[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 44 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2901-H2905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER 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 109 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 109

       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 further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal 
     standards and procedures for product liability litigation, 
     and for other purposes. No further general debate shall be in 
     order. The bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, it shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of H.R. 1075. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those specified in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     amendment may be offered only in the order specified in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill 
     for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
     the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  [[Page H2902]] 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, today we continue our historic debate that will restore 
sanity to our legal system. Over the next 2 days, we will take the 
first crucial steps toward limiting the significant costs on the U.S. 
economy that continue to force manufacturers to fire workers and 
withdraw products from the market, including medical devices and 
medication available in most of the world, sadly resulting in 
preventable deaths. For too long, this Nation has capitulated to the 
power of Ralph Nader and the trial lawyers. It is high time that we 
level the playing field. The full consideration of H.R. 956 will allow 
this body to consider a wide range of issues designed to bring common 
sense and personal responsibility back to our courts.
  The modified closed rule reported by the Rules Committee will allow 
the House to fully consider the significant issues raised by the bill 
H.R. 956. Yesterday's rule already provided for 2 hours of general 
debate. Today, House Resolution 109 first provides for consideration 
under the 5-minute rule of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of H.R. 1075. This bill represents the combined 
efforts of the Judiciary Committee and Commerce Committee to create a 
comprehensive, consensus bill that moves our legal system toward more 
rational behavior. In addition, the rule makes in order 15 amendments 
designated in the Rules Committee report. Each of these amendments is 
debatable only for the time specified in the report, equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of that particular 
amendment.
  Finally, the rule provides a motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions, which will give the minority an additional opportunity to 
offer any amendment which complies with the standing rules of the 
House.
  No Member is ignorant of these proposals to save our legal system, 
and it is not as if these proposals have been designed overnight. The 
common-sense legal reforms were presented on September 27, the bill was 
introduced on the opening day of this Congress, both the Judiciary and 
Commerce Committee held days of hearings, and many of these proposals 
have been studied and under consideration in Congress for decades.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is a fair rule. The Rules Committee received 
82 amendments, many of which were duplicative and overlapping in their 
scope. House Resolution 109 allows for 15 amendments which will 
thoroughly address every major issue presented by this bill. I also 
believe that the Rules Committee
 has been extraordinarily fair and prudent in that minority amendments 
outnumber majority amendments by a count of 8 to 6, with one bipartisan 
amendment.

  As I stated, many duplicative amendments were offered to the Rules 
Committee, and I am pleased that 15 distinct amendments to this bill 
will be considered on the House floor in the coming days. Chairmen Hyde 
and Bliley, and many minority members, asked for sufficient time to 
debate the important sections of H.R. 956. That is exactly what we have 
done under this rule.
  Almost one dozen amendments were presented to the Rules Committee 
that either increased the cap on punitive damages or deleted the cap 
entirely. The rule adequately provides for debate on the Furse 
amendment which would strike the cap on punitive damages. I would also 
add that the minority will have an additional chance to offer an 
amendment on punitive caps during the motion to recommit.
  A number of Members expressed concerns about the increased standards 
in the burden of proof in the law of evidence, and the rule allows the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] with an opportunity to strike 
the new clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.
  Minority Members also argued that the provision to eliminate joint 
liability for noneconomic damages in product liability cases would harm 
certain plaintiffs. While I personally believe that we protect 
plaintiffs and enact reasonable reforms in this provision, the rule 
enables the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] the opportunity 
to delete that section.
  The rule also provides for meaningful debate on significant issues 
ranging from:
  An amendment offered by Mr. Schumer that prevents the sealing of 
court documents in product liability cases.
  An amendment offered by Mr. Geren to clarify liability rules for 
persons who rent or lease products.
  An amendment offered by Representatives Oxley, Burr, and Tauzin that 
exempts medical device manufacturers from punitive damages when the 
product in question has been approved by FDA.
  After consideration of 14 amendments, those Members who wish to limit 
the scope of the
 bill will have the opportunity to vote on an amendment offered by Mr. 
Schumer that would put a 5-year sunset on titles I through III.

