[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 7 (Wednesday, February 2, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H171-H173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2005, WORKPLACE GOODS JOB GROWTH
AND COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 1999
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 412 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 412
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2005) to establish a statute of repose for
durable goods used in a trade or business. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose
of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by
the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and
shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 412 is a modified open rule providing
for the consideration of H.R. 2005, the Workplace Goods Job Growth and
Competitiveness Act. The rule provides for one hour of general debate,
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
After general debate, the bill will be considered under an open
amendment process, during which any Member may offer any germane
amendment as long as it is preprinted in the Congressional Record.
And the minority will have an additional opportunity to change the
bill through the customary motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
So I think it is fair to say that this rule encourages a full debate
and accommodates any Member who wants to improve upon the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this act is a bipartisan bill that creates a uniform
statute of repose for durable goods. In layman's terms, that means that
18 years after a product is sold, durable goods manufacturers will have
some protection from the liability for injury caused by use of their
products.
The thinking behind this legislation is that if a product has been
used safely for a substantially long period of time, it is not likely
that it was defective when it was originally purchased. If an injury
occurs after almost two decades of use during which time the
manufacturer had no control over the product, it is more likely that
the product was either misused or not well maintained. In such cases,
it is unfair to hold the manufacturer liable.
The encouraging news is that, in most cases when manufacturers are
sued for injuries caused by old products, the manufacturer wins; but
this justice is not won without a price. The costs of defending a case
involving an old product are more burdensome because establishing a
strong defense
[[Page H172]]
may involve tracking down an employee who has long since retired,
indeed may no longer be alive, digging up old records, and recalling
events that occurred many, many years ago.
The time and money required to litigate such cases divert resources
that could otherwise be spent on developing innovation, increasing
production, creating jobs, or providing benefits to employees.
H.R. 2005 strives for a balance by providing remedies for legitimate
claims and at the same time protecting manufacturers from the cost of
unreasonable and unnecessary litigation.
The bill is narrow in its application of the liability protection it
provides. The death and personal injury section of the bill is limited
to those eligible for Worker's Compensation.
The bill also takes into account latent injuries, which may not
manifest themselves for years, by exempting cases where harm is caused
by toxic chemicals. Exemptions are also provided for cars, boats,
aircraft, or passenger trains.
Further, if a product is covered by a warranty that exceeds 18 years,
the bill allows suits to be filed until the end of the warranty period.
Establishing a national statute of repose for durable goods is not a
new idea. Bills containing a national statute of repose have been
considered by every Congress for almost 2 decades. And currently 19
States have statutes of repose laws covering a variety of products and
ranging from 6 to 15 years.
But durable goods are often sold nationally, which creates a
disparity of results for claimants and manufacturers in different
States. The provisions of H.R. 2005 would preempt State law, thereby
extending the 18-year time limitation for workers and States that have
statute of repose laws and creating a uniform law in the 30 States that
do not have these laws on the books.
Statute of repose laws are not unique to the United States. European
and Japanese manufacturers benefit from statute of repose laws that
provide a competitive advantage in the amount of time and resources
they save, which then can be used to grow their businesses and market
their products.
These are many of the arguments in favor of H.R. 2005. But this
legislation does not have its opponents. And while the Committee on
Rules did not hear from the Members who have concerns about this bill,
the committee recognizes that some disagree with the provisions, which
is why the rule allows for a full debate and a limited number of
amendments.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues, regardless of
their views on H.R. 2005, to support this fair and open rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of the underlying bill, the Workplace
Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act, H.R. 2005. This bill
establishes a uniform nationwide 18-year time limit on the civil
liability of manufacturers of durable goods, such as machine tools.
Under the measure, civil suits for damages against durable goods
manufacturers could be brought only within 18 years after the product
enters the stream of commerce. This is a common sense reform proposal
that would promote the competitiveness of American manufacturers while
simultaneously protecting U.S. workers.
My district in Rochester, New York, is a large manufacturing
district. We are the proud birthplace of a number of Fortune 500
companies, such as Eastman Kodak, Xerox Corporation, Bausch & Lomb, and
Johnson & Johnson. Indeed, we are the largest per capita exporting city
in the United States. This region exports more than all but nine
States. We are among the top 10 exporting areas in the entire country.
But the durable goods manufacturing industry is subject to frequent
product liability lawsuits targeted against products that are often
decades old and have been resold or modified without the original
manufacturer's knowledge or control. The potential liability in these
products is literally endless.
Wasting money on everyone but the injured parties in these lawsuits
is inefficient and does little good. In fact, it hurts American
workers, businesses, and consumers. And our foreign competitors do not
have the same risks and costs as the United States manufacturers.
