Clinton Vows to Veto Measure on Product Liability

With presidential campaign politics in full bloom, President Clinton vowed Saturday to veto a product-liability bill that would restrict consumers’ ability to win damages from makers of defective products. The president also chastised the Republican-led House for watering down an antiterrorism bill he favored.

In a two-page letter to Republican and Democratic congressional leaders, Clinton called the product-liability bill “an unwarranted intrusion on state authority in the interest of protecting manufacturers and sellers of defective products.”

A House-Senate compromise version of the measure, which is strongly backed by manufacturers of items ranging from automobiles to raw materials used in medical devices, is scheduled to come to a final vote in Congress this week.

A veto of the product-liability measure would be a major setback for House Republicans, who made reform of the civil court system a central element of their much-publicized “contract with America.”

House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and many corporate officials argue that current product-liability laws encourage frivolous lawsuits because plaintiffs can recover huge sums for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering.

But many consumer groups, as well as trial lawyers engaged in civil litigation, have denounced the proposed product-liability reform measure, saying it is misguided.

“There are significant checks on getting into court already,” said Joseph Belluck, a staff attorney at Public Citizen/Congress Watch, a Washington-based watchdog group affiliated with consumer activist Ralph Nader. But “the other side uses a few wild anecdotes to create the impression that the legal system is out of control,” Belluck said.

The president’s statement, however, drew sharp criticism from a fellow Democrat, Sen. John D. “Jay” Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, who supports the compromise legislation.

“I am extremely disappointed the president has taken such a shortsighted political view of a serious bipartisan effort that would restore common sense to the American legal system,” he told the Associated Press. “If the president continues his opposition, I think he is missing an important opportunity to change the way we do things here in Washington and reform a costly legal tangle.”

*

Clinton has indicated that he supports some limited product-liability reform. But he said any legislation must balance the interest of consumers with those of manufacturers.

“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,” Clinton wrote in his letter.

The president said the bill’s restriction or elimination of key categories of legal damages “will mean that victims of terrible harm sometimes will not be fully compensated for it.”

He noted that even under today’s legal rules, some claims against makers of dangerous or defective products, such as asbestos, breast implants or intrauterine devices, have not been successful because the manufacturers have entered bankruptcy proceedings.

Clinton’s veto threat came as he also criticized the House for seeking to pass antiterrorism legislation that takes the “teeth out of our efforts to fight terrorism.”

Clinton, who met with 29 world leaders in Egypt last week in the wake of terrorist bombings in Israel, said an antiterrorism bill passed last week by the House included none of the expanded federal law enforcement powers sought by his administration.

“At the same time the bill went easy on terrorists, it got tough on law enforcement officials,” Clinton complained in his weekly radio address. “The House stripped a provision that would have helped protect police officers from cop-killer bullets. And it ordered a commission to study not the terrorists, but the federal law enforcement officials who put their lives on the line to fight terrorism.”

Clinton faulted lawmakers for not standing up to the National Rifle Assn. and the Gun Owners of America. The two organizations opposed expansion of federal antiterrorist powers out of fear that such a move would foster efforts to limit the right to bear arms.

The disputes over product liability and antiterrorism efforts are evidence of the growing impact of the presidential campaign season.

Administration officials view both issues as opportunities to depict Republicans in a politically unfavorable light.

*

On product liability, the administration says, the GOP is embracing the interests of Big Business over those of consumers. The administration also sees the antiterrorism bill as an opportunity to portray the Republicans--who have long sought to cultivate an image of being tough on crime--as being soft on terrorism.

Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), the presumed Republican presidential nominee, and House Republicans are still debating whether to compromise with the president on terrorism legislation. On Saturday, Clinton urged the House to adopt tougher antiterrorism measures more in keeping with a bill passed by the Senate.