President Clinton said Saturday he would veto legislation as currently written that would limit court-awarded payments to consumers injured by dangerous or defective products.
The proposal, which emerged from a House-Senate conference last week, "unfairly tilts the legal playing field to the disadvantage of consumers," Clinton said in a statement outlining his concerns to congressional leaders.Consumer groups, which joined the Association of Trial Lawyers of America in opposing the proposal, were jubilant. Business interests and others who for years have sought limits on legal settlements were angry.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the bill's chief sponsor who had predicted last week that Clinton would sign the measure, called the president's action "a shortsighted political view of a serious bipartisan effort that would restore common sense to the American legal system."
He called on Congress to pass the bill "by wide, bipartisan majorities, and send it to the president."
Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization founded by Ralph Nader, said, "I think this kills the bill, and appropriately so." Clinton's letter explaining his decision to veto the bill in its current form "says all the things consumer groups have been arguing for the past 15 years," she said.
The bill would in most cases limit damages for pain and suffering paid to plaintiffs who have been hurt by products and would place other restrictions on the right to sue over defective products.
The legislation started in the House as one of the promises in the Contract With America, but the more far-reaching proposals of the House version were removed in conference.
Clinton called the proposed Common Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act an "intrusion on state authority," because liability law is traditionally a state issue and the act would override some state laws.
The Senate and the House are expected to take up the legislation this week, with a Senate vote scheduled for Tuesday. In previous votes in both houses, supporters have been short of the number of votes that would be required to override a veto.