[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 44 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2905-H2912]
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. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding this 
time to me.
  I am very honored to be able to follow the gentleman from New Mexico 
because I think he gave a very, very thoughtful approach to this rule.
  Look, this bill is doing something very drastic. It is changing the 
entire legal system of this country as it has worked since the country 
began. And this bill has been written and rewritten and rewritten, and 
we do not even know who the final author is.
  It has been like a fast-bill breeder reactor and a fast-amendment 
breeder reactor, and, as you see, they are now changing the rule one 
more time because they want to change some more amendments.
  I think really we must vote down this rule because we do not know 
what we are doing.
  Let me emphasize again what the gentleman from New Mexico said about 
title II. This goes far beyond product 
[[Page H2906]] liability. We are saying in title II the Federal 
Government knows best and we are going to preempt all sorts of State 
laws.
  You heard some of them last night. In New Jersey they allow punitive 
damages against any person that sexually abuses a child. Well, if we 
pass this bill, we are going to put a cap on it. And in all sorts of 
States, they allow punitive damages for someone who has been killed by 
a driver under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Do you think we 
should put a cap on that and say they did not have any idea what they 
were doing?
  Other States have put on punitive damages for people who are selling 
drugs to children. I am for those things. I do not think we have all 
the wisdom here. I think it is amazing we are going to run out and give 
the school lunch program to the States, which a lot of them were not 
asking for, and we are going to take away all of the things they tried 
to do if we pass title II here today.
  I also must say, when we look at these amendments, there were very 
many amendments, as the gentleman from New Mexico said, that were not 
allowed that we know would have passed. And I think that is troubling.
  There are other amendments that I certainly hope people listen to 
today because they are very important: the noneconomic damages, the 
``feelings'' amendment, as they are calling it. Let me tell you, if 
someone's reproductive organs are destroyed, if their capacity to 
reproduce is destroyed, I think that goes way beyond feelings. And I 
know very few people who would look very favorably upon someone putting 
a punitive cap on what they could receive if someone intentionally did 
that.
  We see instance after instance in this bill where we think it is not 
ripe for decision, where we really do need much more debate. And I 
think that the people assumed we would have some thoughtful application 
before we took a system that has been functioning for over 200 years 
and changed it, and changed it with such haste that we hardly know what 
we are doing and we are having to change the rule as it goes.
  This is massive micromanagement, this is a closed rule. These are 
serious issues. There are limits on debate, limits on amendments, 
limits on everything. I hope people vote against this rule.
  And I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, in spite of the controversy and disagreements on the 
rule, the bill itself is a good one, and I urge all of my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Speaker, simply put, it is imperative that we bring some 
uniformity to tort law in respect to product liability. If we hope to 
compete in an equal marketplace, if we hope to protect our Nation's 
citizens without hamstringing our industries and our quality of life, 
we must meet this challenge squarely today.
  We come armed with study after study documenting the adverse impact 
of widely varying State tort laws on competitiveness, innovation, and 
even safety: it's not working, it's broke and it's long past time to 
fix it.
  Under our current system, we are, in effect, exporting American 
ideas. With outrageous liability awards hanging over their heads like 
the sword of Damocles, U.S. manufacturers often dare not bring much-
needed, much-requested products to market. Mr. Speaker, our foreign 
competitors eagerly fill that gap.
  They have not burdened themselves with the crushing product liability 
costs borne by U.S. manufacturers--and, in the end, consumers. 
Nowhere--not west of us on the Pacific rim nor east of us in the 
European Economic Community--are liability standards so onerous as they 
are in the United States.
  Not least of all, we need this legislation's single, predictable set 
of rules to protect consumers--and we should emphasize that. None of us 
wants to write the common man out of the law, leaving him no redress in 
the courts. That's not the object of this bill. What we want to do is 
restore some balance between liability and accountability.
  Rather than voiding the commonsense accountability of an injured 
party, this bill places the responsibility for accident prevention back 
where it belongs. Indeed, injured parties will have to bear some of 
that burden if they alter or misuse a product. Employers and employees 
alike will be encouraged to create a safer workplace.
  Also, by bringing some balance back to the system, we free consumers 
from having to pay for accidents by individuals who abuse illegal drugs 
or misuse alcohol.
  Predictability. Uniformity. Fairness. This legislation will bring a 
certainty to our tort laws that has been long missing. It will help to 
stop the erosion of our Nation's competitiveness and protect the 
consumer.
