workers in that industry are in favor of it.
  The members of President Clinton's Airline Commission last year 
unanimously supported the enactment of this legislation.
  Manufacturers, labor, the primary use organizations all favor a 
reform of product liability in this field by a 15-year statute of 
repose. It is opposed only by one interest group, the Trial Lawyers 
Association, which has literally been the only group to profit from the 
kind of litigation with which we are faced.
  This amendment in bill form is sponsored by exactly half of the 
Members of this body and by a majority of Members of the House of 
Representatives, including the committees which will be represented on 
any conference committee.
  If this amendment is adopted by the Senate, the chances that it will 
be law are excellent.
  But when we talk about a bill which will spend billions of dollars 
designed to increase American competitiveness, designed to see to it 
that we have good, skilled jobs in the future, let us take a step in 
connection with that bill that clearly will restore a dramatic and 
historic American industry that clearly will put people back to work 
and that clearly will reduce the trade deficit which has been created 
by this kind of litigation.
  Let us give our private aircraft manufacturers a break. Let us let 
them get back into business. Let us create jobs for the American 
people. Let us pass the Kassebaum amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the 
amendment proposed by the Senator from Kansas, and I would like to 
begin my remarks by congratulating her for her many years' effort. I 
believe it is going on 10 years now that the Senator from Kansas has 
been attempting to get legislation, this type of legislation, before 
the Senate and the Congress.
  I would also like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, who although he is very strong in his opposition to this 
legislation, has allowed it to be reported out from the Senate and to 
the floor. I appreciate that, and I believe that legislation and 
product liability, which he is also allowing to move through the 
committee, are very important.
  I want to thank Senator Danforth also for his many years of effort on 
this issue.
  As a result of a law passed by Congress, Public Law 103-13, on April 
7, 1993, a National Commission to ensure a strong competitive airline 
industry was created.
  Madam President, this Commission was created because of the ongoing 
problems that we have in the aviation industry ranging, of course, from 
the lack of ability for certain airlines to compete, the global nature 
of the airline industry--all kinds of difficulties and challenges that 
we see facing what many of us view as the major thrust of commerce in 
the world in the next century. And that, of course, is aviation.
  This Commission's mandate by the Congress and signed by the President 
``was to investigate, study and make policy recommendations about the 
financial health and future competitiveness of the U.S. airline and 
aerospace industries.'' The report was due 90 days after the 
appointment of the Commission.
  The Commission's membership consists of 15 voting and 11 nonvoting 
members. Five voting members were appointed by the President, five by 
the Senate leadership and five by the House leadership.
  The point is the Commission was bipartisan, with members appointed 
from ``among individuals who are experts in aviation economics, 
finance, international trade and related disciplines and who can 
represent airlines, passengers, shippers, airline employees, aircraft 
manufacturers, general aviation, and the financial community.''
  The chairman of the Commission is a voting member of the Commission.
  At the opening session, President Clinton and Transportation 
Secretary Pena challenged the Commission to review all aspects of the 
airline and aerospace industries to develop recommendations to ensure 
their strength and competitiveness in the domestic and global 
marketplaces.
  President Clinton said:

       I think there is a real consensus in America that the 
     people who make airplanes and equipment and the people who 
     run our airlines are critical to our economic future.

  The Commission Chairman Gerald L. Baliles said the Commission 
``should be prepared to question some of the most basic assumptions 
that formed the foundation of policy toward this industry--and behavior 
within it--for the past half century.''
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete names of 
the members of this Commission be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Members of the Commission


                             voting members

       Gerald L. Baliles, Chairman.
       Bette B. Anderson.
       J. Randolph Babbitt.
       Charles M. Barclay.
       Robert F. Daniell.
       Sylvia A. de Leon.
       Daniel M. Kasper.
       Herbert D. Kelleher.
       Russell W. Meyer, Jr.
       John F. Peterpaul.
       Sandra Pianalto.
       John E. Robson.
       Felix G. Rohatyn.
       Abraham D. Sofaer.
       Gina F. Thomas.


                           nonvoting members

       Senator John Danforth.
       Senator J. James Exon.
       Senator Slade Gorton.
       Senator Ernest Hollings.
       Senator Patty Murray.
       Representative Robert Borski.
       Representative Maria Cantwell.
       Representative Richard Gephardt.
       Representative Newt Gingrich.
       Representative Bud Shuster.
       Dr. Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Chair, Council of Economic 
     Advisors.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, in August 1993, this Commission 
published a report to the President and Congress from the National 
Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitiveness Airline Industry, titled 
``Change, Challenge, and Competition.'' On page 26, the recommendation 
reads as follows:

       The United States was once the world leader in the 
     production of general aviation aircraft, those used other 
     than by the military, the airlines, and the Government. 
     Although the United States remains a world leader in 
     production and sale of business jets, production of light 
     piston aircraft have been reduced to a trickle by the 
     enormous ongoing cost of open-ended product liability.

  Madam President, this is not my view or opinion. This is the view and 
the opinion of the most distinguished people in America that we could 
find to come up with recommendations to ensure the viability of 
aviation, the future of U.S. general aviation in America.
  I repeat:

       Although the United States remains a world leader in 
     production and sale of business jets, production of light 
     piston aircraft have been reduced to a trickle by the 
     enormous ongoing cost of open-ended product liability. Annual 
     piston aircraft sales, which averaged 30,000 per year from 
     1965 to 1982, have increased barely 500 per year. Many 
     factors are at play. But the added cost of liability 
     insurance forced prices up, causing sharply increased cost 
     for personal and short-range business flying. More than 
     100,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing, sales, service, 
     and related industries.

  I repeat, the Commission states their view, not mine:

       More than 100,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing, 
     sales, service, and related industries.

  Historically, at least 30 percent of the general aviation aircraft 
produced in the United States have been exported. This country has lost 
this important contribution to its trade balance. The enactment of 
legislation limiting the liability of general aviation manufacturers to 
15 years from the date of manufacture would help regenerate a once 
healthy industry and help re-create thousands of jobs.
  We recommend enactment of a statute of repose for general aviation 
aircraft which would limit the liability of manufacturers for these 
aircraft to 15 years from the date of manufacture, exactly what Senator 
Kassebaum's legislation says today. This is the recommendation of a 
Commission which was appointed by the President and created by 
Congress, the members of which were appointed by the President and 
Members of both House and Senate in a bipartisan fashion, and their 
recommendation was enactment of a statute of repose for general 
aviation aircraft which would limit the liability of manufacturers of 
these aircraft to 15 years from the date of manufacture.
  Madam President, it is hard for me to justify the appointment of a 
Commission of some of the best minds in America, who meet for months, 
who come up with a recommendation which is very--I might say pretty--
documented here, which I am sure is an enormous expense to the 
taxpayers of America, and for us to completely ignore their 
recommendations.
  I think it is also important to point out that following their August 
1993 recommendations, there was a staff report which was presented and 
which, interestingly enough, on October 28, 1993, the staff proposals 
for civil aviation was sent to the President. Now, the National Airline 
Commission, taking exception to some of the staff proposals for civil 
aviation, stated as follows:

       The need for action on these issues--a 15-year statute of 
     repose for general aviation aircraft and ratification of the 
     Montreal Protocols--seems clear to the Commission.
       On the issue of a statute of repose, it is clear that this 
     once competitive sector of our manufacturing industry cannot 
     be revived unless this step is taken.

  I repeat, the members of the Commission state:

       It is clear that this once competitive sector of our 
     manufacturing industry cannot be revived unless this step is 
     taken. This is one of the most important jobs and 
     international competitive issues in our report. It is a 
     limited and targeted response to a demonstrated problem. The 
     Commission helped set the political stage for this issue to 
     be viewed as such, rather than just another tort reform 
     issue. For the staff draft to remand it to an overall 
     liability study with no ending date is unsatisfactory.
       The President was quite interested in this issue during our 
     meeting with him, and the statute of repose bill has 
     attracted wide support on Capitol Hill. Since publication of 
     our report, the House version has attracted such significant 
     support that 255 Members of the House have now signed on as 
     cosponsors. Several manufacturers have indicated they will 
     start production and add jobs upon enactment. That is why 
     this proposal has support from both manufacturers and labor. 
     The time is right, right now.

  I can only echo the words of the members of the Commission on airline 
competitiveness that said the time is right and it is right now. And 
that is why Senator Kassebaum's legislation needs to be approved.
  I would like to also make mention of the comments of John Goglia, who 
is the president of the International Association of Machinists and 
Aerospace Workers, speaking for the IAM.

       I have been asked by John Peterpaul, IAM general vice 
     president for transportation, to represent the IAM at this 
     morning's rally. . .
       John Peterpaul and the IAM leadership wants Congress to 
     know that the IAM enthusiastically supports legislation 
     establishing a 15-year statute of repose for general and 
     business aircraft and component parts manufacturers.
       In the past, the IAM has been reluctant to support various 
     measures which would amend manufacturers' legal 
     responsibility for manufacturing defects. However, an 
     extensive review of the general aviation industry and the 
     work of the President's Airline Commission, of which Mr. 
     Peterpaul was a member, has firmly established that a statute 
     of repose will assist in revitalizing America's once great 
     general aviation industry.
       Equally important to the IAM, we believe that this 
     legislation is fair to the aircraft users. Alleged claimants 
     will always have an appropriate party to properly pursue 
     their legal remedies. There are no caps on awards or 
     attorney's fees. Everyone in the industry, including 
     operators, support this bill.

