    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1996, Book I)]
    [May 2, 1996]
    [Pages 677-681]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on Vetoing Product Liability Legislation and an Exchange With
    Reporters
    May 2, 1996

        The President. Good afternoon. Before I make the announcement I
    invited you here for today, I want to congratulate the Department of
    Justice on the success of the Zorro 2 antinarcotics operation that
    Attorney General Reno announced a couple of hours ago today.
        Zorro 2 targeted a Mexican-run cocaine smuggling and distribution
    network in the United States and the Colombian cartel with which it
    worked. It dismantled both the organization that owned the cocaine and
    the organization that ran the transportation system, locking up more
    than 100 individuals across the country, seizing almost 6,000 kilograms
    of cocaine and 1,000 pounds of marijuana.
        Critical to the success of this multi-State operation, which is a
    part of our southwest border initiative, was the cooperation of over 40
    State and local police agencies, the DEA, the FBI, and several other
    Federal agencies all across the country. They combined their resources
    and their expertise to take down this extensive drug organization.
        Today's arrests are another big victory in the fight against illegal
    drugs, the fight to keep them off our streets and out of the hands of
    our children. On behalf of the American people, I want to thank our law
    enforcement officers for a job well done.
        Today I am returning to Congress without my signature the product
    liability legislation sent to me this week. I take this step because I
    believe this bill tilts against American families and would deprive them
    of the ability to recover fully when they are injured by a defective
    product. I am eager to sign legislation to make our legal system work
    better at less cost in a fairer way. But this bill would hurt families
    without truly improving our legal system. It would mean more unsafe
    products in our homes. It would let wrongdoers off the hook. I cannot
    allow it to become law.
        One of my duties as President is to protect the health and safety of
    our people. Parents should know the toys their children play with are
    safe. Families should know the cars they drive will not explode upon
    impact. Our grandparents have a right to know the drugs and the medical
    devices they use will not injure them. It is a hallmark of our system of
    justice that when a product produces injury or death, a family has the
    right to try and recover its losses. And if someone endangers the health
    of the public, he or she should be held respon-

    [[Page 678]]

    sible. I believe we can protect these rights even as we curb frivolous
    lawsuits.
        Let me be clear: We do need legal reform. America's legal system is
    too expensive, too time-consuming, and does--does--contain too many
    frivolous lawsuits.
        As Governor of Arkansas, I signed several tort reform bills into
    law. In 1994, I signed legislation in this room to limit the liability
    of aircraft manufacturers in what I thought was a reasonable and prudent
    way. We've worked hard to lift the burden of regulation and redtape from
    business. We cut 16,000 pages of Federal rules, giving a break to small
    businesses and working for results. I believe we can help the business
    community in this country without hurting ordinary Americans. But any
    legal reform must be carefully crafted so that the interests of
    consumers and businesses are fairly balanced.
        For a year I tried to work with Congress to write such a balanced
    bill. I made it very clear what I would accept in such legislation and
    what I could not support. When the United States Senate passed product
    liability legislation, it was clearly an improvement over a much more
    extreme House bill. I still had a couple of objections to it, which I
    made very clear. And I expressed the hope that in the conference we
    could resolve those objections so that a bill would be sent to me that I
    could sign.
        Instead, in the conference the bill moved back toward the House bill
    in a couple of respects and, perhaps even worse, included some things
    which were not included in either the Senate or the House bill but, as
    too often happens in Washington, were put into the final conference
    version.
        This bill is opposed by the American Cancer Society, the Heart
    Association, the Lung Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and
    our friend Sarah Brady--where is she, behind me--and the handgun control
    people. It is opposed by every major consumer and senior citizen group.
    It is opposed by State legislators and State judges. I'm proud to be
    joined today by the attorney general of Mississippi, Mike Moore, who
    opposes it. These are mainstream, Main Street groups, and I believe they
    are right.
        The legislation would make it impossible for some people to recover
    fully for noneconomic damages. This is especially unfair to senior
    citizens, women, children who have few economic damages, and poor people
    who may suffer grievously but because their incomes are low have few
    economic damages. It would arbitrarily cap punitive damages which are
    paid by a corporation that has engaged in egregious conduct, such as
    knowingly making or selling the public a dangerous product. A cap on
    punitive damages can reward wrongdoers and diminish the deterrent impact
    of punitive damages.
        And if a jury, for example--and many juries are being asked to
    consider this today--should ever issue a finding that tobacco companies
    have been not truthful with their customers, this legislation would
    limit the ability of juries to impose punitive damages on those
    companies.
        And in a provision added in the conference, the legislation would
    bar the courthouse door to some consumers altogether if they are unlucky
    enough to be hurt by a product that is 15 years old, even if it's
    supposed to last more than 15 years. That is the case with two of the
    people who are in this room today.
        In the worst provision added to the conference, it would bail out a
    gun dealer, for example, who knowingly sells a felon a gun or a bar
    owner who knowingly sells a drunk another beer before he or she hits the
    road. And I might say, that is why Sarah Brady is here today. This was
    supposed to be a product liability bill. This provision has nothing--I
    reiterate--nothing to do with the manufacture of products that
    subsequently prove defective and injure people. It shouldn't even be in
    this bill, and that is probably why it was put in at the 11th hour in
    the conference without any hearing in the Senate or the House.
        I should also point out that there has been a lot of talk in this
    Congress about the importance of giving responsibilities back to the
    States. That apparently does not apply to laws relating to the civil
    justice system. This bill overrides the laws of all 50 States, in spite
    of the fact that 40 of the 50 States in the last 10 years have acted on
    their own to reform the tort laws and more than 30 of them have acted in
    the area of product liability.
        So it seems that the Congress is willing to override State laws if
    they conflict with this bill--but only, I might add, if the State laws
    are more favorable to the consumers. Now, if the State laws are less
    favorable to the consumers than this bill, they can stand.
        This legislation is arcane, complex; it has a lot of legalisms and
    loopholes in it. But the real fact is it could have a devastating impact
    on innocent Americans who can presently look

