[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                THE GENERAL AVIATION REVITALIZATION ACT

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when I voted in the rollcall, the tally 
was 91 in favor of Senator Kassebaum's bill and 6 opposed with one 
additional Senator voting no after I did, so I cast this protest vote 
knowing that the bill would be overwhelmingly approved by the Senate. I 
did so with substantial reservations because of a strong Pennsylvania 
constituent interest on general aviation aircraft and a boyhood of 
growing up in Wichita, KS, where Steerman, Cessna, and Beechcraft were 
very prominent companies.
  I voted against the 18-year statute of repose because of a 
fundamental view that the courts should be open and my abiding 
confidence in the jury system notwithstanding its lapses on excessive 
verdicts which can be dealt with in other ways. Simply stated, I 
believe that an injured person should not be barred from court by a 
statute of repose where the airplane is represented by its manufacturer 
to have a useful life in excess of 18 years and the statistics show 
such planes are operated for a much longer period of time.
  In casting this vote, I am mindful of the arguments in favor of the 
bill that the number of planes produced by the industry has declined 
from 18,000 annually to just over 900 in the last 20 years with over 
100,000 jobs having been lost. While there is significant disagreement, 
many industry experts attribute much of that decline to cost increases 
including defense and liability exposure for aircraft manufactured long 
ago.
  In disagreeing with all 43 of my Republican colleagues and 48 
Democrat Senators, I do so having just completed extensive research on 
keeping the courts open in preparation for an argument in the Supreme 
Court of the United States involving the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. 
My extensive review of the cases has convinced me, more than ever, the 
courts should exercise judicial review in cases like the Philadelphia 
Navy Yard and courts should not be closed to injured parties by a 
statute of repose. While the statute of repose closes the courts in a 
somewhat different fashion from rejecting judicial review, there are 
substantial similarities.
  From my own litigation experience in the product liability area, I 
believe that juries will give appropriate deference to defendants where 
liability allegations are made on general aviation aircraft more than 
18 years old. If manufacturers represent that a given product will last 
only a specific length of time, then I would agree to limiting their 
lability through a statute of repose to that timeframe.
  Statistics represent that the average general aviation aircraft is in 
service 25.6 years so it is obvious that some planes are in service for 
a much longer period of time, and there is evidence that planes can and 
do fly for more than 18 years with latent design defects.
  But beyond my own personal concerns about flying in many general 
aviation planes, I think that public policy is best served by deciding 
these close questions in favor of safety over profits.

                          ____________________