  I repeat:

       Everyone in the industry, including operators, support this 
     bill.
       Obviously, this legislation is good for America. It will 
     restore our competitiveness at home and abroad. It will 
     create thousands of new, high-paying jobs in the stable 
     private sector without costing the U.S. Treasury a dime. It 
     gives employment opportunities, without expensive retraining, 
     to defense workers who are, or will be, seeking employment as 
     factories and military bases are reduced or closed in the 
     wake of new national budgetary priorities. We can unshackle 
     American technology and know-how and once again lead the 
     world in aircraft and equipment innovation.
       Today, the IAM is asking Congress to join with industry and 
     labor to support this important legislative initiative to 
     establish a 15-year statute of repose for general aviation 
     and business aircraft and component parts manufacturers.

  Now Madam President, I would just like to demonstrate one of the 
reasons why this issue is long overdue. In keeping with the remarks of 
the statement I just read from the International Aviation and Machinist 
Union and Aerospace Workers Union, this legislation of Senator 
Kassebaum's has been endorsed by the Airline Commission that I talked 
about, all general aviation consumer groups, the National Aviation 
Association Coalition, the national and local labor unions and a broad 
based coalition of Members of Congress. As I mentioned, 255 Members of 
the other body have already cosponsored this legislation.
  Why are there so many in such support and why did the Airline 
Commission make this such a high priority? Because of the product 
liability's toll.
  Over 100,000 jobs have been lost in general aviation over the past 10 
years. As far as aircraft manufacturers are concerned, employment is 
down 46 percent; piston engine manufacturers, employment is down 74 
percent; FBO's, the number is down 55 percent; and student pilot 
training is down 61 percent. There are no two-seat training aircraft 
being made in the United States.
  Madam President, if 30 years ago we had said there are no two-seat 
training aircraft manufactured in the United States of America, they 
would have said you are crazy. And, of course, piston airline exports 
naturally are down 93 percent. Those that are concerned about the trade 
deficit we have with foreign countries should be interested in the fact 
that our piston airline exports is down 93 percent and the market has 
been taken over by foreign manufacturers.
  I believe we have that chart.
  In 1980, there were 29 U.S. piston airplane manufacturers, 15 
foreign. Today, there is 29 foreign and 9 United States.
  Airplane shipments are down 95 percent since 1978. This not only 
translates into hundreds of millions of dollars but thousands and 
thousands of jobs. And this is part of the reason of how you come up 
with a loss of 100,000 jobs in this industry.
  I believe, Madam President, this amendment will restore some justice 
and it will restore jobs. I also would note that the dire consequences 
of this once healthy industry has other serious consequences and that 
is if we do not provide new training aircraft for our future pilots, 
what happens to our air transportation system?
  There is no doubt in my mind, Madam President, that the commercial 
aviation will continue to grow and expand despite the difficulties and 
problems we see in the short term. We are in a global economy. The way 
that we will see goods and people transported from one place to another 
will be primarily through aviation. Sometime in the next century, an 
aircraft will take off at Tokyo Airport and 2\1/2\ hours later land in 
Los Angeles, Phoenix or even Washington, DC. Aircraft manufacturers are 
working on this very aircraft as we speak.
  The president of Cessna has said the company would resume production 
of piston-powered aircraft and have manufacturing plants to immediately 
start production at a rate of 2,000 per year if this legislation is 
approved by Congress.
  Madam President, there is one very powerful organization that opposes 
this legislation. We know who it is. It is the American Trial Lawyers 
Association.
  I will never forget twice in hearings that we held in the Aviation 
Subcommittee when I asked the witness from the American Trial Lawyers 
Association if he would be willing to sit down and talk about how we 
could possibly reach a resolution of this issue, they refused to do so; 
one of the few times I have seen a witness before a congressional 
committee who has said they would not even talk about trying to do 
something together in order to alleviate this very serious situation.
  Madam President, there are facts and there are anecdotes and I will 
probably indulge in both. Nearly half of the cases against the light 
aircraft manufacturers are brought by just 16 law firms that routinely 
employ the same 9 expert witnesses. These firms rake in huge dollars. 
Yet, I would note, only 14 cents out of every dollar goes to the 
accident victims or their families. It is a fact that only 14 cents out 
of every dollar goes to the accident victims or their families. Where 
does the settlement money go? I think we all know.
  I am told that of one such attorney who recently won a plane crash 
judgment as high as $107.3 million.
  I think all individuals in America ought to be compensated for 
damages caused by the wrongdoing of others and that is our system. But, 
sadly, the system is not about justice anymore. I do not believe it is 
justice when we are depriving people of work, depriving our economy of 
much-need revenue, and preventing people from receiving fair and honest 
adjudication of the results of an unnecessary or unpleasant accident.
  The general aviation industry is caught in the crossfire between the 
business community and the trial lawyers. If we pass this legislation, 
which is endorsed by the President's airline commission, we will create 
a lot of jobs and we will enhance competitiveness. But if we allow the 
gridlock to continue, we will see the demise of the general aviation 
industry in the United States.
  Madam President, several years ago before the Aviation Subcommittee, 
of which I am a member, of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Frank Borman 
testified, a man who is respected and revered by many of us. He is a 
former astronaut, former president of then Eastern Airlines, and a man 
admired by all us.
  At the end of the hearing, Mr. Borman said, ``I would like to make a 
few comments about an issue that is not related to this hearing.'' Of 
course we were always pleased to hear from Mr. Borman. He stated when 
he was a young man growing up in New Mexico, the way he had learned to 
fly was to go out to the local airport and bum rides, and through the 
generosity of others he had become trained as a pilot. He later entered 
the military and of course went on to fame as an astronaut.
  He said the present generation of Americans have been deprived of 
that. The present generation of Americans are unable to take advantage 
of the opportunity to learn to fly because the costs are so high. They 
are prohibitively high for anyone but the richest in our society, 
generally speaking. He believed, and stated this as forthrightly as he 
could, that we have an obligation to provide this generation and future 
generations of Americans that opportunity to become aviators, pilots, 
both men and women, so they can have the same opportunities that he 
and, indeed, many of us--some of us in this body--also had.
  I again thank Senator Kassebaum for her efforts on behalf of this 
legislation. I hope we will get a vote on it. I hope we will then move 
forward with this much-needed legislation. All the other aspects of 
product liability reform have been taken from this bill. There are some 
of us who would like to see a lot of other issues raised in order to 
enhance the competitiveness of the aircraft industry in America. But, 
frankly, we think this is so simple and so straightforward and so 
supported by business, labor, the airline commission, everybody, 
literally, who has been associated directly with general aviation in 
America with the exception of the American Trial Lawyers Association. I 
can only echo the words of the President's commission when they said: 
``It is right, and the time is now.''
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, if I may just respond for a few 
moments, I would like to express appreciation for the comments of 
Senator Hatch, Senator Gorton, and particularly the Senator from 
Arizona, Senator McCain, who himself is a pilot. He has spoken over the 
years on this issue with great dedication and has strongly held views 
about what would be best for the general aviation industry.
  I think we speak more out of sorrow, to a certain extent, than 
anger--and frustration that we have not been able to get this issue to 
the floor for a vote. We have modified this over the years in such a 
way we feel it really is a piece of legislation that now has been honed 
to its most important point and one that, as I said earlier, speaks in 
very simple terms to something that will significantly revitalize the 
general aviation industry. It is an industry that is modified each step 
of the way with certification requirements by the Federal Government. 
For these reasons we feel this lends itself particularly to being 
addressed for general aviation product liability.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to voice my support for what 
I believe is one of the most important issues facing the general 
aviation industry in the United States today.
  Over the past two decades, we have endured warning after dire warning 
that some American industry or another was about to be slaughtered by 
foreign competition. However, one industry, the general aviation 
industry, was not destroyed by foreign competition. Americans did this 
to Americans, using the power of the judicial system.
  For most of this century, U.S. manufacturers dominated the world in 
small aircraft production. However, in the last decades, American's 
producers have all been ravaged by product liability law suits. Current 
product liability laws hold manufacturers liable for planes built 
years, even decades ago, and these laws pose bigger problems for 
American plane manufacturers than their foreign competition by driving 
up the price of American-made aircraft at an astronomical rate.
  Even though the industry's safety record has improved steadily for 
four decades, and even though aircraft must meet the certification 
standards of the Federal Aviation Administration, product liability 
costs for airplane builders have soared in recent years--jumping from 
$24 million in 1977 to $210 million in less than a decade.
  I commend my colleague Senator Kassebaum for recognizing the need to 
revitalize the all-but-dead general aviation industry in the United 
States, and I fully support her legislation to amend the Federal 
Aviation Act of 1958 to impose a 15-year statute of repose to block 
product liability suits in cases involving most existing general 
aviation aircraft. Such suits would be prohibited if an accident 
occurred more than 15 years after the aircraft was manufactured.
  This is an important issue to our small pilots in Montana. If we 
cannot get the right small aircraft manufactured to meet our needs in 
Montana, then we cannot function in the vast distances of our State. If 
the general aviation industry suffers, small business suffers, 
agriculture suffers, and transportation suffers.
  I think it is wrong for U.S. airplane manufacturers to be held 
responsible, indefinitely, for products that are operated, repaired, 
serviced, and modified by others. The 15-year statute of repose would 
limit the manufacturer's liability to a reasonable time frame, reduce 
the cost of new planes, and create thousands of jobs.
  The absence of reform in this area is just another glaring example of 
who is running the show in Washington: lawyers. They, and the frivolous 
lawsuits that have made them rich, are hurting people like you and me. 
I want changes in these laws that are good for small business, good for 
Montana farmers, good for those of us who have to travel across our 
State.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, our colleagues have spoken with 
distinction but with tremendous folly. What we have here is yet another 
exercise in lawyer-bashing. But to claim that the injured party, or the 
deceased party, gets only 14 cents on the dollar of the average verdict 
is pure nonsense.
  We had hearings on this matter. We had the benefit of an expert study 
by the National Insurance Underwriters--which is included in the report 
of the Commerce Committee on product liability. That report concluded 
that the trial lawyers, with their contingent contracts--under which 
they are not paid at all if they do not win the case--are paid an 
average of one-third of the verdict award. They are not like this 
Washington lawyer crowd that gets paid by the hour just for sitting 
around.
  The same National Insurance Underwriters report found that of the 
overall verdicts and costs, defense attorneys received the greatest 
amount. So this caricature of trial lawyers as predatory ambulance-
chasers is way off base.
  Now, this Washington lawyer crowd is a different matter. I have 
worked with them. They get fees not for knowing the law, but for 
knowing the right people in this town. Consider the extravagant fees 
charged by Washington lawyers for representation in recent ethics 
cases. Some of our colleagues have been charged and later vindicated, 
but they also found themselves devastated financially--one owing 
$600,000; another one owing almost $1 million.
  I have always told my staff that politics is entirely different from 
business. Public office is a public trust. The records here are open to 
the public. Anybody who has any inquiry, just tell them, ``There are 
the files.'' All I want is a record of the documents they have copied--
that is the agreement.
  But to come up with the figure of 100,000 jobs is absurd. We will 
give the hearing record on this matter. The 14 cents--that is how they 
get into extremes and bring unsupported charges.
  Specifically, Madam President, on this particular initiative, I feel 
like Red Buttons: ``Strange things are happening.'' Why do I say this? 
Because this amendment is not germane and the distinguished Senator 
from Kansas knows that. What we have is S. 4, a bill passed 2 years ago 
by unanimous consent without the objection of the Senator from Arizona, 
without the objection of the Senator from Kansas, without the objection 
of the Senator from Utah or the others. The bill was sent over to the 
House side and we worked out the differences. Then we had it here in 
the Senate during the closing weeks in 1992. But for certain partisan 
political reasons we never could get it to a vote. There was never any 
objection. We heard there was a hold.
  I went around like a rat in a maze; running all over on the other 
side of the aisle, with each Senator putting me off to another Senator. 
It was quite obvious they just were playing a game of delay. You could 
not find out any objection to the bill. The objection was, perhaps, to 
the author, who was in the midst of a reelection campaign. They didn't 
want me to get credit in an election year for passing the bill.
  So, again we took up this bill. At that particular time in 1992 there 
was not any general aviation product liability even under discussion. 
In fact, going right on back to 1988 when we started, in the 1988 trade 
bill--I authored it and put in the amendment for the advanced 
technology program, for the manufacturing centers, for the outreach and 
extension services to facilitate the commercialization of our 
technology. That was an amendment on the 1988 trade bill.