  We can promise nothing more and we should accept nothing less.
  Again, I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to defeat the previous 
question, to allow an amended rule which would allow three amendments, 
all of them Republican amendments.
  The gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum's amendment to raise the cap 
on all punitive damage. The bill does not just restrict punitive 
damages caps to products liability. It covers every single State's 
punitive damages remedy that exists, to raise that cap from $250,000 to 
$500,000. Also, to allow the Oxley-Gordon amendment, which provides a 
million-dollar alternative cap for all punitive damages remedies. And 
the Schiff amendment, which limits the punitive damages cap to what 
every single speaker who comes down here on the majority side talks 
about, which is product liability.
  The bill before us provides a punitive damages cap for everything. If 
I were to have a product liability bill in title I and nationalize the 
steel industry in title II and I refused to discuss title II, I would 
be somewhat disingenuous. I suggest that as Republican after Republican 
comes down on this legislation and talks about product liability, never 
discusses the other issues, they are wrong.
  What did the Committee on Rules do here? Why is this so 
objectionable? I do not think you can have a product liability under an 
open rule.
  I know the Republican promise. I think it was silly. I think they 
should be allowed to change that promise. You cannot consider 
everything on an open rule. I do not even mind that it is a very 
modified time-restricted closed rule and the majority of the 82 
amendments filed are not considered.
  But, in essence, what the Republicans in the Committee on Rules have 
done, what they are threatening to do if they adopt this rule, is to 
say, ``Yes, there is the status quo, and some people just want to keep 
the status quo and do not want to change it.'' I guess that is the 
position of the trial lawyers.
  Then there is what I consider the extreme of this bill and every 
amendment, which is somewhere between the status quo and the extreme of 
this bill offered by a Republican which has a chance to win will be 
denied a chance to be offered.
  So that, in effect, what you are doing is what you have been yelling 
about the Democrats doing; you blocked amendments that could win on the 
House floor and you were so sanctimonious during the campaign and 
afterward, the outrage of what the Democrats did. ``We had amendments 
that could win, but they would not let us offer them.'' That is what 
Mr. Schiff's amendment is, that is what Mr. McCollum's amendment is, 
that is what the Oxley-Gordon amendments are; not to let all the 
Democratic amendments come in, but to let these three amendments come 
in.
  I would urge the body to defeat the previous question and allow that 
very limited amendment to allow moderate proposals to come in.
  When Mr. Dreier spoke yesterday, when my friend from California on 
the floor, he talked about letting ideas from the left and the right 
come in. They will not even let ideas from the center come in. And that 
is what those 
[[Page H2907]] amendments are. They should be allowed.
  I urge defeat of the previous question so that that amended rule may 
be offered.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce].
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this rule, and to 
compliment my friend from Georgia, Mr. Linder, for his excellent 
description of this legislation.
  This is a fair and responsible rule, Mr. Speaker, because it permits 
the House to consider 15 separate amendments reflecting a wide range of 
issues which are central to the product liability reform debate. Of 
those 15 amendments made in order, 8 are sponsored by Democrats, 6 by 
Republicans, and 1 is offered with bipartisan sponsorship. This rule 
should be even more palatable to many in this body due to the floor 
manager, Mr. Linder's amendment to impose the caps on noneconomic 
damages to medical malpractice cases only.
  On Tuesday, the Committee on Rules sat for nearly 7 hours to hear 
testimony from Members on a variety of amendments--83 in all--affecting 
many aspects of the bill, including economic and noneconomic losses, 
punitive damages, and joint and several liability, to name just a few.
  Under this rule, Mr. Speaker, we have attempted to give ample time to 
the minority, and quite frankly, to the entire House, to discuss all of 
these critical areas, while eliminating overlapping or duplicative 
amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, not every amendment I supported and fought for was 
adopted, but I believe that, all in all, the rule is fair.
                              {time}  1115

  Mr. Speaker, for nearly two decades Congress has grappled with the 
issue of products liability reform. Some say we are going too fast and 
we are going too far, but what we went too fast and too far on are the 
horrendous unchecked abuses over the past decade. Having been a jurist 
in my previous life, I can say without hesitation that there is room 
for commonsense legal reform in our system, especially in the area of 
product liability law. This bill seeks to restore common sense and 
fairness to product liability litigation by establishing uniform 
national standards in place of the patchwork system currently 
compromise of 50 separate State product liability laws.
