[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 124 (Friday, July 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S10901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               PREEMPTION OF STATE PRODUCT LIABILITY LAWS

 Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I have opposed Federal product 
liability reform legislation primarily because I believe it is a 
mistake to replace laws that have been carefully crafted by the State 
courts and legislature over the past two centuries with a one-size-
fits-all piece of legislation developed in Washington, DC. Through the 
time-tested methods of common law adjudication and legislative 
adjustment, the State courts and legislatures have worked together to 
develop tort laws that strike the appropriate balance between the needs 
of plaintiffs and defendants, and those of consumers and business. Over 
the past decade, the States have been reforming their own tort systems 
by experimenting with alternative dispute resolution procedures, caps 
on punitive damages, and changes in liability standards. In fact, the 
most recent edition of the American Bar Association Journal reports 
that State legislatures have taken up more than 70 new tort law bills 
in their current sessions and that new product liability laws have been 
enacted in Illinois, Michigan, and North Dakota this year.
  This is the way the Federal system is supposed to work. When a 
problem arises, the States should be the forum for experimenting with 
new practices and devising new solutions. A Federal law, such as the 
one passed by the Senate, would bring this experimentation to a 
grinding halt and make Congress, which has virtually no experience 
legislating in this area, responsible for the entire Nation's product 
liability system. It is ironic that this extension of Federal power is 
coming at a time when we are trying to reduce the size and scope of the 
Federal Government by shifting authority to the States and localities.
  Recently, the National Conference of State Legislatures adopted a 
resolution opposing Federal product liability legislation. The 
Conference noted the proposed Federal legislation would conflict with 
State laws governing tort liability, worker's compensation, and 
insurance and would place State legislatures and courts in an 
intolerable legal straightjacket.
  I ask that the complete text of the National Conference of State 
Legislature's resolution be printed in the Record.
  The resolution follows:

 National Conference of State Legislatures Resolution Adopted July 20, 
                                  1995

       NCSL has reviewed proposed federal legislation that would 
     preempt state law by severely restricting the rights of 
     persons injured by defective products to seek recovery in 
     state courts. Such legislation fails to meet the standards 
     necessary for federal preemption.
       In particular, no comprehensive evidence exists 
     demonstrating either that state product liability laws have 
     created a problem of such dimension that a federal solution 
     is warranted or that federal legislation would achieve its 
     stated goals. NCSL believes that the proposed legislation 
     would create serious new problems in the field of product 
     liability by dictating a single set of rules controlling the 
     timeliness of claims and the admissibility of evidence. It 
     would conflict with long-standing state laws governing tort 
     liability, workers' compensation and insurance regulations. 
     By doing so, such proposals would place state legislatures 
     and state courts in an intolerable legal straightjacket.
       Therefore, in conformance with our general policy in 
     opposition to federal preemption of state law and in the 
     conviction that it is particularly improper for the federal 
     government to attempt to restrict citizen access to state 
     courts, the National Conference of State Legislatures 
     strongly opposes all legislation before Congress that would 
     have the effect of preempting state laws regulating recovery 
     for injuries caused by defective products.
     

                          ____________________