  At that particular time, all the way back 6 years ago, there was 
never any discussion about this important bill and its being germane 
and we have to solve product liability. If they do, the bill, as they 
have indicated, has been reported out. It is on the calendar. I know I 
got a missive from the Senator from Delaware, the distinguished 
chairman of Judiciary, because it does go to tort, to product 
liability, a tort subject, not necessarily confined to commerce, and 
rightfully belonging in the Judiciary Committee. It never should have 
been reported to us.
  But in any event, it is on the calendar now and the Judiciary 
Committee is interested in it, as they were before. It had a reference 
to the Judiciary Committee, but never on this particular bill.
  Then again this past year in May we passed this technology bill out 
of the Commerce Committee and there was no mention of product liability 
or general aviation or charts by my distinguished colleague from 
Arizona about 100,000 jobs. None of that at all. It was not on any of 
those bills because it is not germane. You might as well try to amend 
welfare reform to this bill. Under the reform, in 2 years you are 
kicked off welfare, you are going to get retrained or get a new job, so 
welfare reform creates jobs so we better get our Finance Committee 
friends on down to the floor here if they want to move adroitly this 
month on welfare reform, because it is a jobs bill, like they say this 
is a jobs bill. Therefore, with that strained interpretation of what is 
germane, they know differently.
  And I say, strange things are happening because first out of the box 
was an objection that this bill is related to GATT and international 
trade. That objection had nothing to do with the technology 
development, nothing to do with the commercialization of our 
technology, nothing to do with the manufacturing centers, expertise 
being furnished small business, or any of those things; rather, it was 
a nongermane amendment related to GATT.
  Now, I argued against fast track consideration of the GATT accord. In 
fact, I said wait a minute here. Let us start first with fast track. I 
said fast track I am opposing because I think, yes, in the end we could 
look at GATT. Given that the Congress of the United States is 
designated under article I, section 8 of the Constitution with 
responsibility to regulate foreign commerce or international trade, it 
was our responsibility and not the U.S. Trade Representative's and not 
the White House's and the executive branch's, and I did not like that 
arrogation to the executive branch of our responsibility. I still think 
it is unconstitutional when you sign off on a trade agreement and you 
cannot even amend.
  But at that time my distinguished colleague here, also the leader on 
our committee, was arguing for fast track to bar any amendments on 
GATT. By the same token, don't try to make GATT amendments to this 
bill. If there are related amendments, germane amendments, fine 
business. Let us bring them. That is what we are here for. We do not 
have a perfect bill. I do not know of any bill that is perfect that has 
ever been presented in my years here. So let us get those.
  The rule is open sesame, sooey pig, everybody who has an idea, come 
forward and we will look and see and debate it appropriately. But 
therein is the frustration in trying to get things done here. There 
seems to be a good government award for not getting anything 
accomplished. And here we have been working for 3 years on a bill and 
we are working with all the relevant committees, Commerce, Labor and 
Human Resources, Education, the National Science Foundation, the NTIA 
over in the White House, the White House staff itself, the Vice 
President's staff because he has been a leader in championing our 
information superhighway, working there with him, working with the 
Small Business Administration, working with the House colleagues, 
working with everybody around the clock, and here we have a unanimous 
bill and now we start the monkeyshines of let us go to international 
trade and the GATT Treaty. I do not like the way concluded GATT in 
December. I am not particularly prepared, and none of us are, to debate 
that, but we tried our best on yesterday. I do not know what will occur 
on that issue. But now we have come with general aviation product 
liability.
  Now, general aviation product liability, like all product liability, 
is working extremely well. You have to get a feel for what is really 
going on and what is at issue.
  When I say that, I go back to a time when I introduced, oh, 25, 30 
years ago, Scott Carpenter, the astronaut, at the beginning of the 
space program. I will never forget his being asked, ``Mr. Carpenter, 
how does it feel being blasted off in space? Can you tell us?'' And he 
said, ``Well, how would you feel being blasted off 17,000 miles an 
hour, 100 miles up into space, laying on your backside with 22,000 
moving parts beneath you, all 22,000 made by the lowest bidder?''
  Well, we saw at Christmastime the parts made by the lowest bidder. It 
was a refreshing series on NBC because it was Christmastime and they 
were buying toys for the kiddies, and they devoted three mornings in a 
row--and we will have to get that when we want to debate product 
liability--three mornings in a row to the various unsafe, poorly 
produced products--all of them market oriented, backed by investor 
venture capital and everything else like that trying to make a quick 
profit. Likewise with the automobile industry. I could mention verdicts 
ensuing from the auto industry's penchant for cutting corners in 
production here, there and yonder.
  But as a result of the people's representatives here in the national 
Congress instituting the Consumer Product Safety Commission, as a 
result now coming along under the common law practice of product 
liability, we find lives are being saved, not 14 cents on the dollar 
for the injured party in a plane crash and all the money going to 
lawyers and that kind of crazy talk.
  But, rather, let us see what they have just put out for 1993, they 
being the National Transportation Safety Board.
  I am sure we cannot reproduce a chart in the Congressional Record. I 
wish we could. But it shows here in this chart from the National 
Transportation Safety Board that the fatal accident rate dropped to 
1.67 per 100,000 hours from 1.87 in 1992. So it is a general decrease 
there, with less than 500 fatalities. The chart's headline reads, 
``General aviation sees safety improvement in 1993.''
  Now, that is in relation, of course, to automobile accidents, highway 
accidents, all the other things going up, serious crime in America, all 
the other things show an increase. But what happens in general aviation 
is that product liability is working.
  The companies, Madam President, are not going broke. The industry is 
doing extremely well, and I only refer to my conversations. Also we 
will use Russ Meyer, the president of Cessna, as a witness because the 
distinguished Senator from Kansas and I have been working on this for 
10 years. Revenues were up some 16 percent to $2.1 billion in 1993 as 
compared to 1992. Cessna has been bought out by Textron. I remember the 
time they said, oh, Cessna was going broke, the whole thing. Like one 
of the Senators just said a minute ago, literally, the industry has 
been destroyed. There is no industry. Yet you have Cessna being bought 
for $600 million. The buyers thought it was worthwhile, and their 
profits are up.
  Their sales are up--Cessna is the most profitable segment, I am told, 
of Textron--these are only 1991 figures--are up $100 million profit.
  Beech Aircraft, Raytheon bought it, and that is $106 million on $1.1 
billion in sales; another 1991 figure.
  Others are entering the field. We know it well. I have had Avtech, a 
producer of small planes, come to me looking for a location. We are 
working on that in South Carolina right now.
  We have American General Aircraft Corp. beginning production, Mooney 
Aircraft is boosting its production.
  So we know, with the economy reviving, that the general aviation 
business now is beginning, as other industries, to come back. For 
heaven's sake do not say since IBM lost all its money and the stock is 
down and those kind of things, that we ought to get out of the computer 
industry or that IBM is in any wise a bad company. It is an outstanding 
corporation. We can mention all these others. There have been 
particular changes with respect to all of industry in the recession 
that we have experienced.
  But Piper, I want to read here what the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association wrote: Piper filed for bankruptcy because ``* * * there 
were many questionable business decisions.'' I quote: ``Overzealous 
production schedules,''--overzealous production schedules--``expensive 
experimental projects, some bizarre * * *''--that is not my word. That 
is the word of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association--``* * * 
bizarre management practices * * *''--and it went on to report that the 
company had significant orders when it shut down, but the aircraft were 
priced below cost.
  That same periodical comes out, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association, and says now Piper is once again back in the business. 
They expect to build 120 planes this year, and they expect to introduce 
a new plane this year.
  So the picture really is one of 6 to 8 years ago in the middle of the 
1980's. It is the same talk that we heard at that particular time, 6 or 
8 years ago in the hearings before, and the markup before this 
particular bill.
  I want to show what really happens if we cut it, because we had that 
particular measure before the Commerce Committee on September 19, 1991. 
We had that hearing. We just turned to the witness, and said, ``Suppose 
product liability costs are cut in half and the liability is reduced 
from $200 million to $100 million.'' And we use those figures because 
the industry liability figure was in the hearing record. The cost would 
be affected only 5 percent, Madam President. Even if the entire savings 
were passed on, sales would not jump from 1,000 to 10,000 planes.
  Evidently, they have used these anecdotal figures out of the air--
purely out of the air--on really trying to prove their case, and they 
get them from these downtown lawyers; not trial lawyers. They have not 
tried anything except a new restaurant. They will take you to a new 
place to eat. I can tell you that right now. That is what they try. 
They do not try cases. They find nice, wonderful places to eat, and 
beautiful warm spots to repair to at this particular hour.
  Let us see what Russ Meyer and the General Association of 
Manufacturers in their article here back some time a couple of years 
ago--I am trying to get the exact date for the record--

