[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.
____________________