[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2864-H2872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 956, COMMON SENSE LEGAL STANDARDS 
                           REFORM ACT OF 1995

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I 
call up House Resolution 108 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 108

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal standards and 
     procedures for produce liability litigation, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed two hours equally divided among and controlled by 
     the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary and the Committee on Commerce. After general 
     debate the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. 
     No further consideration of the bill shall be in order except 
     pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

                              {time}  1915

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 108 provides for 2 hours of general 
debate on H.R. 956, the Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act. Such 
time is to be divided equally between the chairmen and the ranking 
minority members of the Judiciary and Commerce committees, after which 
time the Committee will rise without motion.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a rather simple rule which will not require a 
great amount of discussion. The House has completed 3 days of dialog on 
the first two components of legal reform, and House Resolution 108 
simply assures a full discussion of H.R. 956.
  This rule is designed to allow the House to continue this week's 
historic discussion over how to restore sanity to our Nation's legal 
system. These critical reforms will benefit virtually 
[[Page H2865]] every phase of American life, and I believe that 2 hours 
of general debate provides ample time to discuss these reforms that 
will limit the devastating legal costs on the U.S. economy and the 
American work force.
  The Committee on Rules had delayed reporting the second component of 
this rule until earlier this afternoon in order to provide more time to 
consult with the minority and the leadership. It has been our intention 
to present the minority with every opportunity to offer and vote on 
amendments to the principal sections of this bill, and the Rules 
Committee wanted to guarantee an additional day of discussions to 
provide Members on both sides of the aisle with this opportunity.
  The majority has supported, these measures in the past, and I am 
pleased that House Resolution 108 was reported favorably from the Rules 
Committee yesterday by voice vote. I urge my colleagues to support this 
rule, and I look forward to a thoughtful and deliberative debate on all 
of the significant issues raised by this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not oppose this rule, but I must take this time 
to express my strong opposition to this so-called reform of product 
liability. Mr. Speaker, I am joined in my opposition to this bill by a 
variety of groups including, to name but a few, the Consumer Federation 
of America, the Consumers Union, the American Association of Retired 
Persons, the National Conference of State Legislators, and the YWCA.
  Mr. Speaker, these groups oppose this legislation because it is an 
assault on American consumers--the very American people the Contract 
With America seeks to assist by getting government off their collective 
backs. This bill does get something off someone's back, but what the 
bill really does is provide immunity to manufacturers and industry. The 
bill does it by making it very difficult for injured consumers to seek 
redress in the courts and thereby insuring that dangerous products 
remain on the market.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will dismantle 200 years of State 
common and statutory law. This bill ignores the fact that at least 45 
States have undertaken significant reform in response to the perceived 
problems in local civil justice systems. If we are to undertake civil 
judicial reform, such reform should complement, not undo, the efforts 
of the States. This legislation does not do that.
  My Republican colleagues contend we must pass this legislation 
because of an explosion of product liability litigation. Mr. Speaker, 
there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, product liability claims filed in Federal courts have actually 
declined by 36 percent between 1985 and 1991 and they represent only 4 
percent of all tort filings in State courts. The National Center for 
State Courts reported last year that since 1990, the national total of 
State tort filings has decreased by 2 percent. They estimated that if 
this trend continues, in the next 10 years State courts will experience 
a decline of 10 percent in State tort filings. This, Mr. Speaker, is 
hardly an explosion. Quite the opposite in fact.
  My Republican colleagues contend that this legislation is required 
because juries are making outrageous and excessive punitive damage 
awards that damage American business, both large and small. My 
Republican colleagues contend that the only way to protect business and 
insure its competitiveness is to cap punitive damage awards.
  But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, punitive damages are only 
rarely awarded--39 States already do not permit them or severely limit 
their size. These limits have been imposed at the State level in spite 
of the fact that consumer products are responsible for an estimated 
29,000 deaths and 30 million injuries each year. In fact, between 1965 
and 1990, punitive damages were awarded in only 353 product liability 
cases, 91 of which were asbestos cases. Three hundred and fifty-three 
in 25 years hardly add up to excessive number of awards.
  Mr. Speaker, the GAO has reported that the size of damage are closely 
related to the severity of the injury and the economic harm suffered by 
the victim. Is it excessive or outrageous to award punitive damages in 
the case of a severely burned 4-year-old when her pajamas catch fire? 
Is it excessive or outrageous to award punitive damages when an oil 
tanker runs aground and bespoils a large portion of the coastline of 
Alaska? I think not.
  Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met earlier this evening to consider 
amendments to this bill. The recommended rule severely restricts the 
number and scope of those amendments which will be debated on the 
floor. My Republican colleagues have long complained that the process 
in the House was closed and did not permit open debate on critical 
issues facing this Nation. If this issue is so critically important, 
the Rules Committee majority should have seen fit to open the process 
when we consider this legislation for amendment tomorrow. I would hope 
the American people deserve at least that much.
  I noted that the majority leader just a few moments ago announced 
that we are not going to have votes on Monday and that we will not have 
votes on Tuesday until 5. And yet we were told in the Committee on 
Rules that we just do not have enough time to consider all these 
amendments that Members want to offer. They cannot have it both ways. 
They cannot cancel, effectively cancel 2 days of votes and then tell 
the Members that we do not have enough time to vote. There are a number 
of speakers on my side who wish to be heard on this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the committee.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for H.R. 956, the 
Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act of 1995. The rule provides 2 
hours of general debate equally divided between the chairman and 
ranking members of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 
Commerce.
  This is part 1 of a two-part rule which will provide Members adequate 
time to debate the principles associated with product liability reform 
as well as a large number of both Democrat and Republican amendments to 
this bill.
  Recognizing the merits of this rule, the Rules Committee favorably 
reported this rule by a voice vote.
  The rule will allow a fair and open debate of the important issues 
associated with this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, our legal system needs reform. It has been reported that 
Americans file a lawsuit every 14 seconds in this country. This 
litigation explosion has been most evident in the area of products 
liability lawsuits.