       The American Owners and Pilots Association is closely 
     studying a proposal by the General Aviation Manufacturers 
     Association, and supported by the aircraft manufacturers that 
     would require--

  This is very important.

     numerous inspections at currently undetermined points in the 
     light aircraft.
       Though few details of the proposed supplemental inspection 
     documents have been released. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
     Association President, John L. Baker, recently met with 
     Cessna Chairman, Russell W. Meyer, Jr., and Beech Chairman, 
     Max E. Bleck in Wichita--

  That is in Kansas.

     to assure them that the American Owners and Pilots 
     Association is interested in keeping the aging general 
     aviation fleet safe, but at the same time the association 
     will carefully monitor the program and resist any unnecessary 
     burden on the owners.

  You see, I will refer rather from the article to the point made that 
the average age is 27 years. They produce a good, sound product, and 
the average age of these small general aviation planes is 27 years now. 
This article reports it 21 years, it is a couple of years old. But the 
updated article says 27 years. And they want to cut it back to 15 
years.
  So back at the factory, if we pass this, they say, ``Look. We don't 
have to make this part sound. We did buy this cheaper part because it 
will wear out. But who cares?'' And everything else of that kind, and 
you start cutting corners.
  Then some Congress will come up 10 years from now and say, ``Look how 
many lives are getting lost,'' rather than as reported by the National 
Transportation Safety Board that the safety is improving by the hour. 
It is one of the few items you might say of concern in our society that 
has a favorable trend.
  Going back to the particular article, Baker said:

       The problems facing aging airliners in no way equate to the 
     situation with the vast majority of the general aviation 
     fleet. We are anxious to see just what the SID's will 
     encompass.

  SID's, of course, being the supplemental inspection documents is what 
they are trying to go for.

       A statement released by Bleck, who also is Chairman of the 
     General Airline Manufacturers Association noted that the 
     average age of the 220,000 aircraft in the general aviation 
     fleet is 21 years.
       One quarter of the fleet is more than 30 years old. 
     According to Bleck, the light, single-engine aircraft were 
     ``overbuilt * * * and will not wear out in the lifetime of an 
     owner--provided they are meticulously maintained and 
     inspected.''

  Is that a problem? Maybe it is a problem of somebody making money, 
but it is not a problem for air travel safety. Heavens above, I hope 
that what we are here for is not, by gosh, to get a subsidy for the 
aircraft industry. They have all the subsidies you could possibly use 
coming out of the Pentagon, with billions spent to build up the finest 
industry in the world.
  I have part of Lockheed in my backyard and am proud of it. I hope I 
can get some more. I went to the west coast as Governor 30 years ago. I 
can never forget the executives who showed me around in Sunnyvale. I 
got back to Charleston and I got another Lockheed facility up in 
Greenville, SC. We do not denigrate in any way McDonnell Douglas, or 
Boeing, or Lockheed, in the aircraft industry. But be that as it may, 
they say ``overbuilt and will not wear out.''

       Bleck noted that any inspection program will not succeed 
     ``without the cooperation of the owners and operators and the 
     FAA.''
       The General Aviation Manufacturer's Association is helping 
     manufacturers develop supplemental inspection documents that 
     will recommend increased inspection vigilance for older 
     airplanes. ``Supplemental inspection documents go well beyond 
     the normal maintenance checklists and maintenance manuals 
     provided by the manufacturers at the time of purchase. They 
     are individualized by each company for a particular 
     airplane,'' Bleck said. ``By combining laboratory and field 
     tests with detailed inspections * * * we are able to develop 
     a specific set of inspections * * * and timetables for 
     replacing specific parts,'' he continued. The Federal 
     Aviation Administration will be considering the supplemental 
     inspection documents for adoption through the air worthiness 
     directive route.
       Pressurized and commuter aircraft will require more 
     thorough inspections because of the effects of pressurization 
     and the number of takeoffs and landings they are subjected 
     to. Of greater concern for light aircraft are the effects of 
     weather and aging, according to Bleck.
       Cessna Chairman Meyer, meanwhile, has said that his company 
     has completed a set of supplemental inspection documents for 
     the 200 series of single-engine aircraft. ``We intend to 
     develop supplemental inspection documents for all models of 
     aircraft, including the 150 and 170 series,'' Meyer said in a 
     speech before the Society of Automotive Engineers. 
     ``Supplemental inspection documents must be a mandatory part 
     of every annual inspection.'' Cessna has not yet released the 
     supplemental insurance documents.
       Meyer characterized a typical general aviation accident as 
     one that ``involves an aircraft that is at least 20 years 
     old, which is flown infrequently, is probably not hangared, 
     receives minimal maintenance, contains antiquated equipment, 
     and is flown by a low-time pilot.

  Let me quote him again:

       Meyer characterized a typical general aviation accident as 
     one that ``involves an aircraft that is at least 20 years 
     old, which has flown infrequently, is probably not hangared, 
     receives minimum maintenance, contains antiquated equipment, 
     and is flown by a low time pilot.''

  If we pass a particular amendment, it is built to last 15 years. That 
is what they want the Congress of the United States to do on their own 
bill. We ought to be debating here in a separate bill. But if you go 
with the Kassebaum amendment, you are saying let us build the planes to 
last 15 years. Come, come, come. I do not know what chance the Congress 
is taking in this pell-mell rush to please the lawyers downtown here.
  Let me go back to the article. This is a key point if they want to 
save money on product liability costs and hire thousands of jobs. This 
is a quote:

       With tougher airworthiness requirements, implemented 
     aggressively by the FAA, and with type-specific flight 
     standards, I believe it is realistic to reduce the level of 
     accidents by at least 50 percent.

  That reduction in accidents would reduce product liability costs by 
at least 50 percent.

       Meyer said, ``a point at which production of new single-
     engine aircraft once again becomes economically feasible.''