    [[Page 679]]

    to our system of justice for recovery. Several of them are with me
    today.
        Janey Fair lost a daughter when her schoolbus burst into flames
    because the manufacturer wouldn't install an inexpensive safety measure.
    The bus was hit by a drunk driver with no money. Because she could rely
    on joint and several liability, she could bring a lawsuit. This is the
    sort of thing that would be changed, as it relates to noneconomic
    damages, in this law.
        The problem is that children have hardly any economic damages;
    they're not out there earning money. Poor people may have just as much
    life expectancy left as you or I, but their economic damages would not
    be as great, no matter how great their human loss.
        Carla Miller was left with her children after her husband was killed
    when his tractor rolled over. Jeanne Yanta lost the ability to have
    children after she used a contraceptive that the manufacturer knew was
    dangerous. Every one of these people is a hard-working American citizen
    who is law-abiding, tried to do the right thing by their families. Every
    one would have been prevented from fully recovering for their losses, or
    in some cases, those who committed civil wrongs would escape full
    punishment, if this bill were to become law.
        I continue to believe that if we were to work together in a
    bipartisan and open fashion we can craft the right kind of legal reform.
    I am still willing to do it. Congress knows well my specific positions.
    If it will send me a balanced bill that cuts back on frivolous lawsuits
    while being fair to families, that gives manufacturers more
    predictability but doesn't bail out real wrongdoers, I would sign such a
    bill without hesitation.
        But this bill does not do that. And because of the changes that were
    made in the Senate bill moving away from rather than toward the
    specifics that I asked for and because of things that were put into the
    conference that were not even a part of the House bill, much less the
    Senate bill, I have no choice but to veto it. And that is what I have
    done today.
        Q. Mr. President, I'm sure you've heard that the Republicans are
    heaping criticism upon you, saying this veto is a payback to the Trial
    Lawyers Association whose members have contributed heavily to your
    reelection. Your response?
        The President. Well, I know they've said that. I think you should go
    back to them and ask them how they could justify depriving Americans who
    are just like these people of the right to recover for their injuries,
    and ask them if they really believe that our economy is so fragile that
    we have to strip from these people the right to be made whole in order
    to continue to make our economy go forward. Just today we learned that
    in the last quarter our economy grew at 2.8 percent. We have the lowest
    unemployment of any advanced economy in the world except for Japan, and
    many people believe as a practical matter it's even lower than that
    nation's. I do not believe that we have to have a legal system which
    shuts the door on the legitimate problems of ordinary people in order to
    get rid of frivolous lawsuits and excess legal expenses. And I think
    that we ought to ask those folks that.
        You know, before I got into being an elected official, I taught law.
    I studied the Constitution. I have sat in courtrooms and seen the faces
    of people who come in there full of fear, full of uncertainty, and full
    of their own hurts. And so it just seems to me that before they notch
    this one up as a special interest vote, I would just say two things: One
    is I made it clear that I would sign legislation that the Trial Lawyers
    Association did not agree with. I made that abundantly clear. I made my
    position clear. Two, what is their answer? Can they really look at these
    people in the face and say, ``Boy, our economy needs it so badly that I
    don't want anybody who's like you in the future to be able to recover
    and be made whole the way you were''?
        And if they--I'll be glad to have the special interest discussion
    with them if they first say, ``It is fine with me if these people,
    people just like these people, in the future cannot be made whole.''
    They need to answer on the merits before they get to the accusations.