  Given the significant impact that product liability has upon 
interstate commerce, competitiveness, insurance cost and the lives of 
each and every American, the provisions in this legislation and the 
Federal action it endorses are not only warranted, but also very sound. 
My colleagues need look no further than the Constitution to see that 
action taken by this body to regulate interstate commerce is well 
within Congress' assigned duties.
  Mr. Speaker, by adopting this fair and responsible rule, we can 
continue this week's process of enacting meaningful and reasonable 
changes to our civil justice system. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to support this fair and reasonable rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
oppressive rule and urge Members to defeat the previous question.
  It is no secret that this important legislation--that I have worked 
on for many years--is being grossly mishandled. There was but one 
subcommittee hearing on an extreme bill introduced 1 week earlier. 
There was no subcommittee markup--an important step in ensuring well-
crafted and defensible legislation. We were given three completely 
different substitutes in as many days before the committee markup. Even 
before we received a draft of the committee report, a new bill--H.R. 
1075--was introduced last week by Chairmen Hyde and Bliley.
  Before the ink was dry on H.R. 1075, Chairman Solomon stood here and 
announced the Rules Committee would meet this week ``to grant a rule 
which may restrict amendments.'' It is clear the Republican leadership 
decided sometime ago they would ram this bill through without adequate 
debate and without regard to the rights of Members to debate the issues 
and offer amendments to the bill.
  We asked for an open rule, but have been given a closed rule. The 
Republicans have picked amendments they want to debate and foreclosed 
the ability of Democrats to offer and debate other important ones. 
Moderate or bipartisan amendments have been completely excluded by this 
closed rule.
  For example, Mr. Oxley and Mr. Gordon filed an amendment to raise the 
cap on punitive damages to $1 million. And the gentleman from Florida, 
a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. McCollum, has an amendment to 
raise the cap to $500,000. Instead of making these moderate and 
bipartisan amendments in order, the Republicans are instead only giving 
the House the stark choice between an extreme $250,000 cap on the one 
hand and no cap at all on the other. It seems the Republican leadership 
was very worried that the Oxley-Gordon or McCollum amendments would 
pass. I urge Members to defeat the previous question to give the House 
an opportunity to vote on these middle ground alternatives.
  Even worse, the rule allows Republican amendments that go far beyond 
product liability reform. For example, Mr. Gekas' amendment on medical 
malpractice and Mr. Cox's amendments to severely limit damages for pain 
and suffering in all State and Federal cases will be in order if this 
rule passes. There has not been one hearing on these amendments by this 
Congress. There has not been one day of committee meetings on these 
amendments by this Congress. No Member has been given adequate notice 
or time to consider these sweeping changes to our legal system.
  This unfair and ill-advised process erodes bipartisan efforts. It 
produces legislation fraught with defects, inconsistencies and errors. 
This is not about common sense, as the authors of the bill want us to 
believe. It is the herd mentality in action.
  I stand ready to work with all of my colleagues to craft fair, 
balanced, and appropriate legislation in this area. But the rule before 
us denies me and all Members of that opportunity. As all Members of 
this body know: we are here to legislate, not to punch holes in 
laminated cards.
  We should be working to produce a products liability bill that we 
fully understand, in which we can take pride, and which we may defend 
without reservation. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we 
can consider the Oxley-Gordon and McCollum amendments on punitive 
damages. Vote ``no'' on the rule if the previous question is approved.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, simply put, 
the rule before us today is an outrage. It is a bill that is designed 
to make sure that we cannot moderate in any way in a very extreme bill. 
It goes far beyond what any reasonable legal scholar would ever have 
asked for, and it is part of a 20-year, the culmination of a 20-year 
campaign, by companies who have repeatedly been sued for putting 
dangerous products on the market to convince the public that somehow we 
should ignore the plight of the victims of their outrageous behavior 
and have sympathy instead for them, and they have been telling people 
on the radio ads and through their various propaganda sources that 
there is a big crisis with regard to product liability cases, but the 
fact is that in the hearings, which had witnesses chosen by the 
Republicans, we asked the witnesses, ``Do any of you have a study to 
show that there is a big increase in the number of product liability 
cases?'' And the answer was, no, nobody had any such study.
  ``Do any of you have a study to show there's a big increase in the 
number, in the size, of the verdicts?'' No, nobody had any such study, 
and in fact the studies that do exist tell us just the opposite.
