[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 86 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7252-S7253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRODUCT LIABILITY REFORM ACT
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few very brief
comments on the Product Liability Reform Act of 1998, which the Senate
will soon be considering. I will make more lengthy remarks on this bill
when we return from recess and move on to this bill, but I did not want
to let the bill's introduction last night pass without comment.
This bill is a good bill, and I am proud to be one of its original
co-sponsors. It is the product of incredibly hard work and tremendous
dedication by Senator Gorton and Senator Rockefeller, and I want to
congratulate--and thank--them and their staffs for what they have been
able to achieve. I also want to thank the President for his willingness
to work with us to come up with a bill that now has his full support.
I, frankly, would have liked a stronger bill, like the one we passed
last Congress, but the President vetoed that bill. That is something
that I think all those of us who support reform have to keep in mind as
we move forward with this bill. Because even if it doesn't incorporate
everything we wanted, this bill does offer much--together with the
promise of the President's signature.
The President's promise is important not just to those of us who have
long supported legal reform. It also should be important to my
colleagues who have not. I hope it prompts them to take a serious look
at this bill--to put aside preconceived notions they may have of
product liability reform, and to take a fresh look at what we have
done.
Mr. President, this bill offers meaningful--and fair--reform of our
legal system to redress the system's abuses while at the same time
protecting consumers' rights. And it contains the provisions of a bill
Senator McCain and I
[[Page S7253]]
have been working on for a couple of Congresses: the Biomaterials
Access Assurance Act.
The Biomaterials bill is the response to a crisis affecting more than
7 million patients annually who rely on implantable life-saving or
life-enhancing medical devices--things like pacemakers, heart valves,
artificial blood vessels, hydrocephalic shunts, and hip and knee
joints. These patients are at risk of losing access to the devices
because many suppliers are refusing to sell biomaterial device
manufacturers the raw materials and component parts that are necessary
to make the devices. The reason: suppliers no longer want to risk
having to pay enormous legal fees to defend against product liability
suits when those legal fees far exceed any profit they make from
supplying the raw materials for use in implantable devices. Although
not a single biomaterials supplier has ultimately been held liable so
far, the actual and potential costs of defending lawsuits has caused
them to leave this market. A study by Aronoff Associates found that 75
percent of suppliers surveyed were not willing to sell their raw
materials to implant manufacturers under current conditions. That study
predicts that unless this trend is reversed, patients whose lives
depend on implantable devices may no longer have access to them.
The Biomaterials title of the Product Liability bill responds to this
crisis by allowing most suppliers of raw materials and component parts
for implantable medical devices to gain early dismissal from lawsuits.
At the same time, by allowing plaintiffs to bring those suppliers back
into a lawsuit in the rare case that the other defendants are bankrupt
or otherwise judgment proof, it ensures that plaintiffs won't be left
without compensation for their injuries if they can prove a supplier
was at fault. Mr. President, I have a summary of the bill here, and I
ask unanimous consent that it be printed after this statement in the
Record.
I will have a lot more to say about the Biomaterials provisions and
the entire bill when we return from recess. For now, let me just once
again congratulate Senator Gorton, Senator Rockefeller and the
President for their success in forging this compromise bill. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Summary of Biomaterials Access Assurance Act
Title II of the Product Liability Reform Act of 1998 contains the
provisions of the Lieberman-McCain Biomaterials Access Assurance Act.
Need For The Biomaterials Bill: The Biomaterials bill responds to a
looming crisis affecting more than 7 million patients annually who rely
on implantable life-saving or life-enhancing medical devices such as
pacemakers, heart valves, artificial blood vessels, hydrocephalic
shunts, and hip and knee joints. These patients are at risk of losing
access to the devices because many suppliers are refusing to sell
biomaterial device manufacturers the raw materials and component parts
that are necessary to make the devices. The reason: suppliers no longer
want to risk having to pay enormous legal fees to defend against
meritless product liability suits when those legal fees far exceed any
profit they make from supplying the raw materials for use in
implantable devices. Although not a single biomaterials supplier has
thus far been held liable, the actual and potential costs of defending
lawsuits has caused them to leave this market. A study by Aronoff
Associates found that 75 percent of suppliers surveyed were not willing
to sell their raw materials to implant manufacturers under current
conditions. That study predicts that unless this trend is reversed,
patients whose lives rely on implantable devices may no longer have
access to them.
What The Bill Does: To alleviate these problems, the Biomaterials
bill would do two things. First, with an important exception noted
below, the bill would immunize suppliers of raw materials and component
parts from product liability suits, unless (a) the supplier also
manufactured the implant alleged to have caused harm; (b) the supplier
sold the implant alleged to have caused harm; or (c) the supplier
furnished raw materials or component parts that failed to meet
applicable contractual requirements or specifications. Second, the bill
would provide raw materials and component parts suppliers with a
mechanism for making that immunity meaningful by obtaining early
dismissal from lawsuits.
What The Bill Does Not Do: The bill does not keep injured plaintiffs
from gaining compensation for their injuries. First, it leaves lawsuits
against those involved in the design, manufacture or sale of medical
devices untouched. Second, it provides a fallback rule if the
manufacturer or other responsible party is bankrupt or judgment-proof.
In such cases, a plaintiff may bring the raw materials supplier back
into a lawsuit if a court concludes that evidence exists to warrant
holding the supplier liable. Finally, the bill does not cover lawsuits
involving silicone gel breast implants.
THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday,
Thursday, June 25, 1998, the federal debt stood at
$5,504,168,372,205.11 (Five trillion, five hundred four billion, one
hundred sixty-eight million, three hundred seventy-two thousand, two
hundred five dollars and eleven cents).
One year ago, June 25, 1997, the federal debt stood at
$5,339,644,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred thirty-nine billion,
six hundred forty-four million).
Five years ago, June 25, 1993, the federal debt stood at
$4,305,269,000,000 (Four trillion, three hundred five billion, two
hundred sixty-nine million).
Twenty-five years ago, June 25, 1973, the federal debt stood at
$452,652,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-two billion, six hundred fifty-two
million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--
$5,051,516,372,205.11 (Five trillion, fifty-one billion, five hundred
sixteen million, three hundred seventy-two thousand, two hundred five
dollars and eleven cents) during the past 25 years.
____________________