Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, Cincinnati's Saint Xavier High School went to Columbus over the weekend and returned home with the Ohio State Division 1 basketball championship. Our hardiest congratulations go out to Coach Scott Martin and all the players whose hard work and dedication made it possible. Their families, their fans, and their community are very proud of them. Saint X's victory marked the school's second State title this year. Just last month, the Bomber swim team also notched the State championship. It has been quite a year for one of Cincinnati's top schools and a stalwart in the GCL. Madam Speaker, as a graduate of rival LaSalle High School, I must admit I am slightly envious. Hopefully, next year my Lancers will be back on top. But in the meantime, I tip my hat to the scholar athletes from Saint X. On a sad note, players and students learned Sunday that assistant principal and teacher of some 30 years, Tom Meyer, who was known as Saint Xavier's number one basketball fan, had succumbed to cancer just a few hours after his favorite team won the title. Knowing he was near death, the players had specially made warm-up suits designed to honor their friend, Mr. Meyer, as they made their final run at the State championship. The back of the shirts had the following message, each of them: ``May his pain be comforting knowing that he has touched the lives of so many. Thank you, Mr. Meyer, for carrying your cross for us.'' A very touching message for a man loved by many. To all the Bomber players and coaches and families and friends, our hardy congratulations. And to the family of Saint X's number one fan, Tom Meyer, our most sincere condolences.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his leadership on this important issue. I rise in support of the Oil Price Reduction Act. Let us face it, the Clinton Administration has been asleep at the switch. Last month the administration's point man on the fuel crisis, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, said, ``It is obvious that the Federal Government was not prepared. We were caught napping. We got complacent.'' Complacent indeed. While the Clinton administration was napping over the last 12 months, the price of crude oil has tripled, and the American people were paying the price. That price continues to rise every day. This legislation has been drafted to assist the administration in its negotiations with those nations who have deliberately damaged the American economy by engaging in crude oil price-fixing. Hopefully, passage of the Oil Price Reduction Act will send a wake-up call to the slumbering Clinton administration and a strong message to those nations whose business practices are harming the American economy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, with the economy strong and our government taking in budget surpluses, the time has come to address some nagging fairness issues in our Tax Code. The House has already done that twice this year by passing relief from the marriage tax penalty and voting to end the Social Security earnings limit. Now the time has come to address another unfair provision in our Tax Code, the death tax. Today, when a person dies, the Federal Government assesses a tax of up to 55 percent on the value of his or her estate. Thus, many Americans, small business owners and farmers, are unable to pass on their life's work to their children. This is totally unfair. Today, the House will be voting on the Small Business Tax Fairness Act which will deliver relief from the death tax. This commonsense legislation will make it easier for Americans to pass on a small business to the next generation. We should all support this bill that will help restore the American dream to American families. In fact, we ought to get rid of the unfair death tax altogether.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as both a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary and Committee on Small Business to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2366, the Small Business Liability Reform Act of 1999, and I would like to commend my colleague from the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), for his leadership in this area. Small businesses with 25 or fewer full-time workers employ nearly 60 percent of the American workforce. Their continued vitality is essential to our strong economy. However, just one lawsuit, frivolous or not, can easily destroy a small business. Today, small businesses operate in constant fear that they will be named as a defendant in a lawsuit, be found minimally responsible for the claimant's harm, and be financially crushed under the weight of damages and attorneys' fees and the rest. According to a recent Gallop survey, one out of every five small businesses decides not to hire more employees, not to expand its business, not to introduce a new product or not to improve an existing product out of fear of litigation. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2366 would help alleviate the tremendous burden and fear of unlimited liability on businesses that employ less than 25 people by making two modest changes to existing tort law, while still steadfastly protecting injured plaintiffs' rights to sue. First, H.R. 2366 would raise the burden of proof to a clear and convincing evidence standard for a plaintiff suing for punitive damages and place reasonable caps on these damages, up to three times the total amount awarded for economic and non-economic loss or $250,000. This provision is vitally important, because businesses cannot be insured to cover these types of judgments. H.R. 2366 would also eliminate joint and several liability for non- economic damages for small businesses. In the States that have joint and several liability in place, a defendant who is found only 1 percent responsible for an injury can be stuck paying 100 percent of the damages. Such a judgment could easily bankrupt a small business that is only minimally responsible for a non-economic harm. If that happens, workers lose their jobs. I want to emphasize that real economic damages, including medical costs, are not limited by this bill, and plaintiffs remain free to sue more responsible parties. Mr. Chairman, more than 60 percent of small business owners make no more than $50,000 a year. Litigation costs and excessive judgments can put them out of business in a heartbeat, causing employees, again, to lose their jobs and impacting the community that has come to rely upon the services of that particular