[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E681-E682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             THE COMMON SENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY REFORM ACT

                                 ______


                           HON. NEWT GINGRICH

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, May 1, 1996

  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of 
my colleagues the following statements, made during a press conference 
on April 30, 1996, marking the transmission to the president of the 
Common Sense Product Liability Reform Act.
  First, a statement of former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh; 
second, statement of Lewis Fuller, president of Fuller Medical Company; 
third, Tara Ransom, 9-year-old girl who uses a silicone shunt; and 
fourth, Linda Ranson, mother of 9-year-old Tara.

  Senate Majority Leader Dole and House Speaker Gingrich briefing on 
                     Product Liability Legislation

       Speaker Gingrich: Let me thank all of you for coming today. 
     We are transmitting to the president today our product 
     liability reform bill. We believe that product liability 
     reform will lower prices to consumers, lead to the faster 
     development of better products, and as you'll hear today, in 
     some cases literally save lives, because of some products 
     which are being priced out of existence and threatened out of 
     existence by lawsuits and by the problems of unnecessary 
     litigation.
       We believe that the product liability reform bill is an 
     important reform of the legal system. I would just point out 
     that Dr. Edwards Deming, the founder of the quality movement 
     and the man who taught the Japanese the concept, said 
     consistently for his entire lifetime that the American 
     litigation system was a major blockage point to us being able 
     to compete in the world market, that it caused unnecessary 
     lawsuits and led to unnecessary expenses and did unnecessary 
     harm. We hope that the president will decide in the interest 
     of lower consumer prices and better products and greater 
     American competition in the world market, that we need a 
     product liability reform bill, and I hope--we hope that he 
     will sign this bill. And I think when you've listened to 
     today's statements, and particularly listened to Linda and 
     Tara Ransom (sp), you'll see why it is vitally important to 
     have a product liability reform bill to help Americans in a 
     variety of ways.
       And let me now turn this over to former Attorney General 
     Dick Thornburgh.
       Mr. Thornburgh. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning. As a 
     former governor of the state of Pennsylvania and attorney 
     general of the United States, I've been a long-time advocate 
     of civil justice reform. The damage lawsuit abuse does to our 
     economy and to the rule of law in this country has reached 
     the stage where reform is absolutely necessary. As you will 
     hear, today's distorted system inflicts injury on thousands 
     of small businesses like Louis Fuller's (sp), and it can do 
     real harm to shunt-dependent children like Tar Ransom and my 
     son Peter.
       Congress has finally wrapped up its long and productive 
     debate over civil justice reform. And I want to commend 
     Majority Leader Dole and Speaker Gingrich, in signing the 
     letter of transmittal for this measure today, and sending it 
     to the president. And we must acknowledge something else, 
     something remarkable that happened in this session of 
     Congress to make this day possible. This was a bipartisan 
     effort.
       Senators Rockefeller and Lieberman joined Senators Dole and 
     Gorton in spearheading the passage of this legislation to 
     curb lawsuit abuse through its voyage through the Senate--a 
     truly non-partisan effort against some truly non-productive 
     practices.
       As Senator Lieberman said, ``This is a moderate, thoughtful 
     bill reflecting years of effort and many compromises.'' He 
     observes, ``Opponents of this bill have tried to paint the 
     bill as pro-business and anti-consumer, but the status quo is 
     terrible for consumers. The current system is inefficient, 
     unpredictable, costly, slow and inequitable.''
       He continues: ``Injured people wait years for judgments. 
     Some of those with the worst injuries are under-compensated, 
     while those with smaller injuries are over-compensated. 
     Businesses act defensively, avoid innovation as too risky, 
     and devote enormous numbers of personnel and resources to 
     litigation. The length between fault and judgments and 
     settlements is more and more attenuated. Consumers pay higher 
     prices in order to cover product-related costs.'' ``And,'' 
     Senator Lieberman acidly concludes, ``lawyers prosper.''
       Reform has been too long coming. This is a modest measure. 
     It corrects the worst abuses of our current system while 
     fully respecting the plaintiff's need for justice. Yet 
     defying his own personal history of support for this 
     legislation, and after offering signals that he would sign 
     this bill, President Clinton has promised so far to veto it. 
     So this looks to be the message from the White House: No 
     matter how desperately the Louis Fullers (sp) and the Tara 
     Ransoms (sp) of America may need lawsuit reform, we're going 
     to have to wait for a change of heart by the president, or a 
     change of presidents to get it. I don't like to draw 
     invidious conclusions; it's not my style. But it doesn't take 
     this former law enforcement official long to make a link 
     between the promise of a veto and the motive for the 
     president's threatened action. Where's the smoking gun? I'm 
     compelled to respond: Follow the money.
       Trial lawyers give a great deal money in political campaign 
     contributions, more than the top 10 oil companies and the big 
     three auto companies combined. And the doors of the Clinton 
     White House appear to have swung wide open for this lobby of 
     greed, while closing the door on average Americans who seek 
     justice.
       The top 50 big-giver trial lawyers contributed a total of 
     $2.6 million to Mr. Clinton's 1992 campaign. In just the 
     first nine months of 1995, lawyers and law firms pumped 
     another 2\1/2\ million into the president's reelection 
     campaign coffers.
       Listen to Senator Jay Rockefeller. He said, ``The president 
     needs trial lawyers and their money more than he needs good 
     public policy.'' Now the president obviously does not want to 
     appear to be buckling to this special interest, so he says he 
     opposes reform because he's concerned that the measure will 
     be unwarranted intrusion on state authority. This argument 
     was dismissed years ago, when the National Governors' 
     Association, true defenders of state authority, called for a 
     uniform national product liability standard. Among them at 
     the time was then-Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas. He was 
     in fact part of the very committee that persuaded his fellow 
     governors to call for national lawsuit reform to greatly 
     enhance the effectiveness of interstate commerce.
       Now President Bill Clinton espouses a kind of phoney 
     federalism to resist reform. Now he chooses to put the 
     interests of the trial lawyers ahead of those of thousands 
     whose lives depend on medical innovation. Now this president 
     is banking his campaign on the forces of greed and putting 
     the rewards of a small, powerful elite before the national 
     interest.
       And unless he has change of heart, President Clinton will 
     be putting the interests of those trial lawyers before the 
     lives of those like this little girl that you will hear from 
     later, Tara Ransom (sp).
       We should call and we do call on President Clinton to take 
     a second look at his promise to veto this bill. It's not too 
     late to change one's mind, and it's certainly not too late to 
     change one's heart.
       Mr. Louis Fuller (sp): Thank you, General Thornburgh.
       My name is Lewis Fuller. I live in Gadsden, Alabama, where 
     I am the president of a small medical supply company.
       Every now and then, I hear Alabamans debate whether or not 
     we need a state lottery. I remind them that we already have 
     one--it's called the civil justice system.
       I'm sure most of you have heard about the lawsuit in 
     Alabama where a wealthy doctor