    Gas Tax

        Q. Your critics say that you're resisting cutting the gas tax. Is
    that accurate?
        The President. Well, first of all, I believe that the better tax cut
    for Americans is to give people a deduction for the cost of education
    after high school and to give them a deduction for the cost of raising
    their children. It's a lot more money. And it's for a more compelling
    reason.
        The gas tax did not drive up the cost of gasoline. After the gas tax
    was put in and all dedicated to deficit reduction in 1993, gas continued
    to go down for a year. And we have taken steps to bring the price of
    gasoline down. We are

    [[Page 680]]

    moving aggressively on that, and it's beginning to work.
        Now if the Congress wants to repeal the gas tax, then it ought to be
    done--I'll say again--in the context of deficit reduction. They ought to
    come in here, and we ought to figure out what our balanced budget plan
    is. We ought to put our common savings together. We ought to have a tax
    program--a tax relief program that we can afford, and we ought to do it.
    I would be happy to talk with them about this.
        But I think just to sort of out of the blue say we're going to add
    $30 billion to the deficit, instead of talking about what the best kind
    of tax relief for America's families is and how we're going to do it in
    the context of balancing the budget, is not a responsible thing to do.
    But I'm happy to talk to them about it. But we have to do it, aware of
    its consequences and of the choices which it will impose upon us. And I
    think we ought to come in and start these budget discussions, and if
    they want that to be a part of it, it's fine with me. I'll be glad to
    talk to them. I'm not shutting the door on that.

    Budget Negotiations

        Q. Mr. President, in that vein, you've been keeping up pressure on
    Senator Dole now for a least a good week to come in here and talk with
    you about the balanced budget. Why isn't that working, would you say?
    How long are you going to keep----
        The President. Well, I don't know. You'd have to ask him that,
    because, if you remember, the first day I asked for them all to
    participate again, he suggested that the two of us ought to do it, and
    then through Mr. Panetta, I accepted. So I'm to willing to meet with
    them under any circumstances and try to get--I'll meet with him alone;
    I'll meet with the leadership; I'd meet with a bipartisan broader group.
    I just think that we need to understand that whenever we have worked
    together, good things have happened.
        You look at the--we've got the telecommunications bill. We've got
    the terrorism bill. We've got this year's budget. I would have signed
    the budget I signed last week on the first day of the budget year, 6, 7
    months ago. We've got the bill on lobbying reform. Whenever we work
    together, we can still make good things happen, and we don't need a work
    stoppage here before the election. And we don't need bills just to be--
    we don't need bill, veto, bill, veto, bill, veto. We need to work
    together and pass legislation that I can sign and keep moving the
    country forward. Then we'll have conventions this summer, and there will
    be lots of times for the campaign.
        Press Secretary Mike McCurry. Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. I'll take one more.

    Product Liability Veto

        Q. Mr. President, you just suggested you would not sign this bill in
    part because it would overrule the 50 State laws. But wouldn't any
    product liability reform overrule the----
        The President. Yes, it would. But I want to point out, it's
    different from like the securities law issue where, essentially, I
    approved the bill except for the changes that were made in the
    conference that nobody ever debated. And I made that clear. And that's
    an area of Federal law.
        There is a general feeling among people around the country that
    there are too many frivolous lawsuits. The only point I'm making is that
    the States have moved to try to address this. As a result of that, there
    have been 40 States that have acted in the area of tort reform. And I
    believe this is right--there may be more, but there have been at least
    30 States that have specifically taken action in the area of product
    liability.
        I just pointed out that it is ironic that the Congress which said
    that what it wanted to do was to give power away from the States, in
    this area wants to take the power away from the States--at least they
    want to take it away one way.
        Yes, if you have any Federal standards, they will to some extent
    erode State law. I'm prepared to do that to a limited extent to get rid
    of frivolous lawsuits. But I think we ought to be aware of the fact that
    this country has functioned pretty well for 200 years by being very
    reluctant to do that and letting the States handle that area of our law.
        Now, in areas of national commerce, like the securities laws, the
    Federal Government has been very active. In other areas, the Federal
    Government hasn't been so active. So it just is another argument for
    being careful in this area.
        It's not like the States have been asleep for the last decade. It's
    not like they never debated

    [[Page 681]]

    this, not like they never made any decisions. They've been quite active
    in this area. We can go further; I am prepared to do it. But I think
    it's--I am just bringing it out as a reason for further caution.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 2:43 p.m. in the Oval Office at the White
    House.