  If you want to reduce the product liability costs, I use Russ Meyer 
as my witness. I like the gentleman because I think he talks sense. I 
have had him, incidentally; we met together. He would go along with a 
20-year statute of repose. I talked to him at length. I can quote the 
gentleman. They got it down to 15 years. If you had to wait downtown 
with these Washington lawyers, they would have a 5-year or 6-year 
statute, like the regular statute of limitations. You would take this 
Senator and he would get out of general aviation and any kind of flight 
of that kind, because we are comforted in knowing if you can check out 
the pilot and maintenance, you do not have to worry about the 
equipment, because it is built to last--to use their words, ``perhaps 
overbuilt.'' I am delighted that it is overbuilt. I will quote Russ 
Meyer again, and I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   G.A. Manufacturers Propose New Inspections--Owners Should Not Be 
               Unnecessarily Burdened, Says AOPA's Baker

                 (By Thomas B. Haines and Marc E. Cook)

       AOPA is closely studying a proposal by the General Aviation 
     Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and supported by aircraft 
     manufacturers that would require numerous inspections at 
     currently undetermined points in the life of aircraft.
       Though few details of the proposed Supplemental Inspection 
     Documents (SIDs) have been released, AOPA President John L. 
     Baker recently met with Cessna Chairman Russell W. Meyer Jr. 
     and Beach Chairman Max E. Bleck in Wichita to assure them 
     that AOPA is interested in keeping the aging general aviation 
     fleet safe, but, at the same time, the association will 
     carefully monitor the program and resist any unnecessary 
     burden on owners.
       ``The problems facing aging airliners in no way equate to 
     the situation with the vast majority of the general aviation 
     fleet,'' Baker said. ``We are anxious to see just what the 
     SIDs will encompass.''
       A statement released by Bleck, who also is chairman of 
     GAMA, noted that the average age of the 220,000 aircraft in 
     the general aviation fleet is 21 years. One quarter of the 
     fleet is more than 30 years old. According to Bleck, the 
     light single-engine aircraft were ``overbuilt ... [and] will 
     not wear out in the lifetime of an owner--provided they are 
     meticulously maintained and inspected.'' Bleck noted that any 
     inspection program will not succeed ``without the cooperation 
     of the owners and operators and the FAA.''
       GAMA is helping manufacturers develop SIDs that will 
     recommend increased inspection vigilance for older airplanes. 
     ``SIDs go well beyond the normal maintenance check lists and 
     maintenance manuals provided by the manufacturers at the time 
     of purchase. They are individualized by each company for a 
     particular airplane,'' Bleck said. ``By combining laboratory 
     and field tests with detailed inspections ... we are able to 
     develop a specific set of inspections ... and timetables for 
     replacing specific parts,'' he continued. ``The FAA will be 
     considering the SIDs for adoption through the airworthiness 
     directive routes.''
       Pressurized and commuter aircraft will require more 
     thorough inspections because of the effects of pressurization 
     and the number of takeoffs and landings they are subjected 
     to. Of greater concern for light aircraft are the effects of 
     weather and aging, according to Bleck.
       Cessna Chairman Meyer, meanwhile, has said that his company 
     has completed a set of SIDs for the 200 series of single-
     engine aircraft. ``We intend to develop SIDs for all models 
     of aircraft, including the 150 and 170 series,'' Meyer said 
     in a speech before the Society of Automotive Engineers. 
     ``SIDs must be a mandatory part of every annual inspection.'' 
     Cessna has not yet released the SIDs.
       Meyer characterized a typical general aviation accident as 
     one that ``involves an aircraft that is at least 20 years 
     old, which is flown infrequently, is probably not hangered, 
     receives minimal maintenance, contains antiquated equipment, 
     and is flown by a low-time pilot.
       ``With tougher airworthiness requirements, implemented 
     aggressively by the FAA, and with type-specific flight 
     standards, I believe it is realistic to reduce the level of 
     accidents by at least 50 percent.'' That reduction in 
     accidents would reduce product liability costs by at least 50 
     percent, Meyer said, ``a point at which production of new 
     single-engine aircraft once again becomes economically 
     feasible.''
       Baker disagreed and challenged Meyer to support the 
     statement with facts. Weather, not airframe or engine 
     problems, contributes to more than 50 percent of accidents, 
     and better pilot education and weather dissemination are the 
     keys to reducing those accidents, Baker said. Further, he 
     noted that the ``concept of a 20-year-old airplane is a myth. 
     As a result of annual inspections, 100-hour inspections, 
     routine maintenance, service bulletins, and airworthiness 
     directives, 20-year-old airplanes are actually a collection 
     of parts which range in age from weeks to a few years, and 
     frequently the only 20-year-old part is the overbuilt main 
     spar.''

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Quoting Russ Meyer again: ``With tougher airworthiness 
requirements''--that is not product liability--``implemented 
aggressively by the FAA, and with type-specific flight standards,''--
that is not product liability --``I believe it is realistic to reduce 
the level of accidents by at least 50 percent.'' That is at least 50 
percent, the gentleman says. ``That reduction in accidents would reduce 
product liability costs by at least 50 percent,'' Meyer said, ``a point 
at which production of new single-engine aircraft once again becomes 
economically feasible.''
  I am to understand that some of that is going on now. That is the 
reason the small engine or small plane production is strong and healthy 
in America. That is why it has come back. We have tried our best--you 
have to comment on this, and I am going to have to yield to our 
distinguished colleagues in the Judiciary Committee because they are 
more familiar with this problem than I. It goes to a tort problem and 
not to a technology problem.
  S. 4 is a technology bill. It is not the GATT international trade 
treaty, not the general aviation product liability bill, which is on 
the calendar to be referred to the Judiciary Committee, or whatever 
differences they have to work it out or something, and let us vote on 
it up or down and debate it. One of the things--this goes to health 
care--is to find out the cost, Madam President, of the insurance and 
the payout. I organized an insurance company called General Guaranty 
and Insurance Trust--we call it GGIT. It was a wonderful little company 
that had the override on S&L contracts, savings and loan contracts.
  It was a reinsurer, and I had to S. 1 that company, so I do not speak 
casually. I had to come up before the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and Manny Cohen was the Chairman of the Securities and 
Exchange Commission back at that particular time, and we S. 1'd that 
corporation within 13 days. He told me it was a national record.
  The reason we could do it was we did not have any water in there for 
the lawyers or water in the stock or fees for the lawyers.
  I got together with some friends on the street down in my own 
hometown, and I could do the work and did not mind doing it and getting 
it organized. When they went through to find where the water was or the 
exorbitant fees or tricky language, there was none because you can make 
a profit in insurance. It is guaranteed.
  Where they have lost, they got all bullish like you find right now 
these bail companies. They have so much money they are all running 
around trying to buy movie houses and everything else of that kind. 
They do not know what to do with their money. They are off in New 
Zealand, down in Buenos Aires, down in Mexico. They organized and made 
their profits on common carrier universal service. But that is not 
enough for them, and now they have to invest hither, tither and yon, 
and they had a problem.
  But I know from insurance companies that you look at the actuary 
tables and you pull out your profits and the actuary tables will tell 
you when they are all going to die or the actuary tables will tell you 
when they all are going to pay and what the schedule is with respect to 
that and if there is any kind of fluctuation and our actuaries watch 
these things that affect the premiums, bam, you increase the premium. 
They cannot say anything about it. We all do it.
  Insurance companies are organized and all you have to do is take care 
of the State insurance commissioner, and they are not the most astute 
group. I think mine is in South Carolina. I am sure yours is in the 
State of Washington.
  But we found out when I came in as a Governor of the State that in 
order to really sell insurance you had to file certain securities. We 
went over and opened up a closet door and there were $332 million in 
securities filed that were thrown on the floor and the coupons had 
never been clipped or anything else of that kind. I had to clean out 
the commissioner and everything else in that, and they said I was worse 
but never worse than the State of Texas.
  I say that advisedly, if they want to argue that point, and I am not 
trying to demean Texas. It is a wonderful State. Some of my best 
friends--in fact, the best friend that stood at my first wedding lives 
there right now. So Texas is wonderful.
  But they were just like they operated S&L's. We lost the $500 
billion, $250 billion in one State.
  Yet they are running around on the Senate floor about how we should 
handle things, and we have the little Joe Six-Pack fellow.
  But, in any event, if you take care of that little commissioner as 
they were doing at that particular time, they cannot hire the super-
duper actuaries and watch the trends and all to the other things of 
that kind. They did, by the way, as members of legislature give us a 
tie for Christmas. I never forgot that. The commissioner did that. It 
was a nice thing.
  The point is that the States do not have the capability to regulate 
insurance, period. But I say in the same breath the Congress of the 
United States does not have the ability to regulate insurance because 
we have tried. We have tried.
  I can see the Rockefeller amendment. I suppose that the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia will be coming forward because we kept 
bringing in the big insurance companies relative to product liability 
and say: Wait a minute. Now you tell us what your costs are, what the 
payout is, and everything, because we heard these wild figures being 
given by the trial lawyers who get lawsuits going. The injured party 
gets 14 cents and the trial lawyers are running away with all the money 
and everything else of that kind. We have yet to find the facts. We 
have asked them time and again.