  As attested to by the number and extent of amendments made in order, 
this is an equitable rule that permits more minority amendments that--
if passed by the House--would extensively alter the original bill. I 
urge my colleagues to save our legal system, end the punitive tax on 
the American people, and support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a rather unusual step, an amendment to the rule, 
and I want the other side to listen closely. It has come to my 
attention that the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, and the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Cox, both of whose amendments were 
included in the rule, have expressed their interest in revising their 
amendments.
  First, my amendment to the resolution makes a technical change to 
clarify the definition of product seller in the amendment numbered 1 in 
the report, offered by Mr. Geren.
  Second, my amendment allows for a more substantive change in the 
amendment numbered 12 in the report which was offered by Mr. Cox. This 
amendment, as it currently reads, would cap noneconomic damages at 
$250,000 for all civil cases. The revised amendment which I am offering 
to the House provides for a cap on noneconomic damages at $250,000 and 
limits its application to health care liability actions only.
  The reason for this is that shortly before the Rules Committee 
meeting, a copy of a revised version of the Geren amendment No. 25 was 
received by the Committee. Since the change could be considered a 
substantive one, Representative Geren's staff was advised instead to 
seek unanimous consent on the House floor to modify his amendment.
  Shortly after the Rules Committee ordered the rule reported, a 
request was received from Representative Cox's office that he be 
allowed to offer a modified version of the Cox amendment No. 51. Again, 
Representative Cox was advised to seek unanimous consent in the House 
to offer a modified version of the amendment.
  However, it became clear from the tone of the debate on the first 
rule on H.R. 956 that the climate on the floor would not be hospitable 
for any such unanimous-consent requests.
  Consequently, after consulting with the majority leadership, a 
decision was made to offer an amendment to the rule that provides for 
the consideration of both the Geren and Cox amendments in their 
modified forms. In both instances, the modifications are germane and no 
special waivers are required.
  To repeat, the Geren language has been changed to more precisely 
identify a renter or leaser and the Cox amendment was made to narrow 
the scope of noneconomic awards in civil actions to those dealing with 
medical malpractice only.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just say 
that we have a Committee on Rules meeting starting in just a few 
minutes on term limitations in the Committee on Rules at 11.
  [[Page H2903]] I commend the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], 
such a valuable member of the Committee on Rules, and the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], because a lot of work has gone into trying to 
structure a rule that would allow us to have a free and fair debate on 
these issues.
  The gentleman has outlined that we have covered all of the specific 
areas in the bill. There were 82 amendments filed to the bill and the 
fact is that working with the Democrats and, as the gentleman has 
alluded to, even with the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, who had 
sought a modification in his amendment since he came to the Committee 
on Rules too late to request that, we certainly have taken all these 
into consideration.
  I would just hope that every Republican votes for the amendment that 
the gentleman is offering even though it is a bipartisan amendment, and 
I hope that they vote for this rule. It is terribly important that we 
get this legislation on the floor today and that it pass by 3 p.m. on 
Friday.
  Again, I repeat, I urge every Republican to vote for this amendment 
to the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendment is at the desk, it has been made available 
to the minority side, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Georgia offer the 
amendment?
  Mr. LINDER. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
                    amendment offered by mr. linder

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Linder:
       Page 2, line 11, insert the following before the period: 
     ``, provided that the amendments numbered 1 and 12 printed in 
     that report shall be considered in the forms specified in 
     section 2 of this resolution''; and
       At the end of the resolution add the following:
       Sec. 2. (a) The amendment numbered 1 in the report 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered in the 
     following form:
       Page 7, insert after line 3 the following:
       ``(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     person, except a person excluded from the definition of 
     product seller, engaged in the business of renting or leasing 
     a product shall be subject to liability pursuant to 
     subsection (a) of this section, but shall not be liable to a 
     claimant for the tortious act of another solely by reason of 
     ownership of such product.''.
       (b) The amendment numbered 12 in the report accompanying 
     this resolution shall be considered in the following form:
       Page 19 redesignate section 202 as section 203 and after 
     line 19 insert the following:

     SEC. 202. LIMITATION ON NONECONOMIC DAMAGES IN HEALTH CARE 
                   LIABILITY ACTIONS.