  Between 1973 and 1988, as courts liberalized product liability laws, 
the number of product liability cases increased by 1,000 percent. The 
cost of these suits has been estimated to be as high as $80 billion a 
year--this is greater than the combined profits of America's 200 
largest corporations.
  The cost of these frivolous lawsuits is devastating to America's 
businesses, consumers, and families. Today, our excessive reliance 
today on a patchwork quilt of conflicting State statutes and common law 
relating to product defects burdens interstate commerce, discourages 
innovation, exacerbates liability insurance costs, compromises American 
competitiveness, and forces Americans to pay higher prices.
  H.R 956 will establish uniform Federal rules by which manufacturers 
and consumers alike will be able to abide as they engage in interstate 
commerce. The commerce clause of the Constitution reserved this right 
for the Federal Government and I believe it is time for the Federal 
Government to correct this area of our legal system. This bill must be 
passed to prevent the further growth of these burdens.
  I urge my colleagues to support fair rule and the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  [[Page H2866]] Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
opposition to this rule and I do so for a number of reasons, first and 
foremost of which is the fact that H.R. 1075 is far from the 
commonsense reform that it purports to be. While this legislation is 
bolstered by a good deal of Republican rhetoric it is supported by 
little empirical need.
  My GOP colleagues insist there is an explosion of product liability 
litigation and punitive damage awards which is negatively impacting 
American competitiveness and stifling business growth in this country. 
This is pure bunk, Mr. Speaker.
  Product liability cases represent less than one-half of 1 percent of 
all civil filings in the State courts. In addition, a mere 355 awards 
for product liability punitive damages have been given out over the 
last 25 years, and those few awards have served to not only hold 
obviously negligent manufacturers accountable but also increase 
consumer safety. Ironically, there has been a 232 percent explosion 
commercial litigation between corporations over the same time period 
which H.R. 1075 doesn't even address.
  Moreover, liability costs to American industries represent less than 
1 percent of total operating costs and the fact remains that all 
companies, both foreign and domestic, are subject to the same laws in 
each State as well as abroad. What the current product liability system 
has done is increase American innovation and our reputation for safe 
and reliable products--something in which we can take pride and must 
continue.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1075 represents an absolute Federal power grab in 
an area that has historically been the province of the States. As a 
popular phrase in my city of Chicago states, ``Stick around and the 
weather is bound to change,'' it seems a similar phrase could be used 
to refer to the manner in which my friends on the other side of the 
aisle continue to legislate with respect to State's rights.
  H.R. 1075 will not create uniformity in product liability laws, as 
the National Conference of State Legislatures has testified. H.R. 1075 
will not improve the functioning of our civil justice system. The only 
thing H.R. 1075 will do is preempt those State laws that effectively 
allow for injured consumers to be properly compensated for the harm 
caused them in favor of protections for the GOP's negligent, corporate, 
fat-cat contributors. This sure is not common sense to me or my 
constituents Mr. Speaker.
  Before my colleagues cast a vote on this rule, I would ask them to 
consider the following:
  A recent national telephone survey asked registered voters what they 
want, and don't want, as well as the kinds of things they mean when 
they think about common sense reforms.
  Seventy-three percent said that the regulation of the civil justice 
system is just more of the same old big Government solution from 
Washington. Sixty-eight percent said the Federal Government shouldn't 
tamper with a justice system that lets citizens hold wrongdoers 
accountable, and 66 percent said politicians shouldn't tamper with a 
system that holds large corporations accountable to any individual.
  Seventy-five percent of the respondents believe that ``The only way 
corporations will stop making dangerous products is if they know they 
can be sued.''
  Eight out of 10 agree that ``Corporations should be held accountable 
for their actions when they injure someone even if it is an accident.''
  Over 75 percent said that the current system should either remain the 
way it is, or be tilted more in favor of those injured in accidents.
  Sixty-six percent of all people, and 72 percent of women believe that 
the ``award a jury gives to the accident victim should not depend on 
how much the victim earns.''
  The survey also shows that there are some common sense legal reforms 
that people want. They include requiring court records to be open and 
available for reference rather than kept secret) a change I support and 
hope to accomplish along with Representatives Schumer and Doggett 
should H.R. 1075 proceed forward.
  This is kind of thing the public thinks about when they hear the term 
``common sense legal reforms.'' It is pretty clear that what they don't 
think about are the unnecessary and draconian provisions such as those 
embodied in H.R. 1075.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule and support the innocent 
victims of corporate misconduct, not the perpetrators of such activity.
                              {time}  1930

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there are corporate fat cat contributors on both sides 
of this, I suspect. The trial lawyers contributed $2 million to the 
folks on the other side.
  Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the Contract With America. I 
think it has served most Americans well. I think most Americans are 
embracing it warmly.
  That is not to say that I endorse all of the provisions of the 
contract. In fact, I have some problems with the bill that will be 
before us tomorrow. I do intend, however, to vote in favor of the rule 
now before us.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I voted 
in favor to bring this bill to the full House because this issue 
deserves to be debated fully and openly in the House, not in the 
insular environs of a committee. This bill, as we all know, has been 
adeptly denied admittance to this floor for years.
  Many times in the House, Mr. Speaker, Members who have no interest in 
legislation will indifferently reply ``I have no dog in that fight.'' I 
have nothing but dogs in this fight, friendly dogs all: the insurance 
community, the business community, the medical community, the trial 
lawyers, and individual constituents throughout my district; this 
compounds the complexity of this issue, parties with whom I enjoy 
harmonious relationships, but who find themselves at odds with each 
other on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by what we are proposing here, because it 
is my belief that the law of torts and surrounding issues thereto which 
usually involve the insurance industry directly or indirectly are more 
appropriately addressed in the 50 State legislatures and/or the 50 
offices of State insurance commissioners. I am not comfortable, Mr. 
Speaker, extending the tentacles of the Congress into an area that has 
traditionally been administered and regulated at the State level.
