[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 878]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 878]]

       WORKPLACE GOODS JOB GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. TOM BLILEY

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 2, 2000

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2005) to 
     establish a statute of repose for durable goods used in a 
     trade or business:

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2005, the 
Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act.
  As Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I have worked on numerous 
liability reform bills to try to bring some balance and fairness back 
into our legal system. Lawsuits continue to be filed at a record pace. 
But consumers somehow are still ending up with the short end of the 
stick as they pay more and more money in legal fees and higher product 
prices, while the trial lawyers run around the country searching for 
ever higher payoffs and contingency fees to line their own pockets. 
Unfortunately, our basic values of responsibility and integrity have 
been left behind in this race to the courthouse.
  H.R. 2005 establishes critical protections for American manufacturing 
jobs by establishing a uniform guarantee for durable goods used in the 
workplace. It says that manufacturers have to stand behind their 
product for 18 years. After that, responsibility for using the product 
passes to the product owner to determine the further useful life of the 
product. The bill only applies where the plaintiff is eligible for 
workers compensation, essentially transferring liability for a durable 
good from the manufacturer to the product owner after the 18 year time 
period.
  Nineteen States have a shorter time period for product life cycles, 
varying from State to State. Thirty-one States haven't yet enacted 
liability limits, although several of these States that have tried have 
watched them be struck down by the Courts as not within the power of 
the State legislatures. This creates a crazy patchwork of laws for a 
company trying to sell nationwide--a patchwork full of loopholes 
allowing enterprising trial lawyers to forum shop for the State with 
the weakest laws. This is an abuse and corruption of our legal system, 
which only Congress has the power to restrain.
  The Japanese and the European Union have set a 10 year liability time 
limit on the useful life of their durable goods--guaranteeing only half 
the useful life for their products that we are allowing. But without 
this bill, Japanese and European manufacturers that are new entrants 
into the American market won't have the same long tail liability 
exposure as American companies. This means that they pay less for 
claims-made liability insurance, giving them an unfair competitive 
advantage, taking jobs away from Americans and transferring them 
overseas. We can not allow this to continue.
  In addition to the 19 States and our foreign competitors who have 
recognized the need for a limit on a product's useful life, we have a 
proven track record in Congress of success in enacting uniform 
liability reforms. In 1994, Congress established a similar 18 year time 
limit on liability to save jobs in the aviation industry. We had the 
same doom and gloom predictions from many Members back then that the 
sky was falling for worker protection, but guess what--the law works 
well, it revitalized a disappearing industry, and it has earned wide 
scale support over the last five years. In fact, that bill, with the 
same type of liability limit that we're talking about today, created 
over 25,000 new jobs in the aviation industry alone. I would rather 
protect the hard working wage earners of America than the contingency 
fee jackpot hopes of a few trial lawyers.
  Despite the claims you heard in the debate on this bill, no worker 
will be denied compensation as a result of this reform. The liability 
limits only apply where the plaintiff has full access to workers 
compensation. The critics of the bill aren't talking about 
compensation, they are talking about punishing companies by pushing 
them into bankruptcy for something that was made generations ago by 
workers long since retired. The trial lawyers don't ever want a 
business to be able to limit the life-span of a product. They don't 
want businesses to be able to say that after 18 years the 
responsibility for determining whether a product is safe should rest 
with the product owner. Responsibility is a dirty word to these people 
because it eliminates potential deep pockets that they can go after to 
extort settlement money. Keep in mind that this bill doesn't in any way 
limit the responsibility or liability of the employer--it only takes 
away the deep pocket manufacturer after 18 years from a product's first 
sale. Many of the Members who have opposed this simple notion of 
responsibility have opposed every single effort at liability reform in 
Congress.
  Last November, our Committee agreed to discharge this bill to bring 
it to the floor as quickly as possible. We recognized the importance of 
protecting American jobs and bringing fairness and responsibility back 
into our legal system.
  This bill was taken from legislation negotiated in previous years on 
a bipartisan, bicameral basis with the Administration. The provisions 
are the result of years of bipartisan work by the Commerce Committee 
and the Judiciary Committee on legal reform. Past product liability 
bills containing these provisions have received strong majorities in 
both Houses.
  I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his work in bringing this piece 
of the product liability bill forward, and urge your support for its 
passage.

                          ____________________