       (a) Maximum Award of Noneconomic Damages.--In any health 
     care liability action, in addition to actual damages or 
     punitive damages, or both, a claimant may also be awarded 
     noneconomic damages, including damages awarded to compensate 
     injured feelings, such as pain and suffering and emotional 
     distress. The maximum amount of such damages that may be 
     awarded to a claimant shall be $250,000. Such maximum amount 
     shall apply regardless of the number of parties against whom 
     the action is brought, and regardless of the number of claims 
     or actions brought with respect to the health care injury. An 
     award for future noneconomic damages shall not be discounted 
     to present value. The jury shall not be informed about the 
     limitation on noneconomic damages, but an award for 
     noneconomic damages in excess of $250,000 shall be reduced 
     either before the entry of judgment or by amendment of the 
     judgment after entry. An award of damages for noneconomic 
     losses in excess of $250,000 shall be reduced to $250,000 
     before accounting for any other reduction in damages required 
     by law. If separate awards of damages for past and future 
     noneconomic damages are rendered and the combined award 
     exceeds $250,000, the award of damages for future noneconomic 
     losses shall be reduced first.
       (b) Applicability.--Except as provided in section 401, this 
     section shall apply to any health care liability action 
     brought in any Federal or State court on any theory or 
     pursuant to any alternative dispute resolution process where 
     noneconomic damages are sought. This section does not create 
     a cause of action for noneconomic damages. This section does 
     not preempt or supersede any State or Federal law to the 
     extent that such law would further limit the award of 
     noneconomic damages. This section does not preempt any State 
     law enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act that 
     places a cap on the total liability in a health care 
     liability action.
       (d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (a) The term ``claimant'' means any person who asserts a 
     health care liability claim or brings a health care liability 
     action, including a person who asserts or claims a right to 
     legal or equitable contribution, indemnity or subrogation, 
     arising out of a health care liability claim or action, and 
     any person on whose behalf such a claim is asserted or such 
     an action is brought, whether deceased, incompetent or a 
     minor.
       (b) The term ``economic loss'' has the same meaning as 
     defined at section 203(3).
       (c) The term ``health care liability action'' means a civil 
     action brought in a State or Federal court or pursuant to any 
     alternative dispute resolution process, against a health care 
     provider, an entity which is obligated to provide or pay for 
     health benefits under any health plan (including any person 
     or entity acting under a contract or arrangement to provide 
     or administer any health benefit), or the manufacturer, 
     distributor, supplier, marketer, promoter, or seller of a 
     medical product, in which the claimant alleges a claim 
     (including third party claims, cross claims, counter claims, 
     or distribution claims) based upon the provision of (or the 
     failure to provide or pay for) health care services or the 
     use of a medical product, regardless of the theory of 
     liability on which the claim is based, or the number of 
     plaintiffs, or defendants or causes of action.
       Page 17, line 10, insert ``AND OTHER'' after ``PUNITIVE''.

  Mr. LINDER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk completed the reading of the amendment.
                              {time}  1045