business. This is a commonsense tort reform bill, and I encourage Members to vote yes on H.R. 2366. I again commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) for showing his leadership in proposing this important legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, Cincinnati has said good-bye to a wonderful lady and great teacher, Parma Samad, who died last month after a long, courageous battle with cancer. As a student in Cincinnati's Catholic schools, I had the privilege of being taught by many outstanding teachers. My sixth grade teacher at St. Catharine's, Parma Samad, Miss Fierro at the time, was simply the best. Over her career, she taught in both the Catholic and public schools. Madam Speaker, our entire community has benefited from her selfless dedication to her students. And she will be long remembered by those whose lives she touched over her 39-year teaching career. Madam Speaker, I know that I am joined by many in Cincinnati who knew and admired Parma Samad when I offer my sincere condolences to Parma's husband, Ron, to her parents, Cosmo and Agnese Fierro, and to all her family. Parma will be greatly missed. There is no question in my mind that she is looking down on us right now from a better place, and that she is smiling.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire time. At this time I would like to introduce a perfecting amendment which was filed yesterday in accordance with the rule, and the amendment as modified also here today. This amendment does two things. First, it clarifies that this bill would in no way interfere with existing State statutes of limitation. This amendment simply states that the 18-year period runs to the date of the accident or harm and not to the date of the filing of the claim. This further ensures that all claimants will have adequate time to prepare and file suit. This simply clarifies the original intent of the bill and guarantees that claimants will always have the full time period allowed by the applicable State statute of limitations. Second, my amendment clarifies that this bill does not interfere in any way with the assertion of claims for remediation of environmental hazards, such as lead paint or asbestos, caused by a durable good that is more than 18 years old. Although we believe that this bill as currently drafted does not cover environmental remediation claims, we want to make that absolutely clear. My amendment expressly states this bill does not supersede or modify any statutory or common law that authorizes an action for civil damage or other relief for remediation of the environment. Our bill, the Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999, is a straightforward, common sense product liability reform measure that limits frivolous lawsuits, while ensuring that no injured party ever goes uncompensated. We have worked carefully with Members on both sides of the aisle to address legitimate concerns and craft a solid piece of legislation that benefits small businesses, employees, taxpayers, and consumers. I urge my colleagues to approve this amendment and support the passage of H.R. 2005.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we will provide that to the gentleman immediately.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the form I have placed at the desk. I have given a copy to the minority.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. I think it is fairly ludicrous that people would sit on that type of thing. I do not acknowledge that is what the effect of this would be. And the bottom line is, all workers are going to be covered under Worker's Compensation or this law has no effect at all. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. On that point, reclaiming my time, the gentleman must have a very low evaluation of what most of the business owners and people in this country have in this country.

Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, despite some of the inflammatory language that we have heard this morning, I would argue that this is a very commonsense, a very modest approach to tort reform. There are absolutely no workers who will not be covered under this particular piece of legislation. It is a fairly narrow bill. It does not affect all products. We are essentially talking about durable goods, capital goods. These are machines that are found in machine shops in factories all over this country. A very good example of how a bill similar to this worked extremely well in this country is the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. We had an industry, the small aircraft industry in this country, that was going down the tubes. After this legislation was passed, we have seen it increase substantially. We have seen this industry substantially increase in how it has worked in this country. We have seen twice the number of workers. Now we have 25,000 additional workers in that field. The industry, as the gentleman who spoke earlier today has said, has been revitalized in a number of areas around the country. The United States also is at a competitive disadvantage to many of our other trading partners. For example, the Europeans and the Japanese do not have an 18-year statute of repose, they have a 10-year statute of repose. A number of States have looked at this, and they have even shorter periods of statute of repose from 6 to 15 years. I think we have been very generous in making it an 18-year statute of repose. I think that is very reasonable. Under the circumstances, it avoids forum shopping. It avoids very high costs of litigation. The bottom line is, in these types of cases a very significant amount of the money that is won or settled, because most of these cases end up getting settled and not actually going to contract it, ends up in the lawyers' pockets. It does not go to the plaintiffs. It does not go to the claimants. It goes to the lawyers. And that is why they have been particularly vociferous. But that is one of the reasons we are seeing such a spirited debate from some folks on the other side of the aisle. But the bottom line is, this is good legislation for this country. I would urge its passage. I would yield to either one of the gentlemen.

Mr. CHABOT. Under workers compensation, that is the only time under which this particular bill would have any effect at all. The employee is covered under workers compensation. That is the only time a statute of repose would have any effect at all. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, that is not the point of the bill at all.

Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California referred to the Gonzalez case. That particular case is an example of why H.R. 2005 should be enacted. The Gonzalez case involved a manufacturer that designed, built, and marketed the printing press in question in 1973 to the prevailing standards of the time. The next year it retrofit subsequent printing presses with a guard over the area that Mr. Gonzalez was injured by, to comply with revisions in German safety standards that required all running nib points to be guarded. Contrary to assertions that were made, there had been no reported injuries on the pre-1974 model when the new barrier guard was added, and several years later injuries were reported on these models, and Heidelberg began sending out a series of retrofit notices, 13 in total, between 1986 and 1993. The printing press in question had been resold five separate times, and it was only by chance that the current owner, which was a leasing company, received the notice because they had purchased a similar press from the manufacturer in the 1970s. The leasing company failed to initiate the repairs and did not forward the warnings to its lessee, Mr. Gonzalez's employer. Next, Mr. Gonzalez's employer deliberately altered the press and removed or bypassed other factory-installed guards. Mr. Gonzalez, the injured claimant in that particular case who had worked as a pressman operator for 26 years, informed his employer before the accident that the press guards were missing from the machine. The company never bothered to order or replace the missing equipment. Finally, Mr. Gonzalez, contrary to his extensive experience in manufacture, warnings, and job training, deliberately reached into the running printing press that was rotating at speeds between 8,000 and 10,000 times per hour to remove a spot of debris. After the accident, OSHA issued numerous citations and fines against Mr. Gonzalez's employer, including failure to have an injury prevention program in place. Heidelberg, after having no control over the printing press for over 20 years, after having sent out 13 retrofit notices, and because a negligent employer was protected from liability by the workers compensation system, ended up paying out $2.5 million to an injured worker who engaged in risky and unsafe work practices. This is precisely why a statute is needed.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would first like to thank the bipartisan cosponsors of this bill, the gentlewoman (Ms. Kaptur), a Democrat; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a Republican; and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), another Democrat, for their strong support of this bill. Our bill, the Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999 is a straightforward, commonsense product liability reform measure that limits frivolous lawsuits while ensuring that no injured party ever goes uncompensated. This modest proposal is critically needed to encourage economic growth, maintain the competitiveness of American durable good manufacturers and keep U.S. manufacturing jobs from moving overseas. I hope that today we can engage in an honest and principled debate over this very important issue. However, I should warn my colleagues that opponents of this bill may, and I want to emphasize may, try to cloud the debate with anecdotes that do not hold up under closer scrutiny. In the Committee on the Judiciary, for example, we heard opponents allude to various cases to make their points, but they did not tell us all the facts. In one case, they did not tell us that as the technology improved, the company developed a new safety device and began to retrofit their products. They did not tell us that the company sent out 13 notices to past purchasers to inform them of the new safety technology. They did not tell us that the printing press in question was 20 years old or had been resold five times and that the current owner, a leasing company, did not make the safety repairs. They did not tell us that the company leasing the machine deliberately altered the press and removed other safety guards. And they certainly did not mention that the employee who was injured was injured when he deliberately and inexplicably reached into the moving printing press. So I ask that Members consider this bill on its merits and not be swayed by unreliable stories from those who continue to support frivolous lawsuits, lawsuits that are devastating to small business owners, devastating to their employees, and ultimately very expensive to consumers and to taxpayers. Our bipartisan bill would help remedy this problem by recognizing that after a reasonable length of time, 18 years, manufacturers should not bear the burden of capricious litigation over products that have functioned safely for many, many years. It is essentially a statute of limitations past which a company cannot be sued for an injury caused by an overage product. However, unlike a statute of limitations, a statute of repose measures the time available to file a claim for personal or property injuries from the date of the initial sale of the capital equipment. This limitation would not apply in any case where the injured party is not eligible to receive workers' compensation, ensuring that all employees retain the ability to seek compensation. I want to emphasize that, that if workers' comp does not cover the employee, this statute has absolutely no effect at all, so we are not jeopardizing anybody's right to recover here. This is a reasonable proposal, based in part on the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 which created a similar 18-year statute of repose for the general aviation industry. The General Aviation Revitalization Act overwhelmingly passed Congress and was signed by the President. It is now the law of the land. It is also important to note that 19 States have already enacted some form of a statute of repose, all of them shorter than 18 years. Our bill will create a uniform standard that will discourage forum shopping by creative trial lawyers. Mr. Chairman, even though manufacturers of durable goods are targeted as deep pockets, the vast majority of these product liability cases never actually go to trial or are won by the defendant manufacturers. However, these suits result in extremely high costs for small businesses and for their employees, with most of the money going to trial lawyers and expenses, not to the injured plaintiffs. These suits involve decades-old equipment, once considered state of the art, which has been modified without the original manufacturer's knowledge or products that are not even being used for their intended purchase oftentimes. Obviously, lawsuits related to these overage products, some of which have been out of control of the original manufacturer for 20, 50 or even 100 years, can be endless. They are unfair. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in our efforts to help small businesses and workers and consumers and taxpayers by supporting the Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act which is a commonsense reform measure that ensures compensation for all employees while seeking to end frivolous lawsuits. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be directed to make technical and conforming changes in the bill, H.R. 2005, to accurately reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 2005, the legislation under consideration.