  The fact of the matter is that product liability cases filed 
represent a mere thirty-six one hundredths of a percentage point of the 
civil case load and ninety-seven thousands of a percentage point of the 
total case load in the State courts. In recent years the number of 
product liability filings has been steadily declining. The objective 
stories in the press in the last few days have indicated just that. 
Only 10 percent of the people who were sued, who were injured, ever 
used the tort system 
[[Page H2908]] to seek compensation for their injuries anyway, and, 
finally, the number of fraud liability cases in Federal court declined 
36 percent from 1985 to 1981.
  Those are the facts. There are not any other facts, and yet, because 
the corporate friends of the Republican Party want to see their fondest 
dream come true, we have a rule before us today that says we are going 
to pass an extreme bill with no possibility of improving it.
  What has been the hallmark of this campaign of propaganda? It has 
been the McDonald's coffee case. We were told all about what an outrage 
the McDonald's coffee case was. Well, let me tell my colleagues
 about a few McDonald coffee cases they did not know about.

    
    
  This is a picture of an 11-year-old boy from South Carolina. The 
McDonald's coffee he was holding spilled and caused extreme scalding. 
The tests conducted during the trial showed that the coffee was 180 
degrees when it was spilled even though it was poured 15 minutes 
earlier. Now their highest recommended temperature for the hot water 
heater is 140 degrees. That kid was badly hurt.
  Here is a 1\1/2\-year-old child. This is a scalding of five--a 1\1/
2\-year-old child that was scalded by McDonald's coffee.
  As it turned out, there were 700 complaints of scalding to the 
McDonald's company. We never did hear about that in these radio ads; 
did we?
  And here is the partial picture of perhaps the saddest story of all. 
This is a lady that was burned all the way down the front of her body, 
and in between her legs as well, in New Mexico. She spent the following 
month in the hospital. She remained wheelchair-bound after discharge 
and died 2 months later. She had extreme burns over all of her body.
  This is a bill that would have prohibited these people from filing 
these cases. The truth will be told in the debate. I urge my colleagues 
to vote against the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox], the author of the amendment for which we bent the 
rule.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
explain the need for amendment to the rule.
  Obviously this amendment will change an amendment offered by one 
Democrat at the request of that Democratic Member and an amendment 
offered by one Republican at the request of that Republican.
  In my case I have asked to narrow the scope of my amendment so that I 
can accommodate requests from Members on the other side of the aisle.
  The gentleman who just spoke, I take it, is an opponent of tort 
reform in the Congress for a variety of reasons. He would not, 
presumably, have voted for an amendment that will cover all torts in 
all courts in terms of noneconomic damages. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, I 
imagine he would not vote for an amendment that covers medical 
malpractice which is a subset. But several Members on that side of the 
aisle have indicated that they very much share the desire for reducing 
health care costs by getting at the problem of health care lawsuits, 
which is a subset of the amendment that I originally offered.
  So, Mr. Speaker, for that purpose, to focus the amendment more 
narrowly on a subject that is of broader concern in our Congress, I 
have asked to amend the rule to permit me to offer a more narrow 
amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman from the Committee on Rules 
offering me the opportunity to explain the purpose of my amendment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox] a question:
  Mr. Cox, why did you have to change the language between the time we 
considered the amendment yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee and 
this morning? Why wasn't the language that you really wanted before the 
Rules Committee when we considered the rule yesterday afternoon?
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COX of California. As life occurred, I ran into the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules when I was here on the floor yesterday debating 
the Securities Litigation Act 15 minutes after the Committee on Rules 
had concluded their business, and so I just missed the bus. If I had 
not been on the floor all day yesterday doing the Securities Litigation 
Reform Act, I would have been up in the Committee on Rules, but it is 
literally a matter of minutes here that I was unable to learn that the 
Committee on Rules had already finished business.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, Well, Mr. Cox, you 
have submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee; isn't that correct? 
Originally the amendment that we made in order yesterday was one that 
you had actually submitted?
  Mr. COX of California. Yes, not this week, but last week under the 
deadline that was set by the Committee on Rules. That was preprinted in 
the Record last week.
