I rise in support of the Hyde amendment. The statute of repose currently in H.R. 956 has been threatened by language that has been added to the bill after it left the Committee on the Judiciary that has created a giant loophole in the statute of repose. This one provision in the law says that unless, unless all possible damages or health care is met by the insurance policy or by the health care program, that the statute of repose will not be effective. There are no insurance policies that provide that kind of protection. Certainly the Federal policies that many of us are under do not provide that kind of protection. It gives the trial lawyers a giant loophole that will enable them in almost every instance to open up the issue of whether the statute of repose is to be effective or not. The loophole will prolong litigation because we will first have to try the issue of whether all the possible damages, health care needs have been met before we ever go on to the basic issue that is involved, the language that will destroy one of the major goals of the product liability reform legislation in having finality of an issue 15 years after the product was issued. The Hyde amendment is supported by many national organizations. It is necessary to make this bill effective.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Hyde amendment and its implications for the statute of repose in H.R. 956.
Share
More from William Moorhead
I say to the gentleman, ``Primarily because, whey you cut from 100 percent to 25 percent, you're gutting the very issue we're talking about.''
I rise today to bring your attention to an effort in my district to establish a healthy lifestyles and opportunities for wellness in children. This enterprise is being undertaken by the Glendale Adventist Medical Center in a endeavor to…
I rise in support of H.R. 1170, which provides for a three-judge court review of statewide referenda. H.R. 1170 provides that requests for injunctions in cases challenging the constitutionality of measures passed by State referendum must…
I share the concern of the gentleman from Maryland. It is our intention that rule XI(c) be applied equally to all litigants, and that the Federal judges exercise no special restraint when dealing with the Federal Government.