  Some of the documents that have been given to us are most totally 
worthless and would not give us the picture or anything else.
  What we find, Madam President, is that what we really are going to 
do, and perhaps it will happen maybe in my day. I resisted it because I 
am a States' rights fellow and have been in charge of that primary 
responsibility within the committee. But maybe we have not been meeting 
up to our responsibility.
  There was a bill put by the distinguished colleague here from Ohio to 
federalize parts of insurance. There were two bills over on the House 
side when they brought this forward to finally federalize interstate 
commerce. We are the Congress. Nothing is more in interstate commerce 
than the insurance industry.
  Of course, that is the plea and argument that we can save 20 percent 
of the costs on health insurance by getting rid of 1,500 forms from 100 
and some companies, and give you one form for all the companies to use 
and get rid of all that administrative bureaucracy going to all these 
different State insurance commissioners. We can do it with legislating 
reform. We can do it with product liability. We can do it with 
anything.
  If you really want to get at it and know what we are legislating for 
federalizing insurance--and perhaps that is where it belongs because we 
do not know what we are talking about. No Senator does. I say that in a 
most respectful fashion because we have tried again and again, and we 
have asked in one product liability with the Rockefeller amendment that 
they file certain records or at least we have the Commerce Department 
trying to get them, but we have not been able to do that.
  I could go on at length. I know that the so-called runaway verdicts 
they talk about are not the case at all. They never talk about 
business.
  I never forgot it was Pennzoil that sued Texaco and got a $12 billion 
verdict down in Texas. Twelve billion dollars is more than all the 
product liability verdicts since the history of product liability since 
the history of man, add it all up. That was one business verdict. Time 
and again we see these folks suing each other and everything else.
  That is where the lawyers come in and they got all the depositions 
and interrogatories in computers now and they get paid for not 
settling, not terminating a case.
  The poor trial lawyers are the ones in there fighting, and they know 
they have to win that case or there is nothing. It is a contingency 
basis. There are IOU things or anything else. You are on your own and 
assuming all of those things.
  It was a good thing for society because when we get to product 
liability we go down a group of cases because I represented the power 
company and I represented corporations and organized them. I have done 
it. When you go in a small town like my hometown of Charleston, SC, you 
practice general law. I know about crime, because I represented the 
murder. I never heard of this three strikes and you are out fever that 
you have. I told my client: Look, you better level with me and let us 
see what the truth is because if you lose, you are going to the 
electric chair.
  We do not tell them back in South Carolina you got two more murders 
now under the Federal policy and the policy in the State of Washington 
I understand and the policy in the State of California. They think they 
are accomplishing something. You have to put fear in the body politic. 
There is no fear. There is no cost. Crime pays, and we will debate that 
sometime. Crime pays in America. That is the problem. I will be glad to 
debate that.
  But when it comes to product liability and these casual figures 
thrown around, the truth of the matter is that the recent case I have 
just on Lexis basis tried to find out and there is one over in 
Pennsylvania here just the end of the year. This was a $107 million 
verdict, Continental Teledyne. There was a faulty engine in that 
particular aircraft. The presiding judge reduced that to $1.7 million.
  That is exactly what will happen in the State of South Carolina.
  I have been in the business of attracting industry. These talks about 
jobs and creating industry that has never been in the game. As 
Governor, I put in technical training. We got the AAA credit rating.
  We got a little plane. In fact, it was from Mrs. Beech of Beechcraft. 
I bought her used plane for $25,000, and the reason I could get it she 
told me ``Do not worry about this plane, Governor. It will fly you 
anywhere just like a brand new plane.''
  I said, ``Thank you, ma'am.''
  She was here a couple years ago. She was a wonderful friend out in 
Kansas. She sold me that plane. It was a twin-engine Beech Bonanza. We 
would fly up to New York. It took us at that time with winds and 
everything with a light plane 4 hours or 4 hours and 45 minutes.
  Now all my Governor friends have jets. I am envious of them because 
if I even ride in one I am considered not ethical, or something.
  But I worked with corporations. They are close to me, and I am close 
to them. And in all the attraction of industry, and we have the blue 
chips, we have duPonts. I have five Westinghouse plants. I brought in 
four General Electric plants. We have the most productive General 
Electric plant in the entire system. It is making magnetic resonance 
images, MRI's, in Florence, SC, and the majority of production is 
shipped to Tokyo. So this crowd that bashes Japan--we are doing 
business with Japan because that is the most productive.
  I could go right on down with the duPonts and all the other perfect 
circle, Timkin roller bearings. I can go with all the great names of 
American industry.
  But I want to emphasize I have 47 Japanese industries and over 100 
German industries, and I met with the head of BMW because that is 
another trade argument, incidentally, from this crowd that is talking 
now about a new philosophy about the old philosophy of comparative 
advantage.
  David Ricardo, back in England in the earliest of days, said ``Use 
your comparative advantage.''
  I went to the Renaissance Weekend, where they bring together, 
supposedly, the best minds of America, down at Hilton Head at the first 
of the year here only a couple months ago. I was astounded, Madam 
President, to hear two former members of the Economic Security Council 
talk in terms of the comparative advantage and we ought to make the 
things we can make best, talking totally of the manufacturing process 
and not the Government.
  And I asked, I said, ``How in the world do you think we got BMW? We 
have never produced an automobile in the State of South Carolina. How 
in the world do you think Alabama got Mercedes? They have never 
produced an automobile in the State of Alabama.''
  Under that particular rationale, you would have the automobile 
companies coming in from Europe, as they are, and they would be located 
in Detroit. They do not understand the Government and the participation 
thereof and the training that we provide and these various other things 
of that kind.
  So we have never had, is my point, a meeting with the head of BMW, 
meeting with any corporate head. They say they all endorse, they will 
endorse, they all want to make profits, make more money. I have never 
had any of them say, ``Wait a minute. What about product liability?''
  In fact, in the product liability debate, they will use the European 
system. Until now, under the European Economic Community, they are 
adopting our system of strict liability. And we will get into that 
particular debate.
  But product liability is not the productivity hurdle that they talk 
about in this land or the job creator that they talk about. It protects 
the American public. They like our product liability. Just like in 
Pennsylvania, we do not have these runaway juries or anything like 
that.
  (Mr. BREAUX assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. HOLLINGS. And as a result, they say no organizations, Mr. 
President, endorse it.
  Well, I see other Members are ready here. My distinguished colleagues 
from Alabama and New York want to address this particular subject.
  We have here the Consumer Federation of America is against this 
measure. They do not make a profit one way or the other. They are 
interested in the safety of the traveling public, you and me. Public 
Citizen, Citizen Action, and right on down the list.
  So if you want to know who endorses this, the impartial groups who 
are interested only in individuals and individual traveling safety, 
they are the ones that say we oppose this particular measure. It is a 
tried and true measure, product liability, in America today. 
Admittedly, it does not work too well in some States.
  And, in fact, in my solicitation as Governor and now as Senator, I 
said, ``Well, you want to move that industry from State X because you 
know right now I can tell you, with product liability and all the other 
problems they have, you want to come down to my State of South 
Carolina, because we do not have problems like that.''
  Ask any Republican judge. And I can name names, as Martha Mitchell 
used to say. I have asked them all to a man, and that is most of them, 
because I only got, after 14 years, a chance to recommend a judge last 
week. So all of them are Republicans.
  I said, ``What about product liability. I hear all of this up in 
Washington.'' They said, ``Oh, that is just the Washington crowd. They 
are paid to get that. If they can make money out of this, they will 
make money out of it.''
  But when if comes down to actual product liability, whether it is 
general aircraft or otherwise, it is working well. It produces safety. 
It is a very valid procedure and it is something in the interest of the 
general safety of the general public itself.
  So with that in mind, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
recognized.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, regardless 
of how many different speeches I may make on this amendment or bill, 
they be considered only as one speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, this amendment which follows the language 
of S. 1458 that was introduced, is a completely new bill on the issue 
of general aviation revitalization or product liability or whatever 
name it might be given.
  This bill, as it is now framed, has never been referred to the 
Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee has never held a hearing 
on the contents that are contained in this bill.
  It is obviously a legal matter. This bill has one provision and that 
is, it creates a statute of repose. A statute of repose is a legal and 
judicial term. It does not deal with safety, where the Commerce 
Committee normally gets bills that are referred. This is strictly a 
judicial issue, a 15-year statute of repose. That is all that is in the 
bill as to what it might do or what effect it might have.
  What is a statute of repose?
  A statute of repose differs from a statute of limitations. A statute 
of repose says that, regardless of circumstances, regardless of whether 
a plaintiff is a minor where, in many States, there is a right for the 
minor to wait until he reaches an age of majority before he can bring 
suit, a statute of repose says you cannot, under any circumstances, 
bring a lawsuit or a claim for compensation regardless of how egregious 
may be the circumstances. It cuts off a cause of action where there is 
intentional fault. It says that under no circumstances can you bring a 
lawsuit.
  The Judiciary Committee, in my judgment, ought to consider this and 
have an opportunity to review it. It ought to have been entitled, in my 
opinion, in the first instance to have it brought before the Judiciary 
Committee. But it was not. It should, however, be entitled to a 
sequential referral in order that the Judiciary Committee can hold 
hearings and do some of the things Senator Hollings talked about that 
ought to have been done, and the Judiciary Committee ought to go into 
this in somewhat detail.
  In the past, there have been general aviation bills that contained a 
great number of other provisions. But this bill contains only a statute 
of repose. Under no circumstances can you bring a lawsuit after 15 
years. There was testimony in the Commerce Committee that 80 percent of 
all of the planes flying today that would fall under this category are 
15 years or older. The average age, according to the Commerce 
Committee's report, in one place it says it is 27 years and in another 
place 26 years, or something like that, in regard to the average age of 
the general aviation plane that is flying today.
  What is a general aviation plane? Under the definition, it is a plane 
that was built and designed, when it was manufactured, to hold less 
than 20 passengers. That means it is a plane--in fact, it cannot be 
more than 19 passengers. But it does not affect those that have more 
than a 19-person capacity. It does not affect the aviation planes that 
we know today that are jets that are flying around. For example, if a 
small plane is hit by a jet and it is the fault of the small plane, 
then the passengers on the large aircraft that he injured or killed can 
recover. But the people on the small plane cannot recover.
  I think the Judiciary Committee needs to look at this.
  We are hearing a lot about the need, because the general aviation 
industry is in bad shape and they need a shot in the arm to produce 
more planes and to have a healthier economy. I have before me the 
``Annual Industry Review: 1993 Outlook & Agenda.'' Presented by Edward 
W. Stimpson, President, General Aviation Manufacturers Association. Let 
me read the opening lines.

       As an industry that has been challenged in recent years we 
     believe we have a reason for optimism. Today's manufacturers 
     have learned to be profitable in spite of lean times. We have 
     improved our product lines by focusing on stronger markets. 
     We have expanded export marketing. We have successfully 
     marketed our products to the military. We have expanded and 
     improved our services for the 200,000 aircraft already in the 
     U.S. fleet. Within the next 5 years, airframe manufacturers 
     will spend more than $1 billion on R&D [research and 
     development]. As the U.S. economy recovers, general aviation 
     manufacturers are well positioned for growth.