[[Page E682]]

     won a $2 million judgment because the paint job on his car 
     was partially refinished. It was a paint job that lead to a 
     snow job on American justice. That decision was so bad--the 
     judicial system that arrived at that decision is so corrupted 
     by trial lawyer money--that this case is now before the 
     Supreme Court of the United States.
       The Alabama trial lawyers are capable of generating that 
     kind of national publicity makes me mad. It makes me mad 
     because Alabama is a great state, a great place to live and--
     all things considered--a great place to do business.
       We don't deserve to live under the kind of system that we 
     have. The cost of that system goes far beyond car companies. 
     Lawsuit abuse hurts us all--as consumers, workers, taxpayers.
       Yet our state is dominated, top to bottom, by the trial 
     lawyers and the judges whose campaigns they bankroll. In a 
     state where you can get $2 million for a car paint job, the 
     danger of a reckless, ruinous punitive award is taken very 
     seriously, a threat to one's very livelihood. That's why we 
     have 10 times the punitive damage settlements as our four 
     neighboring states combined.
       This is the constant threat I live under as a small 
     businessman. This is the liability threat that forced me to 
     stop supplying my community with products that can mean the 
     difference between life and death.
       I am sad to report that because of the possibility of a 
     ruinous lawsuit, Fuller Medical had to stop offering baby 
     monitors designed to warn parents of the possible onset of 
     Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
       We have no choice. We cannot afford the insurance premiums 
     that would allow us to continue offering these in-home-life-
     support devices.
       We were forced to shut down this part of our operation in 
     1993 and no company in our immediate area has filled the gap. 
     Thanks to the greed of trial lawyers, a potential life-saving 
     device has been strangled in the crib.
       Another casualty of lawsuit abuse is our van conversion 
     business.
       I'm not talking about making vans prettier. I am talking 
     about making them more accessible to handicapped citizens. We 
     did these conversions for several years, which made the vans 
     hand-controlled, giving a handicapped driver greater 
     mobility. But under our system of joint-and-several 
     liability, we could be sued for any problem with a van, even 
     if we were not actually at fault.
       I have no trouble with reasonable damages for genuine 
     fault. But I cannot pay an unlimited damage for any mistake 
     someone else might make.
       In these two ways, you see how the threat of limitless 
     punitive damages and joint-and-several liability forced us 
     out of these two ventures. Both of these measures would be 
     addressed by the reforms Congress is sending to the 
     President.
       I cannot understand why Mr. Clinton has threatened to veto 
     this bill. I cannot understand why an Administration that 
     gives so much lip service to small business would defend a 
     system like this one.
       I cannot understand why Bill Clinton would take this stand, 
     when any former governor must surely know that the ultimate 
     victims are not the large corporations, or small businesses 
     like mine. It is not even the consumers who must pay higher 
     prices.
       It is the handicapped, who need a way to drive themselves 
     to work.
       It is the parents, who don't want to lose another child to 
     Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
       And it is tens of thousands of people like this sweet 
     little girl, Tara Ransom, who depend on medical innovation 
     and technology just to stay alive.
       Mr. President, if you hear my words, please change your 
     mind. Not simply for my small business, but for this little 
     girl. Mr. President, it is not too late to do the right 
     thing.
                                                                    ____



