[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 461-463]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 462]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 463]]

  What happened? Why did 2,600 Americans lose their jobs? Yes, 2,600 
Americans lost their jobs. They lost their 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.

                          ____________________