  Mr. FROST. I understand----
  Mr. COX of California. And after last week, as a result of 
conversations with Members on the Democratic side, it was suggested to 
me that I narrow the scope of my amendment and that I not propose an 
amendment to Federal law that would cover tort litigation in all the 50 
States.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would only ask the gentleman, Mr. Cox, our 
meetings are publicly noticed. Members know when the Rules Committee is 
going to meet, particularly when we're going to vote to actually take 
final action on a rule, and other Members have not had difficulty in 
getting the language of their amendments to us in a timely manner----
  Mr. COX of California. I would just respond to the gentleman by 
saying, ``Of course this took place yesterday in the Rules Committee, 
and there was only one Member of Congress yesterday who had his 
legislation on the floor of the House, and it was this Member.''
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a support of products 
liability reform, not only this year, but also in the past. Last year I 
joined the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] and many others in a 
bipartisan bill, House Resolution 1510, to reform products liability, 
and that is why I am so concerned today that we are met with this rule 
that is going to gag a true debate on products liability reform and 
maybe put it at jeopardy, and why is that?
  Mr. Speaker, why is it that the Republican leadership is going to 
such extremes to break a contract that they had with the American 
people? That contract said there would be full and open debate on this 
issue. Why are they breaking that contract?
  Are they breaking it because there is not enough time to debate this? 
Well, no, that cannot be the case because just last night they 
announced that we are not going to be in session on Friday--I am sorry; 
we are going to go out of session on Friday at 3 o'clock. We are not 
going to be in session on Monday, we are not going to be in session 
Tuesday until 5 o'clock, and we are not going to be in session next 
Friday. So clearly there is plenty of time to debate this next week. I 
think we can work more than 2 hours.
  Is it because they are trying to stop some partisan shenanigans? No, 
that is not the case because they are also not allowing some amendments 
from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] who is a very capable chairman 
of the subcommittee that brought forth this bill. They are not allowing 
amendments by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], their own 
Member, once again who is one of the subcommittee chairmen in the 
Committee on the Judiciary--as well as a number of other Republican 
amendments.
  So why are they blocking, why are they gagging, this rule? Well, the 
only thing I can find out, Mr. Speaker, is they are gagging this rule 
because it is such an extreme bill that they are afraid to have debate 
for the American public to hear about it, for their own Members to come 
forward with their own amendments.
  So I think the question today, and I know it is very difficult for 
Republicans when their leadership clamps down on them and says, 
``You've got to toe the line,'' and there may be threats and may be 
retribution. I know it is tough to be able to step forward. But 
[[Page H2909]] today I think it is important because this is such an 
important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the questions before my friends and colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are:
  ``Are they going to be lackeys for their leadership or conduits for 
their constituents?''
  ``Are they going to be robots for their rulers or defenders of their 
districts?''
  ``Are they going to be servants for their sovereign, or are they 
going to be supporters of their citizens?''
  We will have that answer today, so I urge a defeat of this rule so 
that we can come back with a rule with open debate so that Democrats, 
and Republicans, and the American people can all participate in this 
and get a products liability reform that this country deserves and 
needs.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule.
  As the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has stated so well, many 
Members across the aisle, and some on this side, have concerns that 
this legislation not go too far. One of the changes proposed in this 
rule will allow a previously allowed amendment to narrow its scope. I 
believe that there is support on both sides of the aisle for this 
change. It would seem to me that voting against this rule would 
actually limit many Members from voting for what they consider to be a 
better amendment.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this rule. This rule is an 
improvement, not a gag.
  Many Members want to debate a medical malpractice amendment because 
we know how it has added to the cost of our health care system in terms 
of defensive medicine. This rule will change that, will allow that to 
happen.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  The list of broken promises and pledges of the Republican majority 
continues to grow with every day.
  First the new Republican majority refused to protect Social Security 
from cuts under the proposed balanced budget amendment contrary to the 
protection that the new Speaker promised Social Security would receive. 
The amendment went down as a result in the Senate.
  Next, came the promise to return crime fighting tools to the States, 
a promise promptly revoked in the prison funding legislation which 
dictated strict eligibility requirements to the States that they could 
not meet.
  And then came the promise for open rules, a promise which has been 
broken on nearly every major bill coming out of the Judiciary 
Committee. Sure, strict time limits that include voting time which 
allow for open amendments, are not quite closed rules. But the 
strictures of these time limits have repeatedly cut off meritorious 
amendments not just by Democrats but by Republicans as well.