The European Union and Japan both have a 10-year statute of repose,
so they maintain a distinct cost advantage from pricing products. And
implementing the 18-year limit would help to even the playing field.
Moreover, the measure would not harm workers on the ability to be
justly compensated in the event of injury. In fact, the measure
guarantees the worker would be eligible for Worker's Compensation. The
worker could also have a cause of action for negligent maintenance of
the machine.
The bill provides a valid solution to a problem facing durable goods
manufacturers while ensuring the injured claimants will recourse to
benefits in the Worker's Compensation system. It is a modest, targeted
bill that deserve Congress' support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot of talk today about the
details in this bill. I would like to offer just a few general
thoughts.
It is important for us to recognize that this bill will not cause
injured parties to go uncompensated. The bill does not apply unless
injured parties are covered by Worker's Compensation. This bill does
not override more protective, more generous express warranties that
these products might have. And this bill is very limited in terms of
both the time period and the goods that it covers.
What this bill does do, importantly, is it separates out the least
productive portion of the cost, the price, of goods and services in
this country, the litigation-driven costs. It separates those out and
tries to get a handle on them.
The National Association of Manufacturing Technology says that one-
third of respondents say they have been sued in these types of
lawsuits, suits against manufacturing equipment; and while it is true
that only five percent of these claims actually make it to trial, and
of those that actually make it to trial, the vast majority result in
favor of the manufacturer, the fact that they have to constantly defend
these suits is a litigation-driven cost, it is a litigation tax not
borne by these employers but borne by consumers because it raises the
cost of all of their products.
And unless we create a national standard, those manufacturers who
have to deal with a multitude of States also have to follow a multitude
of liability provisions, increasing their costs.
So this is a tax on every good and service. It makes our goods less
competitive worldwide. As my colleagues have already heard, the
European Union and Japan have a more limited statute of repose. This is
a tax, a drag on the economy. It costs us jobs.
I would urge all of my colleagues to support not only this very
reasonable rule but also the underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding, and I rise in support of this rule and the legislation it
deals with.
{time} 1045
This bill before us today is about helping create American jobs. I
represent the town of Vero Beach, Florida, the home of Piper Aircraft.
Let me share with my colleagues what has happened to this company and
their employees over the past 15 years. In 1988, Piper had about 3,000
employees and produced more than 500 aircraft per year. Just 3 years
later, in July of 1991, Piper Aircraft was forced into Chapter 11
bankruptcy and the workforce had declined from 3,000 to 400.
What happened? Why did 2,600 Americans lose their jobs? Yes, 2,600
Americans lost their jobs. They lost their
[[Page H173]]
jobs because of excessive lawsuits. The courts held Piper liable for
every aircraft that they had produced since 1937. Piper may not have
seen an aircraft since it was sold and left their facility since 1940,
yet they were being held liable in courts, even if the plane had been
significantly altered or had been poorly maintenanced for 50 years.
This was wrong. Yet it was happening.
Piper could not purchase liability insurance. No one would insure
that kind of liability. Piper had to pay for lawsuits and settlements
out of their own pocket. This led to their having to file Chapter 11
bankruptcy and the loss of jobs to more than 2,600 Americans.
Around this same time, a French airplane manufacturer made
significant gains in providing aircraft to the U.S. market.
Aerospatiale gained a significant share of the U.S. market because U.S.
manufacturers of small aircraft had been forced into bankruptcy. Our
liability laws had resulted in the destruction of jobs here in the U.S.
and the creation of jobs in France. I believe our business in Congress
should be to create U.S. jobs, not jobs for foreign competitors.
In 1994, the Congress passed legislation limiting liability to 18
years for aircraft produced in the United States. What has this done
for Piper Aircraft? These liability limitations have resulted in the
creation of over 1,000 jobs in Vero Beach, Florida. Today, 5 years
after Congress passed that liability limitation, Piper now employs
1,500 people; and I believe they will continue to grow in the years
ahead. This year, Piper will again produce 500 aircraft, four times
what they had produced 5 years ago.
Liability reform creates jobs. Do we want to create more jobs here in
America by establishing reasonable liability limits? H.R. 2005 will do
this for the rest of American industries like the reforms that were
passed in 1994 and have worked so well. If Members want to create more
jobs here in the United States, support this rule and support the
underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In closing, I would just repeat that this is a modified open rule
which only limits amendments through a preprinting requirement that the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) announced last Thursday. All of
the Members who wish to participate in debate or offer thoughtful
amendments may do so under this process. I urge support for this fair
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________