Hon. Michael G. Oxley: “this has been a very worthwhile debate. I am only sorry we did not have more time. This has been a worthwhile and…”

“this has been a very worthwhile debate. I am only sorry we did not have more time. This has been a worthwhile and edifying debate. Let me conclude by answering some questions that have been raised during the debate and particularly from some conversations I have had with my good friend from New York, Mr. Towns, as to what this amendment does or does not do. First of all, this amendment applies only to punitive damages. Second, the amendment does not cap noneconomic damages in any way, so that the plaintiff would be entitled to receive economic and noneconomic damages; only punitive damages would not be permitted. Thirdly, the FDA is the agency we rely on to regulate food and drug purity and the only agency authorized to give premarket approval. This amendment encourages innovations, it protects consumers and it makes good common sense. Mr. Chairman, this was a bipartisan effort on this amendment, and we think it goes to the heart of the entire process of approving medical devices and drugs. It is in the best interests of our consumers and of our constituents that we have a system that we can rely on and that provides adequate protection against voracious punitive damage awards against drug companies or other manufacturers of medical products. The Oxley bipartisan amendment is an amendment that all Members can and should support.”