  Mr. FROST. I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my 
intention to yield in just a few seconds to the ranking member of the 
Committee on rules since he has to then go up to the committee for a 
hearing. After he completes his statement I will reclaim my time 
because I would like to give the traditional opening statement.
  I would point out, Mr. Speaker that what we have just witnessed is 
one of two things. Either it is incomplete staff work on the part of 
the majority side because of the enormous pressure, time pressure being 
put on their staff by the majority Members, or it is bait and switch. I 
do not know which it is. But we are under a very unusual procedure 
where we are being asked to amend on the floor a rule granted in the 
Rules Committee yesterday.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished ranking member of 
the Rules Committee.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the attention of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. I know that the gentleman has 
got scheduled hearings on the term limit bill up before the committee 
this morning. Since we are not going to take it up until the end of the 
month, and we are discussing two major amendments to the rules that are 
taking place here on the floor, does the gentleman not think we should 
be on the floor making sure this thing comes out right this time rather 
than going up to the committee to take evidence and term limits where 
we have so much time in order to put it together?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman's points are well taken. We will delay the 
Committee on Rules meeting until 1 minute after the final vote on final 
passage of this rule. Is that fair, sir?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I think this is very nice. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SOLOMON. And we will notify everyone involved.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, again, this rule is the ultimate closed 
rule. They say that they allowed 8 Democratic amendments to be part of 
the rule, but they picked out the 8; we did not. That would be like the 
Republican Party picking the Democratic Members to serve on the 
Committee on Rules. I think we have to balance this thing out.
  I think that the Speaker, Newt Gingrich, on November 11, 1993, said 
and I quote, ``We very specifically made the decision early on in our 
Contract With America that we would bring up all 10 bills under open 
rules.''
  I do not know where they are. We know the definition of rules has 
been changed this year from the definition that we had last year. So I 
would like to just put Members on notice to listen 
[[Page H2904]] quickly and if the Committee on Rules had enough time to 
do the job assigned to it up in the rules Committee we would not have 
these two major amendments to the rule here on the floor. This is a 
highly complicated bill and should have been treated in the committees 
of authorization or else on the Committee on Rules.
  So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and make in 
order the McCollum-Oxley-Gordon amendment. This amendment by two 
Republican subcommittee chairmen and one moderate Democrat will raise 
the cap on damages to $1 million, and as the Republican leadership 
knows very well, will ultimately pass if it is made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans are breaking their promises to do open rules 
on all of the contract items and to do 70 percent open rules in 
general.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with most Americans that we have too many 
lawsuits in this country, but I am not aware of some huge product 
liability crisis in the United States. I know we have a big, huge, 
crime problem out there. I know our health care system needs work. I 
know American Children need school lunches, but I have not heard anyone 
say there has been a product liability crisis in the United States.
  The fact is juries rarely award punitive damages. In the 25 years 
between 1965 and 1990, punitive damages were awarded in only 355 cases. 
So why the cap, particularly since my colleagues have been so eager to 
defend the States, rights? My Republican colleagues said that we needed 
to empower the States but today's bill preempts the States. So, which 
is it? Do the Republicans want to empower the States or do they want to 
empower the Federal Government?
  Mr. Speaker, in terms of Republican consistency, the only consistent 
Republican effort is to give Wall Street a handout at the expense of 
Main Street.
  My colleagues are quick to point out the trial lawyers and name them 
as the bad guys. But let us make sure we also remember the people that 
are represented by the trial lawyers, the elderly, women, and middle-
income Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I have very serious concerns about the effect this bill 
will have on those people and I hope they will be resolved. But that 
will be difficult, Mr. Speaker. Republicans have broken their open rule 
promise again. I understand my colleagues' hurry to finish the contract 
and start that April recess, but I think the American people will 
support us if we stay just a little bit longer and allow Members to 
have their input into this very serious legislation.
  I may add, Mr. Speaker, that just 2 days ago my dear friend from 
California, Mr. Dreier, stood on this floor and said that Republicans 
imposed time caps on bills because they did not want to pick and choose 
among amendments. Today, they have picked and chosen between 
amendments. What a difference a day makes.
  It looks like Republicans are taking very seriously Ralph Waldo 
Emerson saying ``a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little 
minds.'' They are as consistent as the water rates in Massachusetts and 
they are still breaking promises.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question and make the McCollum-Oxley-Gordon amendment in order.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I would like to at this point continue my opening statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule. This rule doesn't meet the 
standards set by the infamous Contract With America, nor does it meet 
the promises of the Speaker or the chairman of the Rules Committee. We 
were promised free and open debate in the House. This rule doesn't even 
come close to meeting that promise.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from the January 4, 1995, 
Congressional Record quoting the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, on 
the first day of the session, Page H6,

       We then say that within the first 100 days of the 104th 
     Congress we shall bring to the House floor the following 
     bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be 
     given a full and clear vote, and each to be immediately 
     available for inspection.

  Words of the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure my Republican colleagues will protest my 
characterization of this rule and will complain that when the Democrats 
were in the majority that the Rules Committee cut off debate through 
the use of modified or closed rules.
  Mr. Speaker, that argument is not the point. The point, Mr. Speaker, 
is that the Republican party promised--promised--that debate in the 
House of Representatives would be open.
  Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee majority voted down 17 amendments to 
the chairman's mark last night. The majority on the Rules Committee 
even denied the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] the opportunity 
to offer an amendment to this legislation. The majority opposed giving 
the House the opportunity to vote on amendment relating to punitive 
damages in the case of manufacturers or product sellers who were aware 
of an existing defect in that product. Mr. Speaker, is this free and 
open debate?
  Mr. Speaker, 82 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee for 
inclusion in the rule. Fifteen--15 amendments, Mr. Speaker--were made 
in order by the Rules Committee majority. The gentleman from Georgia 
explained during our hearing last night that a sincere effort was made 
to include every major issue in the rule. Our distinguished chairman 
opposed including any additional amendments in the rule because the 
House must finish consideration of this legislation, which is a major 
upheaval of our civil court system in the country, by 3 o'clock 
tomorrow afternoon. Mr. Speaker, this does not strike me as an open 
process.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I have yet another example of how this rule has 
been shut down. An amendment which both the chairman of the committee 
of jurisdiction, Mr. Bliley, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Markey had agreed would be included in the rule, was not on the list 
presented to the Rules Committee members last night. Chairman Solomon 
explained to us that it was missing because of negotiations between 
staff--between staff, Mr. Speaker--and that he intends to ask unanimous 
consent to permit its consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I not only oppose this rule, but I will oppose the 
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, it is my 
intention to offer an amendment to the rule which will permit the 
consideration of two amendments relating to punitive damages caps. I 
will offer an amendment to include the McCollum amendment which raises 
the cap to $500,000 and the Oxley-Gordon amendment to raise those 
limits to $1 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a chart of floor procedure on 
rules in the 104th Congress as follows:

                                      FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Process used for floor      Amendments in
        Bill No.                  Title            Resolution No.           consideration              order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1.................  Compliance.............  H. Res. 6         Closed......................           None.
H. Res. 6..............  Opening Day Rules        H. Res. 5         Closed; contained a closed             None.
                          Package.                                   rule on H.R. 1 within the                  
                                                                     closed rule.                               
H.R. 5.................  Unfunded Mandates......  H. Res. 38        Restrictive; Motion adopted             N/A.
                                                                     over Democratic objection                  
                                                                     in the Committee of the                    
                                                                     Whole to limit debate on                   
                                                                     section 4; Pre-printing                    
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.J. Res. 2............  Balanced Budget........  H. Res. 44        Restrictive; only certain            2R; 4D.
                                                                     substitutes.                               
H. Res. 43.............  Committee Hearings       H. Res. 43 (OJ)   Restrictive; considered in              N/A.
                          Scheduling.                                House no amendments.                       
H.R. 2.................  Line Item Veto.........  H. Res. 55        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                                                                     preference.                                
H.R. 665...............  Victim Restitution Act   H. Res. 61        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          of 1995.                                   preference.                                
H.R. 666...............  Exclusionary Rule        H. Res. 60        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          Reform Act of 1995.                        preference.                                
H.R. 667...............  Violent Criminal         H. Res. 63        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Incarceration Act of                       on amendments.                             
                          1995.                                                                                 
H.R. 668...............  The Criminal Alien       H. Res. 69        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          Deportation                                preference; Contains self-                 
                          Improvement Act.                           executing provision.                       
H.R. 728...............  Local Government Law     H. Res. 79        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Enforcement Block                          on amendments; Pre-printing                
                          Grants.                                    gets preference.                           


                                                                                                                
[[Page H2905]]
                                FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS--Continued                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Process used for floor      Amendments in
        Bill No.                  Title            Resolution No.           consideration              order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 7.................  National Security        H. Res. 83        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Revitalization Act.                        on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.R. 729...............  Death Penalty/Habeas...  N/A               Restrictive; brought up                 N/A.
                                                                     under UC with a 6 hr. time                 
                                                                     cap on amendments.                         
S. 2...................  Senate Compliance......  N/A               Closed; Put on suspension              None.
                                                                     calendar over Democratic                   
                                                                     objection.                                 
H.R. 831...............  To Permanently Extend    H. Res. 88        Restrictive; makes in order              1D.
                          the Health Insurance                       only the Gibbons amendment;                
                          Deduction for the Self-                    waives all points of order;                
                          Employed.                                  Contains self-executing                    
                                                                     provision.                                 
H.R. 830...............  The Paperwork Reduction  H. Res. 91        Open........................            N/A.
                          Act.                                                                                  
H.R. 889...............  Emergency Supplemental/  H. Res. 92        Restrictive; makes in order              1D.
                          Rescinding Certain                         only the Obey substitute.                  
                          Budget Authority.                                                                     
H.R. 450...............  Regulatory Moratorium..  H. Res. 93        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                                                                     on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.R. 1022..............  Risk Assessment........  H. Res. 96        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                                                                     on amendments.                             
H.R. 926...............  Regulatory Flexibility.  H. Res. 100       Open........................            N/A.
H.R. 925...............  Private Property         H. Res. 101       Restrictive; 12 hr. time cap             1D.
                          Protection Act.                            on amendments; Requires                    
                                                                     Members to pre-print their                 
                                                                     amendments in the Record                   
                                                                     prior to the bill's                        
                                                                     consideration for                          
                                                                     amendment, waives                          
                                                                     germaneness and budget act                 
                                                                     points of order as well as                 
                                                                     points of order concerning                 
                                                                     appropriating on a                         
                                                                     legislative bill against                   
                                                                     the committee substitute                   
                                                                     used as base text.                         
H.R. 1058..............  Securities Litigation    H. Res. 103       Restrictive; 8 hr. time cap              1D.
                          Reform Act.                                on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference; Makes in                  
                                                                     order the Wyden amendment                  
                                                                     and waives germanes against                
                                                                     it.                                        
H.R. 988...............  The Attorney             H. Res. 104       Restrictive; 7 hr. time cap             N/A.
                          Accountability Act of                      on amendments; Pre-printing                
                          1995.                                      gets preference.                           
H.R. 956...............  Product Liability and    H. Res. 109       Restrictive; makes in order          8D; 7R.
                          Legal Reform Act.                          only 15 germane amendments                 
                                                                     and denies 64 germane                      
                                                                     amendments from being                      
                                                                     considered.                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 75% restrictive; 25% open. These figures use Republican scoring methods from the 103rd Congress. Not      
  included in this chart are three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 101,    
  H.R. 400, H.R. 440.                                                                                           

