    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1996, Book I)]
    [March 16, 1996]
    [Pages 464-465]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Letter to Congressional Leaders on Product Liability Legislation
    March 16, 1996

    Dear Mr. Leader:
        I will veto H.R. 956, the Common Sense Product Liability Legal
    Reform Act of 1996, if it is presented to me in its current form.
        This bill represents an unwarranted intrusion on state authority, in
    the interest of protecting manufacturers and sellers of defective
    products. Tort law is traditionally the prerogative of the states,
    rather than of Congress. In this bill, Congress has intruded on state
    power--and done so in a way that peculiarly disadvantages consumers. As
    a rule, this bill displaces state law only when that law is more
    beneficial to consumers; it allows state law to remain in effect when
    that law is more favorable to manufacturers and sellers. In the absence
    of compelling reasons to do so, I cannot accept such a one-way street of
    federalism, in which Congress defers to state law when doing so helps
    manufacturers and sellers, but not when doing so aids consumers.
        I also have particular objections to certain provisions of the bill,
    which would encourage wrongful conduct and prevent injured persons from
    recovering the full measure of their damages. Specifically, the bill's
    elimination of joint-and-several liability for noneconomic damages, such
    as pain and suffering, will mean that victims of terrible harm sometimes
    will not be fully compensated for it. Where under current law a joint
    wrongdoer will make the victim whole, under this bill an innocent victim
    would suffer when one wrongdoer goes bankrupt and cannot pay his portion
    of the judgment. It is important to note that companies sued for
    manufacturing and selling defective products stand a much higher than
    usual chance of going bankrupt; consider, for example, manufacturers of
    asbestos or breast implants or intra-uterine devices.
        In addition, for those irresponsible companies willing to put
    profits above all else, the bill's capping of punitive damages increases
    the incentive to engage in the egregious misconduct of knowingly
    manufacturing and selling defective products. The provision of the bill
    allowing judges to exceed the cap in certain circumstances does not cure
    this problem, given Congress's clear intent, expressed in the Statement
    of Managers, that judges should do so only in the rarest of
    circumstances.

    [[Page 465]]

        The attached Statement of Administration Policy more fully explains
    my position on this issue--an issue of great importance to American
    consumers, and to evenly applied principles of federalism.
        Sincerely,

                                                                Bill Clinton

    Note: Identical letters were sent to Bob Dole, Senate majority leader,
    Thomas Daschle, Senate minority leader, Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the
    House of Representatives, and Richard Gephardt, House minority leader. A
    statement of administration policy on H.R. 956 was attached to the
    letter. The letter was made available by the Office of the Press
    Secretary but was not issued as a White House press release.