                                                  Phoenix, AZ,

                                                   March 29, 1996.
       Dear Mr. Clinton: My name is Jara Ransom. I am 8 years old. 
     I'm in 3rd grade at Magnet Traditional School.
       I have a silicone shunt for hydrocephalus. I get the 
     hydrocephalus when I was a baby. I have had 5 operations.
       I need the shunt to live. I have talked to Congress about 
     it when I testified last summer. Mom says we need a liability 
     bill. I only know a little bit about it, but I know it will 
     help me live. Please sign it.
       I know Mrs. Clinton likes kids. Can she help me too?
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jara Ransom.
                                 ______

       My name is Linda Ransom. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a 
     lobbyist. I'm just a desperate mother.
       My daughter, Tara, and I have flown here from our home in 
     Phoenix, Arizona to give President Clinton this message: 
     President Clinton, it's not to late to change your mind. It's 
     not too late to help Tara. Please don't veto this bill.
       You see, Tara has a medical condition called hydrocephalus, 
     and the only treatment for it is a surgically-implanted shunt 
     in her brain which is made out of silicone. The shunt takes 
     the excess cerebral fluid away from her brain in a silicone 
     tube and carries the fluid down through her chest into her 
     abdomen, with the help of a small pump under her scalp. Kids 
     outgrow shunts, and Tara has already had 5 surgeries. She 
     will have to have more--that is, if the shunts are still 
     available.
       They may not be, under our current legal system. Already, 
     three of the major suppliers of raw materials have decided to 
     restrict or stop supplying manufacturers of medical implants. 
     One of them, Dow Corning, is the sole supplier of the raw 
     silicone used to make Tara's shunt. While the shunt is still 
     available for the 50,000 hydrocephalics who depend on it to 
     stay alive, the situation is looking worse and worse for the 
     medical device industry.
       Outrageous punitive damages awards are not really the 
     problem, although the risk is always there. The medical 
     implant industry is more threatened by the day-to-day cost of 
     defending itself from thousands of lawsuits, only to be found 
     not liable again and again. Many times, the cost of the raw 
     materials in a medical device--the Teflon in a pacemaker, or 
     the polyester yarn in a suture--amounts to just pennies. But 
     these suppliers are forced to spend millions of dollars 
     defending themselves in court, from lawsuits that they 
     shouldn't have been dragged into in the first place.
       This bill would change that. Caps on punitive damages will 
     help, but more importantly, ending joint and several 
     liability will mean that only those who are responsible for 
     damages will be brought to court. This will free up millions 
     of dollars in legal costs that could be better spent on 
     research.
       Tara's long-term future lies in the hands of medical 
     researchers--the ones who might invent a better device that 
     won't need surgery, or maybe a drug to control the excess 
     fluid in the brain. Today, not enough bright young people are 
     going into research, and I think a lot of it has to do with 
     the frustration of not getting devices off the drawing board 
     because of the liability.
       Tara may be the person to find the cure for AIDS or become 
     the first woman President. She is a very bright girl, who is 
     at the top of her class and has skills is beyond her current 
     3rd grade level at the Magnet Traditional School. Whatever 
     her future is, she has a future because of a tiny piece of 
     silicone plastic.
       Tara is the perfect example of hope--hope in the surgeon's 
     skills, hope in medical technology, hope in the shunt itself. 
     She is also the perfect example of faith--faith in the belief 
     that God's miracles are the hands of the surgeons and the 
     minds of the scientists who make the discoveries and create 
     the devices. Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich have done 
     their job in getting the bill passed. President Clinton, it's 
     up to you. Don't take our hope away. Sign this bill.

                          ____________________