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time and I especially want to commend his integrity 
because he knew that I sought this time to criticize the proposed rule 
from the Committee on Rules. However, I do have to say that although I 
am critical of the rule, I still intend to vote for it for this reason: 
I think the issue of legal reform is very important. I think it needs 
to get moving in the House of Representatives, and the issue with 
which, the matters with which I take issue can be addressed elsewhere 
in the process. Any bill that begins has a long way to go before it 
ever is proposed to the President for signature.
  I want to say I do not criticize the rule because it simply does not 
include an amendment that I offered. I offered an amendment to the 
balanced budget amendment which was not accepted by the Committee on 
Rules. Nevertheless, they proposed a fundamentally fair and open 
exchange of views on the balanced budget amendment which I think was 
perfectly appropriate even if it did not happen to include an amendment 
that I offered.

                              {time}  1100

  In this particular case, however, as I look at the amendments which 
have been made in order in this bill, it appears to me that amendments 
have been allowed which either the Committee on Rules believes will not 
be accepted by a majority in the House of Representatives or they do 
not care if a majority in the House of Representatives adopts these 
amendments. And those rules, those amendments which might change this 
bill in a way that the Committee on Rules does not wish it changed were 
not even allowed to be offered on the House floor.
  There has already been reference to a proposed amendment from the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]. There has been references to a 
bipartisan amendment that would deal with raising the damage caps on 
punitive damages, not taking the caps away, which I think the majority 
will not support, but simply raising the caps, which I think a majority 
would support.
  Here is where I believe my proposed amendment is highly relevant. 
This bill is being argued in terms of a products liability bill, but it 
is only products liability in part. Section 1 of this bill deals with 
products liability. Title II, dealing with punitive damages, is not 
limited to products liability. In fact, it is not limited to anything.
  According to title II of this bill, as it is now written, the Federal 
Government is going to take over the State courts with respect to 
punitive damages in every single case, no matter what is the subject of 
the case.
  In other words, if two individuals get into a first fight on the 
front lawn between their houses, Federal law is going to govern how 
that lawsuit that might arise out of that takes place. Now, 
particularly to my Republican colleagues, let me say first I think that 
violates philosophically everything we have been arguing for the last 2 
months. We have said the States can handle police grant block grants, 
we have said the States can handle child nutrition programs and now we 
are saying the States for some reason cannot handle the court system.
  Further, we set the precedent that running the courts should be a 
Federal issue. And some day a Congress of a different philosophic bent 
can say there will be a Federal law on punitive damages which is there 
will be no caps on punitive damages anywhere and we will overrule and 
take away those existing punitive damage caps which now exist. If you 
can do one, you can do the other.
  My amendment will simply have said the punitive damages proceedings, 
whatever it is, applies only to products liability.
  I want to conclude with one respectful exception to the opening 
statement of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] which has been 
said by a number of our leaders, which makes reference to Mr. Ralph 
Nader and the Trials Lawyers Association. That approach reminds me very 
much of the others side's saying we have to pass certain laws to send a 
message to the National Rifle Association. I just want to say on this 
floor that I have voted for and against the trial lawyers' positions 
and voted for and against the National Rifle Association position. We 
should pass laws that are good laws and not based on whether or not 
they are supported or opposed by any particular group.
  I thank the gentleman again for yielding.
  

                          ____________________