  I, too, am uneasy about the proposal of capping the amount of 
damages. The awarding of damages, in my opinion, is best determined by 
the juries, the tryers of the fact in lawsuits. When we begin tampering 
with damages, this inevitably constitutes an invasion of the province 
of the jury. That province should be invaded only very infrequently, 
and only under extremely rare circumstances.
  There are extreme examples of jury awards that are applied in defense 
of each side of this argument, Mr. Speaker, but extreme examples do not 
serve as valid reasons for dramatic change, nor for immediate reform.
  Finally, during debate in the House Committee on the Judiciary it was 
implied that this issue pits rich against poor. That was indeed 
unfortunate, because this is not opulence on the one hand and poverty 
on the other. There are wealthy, poor, and middle class represented on 
each side of this very emotionally charged issue.
  Perhaps some adjustment, some fine-tuning, if you will, is needed, 
but I fear the steps proposed by the bill at hand are giant steps when 
deliberate baby steps might be more appropriate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I begin by commending the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Frost] for a valiant effort that nonetheless has produced 
the most grievous rule that I have had to work on in my career in the 
Congress.
  On the matter of product liability, not discussed in this Chamber for 
many years, we now are presented with a modified closed rule, 6 hours 
of debate, 15 amendments designated by name, 
[[Page H2867]] limited by amount of time, none being given over 40 
minutes, none, and under these circumstances it makes legislating 
almost a travesty. I want this body to know that I have never felt so 
badly about the way that we have been treated in the Committee on 
Rules, not just this side, but the whole Congress, in taking up this 
measure.
  Mr. Speaker, right off the bat, we are not going to be able to do 
much about the preemption of State laws, because we are putting caps on 
punitive damages on State laws.
  In New Jersey, the damages, punitive damages that are now available 
against sexual predators will now be capped by this law. In Minnesota, 
a victim injured or killed by a driver under the influence of drugs or 
alcohol, the punitive damages will be capped under this law. In 
Illinois, punitive damages that are available to any person who sells 
or transfers an illegal drug to a child will be capped under this law.
  This is absolutely outrageous, that we would be taking a few minutes 
to quickly run through a bill in a contractual effort to keep within a 
time limit.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends on the other side, and I have raised 
this a couple of times, if this is not friendly legislation to big 
business, then we do not know where we are and what we are doing. If 
you need the Wall Street Journal to help you out, here it is: ``Big 
business is striking it rich in the GOP contract.'' I could say that, 
and I do, but they said it.
  Just in case Members want to pretend that this is consumer-friendly 
or friendly to working people, it is not. It is an outrage.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in 
strong support of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule or this bill is the kind of legislation that 
article 1, section 8 of the Constitution cries out for, the commerce 
clause, which says that the United States Congress has the power to 
regulate commerce between the States.
  There is such a hodgepodge of legislation that exists in this country 
from State to State with respect to product liability legislation that 
we are in a situation where we absolutely need, we require, we must 
have a bill such as this that will standardize the way that product 
liability is dealt with in every State.
  The reason for that is that in fact everything that is manufactured 
in this country is manufactured in a way that it flows immediately in 
interstate commerce. There is clearly justification, rationale, and 
frankly, the necessity of dealing with this problem at a congressional 
level for the entire Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a genuinely pro-consumer bill. It may not be 
what the trial lawyers want, it may be anti-trial lawyer. Members may 
describe it
 that way; I am not sure that I agree with that, but it is clearly pro-
consumer, because what it is saying is that we will not allow a lottery 
to be thrown any more to find out in what State or at what situation a 
particularly persuasive, a particularly eloquent, a particularly 
loquacious and compelling attorney will be able to bring forward a 
judgment that could never be brought if it were a criminal situation, 
bringing a fine against a particular defendant.

  That is really one of the things that is at stake here, is that we 
have to remember that when we are talking about punitive damages, when 
we are talking about the awarding of punitive damages, we are talking 
about awarding damages in addition to economic damages, in addition to 
noneconomic damages. It is after the plaintiff, the damaged person, the 
aggrieved party, has actually been compensated, been compensated for 
all of the economic losses that they have incurred and all of the 
noneconomic losses they have incurred.
  What this bill does is it says that punitive damages will be either a 
maximum of $250,000, or three times the economic damages that have been 
incurred. The reason that that is important is because we have 
something in this country called a Criminal Code, and the Criminal Code 
is designed to punish people for their wrongdoings, for their criminal 
acts.
  If we have a sexual predator in New Jersey violating criminal 
statutes, then that is when the Criminal Code should be used and that 
person should be sanctioned, should be found guilty, and should be 
thrown away, but that is not the purpose of punitive damages.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, people watching this debate at home on television may 
wonder what in the world is going on here. Let me take just a moment to 
explain.
  Mr. Speaker, under the procedure imposed by the majority for the 
consideration of this bill, there are two rules, one rule tonight 
providing for two hours of general debate, and there will be another 
rule tomorrow, proffering a certain number of amendments, only five 
hours and 40 minutes to deal with all the amendments in the bill.
  The second rule is so outrageous that Members who want to be able to 
speak against the bill must take time during the consideration of the 
first bill, because of the fact that the majority has so severely 
limited the opportunity to offer amendments. That is why Members are 
standing up and speaking on the merits, on the outrageous provisions of 
this bill, during consideration of the first of these two rules.
  Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this whole process is absolutely ridiculous. Let us talk 
about what we are doing here. We are taking the tradition of this 
country that has been in effect since this country began, and we are 
just throwing it up in the air and starting all over. We are doing it 
with one hearing, in which everybody was allowed 5 minutes to question 
witnesses, it was a huge panel of witnesses, and now we are not allowed 
any real amendments tomorrow.
  There are all sorts of amendments, but they have been filed way, way 
down. I was not allowed to present mine, and many others were not 
allowed to present many of theirs. They have put real strict time 
limits on it.
  I think most people in this body have no idea what they are doing. 
However, before people at home say ``Oh, there they go again, they are 
all whining; don't the Democrats sound terrible,'' let me tell the 
average American how they are affected by this.