  In that speech, the President of the General Aviation Manufacturers 
Association also says:

       In 1992, despite a sluggish economy and poor business 
     confidence, the general aviation industry managed to hold its 
     own. Forecasts of an improving U.S. economy, increased 
     capital spending, better U.S. corporate profits bodes well 
     for our industry. These economic factors, combined with 
     continuing exports, high customer interest and an aging 
     aircraft fleet, leads us to conclude that 1993 will be a 
     better year.

  I have here in Aviation Week and Space Technology, dated March 15, 
1993, by Michael A. Dornheim, entitled ``Stable Growth Ahead for 
Business Aircraft,'' in which he says, ``All business aircraft 
manufacturers agree that a healthy economy is a key to an improved 
market.''
  In this article of March 15, he states:

       ``Beech predicts a 35 to 45 percent increase in the dollar 
     volume of its sales over the next 5 years and had record 
     dollar sales in 1992,'' C. Douglas Mayhein, Marketing Vice 
     President of Beech Aircraft, is quoted as saying.

  I will have more to say about some of this as we go along because I 
know we have a caucus coming up; I only have limited time, and I will 
stop very shortly.
  But this has also another aspect. Military aircraft, helicopters, 
fixed wings--our generals are usually flying in what I would believe 
you would call a C-20 aircraft, which is a jet airplane. You know, I 
stop and I think there were significant factors in regards to how we 
have won wars.
  I do not think there is any question that two events in the Pacific 
saved millions of lives and brought victory to the United States. Those 
two significant events were the decision by Harry Truman to use the 
atomic bomb--but before that, when we only had one aircraft carrier in 
the Pacific, the deciding factor, in my judgment, was the breaking of 
the Japanese code by which we were able to decipher transmissions, and 
the plane of the commander in chief of the Japanese forces in the 
Pacific was shot down, as a result of this code-breaking technology.
  I do not know whether many military aircraft hold more than 20 or 
not, but I do know that the military security of the United States can 
be affected by the adoption of this amendment. The fact that you are in 
a situation where you only have to worry about 15 years, and knowing 
after that that you cannot be brought to the bar of justice, can affect 
the decisions that go into matters pertaining to the selection of 
metal, the matter pertaining to the strength of metal because many 
aircraft crashes have occurred because of metal stress. If you lower 
the bars of research and the bars of to what you have to build as to 
the future and the reason for you to comply with that, it means, in my 
judgment, you will have a less safe product and you will have a 
potential danger that can apply to the military leaders of this country 
as they fly around in airplanes that contain less than 20 passengers.
  Now, what is the cost to the United States as a result of this bill 
as it would apply to the military? I do not know. I did not know this 
amendment was coming up, and I had not had the chance to research this 
particular aspect, but I just wonder how many helicopters are in the 
armed services fleet. I do not believe I have ever been on a helicopter 
where there were 20 passengers or 19 passengers. It may be that there 
are some that can carry that many. But the vast majority of helicopters 
hold far less than 19 passengers.
  Maybe this bill ought to be referred to the Committee on Armed 
Services. But certainly it ought to be sent to the Judiciary Committee 
for its consideration of what happens and what effects it will have 
pertaining to the future safety standards.
  There is a movement in my State already in which we have two cities 
where the Federal Aviation Administration is considering taking away 
their status as an essential air service, which means, therefore, they 
cannot receive subsidies under the aviation deregulation bill and that 
essential service will not be allowed. The Federal Aviation 
Administration say they are having to do this because of decreased 
appropriations to the Federal Aviation Administration and their various 
aspects.
  If that occurs, then it means more and more people, if they are going 
to use airplanes, are going to have to fly in small chartered planes 
from various communities where essential air service has been 
previously provided.
  This raises the issue of safety, and it raises the issue of what 
happens in regard to plane crashes.
  If the testimony before the Commerce Committee was correct that 80 
percent of the planes today are 15 years or older--and I assume that is 
correct--you are going to have a situation arise in which many, many 
people will be put at risk. Just stop and think about this. There are 
some people who carry, when they have to for some reason, a baby 18 
months, or 2 years old in their lap. They may know or they may not know 
about this statute of repose. Maybe they made the decision knowingly to 
take the risk, but the child should not be caused to suffer as a result 
of a bad decision.
  In my judgment, if this bill passes, when a person gets on a plane, 
he or she is not going to know how old the plane is. They expect, when 
they go to an air taxi service, rent a plane, or when they are getting 
on a plane, there are going to be safety requirements and that the 
engine has been built to last; and that the assemblies which involve 
various things such as raising and lowering wheels or other aspects of 
subassemblies and others have met safety requirements. They are not 
going to know--and the vast majority of American people will not know--
of this law containing a statute of repose and therefore they cannot 
make a fully informed decision relative to this matter.
  Now, I am going to speak further on this issue. I expect we will have 
a rather extended debate on it. But to me this amendment is a real 
mistake. At least it ought to be referred to Judiciary since it is 
clearly a Judiciary matter. I think it ought to be sequentially 
referred to, let us look at it, and I am willing to limit the referral 
to a very brief period of time, 30 days or whatever it might be, some 
reasonable period of time. I think we ought to have a hearing in order 
that we might know more about the legal consequences pertaining to such 
an amendment.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President I would like to respond just for a 
couple of moments to the distinguished Senator from Alabama. I am not a 
lawyer, and it is with some trepidation that I rise to respond to a 
Senator who is not only a distinguished lawyer but a jurist, who has 
served with great distinction in that capacity in the State of Alabama, 
and as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, of course, has been a part 
of the hearings that the Judiciary Committee has twice had on general 
aviation, pilot liability language.
  But I would just like to respond, even though I am not a lawyer, to a 
couple of the egregious errors and perhaps to correct some 
misunderstanding.
  First, as an example that was given by the Senator from Alabama, he 
mentioned the small plane that would crash into a jet, and it would be 
the small plane's fault; but they could not sue under this legislation. 
That is just not true, Mr. President. If it was the pilot's fault, if 
there were other errors of judgment, they certainly could be sued. The 
only thing here that is required in this legislation is the 
manufacturer not being sued when it has nothing to do with the 
accident. Far too often, as we all know, they are viewed as deep 
pockets.
  This is only saying that a manufacturer cannot be sued when there has 
been a piston-powered aviation accident if the particular part that is 
at fault is 15 years or less; they cannot be sued if it is 15 years or 
less. That is why there has to be some limitation. This in no way 
applies to a small plane, that it would be at fault crashing into 
another plane.
  Second, the statute repose language has been addressed by the 
Judiciary Committee. At the time that it was last before the Judiciary 
Committee in 1990, it also included joint and several liability; it 
also included Federal preemption of other State liability laws. These 
are all things that were of great concern to many who viewed the 
language at that time.
  Mr. HEFLIN. If the Senator will yield?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I am happy to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I noticed the Senator from Kansas mentioned piston-
operated airplanes. I do not discover that in the bill that came out of 
the committee. Does the amendment of the Senator from Kansas limit it 
to the pistons?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes; it is.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Is this the same bill that was introduced----
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to respond. I am sorry; I 
am incorrect. It is not just limited to piston powered. But I would 
suggest that this is what general aviation is. When the Senator from 
South Carolina, as well as the Senator from Alabama, mentioned the 
success of the general aviation industry, it has been the jet-powered 
planes, the top-of-the-line executive planes that have been so 
successful. There is no piston-powered production today, to speak of. 
That is what really we are addressing.


                           Order of Procedure

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes that the hour of 12:30 having 
arrived, under the previous order, the Senate is scheduled to recess.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a couple 
more questions, and I ask unanimous consent that we be able to continue 
for 3 or 4 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, if what the Senator said in regard to the 
analogy--I use it relative to a jet plane carrying more than 20 
passengers, complying. I thought I made it clear. But if I did not make 
it clear, it would be where the fault was due to the manufacturer in 
regard to the large plane, and also it is the small planes. The 
causation would be because it was manufacturers' defects on both 
planes, the small plane or the large plane; therefore, you have a 
different situation.
  I realize that you have the right, relative to pilots and other 
causes of actions, that you could sue. If I did not make it clear, I 
want to make it clear. The Senator from Kansas is correct on that.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to make one other point 
that was raised principally by the chairman of the Commerce Committee, 
that this has been on the calendar. Indeed, it has been on the 
calendar. Unfortunately, it has not been able to be called up without 
objection.
  So we have tried various avenues. As the Senator from Alabama has 
said, we will be back to revisit aspects of this at a later time.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
extended prior to recess for such time as I may speak on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, when we voted on NAFTA last November, we 
made a promise to the American worker.
  Whether we voted for NAFTA or against it, virtually everyone of us 
pledged our concern about the plight of the American worker.
  Well NAFTA has now been enacted and its short-term goals are being 
implemented. The pressures of competition continue to be felt. The 
interest in the American worker really seems to have ebbed and wanted 
in the public discourse perhaps because the economy has improved. 
Perhaps because some felt that NAFTA resolved all the problems the 
debate addressed.
  Mr. President, I think it is time to make good on our promise. It is 
really time to ensure that the American worker, buffeted by the winds 
of international competition, is given the tools he/she needs to 
compete.
  I think we have to resurrect the urgency that surrounded the NAFTA 
debate. And we should begin by passing the National Competitiveness 
Act.
  This bill is part of a strategy to create high wage jobs. It will 
help our Nation to follow the lead of certain companies in my home 
State of Massachusetts, who have proudly made technology work for them 
and for their workers. Through aggressive research and development, 
advanced manufacturing technology, and continuous worker training and 
input, they have maintained and often increased manufacturing jobs in 
Massachusetts, a State where many said manufacturing would soon be dead 
and buried. These include the Bose Corp., a major player in the 
Japanese hi-fi and automotive parts market; and Modicon Corp., which 
brought jobs back from Asia when it radically upgraded its technology 
and workplace organization. In my State, you simply cannot create new 
manufacturing jobs with a low-skill, low-wage strategy. You must go the 
high-tech, high-skill route, and you must export.

