[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E590-E591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            COMMON SENSE LEGAL STANDARDS REFORM ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                           HON. LOUIS STOKES

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 8, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill H.R. 956, to 
     establish legal standards and procedures for product 
     liability litigation, and for other purposes:

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 956, the 
Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act of 1995. While I agree that 
some reform of our Nation's product liability laws may be appropriate, 
this legislation goes too far, favors producers of dangerous products 
too much and provides too little protection for ordinary citizens. I 
cannot support this effort to significantly curtail Americans' rights 
to seek redress in the courts when they have been needlessly injured, 
maimed, or killed by dangerous products.
  This dangerous and hurried legislation will not only fail to truly 
reform the product liability litigation laws that need reforming, but 
will endanger the American public by stripping away the most important 
checks and balances system Americans have--the American judicial 
system. It would be the height of irresponsibility for Congress to take 
from the American people their ability to protect themselves, their 
families and loved ones from dangerous products.
  The bill before us today, the Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act 
of 1995, will not only attempt to undo many of the important 
accomplishments of the U.S. Congress, Federal agencies and over 200 
years of American common law, but also seeks to undermine many of our 
Nation's most important mechanisms to enhance safety for all Americans.
  The stated purpose of the Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act is 
to impose on State and Federal juries limits on the amount of punitive 
damages of $250,000. It also imposes on States, Federal standards for 
all product liability lawsuits. Additionally, the bill contains several 
special interest exceptions for drug companies and aircraft 
manufacturers in addition to other friends of the new majority.
  While I agree that Congress should investigate reforming products 
liability litigation, this proposed measure goes well beyond the 
legitimate objective of balancing responsibilities and risks. In fact, 
this bill is specifically designed to inhibit the will of the people by 
creating artificial special interest exceptions, and obstacles for 
injured and maimed citizens who seek redress in the courts. The current 
majority has long sought to weaken, if not totally eliminate, Americans 
ability to protect themselves in the courts.
  Supporters of H.R. 956 have argued, and I agree, that most products 
produced in this Nation are the safest, highest quality products 
produced in the world. Yet, the fact remains that too many dangerous 
products exist. When injured by one of these dangerous products, 
Americans' last recourse is the American judicial system.
  Proponents of this bill have argued that curtailing citizens' rights 
to open access to the courts is justified because there has been an 
explosion of product liability litigation. This argument is simply not 
supported by the facts. According to the ``1992 Annual Report of the 
National Center for State Courts,'' the actual number of product 
liability claims is extremely low, a mere 4 percent of all personal 
injury cases. The evidence shows that products liability cases 
represent only .0036 percent of the total civil caseload in State and 
Federal courts.
  There has been no explosion in products liability lawsuits as 
republicans assert. Excluding asbestos cases, the number of product 
liability cases filed in Federal courts between 1985 and 1991 actually 
declined by approximately 35 percent, from 8,268 to 5,263. The only 
significant increase in litigation over the past few years has not 
taken place in the area of products liability. It has been caused 
instead by large corporations suing other large corporations. A 1990 
study reveals that corporate contract cases increased 232 percent and 
make up more than 18 percent of all civil cases as opposed to .0036 
percent for product liability cases.
  Another artificial justification for passage of H.R. 956 has been the 
alleged explosion in the frequency and size of punitive damages awards. 
The fact is, courts rarely award punitive damages. A 1993 Suffolk 
University law 
[[Page E591]] school and Northeastern University study found that only 
355 punitive damage awards were granted in product liability cases 
between 1965 and 1990. Only 20 percent of
 those 355 cases were affirmed on appeal. The research also shows that 
the vast majority of companies subject to punitive damages awards 
between 1965 and 1990 took some post-litigation steps to make their 
products safer. Without punitive damages many products would simply be 
more dangerous. Clearly, the current system of checks and balances 
system is working.
  H.R. 956 will have a devastating impact on the children and elderly 
of this Nation. The limitation of damages awards places children and 
elderly at an especially significant disadvantage. Since compensatory 
damage awards are based solely on economic loss, these individuals can 
prove few tangible economic damages because they generally do not work, 
or work for small salaries, and would therefore not receive nearly as 
much compensation as the rich, who bring home big paychecks. This 
result would be fundamentally unfair to thousands of Americans, and 
would constitutes an extreme injustice to the youth and elderly of our 
Nation.
  I hope that no one in this House would want to increase the risk of 
disease, injury, and premature deaths caused by exposure to dangerous 
products. But that is exactly what H.R. 956 would do. This bill, in 
concert with H.R. 988, the Attorney Accountability Act of 1995, would 
slam the doors of the courthouses of this Nation in the faces of the 
American public. In my 27 years in congress I have seen few more 
obnoxious measures, that so cruelly and unfairly places a substantial 
burden on the American public.
  This bill will also compromise citizen and worker safety. Last year, 
over 10,000 American workers died in the workplace. Another 70,000 were 
permanently disabled, and more than 100,000 contracted fatal 
occupational illnesses. H.R. 956 will greatly inhibit our citizens' 
ability to protect themselves from unsafe products, dangerous working 
conditions and avoidable disasters. I cannot in good conscience 
endanger American workers by supporting this bill.
  In addition to endangering the health and lives of Americans, 
approval of H.R. 956 would not result in additional enhancement in 
competitiveness or innovation. The differences between the U.S. product 
liability system and the legal systems in other countries do not 
provide foreign manufactures with a competitive advantage. All 
companies are subject to the liability laws of the country where a 
product is sold or where the injury is incurred. Therefore, there is no 
significant harmful effect on American competitiveness as a result of 
the American products liability system.
  Contrary to representations of proponents of H.R. 956, no real 
evidence has ever been presented that supports the claim that products 
liability laws have a chilling effect on business innovation. In fact, 
the current products liability system enhances innovation by providing 
a significant incentive for companies to develop safe products.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is unprecedented in its scope and 
cynicism. Few areas of State and Federal products liability litigation 
will be unaffected by this measure, yet, with very little opportunity 
for open hearing, and with severely limited debate, this act has been 
placed before us. The rule under which this bill has come before us is 
so draconian that many members with reasonable and bi-partisan 
amendments will not be heard. A measure of this kind requires detailed 
analysis of the impact it may have on the American people, but no such 
review has or will take place. In the current rush to force this bill 
to the floor of this House, the will of the American people will 
certainly be compromised.
  Furthermore, this legislation would remove from the wise discretion 
of State and local governments the determination of how to handle 
products liability litigation. My colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have often claimed that they favor retracting the tentacles of 
the Federal Government from local people, who best know and understand 
the issues they face. Yet, this bill flys in the fact of this often 
touted Republican ethic. H.R. 956 strips from local communities the 
ability to establish products liability standards. This modification of 
the products liability laws by Federal mandate is unjustified, ill-
advised and will lead to injustice for working and middle-class 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that H.R. 956 and the circumstances 
under which it is presented in this house is an attempt to mislead the 
American people to believe that meat cleaver, simplistic solutions will 
end the fictional ``avalanche of litigation'' so often mentioned by 
supporters of this bill. As the facts have shown, evidence clearly 
establishes that this bill has been pushed on us all under tragically 
false premises.
  As our Nation faces an epidemic of joblessness, poverty, and economic 
troubles, the solution to these problems will not be found in quick 
fixes like H.R. 956. The American people elected us to act in their 
best interest, not compromise their welfare because congress does not 
have the will to permit Americans to protect themselves from dangerous 
products. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.


                          ____________________