  If you go into a drugstore and you go to buy some drugs, you assume 
that they have been looked at by the Food and Drug Administration, and 
you assume a certain safety level. You can forget that, because last 
week we did away with all that through risk assessment and regulatory 
reform and all the other stuff, because we wanted to lighten up on the 
pharmaceuticals.
  Then you say ``Okay, as an American, if I did buy something and it 
did not work, I can always hold the company accountable by suing 
them.'' Guess what, now we are taking on the other bookend tonight. 
That is what we are going to be talking about the next 2 days, taking 
away your right to sue, severely limiting your right to sue.
  Therefore, the two things that Americans have relied upon, the little 
guy, the little guy, to hold the big guy accountable in this great 
system that we have, so we did not have Bhopal, and so we did not have 
those kinds of things, have really been radically changed in this 
contract. I am saying tonight ``Wake up, America.''
  When you also look at what we are doing with punitive damages and 
preempting State laws, it is absolutely amazing.
                              {time}  1945

  The prior speaker, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], our 
leader, was pointing out all the different laws there are. We could go 
on and on and on.
  How about this one? Any agency that recklessly or willfully makes a 
mistake while transferring electronic funds.
  You want to know how the average American could be messed up by that 
anymore? New Jersey would allow unlimited punitive damages in that case 
if you proved that they willfully did it.
  ``Hey, wrong. We're taking that away from them.''
  These things are very clearly on point.
  [[Page H2868]] How about Virginia where somebody can have unlimited 
punitive damages or there are no caps right now if an award is made 
available from a person who is injured or killed if someone is driving 
intoxicated? Someone like the Exxon Valdez or someone driving a train 
or a bus.
  Under this, ``No, we're going to cap it.''
  There are all sorts of issues in here for women and for children. 
This is another women-and-children-first bill, because noneconomic 
damages do not count. That means that if you are a parent that stays at 
home, you know what your value is? Zero when it comes to noneconomic 
value, because you did not get a paycheck. If you are a child, the same 
thing.
  If it is about your reproductive organs or if it is about a fetus, 
the amendment I wanted to offer went to those issues, because women 
have seen over and over and over again the drug industry play fast and 
lose with them, whether we are talking about toxic shock syndrome, 
whether we are talking about IUD's, DES, or any number of things.
  To say to women that the value of your reproductive organs are 
nothing unless I guess you have a job as a surrogate mother, then I 
suppose you would have economic damages, but that is not the average 
woman in America and we are not even allowed to present that amendment, 
the one that I think was the family-friendly amendment.
  I hope people realize that we are not yelling to yell. We are yelling 
because we are throwing up hundreds of years of tradition in this 
country and this is the night where the little guys did not have the 
money to put in the legislative machine so the legislative machine is 
getting ready to roll right over them.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In response to the gentlewoman's comment that we are taking away the 
right to sue, only in Alice in Wonderland does that kind of language 
suffice. It reminds me of the character in one of those Alice-in-
Wonderland stories that said, ``When I use a word, it means exactly 
what I want it to mean.''
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. What does the gentleman mean, that I am Alice in 
Wonderland?
  Mr. LINDER. The language the gentlewoman used, that this is taking 
away the right to sue, has an Alice-in-Wonderland quality about it.
  The gentleman from Michigan who says this is the most egregious rule 
he has ever seen has a very short memory, because less than a year ago 
on the assault weapons ban, no amendments were allowed from either side 
at any time, a totally closed rule, an up-or-down vote.
  As a matter of fact, this is not a 6-hour debate, this is a 12-hour 
debate. We have taken out the time for voting which your side has 
consistently asked us to do in the Committee on Rules. Six hours of 
actual debating on amendments.
  Let me just say that the gentleman from Michigan was debating not 
this rule. This rule is about 2 hours of general debate. He was 
debating tomorrow's rule. Tomorrow's rule, he was speaking about with 
the time frames. As a matter of fact, tomorrow's rule has eight 
amendments in order from Democrats, six from Republicans and one 
bipartisan. I think it was just about March or May of last year when we 
were given the choice of voting up or down on the assault weapons ban 
with no opportunities for amendments. I think this is hardly more 
egregious than that.
  Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman].
  Mr. HEINEMAN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the rule and the bill 
itself. Why? Because meaningful tort reform is of great importance to 
all Americans, not just big business as the trial lawyers would have 
you believe. By limiting runaway punitive damage awards, we have the 
opportunity to help a myriad of local groups, such as the Little 
League, and the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, cities and town 
governments, entrepreneurs, small business, doctors and nurses, and 
other providers of service.
  Americans pay billions of dollars a year in litigation and higher 
insurance premiums resulting from product liability and personal injury 
cases. These litigation costs are prohibitive and stifle necessary 
innovation and research and development.
  In a recent survey, 47 percent of U.S. firms said they withdrew 
products from the market for fear of litigation. Twenty-five percent 
had discontinued some form of research and development. Fear of 
litigation, that is what it was, a fear of litigation.
  Frivolous litigation even threatens Little League. The astronomical 
cost of litigation and fear of being sued scares away volunteer 
coaches, umpires, and even the families of kids. Little League has seen 
its liability insurance skyrocket, up 1,000 percent from $75 a league 
to $795 a league.
  Unbearable litigation insurance costs and fear of being sued 
unnecessarily is a common problem to all nonprofits. That is why the 
Common Sense Legal Reform Act will provide the predictability and 
proportionality in all civil tort cases.
  Passage of the Common Sense Legal Reform Act is a vital step forward 
to provide equity throughout our civil justice system for all 
Americans.
  Let's rein in those who are abusing the system and are negatively 
impacting small business, the YMCA, the United Way, the Boy Scouts, the 
Girl Scouts, and the Little League.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Common Sense Legal 
Reform Act.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEINEMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just wanted to ask the gentleman about the State statutes that do 
allow civil recovery of punitive damages in the incidents of sexually 
abused children and so forth. I am sure the gentleman would agree with 
me that we should not be capping those in here, yet the attorneys we 
have talked to have all said that is what we are doing, whether it is 
sexually abused children or whether it is any number of these other 
things where States have allowed civil suits.