  I believe we must follow the Massachusetts model--more companies 
should emulate Bose and Modicon.
  Mr. President, just how do we accomplish this?
  Well, it isn't easy and it isn't simple. We need to funnel more money 
into our education budget. We must quickly enact Secretary Reich's 
Comprehensive Worker Adjustment Program, so that displaced workers can 
find out where jobs are, what kinds of skills they require, and how 
they can obtain them.
  Through these steps, we can help ensure that our workers are the most 
technically adept in the world.
  But this is not enough, Mr. President. A well-trained work force 
without jobs is no better than a poorly trained work force without 
jobs.
  So we must, right now, through S. 4 make available support for the 
Department of Commerce's technology development and diffusion programs. 
By improving U.S. companies' ability to use technology we can ensure 
that there are high-value added jobs to employ our workers at world-
class wages.
  The bill before us, S. 4, expands the acclaimed Advanced Technology 
Program. The ATP program lowers, shares, and spreads the risk of 
developing high-risk technologies--those technologies which will create 
the high-value industries of tomorrow. ATP offers cost-shared 
competitive grants to private firms. In other words, it uses market 
mechanisms to grow high-technology jobs.

  S. 4 also expands the number of manufacturing extension centers--
often referred to as Hollings centers for the distinguished chairman of 
the Commerce Committee. These centers work like the Agricultural 
Extension Program to bring technology out to small- and medium-sized 
companies who would not otherwise have access to new technologies. Many 
of these small companies are still using the manufacturing processes 
they first used when they opened their factories in the 1940's and 
1950's. Sooner or later they will be driven out of business by 
companies who know how to use new discoveries to lower their costs or 
improve their products. The NIST extension centers try to bring them 
up-to-date before it is too late for them or their workers. It will 
help bring American companies up to world-class standards. And by doing 
so it will make American workers more competitive.
  Similar extension centers have already helped companies in 
Massachusetts create more jobs.
  In Massachusetts a hand tool plant could not manufacture enough 
product to keep up with demand and manufacturing costs exceeded profits 
until the local center helped them reorganize and boost production 
levels.
  As a result of the help, the company decided not to move to the Sun 
Belt, as they had previously planned to do. In addition, they hired 
another 30 employees.
  The advantages of this program are not abstract or distant. This 
program creates jobs right away, by helping small- and medium-sized 
companies do what they do better.
  In addition to expanding the number of extension centers, this bill 
will add a new function to the centers: to help small- and medium-sized 
companies pollute less. It will do this by teaching these companies how 
to use innovative environmental technologies which promote ``greener'' 
manufacturing.

  Studies have shown that businesses can eliminate at least one-third 
to one-half of their waste generation by implementing source reduction 
techniques. Further, one recent study showed that 25 percent of all 
source reduction activities require no capital investment for 
implementation and, of those that require capital, 50 percent of the 
investments are recouped in savings, on average, in less then 18 
months.
  This approach allows us to have our cake and eat it too. We will make 
our businesses more competitive by helping them reduce costs; We will 
make our environment cleaner by reducing the waste created in the 
manufacturing process; and we will create new markets for environmental 
technologies.
  I applaud the chairman of the Commerce Committee for acting on the 
fact that lowering waste production and increasing energy efficiency is 
not just good for the environment. It is also good for competitiveness. 
Companies that adopt new technologies to save costs on waste disposal, 
regulatory compliance, raw material, and liability associated with 
transport and disposal will be better able to compete on the 
international market. I want to thank him for working with me and 
taking my suggestions in designing this provision of this bill.
  I want to commend him as well for working tirelessly on these 
technology programs which will go a long toward making our Nation more 
competitive.
  Some in the Senate proposed yesterday to correct some of the problems 
they see with the Uruguay round agreement on GATT on this bill.
  They claimed yesterday that this agreement will force us to bankrupt 
ourselves matching foreign subsidies. There are a great many questions 
about the subsidies provisions of the agreement and I do not pretend to 
have all the answers.

  I do know that one of the areas in which our Nation excels is basic 
research. We spend more on basic research than many of our major 
trading partners combined. But we need to do better at developing that 
research into commercial products. The GATT provisions on subsidies 
allow us to continue the research that we already do so well. And they 
allow us to expand programs like those included in S. 4 that will take 
that research out of the laboratory and into the marketplace. That is a 
noble goal.
  It may be that we can accomplish it while closing more loopholes in 
the subsidies language, but S. 4 is not the place to do this. Nor to 
make a decision to renegotiate the GATT.
  We will have plenty of opportunities to review the GATT provisions--
which are scheduled for review after 18 months and then again after 5 
years. And we should demand that the USTR monitor other countries 
practices and act aggressively to ensure that other countries to not 
take advantage of the new rules. Let us resolve to work hard on the 
implementing legislation to address the concerns Senator Danforth 
raises. But let us not damage our ability to respond now to the 
emergency facing the American worker.
  Millions of Americans understand our stake in following the path of 
high-skill, high-wage jobs. By electing Bill Clinton, they indicated 
their belief that Government must play a role. We have the opportunity 
now to respond to the frustrations of the American worker. This bill 
will help put our economy back on the right track and restore the sense 
of economic opportunity on which the American dream was built.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank my distinguished colleague 
from Massachusetts for his very generous remarks and thank him, 
incidentally, for getting back on the subject of S. 4, namely, 
technology, its development, the commercialization of that particular 
technology, and making America more competitive.
  Right to the point, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has 
been a leader. It is his backyard that had the technology. They have 
used it over the many years.
  I know in our backyard we always had one misgiving. We did not have 
the skills and the technological capability, research, and everything 
else, that the State of Massachusetts and others in the northeast had 
had.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is very familiar with it. He has 
worked with it closely and worked with us on the bill. I cannot thank 
him enough for his contribution and support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning 
business.
  I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to speak for about 4 or 
5 minutes on the Kassebaum amendment which I understand is pending and 
has been under discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that the Senate is not in 
morning business. We are proceeding under a unanimous consent request 
to extend the recess time past 12:30.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my 
understanding is the unanimous consent request was it was an extension 
of 3 or 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DANFORTH. It is now 12:55 p.m. I have no objection to Senators 
speaking between now and whenever they want to speak provided that is 
all they do. Therefore, I will object to further speeches unless it is 
understood the floor will be open solely for the purpose of making 
speeches and not for the purpose of any substantive move on this bill 
or any motions pertaining to the bill or amendments to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alaska have a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska asks unanimous consent that I 
be allowed to speak for 3\1/2\ minutes on the Kassebaum amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  If not, without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Kassebaum, 
in cosponsoring this amendment which I think is going to breathe life 
into an industry that is almost dead, and that is the general aviation 
manufacturing industry.
  This legislation creates a 15-year statute of repose limiting the 
time the general aviation manufacturer can be sued for a defective 
part, and it also applies to parts that are added or replaced later.
  This is an important phase, and the reality is that the general 
aviation industry has been harmed dramatically as a consequence of no 
relief under the liability phase of the current interpretation. I am 
pleased to say that this statute does not apply to aircraft that are 
being used in scheduled, passenger-carrying operations no matter the 
size, type, or age.
  This has a great impact in my State of Alaska which probably has 8 or 
9 times as many pilots per capita and 15 times as many airplanes per 
capita as the rest of the United States.
  Light airplanes provide the only means of transportation for 
approximately 70 percent of our communities bringing many of the 
necessities of life throughout my State. The type of aircraft we are 
talking about currently using are Cessna 185's, Otter 206's, Beaver 
180's, and so forth, many of which are an average of 22 years in age. 
As a matter of fact, we are still utilizing the Grumman Goose, which is 
51 years old now.
  Design and manufacturing defects routinely show up in the first 7 
years of an aircraft's use.
  Therefore, this legislation more than doubles the timeframe where 
manufacturing defects would be imposed on the manufacturers' liability.
  Innocent victims should not pay the price for defective aircraft. We 
all agree on that. But the manufacturers should not pay for defective 
maintenance, servicing, or operation or be permanently liable for 
planes that were never built to last forever.
  This legislation has been endorsed by the airlines, pilots, 
manufacturers, and service providers. It was included in the 
President's Airline Commission initial report.
  Unfortunately, the administration has backed off its support for this 
legislation at this time. It is my understanding that they are now 
proposing a whole products liability bill revision.
  Obviously, the Trial Lawyers Association is opposed to this 
legislation. But it is really unfortunate because Americans are forced 
to buy planes from foreign manufacturers in South America and other 
areas.
  Over a decade ago U.S. manufacturers were selling approximately 
13,000 light planes a year manufactured in the United States. Today, 
they are barely selling 900. So I think those figures speak for 
themselves, Mr. President.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment so we can again compete 
in an industry in which we were previously a world leader, and we can 
have the benefit of new safe single-engine aircraft in our general 
aviation industry.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

                          ____________________