[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E624-E625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            COMMON SENSE LEGAL STANDARDS REFORM ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                             HON. JACK REED

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, March 10, 1995

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

  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I was one of two Democrats to support H.R. 
956 during its consideration by the Judiciary Committee.
  I support product liability reform and I support the core principles 
of the original H.R. 10/H.R. 956.


                       A cap on punitive damages

  We need to bring certainty and proportionality to the process. 
Everyone agrees that some awards are totally out of proportion to the 
harm done. The cost of insuring for this uncertainty is part of the 
litigation tax that drives up costs for all consumers.
  Proportionate, not joint, liability for de minimis tortfeasors. This 
is a necessary reform: defendants who are peripherally responsible 
should not be handed the entire bill for someone else's wrongdoing just 
because they may have deep pockets.


                          A statute of repose

  Manufacturers should not be sued for a product that is still being 
used long past its useful life. And they deserve protection against 
suits that result from misuse or alteration of their products.
  However, this bill has been distorted by the adoption of a series of 
floor amendments and the failure of the Rules Committee to allow 
consideration of amendments that would have, in my opinion, improved 
the bill.
  For example, an amendment by Mr. Berman of California that would have 
provided relief from joint liability for de minimis tortfeasors while 
retaining liability for highly culpable wrongdoers was not allowed to 
be offered, in spite of the fact that this amendment received 
bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. As it stands now, the 
bill offers protection not only to de minimis tortfeasors but to 
serious wrongdoers who are 80 or 90 percent responsible for an injury.
  But it is really the adoption of several floor amendments that vastly 
expand the scope of the bill that prevent me from being able to 
[[Page E625]] support the bill in its final form. These amendments were 
adopted without the benefit of hearings and careful deliberation and 
may have many unforseen and unintended consequences.
  For example, the bill now preempts State laws that impose punitive 
damages on drunk drivers and sexual predators, among others. It also 
will enable clever wrongdoers to escape punitive damages. For example, 
the manufacturers of the drug Zomax reported adverse reactions to the 
FDA as required to gain an exemption from punitive damages under one of 
the floor amendments; then, before the FDA could act, they 
intentionally dumped their inventory on the market, causing 14 deaths 
and 400 allergic reactions. I do not believe this is the type of 
behavior we should shield from punishment. Finally, because of the way 
the caps are structured, the bill disadvantages children, seniors, 
women, and middle income working Americans who are injured. A high 
income executive who is injured by a Ford Pinto would receive a far 
higher share of the damages allowed under State law than a child or a 
senior citizen injured by the same product. I do not believe these are 
the results my constituents are looking for when they ask for 
litigation reform. Although I support tort reform, I believe this bill 
needs improvement.
  I hope that the final conference report will return to the sound 
principles of the original bill, and embrace true product liability 
reform. If it does, I intend to support it.
  However, at this time I do not believe that this bill is worthy of 
support. I voted in favor of a projob creation bill in committee that 
became, on the House floor, a bill that tilts the court system against 
people of modest means, and includes several anticonsumer provisions.


                          ____________________