  What do we do about that? I think it is terrible that we are not 
allowed to have a debate on that.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. As the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] had spoken 
before, he said that punitive damages are a surcharge and the meat and 
potatoes of litigation addresses itself to economic and noneconomic 
damages.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEINEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I happen to enjoy 
working with the gentleman. I know of his career as a law enforcement 
officer.
  I do not believe that you would approve of us preempting the State 
law's punitive damages on sexual predators that are found guilty in any 
State. That is not a law enforcement position, it is not a civil rights 
position. It should not be your or my position. Right?
  Mr. HEINEMAN. No, I do not believe so. I believe that what we are 
talking about are Federal tort cases, cases that are brought before the 
Federal Government. As far as punitive damages are concerned, punitive 
damages happen to come about by the fact that people go overboard in 
their conduct, in their premeditated conduct almost as much as the law 
says in this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman is against punitive damages for sexual 
predators when the State law provides it and we are capping it in this 
bill? Please.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman would yield, I think it is very 
clear----
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Excuse me. Let me reclaim my time. We are talking about 
the replacement of State law by Federal law. Federal law is to address 
itself to product liability as well as all other civil cases as the 
bill states.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes 
[[Page H2869]] to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I just want to cite the law to the other side so there 
is no confusion. Title II, Punitive Damages Reform, section 201(c). 
``Except as provided, in any Federal or State court on any theory where 
punitive damages are sought.'' Applicability and Preemption.
  This preempts State laws where punitive damages are concerned, no 
question about it. Maybe that is the reason that the gentleman made the 
response that he did to me on that question.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise not in opposition to this rule. This 
rule is only to deal with the general debate issue. I rise, and I 
hardly ever do, in opposition to a rule, the rule that is being filed 
tonight, because I am so outraged by what it has done. Let's talk for a 
moment about what the Republican majority is doing.
  On a bill which is different in many, many respects from the bill 
passed either out of Energy and Commerce or Judiciary, in other words, 
a bill unilaterally changed, we are being asked now to debate, without 
any kind of committee record on a number of its provisions, with a rule 
that will be
 offered tomorrow that will authorize amendments which were never 
raised in committee and which massively expand the scope of the bill. 
But neither one of those points I think are that critical.

  I have not been one of the people who have been decrying the 
Republican decision to limit the time. You have to limit the time in 
House with 435 Members. I am not even one who decries doing a modified 
closed rule.
  The balanced budget amendment I though was a fair rule. You gave the 
Democrats the change to take the shots they wanted to and the 
amendments that they had. But in this case, you are doing exactly and 
in the most outrageous and egregious form what you accuse the Democrats 
of doing. You are denying the Democrats the chance to participate in 
choosing their amendments and you are carefully selecting out of a 
large number of amendments that have been offered those amendments 
which would moderate this bill and the amendments which would moderate 
the excessive provisions of this bill and which have a chance of 
passage, which are in many cases being proposed by members of you own 
party, you are denying them the chance in allowing the amendments that 
are the most extreme, that raise the issue in the most clearer fashion 
and which are destined to lose.
  You are determining the results of the legislation by the process of 
the rules. It is just what you ran on in November and said you would 
never do. It is just what the Speaker said he would never do, after the 
election, in his acceptance speech, what you at every press conference 
scream about and in every rules debate scream about. You are denying 
the amendments.
  I am going to give a couple of examples. Punitive damages: There is a 
cap on punitive damages. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a 
Republican, proposes an amendment to limit that cap on all punitive 
damages just to product liability. He proposes another amendment to 
raise the cap to 3 times all damages, not just noneconomic damages.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], a Republican proposes an 
amendment to raise the cap from $250,000 to $1 million and from 
$250,000 to $500,000. You deny each and every one of those amendments 
and every other Democratic amendment, except one, the amendment, which 
I think is a good amendment, but it is an amendment which has no chance 
of passage, by the gentlewoman from Oregon that eliminates the cap 
entirely, because you cannot stand the test of a suggestion that 
something less extreme than what you are proposing but which still 
addresses the problem of runaway punitive damages might be offered on 
the floor, might win.
  It is patently unfair, indefensible. I am waiting to hear the 
explanation for why the Schiff amendments, the McCollum amendments, the 
other Democratic amendments were not allowed, so you could allow the 
most far out amendment, an amendment that I plan to vote for, by the 
way, but an amendment that would totally wipe out any cap on punitive 
damages.
  Let's talk about joint and several liability. You allow no amendment 
to strike joint and several, the change in joint and several liability. 
You do not allow my amendment to say that the minor tort-feasors no 
longer have joint liability but the major tort-feasors do. And you 
allow a Cox amendment never offered in either committee to extend the 
elimination of joint liability to every tort case in the country. A 
little automobile accident case in a rural county in Montana is now 
preempted by the proposed Cox amendment which you allow, never offered, 
and allow no amendments to modify.

                              {time}  2000

  You do not allow the Frank amendment which would have put a 20-
percent limit on joint liability for both economic and noneconomic 
damages. It is an outrage, and I think tomorrow I am going to repeat 
this speech and I am going to find even better examples because you 
should have to face that you have betrayed everything you have been 
saying in this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia, my colleague, Mr. Linder, for yielding me this time, and I 
congratulate him on his handling of this rule.
  I think it is very important that we bring the debate back to what we 
are here about tonight. What we have, as the gentleman from Texas has 
properly said, is the first of two rules. This evening's rule I think 
we could call the starter rule. It is designed to begin the discussion 
of product liability reform, and we want to have enough time over the 
next 2 days to consider all of the amendment proposals, but offered by 
Members from both sides of the aisle.
  It was clear from our mini-marathon Committee on Rules meeting 
yesterday which lasted about 6 hours as we will recall, that Members 
acknowledge both the significance and complexity of product liability 
reform because we had 82 or so amendments. The two committees of 
jurisdiction, Judiciary and Commerce, worked diligently to present the 
House with a solid product. The combined bill we expect to consider in 
the coming days starting tomorrow and the next the day, under a 
carefully structured and I believe fair rule, takes important steps to 
bring about consistency and fairness in product liability law, while 
setting the parameters for consideration of damage claims.
