[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 41 (Thursday, April 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S3118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRODUCT LIABILITY AND BIOMATERIALS ACCESS
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, each year, American companies are forced to
lay off workers or shut down entirely, but it's not because of hard
economic times. Instead, the costs of product liability insurance and
outrageous damage awards are driving them out of business. We now live
in the most litigious society on earth. Our courts are packed with
frivolous lawsuits filed by people seeking multi-million dollar
payments for modest damages. As a result, we are all paying a huge
price--from the job market to the supermarket. Let us take the first
step by reforming the product liability system.
Congress did just that, when it sent President Clinton the Product
Liability Legal Reform Act. This legislation was a carefully crafted
bipartisan bill that, among other things, would have limited most
punitive damage awards to twice the plaintiff's compensatory damages,
or $25,000--whichever is greater. The bill would have simply injected
predictability and sanity into our out-of-control legal system and
protected American companies from unfair and outrageous damage awards.
The American people and America's employers, however, were dealt a
big blow when President Clinton vetoed this bipartisan, common-sense
reform effort. Almost 90 percent of the American people supported the
bill. Consumers already pay 30 percent more on the price of a step
ladder and 95 percent more for the price of childhood vaccine due to
outrageous product liability costs, and we simply can't afford to pay
any more. American workers and businesses needed this bill to help stem
to tide of job loss and help create new jobs.
So, why would Mr. Clinton veto this legislation? Possibly because the
most vocal opponents of this bill the plaintiff's trial lawyers--were
also the target supporters of his re-election effort. The President had
a choice to make. He had to choose between the plaintiff's trial bar
who provide him millions in dollars in campaign funds, and American
workers particularly those in manufacturing jobs. He choose the trial
lawyers. Unfortunately, his decision is not only bad politics, is
terrible policy for the American People. That's way even many prominent
members of this own party in Congress were shocked his veto.
Negotiations continue with the White House on product liability
reform, but to date I have seen no significant movement that would
constitute real progress. Thus far, only watered-down proposals that
attempt to deceive the American people into believing that real reform
will take place have been offered.
My purpose in coming to the floor today is to challenge my colleagues
to act on real product liability reform. Or, send the one part of this
legislative effort that there is some consensus on to the President. I
am speaking of Senators McCain and Lieberman's Bio-materials Access
Assurance Act.
Every year 7.5 million patients are threatened when medical suppliers
choose to discontinue a product because the liability concerns outweigh
any potential gains. In my experience as a cardio-thoracic surgeon, you
can't overstate the vital nature of bringing the best and newest
technology to the operating table. The list of life-saving devices
affected is too long to mention. Everything from annuloplasty rings and
tissue valves used in valve implantation to the blood filters and
cardiotomy reservoirs needed for heart surgery are all at risk of
serious shortage if the Congress does not act.
Many implantable devices are already in short supply. At least 14
biomaterials suppliers have limited or stopped selling the raw
materials used in the manufacture of devices. Many major suppliers have
stopped selling materials to the U.S. market because of liability
concerns. Dow Chemical no longer manufactures medical grade resin for
the implant market. Dupont has discontinued the supply of Teflon,
Dacron, and Delron used in the permanent medical implant industry.
A 1997 study indicated where this problem is going within the next
one to three years: U.S. manufacturers will divert resources from
research and development to the search for replacement materials; and
financial resources for investment will begin to dry up and innovation
within our boarders will suffer.
Further, within three to 10 years: A biomaterials ``crisis'' will
occur; major segments of the biomaterials industry will move overseas,
killing smaller manufacturers where we see so much innovation today;
patients will not have access to life-saving and life-enhancing
implants.
Let me be clear: These devices save millions of lives every year.
I've used these implants and devices in my own surgical practice to
save the lives of hundreds. My hands as a surgeon and my patients are
witnesses to the importance of this issue. The time to act is now.
We have another opportunity this year to bring both of these
important legislative initiatives to the President's desk. I sincerely
hope that both ends of Pennsylvania are up to the challenge.
____________________