[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 30 (Thursday, March 17, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  GENERAL AVIATION REVITALIZATION ACT

 Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to 
comment briefly on the aviation liability legislation that the Senate 
passed yesterday, as well as on product liability reform in general.
  I voted for Senator Kassebaum's bill because of my deep concern for 
the future of general aviation in this country. The United States was 
once the undisputed leader in the production of general aviation 
aircraft. During the past 10 years, however, approximately 100,000 jobs 
have been lost in the general aviation manufacturing industry. 
Particularly hard hit has been the production of light piston-engine 
aircraft. This is the type of aircraft that many pilots in South Dakota 
use for their charter companies and crop-dusting operations.
  Although a variety of factors have contributed to the decline of the 
domestic general aviation industry, the need for product liability 
reform is the reason most often cited for this development by South 
Dakota pilots, aircraft manufacturers, and labor organizations alike. 
As a pilot and a Representative of the largely rural State of South 
Dakota, I am sympathetic to their argument that this important domestic 
industry should not be punished by our inability to reach consensus on 
the much more complex issue of comprehensive product liability reform.
  As you know, Senator Kassebaum's initial proposal called for a 15-
year time limit on civil actions for damages that may be brought 
against general aviation manufacturers or the manufacturers of 
component parts. After substantial debate and negotiation, Senator 
Kassebaum made a number of important refinements in her bill that 
address many of the concerns that have been raised about it.
  Perhaps most importantly, Senator Kassebaum agreed to extend the 
statute of repose to 18 years. Also the compromise bill will not 
prevent lawsuits against those manufacturers who willfully conceal 
manufacturing defects. And it will not prevent passengers injured on 
medevac aircraft or people injured on the ground from bringing civil 
actions against general aviation manufacturers or the manufacturers of 
component parts.
  This amended version of the General Aviation Revitalization Act 
passed by a vote of 91 to 8. The fact that this legislation was 
supported by some of the Senate's strongest opponents of product 
liability reform is significant. It reflects the fact that the revised 
measure constitutes an honorable compromise between those concerned 
about our declining general aviation manufacturing industry and those 
concerned about efforts to reform product liability.
  Finally, let me clarify what my vote on the Kassebaum aviation 
liability bill does not mean. It does not mean that I will support any 
product liability proposal that comes before the Senate. Nor does it 
mean that I plan to start down a path of supporting product liability 
reform on a piecemeal basis.
  The product liability debate centers on the complex challenge of 
reconciling the rights of injured plaintiffs and the need to relieve 
the burden of frivolous lawsuits on business. There is no question, in 
my view, that Congress is going to have to face this challenge sooner 
or later. This issue is not going to go away.
  For that reason, I voted in the last Congress to bring product 
liability reform legislation to the Senate floor for debate, despite 
reservations I had about the committee bill. Only by debating this 
issue will we be able to decide, at least, whether or not we are going 
to reform product liability law and, if so, how.

                          ____________________