  Now, there is going to be disagreement on some of that. This is not 
an easy subject, but I think it is important to point out that the 
gentleman from Michigan who got up and said that he was feeling bad 
about this rule tonight is feeling bad a little prematurely because 
when I went back and took a look at some of the problems, this is a 
mighty good rule. There is no problem with this rule. And if he is 
concerned about the rule that is coming tomorrow, then I would suggest 
that we do a little comparison, reminding Members that we had 15 
amendments made in order out of 80-some submitted. Eight of those 
happen to be Democrat amendments. One happened to be bipartisan, and 6 
happened to be Republican.
  Let me make a comparison with that and some of the rules, the 
modified and closed rules of the 103d under the other leadership. At 
that time we had the Reinventing Government Act. That came through with 
34 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules; 3 allowed, zero 
Republican.
  How about campaign reform, 35 amendments submitted upstairs in the 
Rules Committee, 1 allowed? How about Motor Voter, 19 amendments 
submitted to the Committee on Rules, 1 allowed?
  Omnibus Budget Reconciliation, 51 amendments brought before the 
Committee on Rules, 8 allowed, 7 Democrat, 1 Republican. The RTC 
Completion Act, 12 submitted, 1 allowed.
  Now I ask Members when they bring a performance standard like that 
against what we are going to propose for the second staging of this 
rule which we will be happy to discuss with the Members tomorrow, I 
suggest they 
[[Page H2870]] might want to go back and refresh their memories about 
how it was in the 103d and how much more open and how much fairer it is 
in the 104th in the way we are handling these things.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California 
because he is going to ask if the Democrats were allowed selection. 
They were invited to participate always, and my friend from California, 
Mr. Dreier, is going to speak in just a moment. I think if the 
gentleman will save his question for the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], he will find the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] is 
going to answer that question. I am happy to yield to the gentleman 
from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. I might just add on that point that was not going to be 
my question.
  Mr. GOSS. Well, I hope the gentleman is going to ask that question.
  Mr. BERMAN. That is directly contrary to what the ranking member of 
the Rules Committee and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee 
have told me.
  Mr. GOSS. Present ranking? Ranking last year, ranking this year? I 
would be very happy, I am not sure which ranking members the gentleman 
is talking about. But I guess I could further complete my statement by 
saying all these egregious closed rules that we complained about so 
mightily last year, and I just read the gentleman's statistics, the 
very people who are complaining about this relatively open rule 
compared to them all voted for those egregiously closed rules and the 
Record is clear on that.
  So I think it is a little bit disingenuous to say the sky is falling 
on this very important subject when we have made in order 15 
amendments, have got all kinds of debate time out there. We have taken 
out, as we have been asked to do in the Committee on Rules, the walking 
time, the voting time and we have it adjusted down to pure debate time.
  The gentlewoman from Colorado, who is rising, who I will yield to in 
a moment, complained she did not have all of her amendments made in 
order, but I believe she does have one of her amendments made in order 
if I am not mistaken.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, there were 60 germane amendments as I understand that 
were not made in order. The ones made in order have very severe time 
limits on them, and the only thing I wanted to ask the gentleman about 
his analogy in prior years is I cannot think of any piece of 
legislation that was preempting all of this jurisdiction from the 
States in such a radical new direction and that is a very different 
kind of legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is a friend of 
mine, and an honorable person. However, he has engaged in this just 
extraordinary double negative. That was, it was bad in the last 
session, and so that justifies doing bad things in this session.
  This is not what his party ran on in November. His party ran on open 
rules and open process, and now he is trying to justify an 
extraordinarily closed process that would rewrite 200 years of civil 
law in this country by saying what was done in the last Congress was 
terrible; this is not quite as terrible; but we are justified in doing 
this because of terrible things that were done in the previous 
Congress.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield briefly?
  Mr. FROST. There will be ample time as it goes on. I only yield 
myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss] that the sky is falling when your party takes two 
bills that came out of committee and rewrites them, and sends them out 
here and, lo and behold, we find out what they do is they take, put a 
cap on punitive damages for somebody who sexually abuses a child. I 
would say the sky is falling. That is a curious position for your party 
to take. They put a cap on punitive damages for somebody that is killed 
or injured by a drunk driver or somebody who is on drugs. I would say 
the sky is falling if your bill does that.
  I would say the sky is falling if you put a cap for punitive damages 
for somebody that sells drugs to a kid. And that is what the Republican 
bill does that has been sent out here, that you rewrote after it came 
out of committee.
  An very interesting about this rule you are talking about here for 
tomorrow, you are bragging about it, and we are going to hear some more 
bragging here about it in a minute I guess, the gentleman said he spent 
6 hours in the Committee on Rules rewriting the rule but there are less 
than 6 hours of debate on the whole bill, and we are not even going to 
be working on Monday now, apparently, a bill that wipes out 200 years 
of common law.
  I looked at these amendments. The gentleman knows what he said, that 
he has an open rule here, he has been fair and so forth like that. 
Sixty percent of the time in the rule for tomorrow is set aside for the 
very Republicans that wrote the rule in the committee, the bill in the 
committee, and then rewrote the bill when it came out of the committee.
  There is only 2 hours and 20 minutes set aside for amendments from 
Democrats that disagree with the bill. Do not tell us it is a fair 
rule. At least you ought to get out here and admit you just tried to 
rig it so you are not going to be embarrassed by meaningful amendments.
  The fact of the matter is you have a bill out here for which there is 
no empirical data to support the allegation that will underlie the 
philosophy of the bill. You are trying to tell the American people, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] ought to pay attention to what I 
am saying here because I am talking about what he said a minute ago, he 
said all of these tort filings are up and so forth. You do not have any 
study that says that; I do not know where you guys get the facts except 
I guess you all just talk to each other at the country club and you 
just agree, ``Ain't it awful, ain't it awful what is happening?'' and 
talk about what the facts are.
  The facts are that the National Center for State Courts found that 
product liability cases are only 4 percent of all tort filing. Tort 
filings in turn are only 9 percent of all civil filings, and civil 
filings are only 27 percent of all filings, which means product 
liability cases represent 36/100ths of a percentage point of the civil 
caseload and 97/1000ths of a percentage point of the total caseload in 
the State courts.
  In addition to that, the studies indicate that the total number of 
these cases is going down, not up, and the Rand Corp.'s study indicates 
that only 10 percent of people who are injured ever use the tort system 
to seek compensation for their injuries in the first place.
  Look, you guys are doing your corporate buddies a big favor out here. 
That is what is going on. You have written the rule in such a way we 
cannot offer amendments. The bill is a bad bill, and when we start 
taking up amendments tomorrow, the bill is going to be made even more 
bad when it comes to final passage. And we have so little time to talk 
about it and offer amendments that we are having to get up on the rule 
tonight, the first rule and 2 hours of debate and use the time to talk 
about the contents of the bill.
  What does the bill do? The bill lets sexual abusers and drug abusers 
and people that sell drugs to kids off the hook.
  It also says if I commit an intentional tort, if I get a baseball bat 
and come over to your house and beat the stuffings out of you with it, 
or if I burn your house down because I do not like you, there is a cap 
on punitive damages, you cannot get but $250,000 in punitive damages if 
I do that to you or three times your economic damages, which would not 
be much of a factor in this situation.
  You guys are on the side of wrongdoers, not just corporate wrongdoers 
but every other kind of wrongdoers, and you are saying States cannot do 
anything about it because you have a cap in here which, despite what 
was said by one of the speakers a while ago, 
[[Page H2871]] applies to the State courts as well as to the Federal 
court.
  This is an outrageous procedure. It is an outrageous bill. It is not 
based upon any factual data whatsoever. But to bring it to the floor 
with a rule like this where we have 2 hours and 20 minutes of debate 
and amendments brought by the other side, by opponents of the bill, and 
is an embarrassment and humiliation, and you have forever forfeited 
your ability to stand on this floor or anywhere else and criticize the 
Democrats for the way in which they write rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a couple of 
moments to address one particular item that was raised in the debate 
earlier, and that has to do with the attempt made by the majority, 
those of us on the Republican side, to listen to and get some input 
from Members of the minority when we came to discussing not the rule 
that we are going to be voting on in just a few minutes, but tomorrow's 
rules because the one we are voting on in just a few minutes is simply 
calling for 2 hours of general debate. So it is interesting we have 
begun debating a rule that we are not considering now on the House 
floor.
  I am very happy to see my good friend from south Boston, the former 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules [Mr. 
Moakley] here, and of course my friend from Glens Falls, the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. I was standing in the 
back of the Chamber when a discussion took place between the chairman 
and the ranking minority member. Now my hearing is awfully good, I had 
a hearing test downstairs. I could not hear exactly what was being 
said, but I got a report from the chairman and the chairman told me 
that an offer was made to the minority to come forward by 2:30 this 
afternoon with recommendations as to what amendments we might consider 
making in order, and it was not until we met at 4 o'clock this 
afternoon and gave a 10-minute break at the request of the minority to 
look at the amendments that were made in order that we heard anything 
at all about what ideas we wanted to have considered.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am more than happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman 
from south Boston.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Actually, the gentleman is partially correct. I had a 
conversation with the chairman and I said, ``What have we got to look 
at; have you got a draft?'' And he says, ``No, I do not have a draft 
yet.'' I said, ``We would like to see what you have so we could talk 
about it.'' He says, ``Well, why don't you see what you can do and then 
come back and we will talk?''
  But in the meantime the Committee on Commerce came down and other 
people from the committee came down and said that your committee was 
getting information from them.
  Mr. DREIER. I expect I sort of became the intermediary here.
  At this point, with the indulgence of my friend from south Boston I 
think Glens Falls ought to be represented.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am glad to yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Glens Falls, NY, the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding. But 
to my good friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. Moakley] he has had an 
alphabetical listing of 82 amendments. Fifty-one of those amendments 
are Democrat amendments, and I simply said give us a list of your 
priority amendments and let us consider them. And at 2:30 I expected to 
get those so we could sit down and caucus, talk about the amendments, 
and try to be fair. When no list came, we simply went through the list, 
picking out all of the issues throughout all of the titles and then had 
to make the decisions ourselves.
  Mr. DREIER. And we ended up making eight Democrat amendments in 
order, five Repbulican amendments and two bipartisan amendments.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is absolutely correct.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on this?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding. I do not even want to get into the debate about what was said 
or who chose what because I was not there for any of the conversations.
  Mr. DREIER. I was simply repeating a discussion I had.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. The question of the number of amendments that are 
Democratic and the number of Republican is all nonsense.
  Address the issue of why you allowed the amendment that was the most 
extreme and none of the amendments by Republicans or Democrats that 
sought to refine the bill. I submit, and you will have to show me why 
it is not so, that you went through a systematic process of making sure 
no amendment that might moderate this bill, that could win, could be 
offered, and only amendments that could not win would be allowed.
  You rigged the process, until you show me otherwise, and that is the 
real outrage of this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Reclaiming my time, in answering to my dear friend from 
New York, the chairman of the committee, our side did not have that 
list until 4 o'clock. I never saw that list until 4 o'clock when I 
walked into that committee room.
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will yield, you had that yesterday all 
day long during the hearing; during the hearing you had the list of 
amendments, 82 amendments as we went through the testimony.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. This was not the list you and I were talking about. I 
mean, that was matters that were
 going on then, and it was my understanding that somewhere we would 
have met and sat down rather than go up and then see our choices 
already picked by you on the schedule to be voted out.

  Mr. DREIER. I am just sorry I was not there for the conversation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. You have got good ears.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I have watched a lot of debate in my life on 
television usually between Senatorial candidates. Sometimes the 
hyperbole gets pretty extreme. One phrase I have heard pretty often, 
``You are shameless, you are shameless.'' I would never bring that word 
to bear here in this Chamber. I must say I advise my friend from Texas 
of an old equitable doctrine called clean hands. You do not come to 
court complaining of somebody's dirty hands unless you have clean hands 
yourself. That is the problem, the fatal flaw with your argument. There 
are eight Democratic amendments made in order, six Republican, on this 
legislation, and your complaint is we are only five times as generous 
as you were.
  Now, I look at the motor voter bill. That was a big one, one 
amendment, one. Assault weapons. Did that reach into the States and the 
cities and the communities? Zero, zip, nada, no amendments at all. My 
God, and you have the chutzpah to complain that you have got eight 
amendments here? How do you do it? What do you drink? What do you eat 
that gives you that?
  How about reinventing government? How many Republican amendments on 
that one? Zero. How about campaign reform? There is a big one. How many 
Republican amendments did you permit in your Committee on Rules? Zero. 
Motor voter, assault weapons, omnibus budget reconciliation, one 
Republican amendment. Thank you, thank you very much. One Republican.
  It is just too much, to take all of this moaning, and weeping, and 
gnashing of teeth, with your record.
  Clean your hands, please.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from New York.
  [[Page H2872]] Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the thing that just bothers me is that all of the 
speakers that are complaining here, that are squawking, every one of 
them voted for every single restricted rule in the last 2 years.
  Mr. HYDE. We need an analysis of these rules. This is just cursory. 
This is off the top of my head. Let us go into this in depth.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield myself 
30 seconds.
  I would remind my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde], and my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
that it was their party that ran for office last year, promising open 
rules, not promising partially open rules, not promising modified 
rules, promising open rules.
  I would raise a question about the cleanliness of the hands, I say to 
my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]; your contract 
and your Speaker promised open rules. That is not what we have here 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I hate to disagree with colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle. I do not think it is tremendously important to the 
American people, you know, who allowed more amendments when.
  The question is: What does this bill do to or for the American 
people? This Corporate Liability Shield Act which we will take up 
tomorrow I heard earlier described as pro-consumer, and I heard some 
discussion of Alice in Wonderland. If you think this bill is pro-
consumer, you have stepped through the looking glass.
  The next time the Ford Motor Co. knowingly puts out a defective 
product and keeps it on the road and people burn to death, they will 
have a little different equation to deal with. It will be easier to 
keep it on the road, because they know the punitive damages are going 
to be limited next time around. That is pro-consumer?
  Is it pro-consumer to preempt the States, 200 years of State law, to 
preempt every jury in every State in America with your judgment and cap 
damages? I do not think that is pro-consumer.
  And how about the special provision for the wealthy? You know, if you 
get punitive damages under this bill, you are going to enshrine 
something into Federal law. You can get three times your monetary 
damages, generally including your wages. So if you are an electrician 
and you earn $30,000 a year, you are limited, but if you are a fat cat 
and you earn $250,000 a year, you can get three times that amount. That 
is pro-consumer?
  Well, I suppose that is pro-consumer if the people you think of as 
consumers are the wealthiest people in America.
  This sticks it to average Americans, again, like every other bill 
this week.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
balance of our time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there may well be some debate about which 
of the various pieces of legislation considered this week is the most 
outrageous. Is it the reversal of 200 years of American law with 
reference to the way attorneys are handled in our society? Is it the 
potential for bilking those who invest our pension funds in securities 
in this country? Or is it denying the rights to those who are injured 
across this country from defective products?
  There may be debate about that. But there can be no debate about what 
is the most outrageous rule for consideration of any of these measures, 
because we are tonight part of a double whammy, a double whammy to deny 
the people of America through a gag rule on this Congress the 
opportunity to discuss the full dimensions of this issue of taking away 
the States rights at the same time we take away the rights of victims.
  We know full well there is ample time to debate the dimensions of 
this piece of legislation. We have just had the distinguished majority 
leader come to the floor of this House and tell us we have all day 
Monday, be it to play golf, be it to be wined and dined by the great 
corporate lobbyists who are so interested in this piece of legislation, 
but we have no time, not 1 minute, to spend on Monday discussing the 
rights that are being destroyed of the American citizens through this 
piece of legislation.
  We have courts all over this land, we have State capitals all over 
this land struggling with the issues involved. Let them struggle on 
without the Federal Government taking over these issues and doing it in 
a way that is not actually debated on the floor of this House.
  It deserves more than one evening, it deserves more than one day when 
you trample on the rights of our citizenry in the way this is being 
done.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is fun and interesting to debate the 
bill while discussing the rule, and tonight we debated tomorrow's rule 
instead of tonight's rule about which I will make just a couple of 
references.
  It is a fact that the minority was offered an opportunity to 
prioritize their amendments and tell us which ones, in their judgment, 
were most important. They did not do that.
  It is also true that of the 82 amendments that were printed on our 
desks for roughly 2 days both during the hearing and during the markup 
of this bill, there were eight to nine substantive idea differences. We 
had many amendments offered changing the cap, abolishing the cap; we 
had many amendments offered changing joint and several. We made a 
sincere effort to find in each of the areas where there were 
substantive differences and ideas to find the amendment to be voted on 
at that time, to debate it and vote on that idea.
  If the amendments that are put forth, the 14 amendments or 15 
amendments, 8 Democrat, 6 Republican, and 1 bipartisan, if they pass, 
it will dramatically alter this bill if it passes and goes to the 
Senate. The changes are substantive. They are sincere, and they are 
real. The debate will be long tomorrow and the next day on the 
substance of the amendments. The opportunity for the amendments to be 
voted on is rather unique, in my experience here, because we did not 
have opportunities in the last Congress to offer many amendments at 
all.
  I urge my colleagues to remember just this: The rule we are voting on 
tonight says this, tonight there will be 2 hours of general debate on 
the bill, divided between the ranking members and the chairmen of the 
two committees, Judiciary and Commerce. That is it. That is hardly, 
hardly a difficult rule to take, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________