  And now on one of the most important bills affecting every American's 
right to be free from harm, every American's right to go to court to 
right a wrong done to them, we have the ultimate in closed rules. A 
rule that allows only a limited number of amendments on a highly 
technical and complicated body of law. A rule that irresponsibly allows 
amendments nongermane amendments limiting rights of medical malpractice 
victims, an issue which was not properly considered and refined in 
committee, to be hoisted onto members for a vote of first impression on 
the House floor.
  This rule refused to make in order the vast majority of amendments 
that Judiciary Democrats requested be made in order. It refused my 
amendment making particularly egregious conduct subject to criminal 
liability, amendments dealing with reproductive rights, the statute of 
repose, making businesses play by the same rules as individuals, 
requiring insurance reporting.
  How ironic it is that such a restrictive rule comes on a bill that is 
attempting to restrict people's fundamental rights. That's right, this 
is not a bill to clean up the legal system, as a matter of fact it is 
doubtful that this bill will cause any reduction in American 
litigation.
  Rather this bill is about depriving people of fundamental rights, of 
rights to be free from unknowable harms in our midst, in the every day 
products we consume. This bill is about depriving people of legal 
rights when they are wronged. This bill is about telling manufacturers 
that its OK to produce children's pajamas which are flammable, 
pharmaceutical which will injure rather than cure, household products 
which will maim, because the deterrent purpose of punitive damages will 
be so limited that wrongdoers will only have to pay small sums in 
punitive damages relative to the huge profits they will reap.
  And not only does this bill guillotine damages in Federal court, but 
it does so for State laws as well. That's the ultimate Washington power 
grab. Folks at home, listen up. This bill will severely limit punitive 
damages in your State laws for sexual abuse of children, victims of 
drunk driving, and criminals who sells drugs to children. Women of 
America, listen close. This bill says a male corporate executive who 
loses wages because of temporary incapacitation will probably get more 
damages than you if you're sterilized by defective products in the 
marketplace.
  This bill is about limiting individual rights, particularly for 
middle income Americans. The rule is about limiting members amendments 
to expand rights. The bill cuts off the American people's rights to go 
to court, the rule the right to go to the House floor. Never before has 
the Contract With America been bolder in its statement that it is 
really a ``Contract With Corporate America.''
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I am vehemently opposed to this closed rule on a piece 
of legislation that threatens to decimate the health and safety of 
innocent men, women, and children across the United States with its 
enaction. I urge my colleagues to join me in vociferously voting no.
  Tuesday afternoon I testified before the Rules Committee on an 
amendment I submitted to the bill which would have required 
manufacturers to retain for 25 years documents that directly relate to 
the elements of a product liability action. With my amendment, 
materials concerning design specifications, warranties, warnings, and 
general product safety would have been preserved and available for use 
at trial by injured consumers bringing suit.
  Unfortunately, and to this moment without presenting me or my staff 
with a reason, the committee did not rule my amendment in order. I 
strongly object to this attempt to muffle my ability to effectively 
represent my constituents. It is wrong and it is unwarranted, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Today, many companies regularly feed documents into shredders, 
incinerators, et cetera under the guise of ``document reduction'' 
programs. In reality, however, they are effectively eliminating 
documents which could be crucial to the merits of a plaintiff's product 
liability claim. Such practices must be stopped and my amendment would 
have done just that.
  This issue arises in a variety of contexts in product liability 
suits. The documents obtained during the discovery process help the 
plaintiff's lawyer to verify the statements of witnesses, refresh the 
memory of those who have forgotten key details of design and safety, 
and fill in the gaps from witnesses who have died, disappeared, or are 
beyond the court's jurisdiction. Where a lengthy statute of repose is 
involved, as the 15-year statute in H.R. 956, the manufacturer's 
documents are especially important due to the difficulty in remembering 
details from so many years before. Most significantly, on matters where 
the plaintiff carries the burden of proof they must have access to the 
evidence necessary to present their case.
  The importance of providing plaintiffs with access to a manufacturer-
defendant's documents is illustrated in a fascinating book written 
about the Dalkon Shield tragedy. As the author describes:

       Thousands of documents sought by lawyers for victims * * * 
     sank from sight in suspicious circumstances. A few were 
     hidden for a decade in a home basement in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 
     Other records were destroyed in a city dump in Columbus, 
     Indiana, and some allegedly in an A.H. Robins furnace.

  This is not an isolated case Mr. Speaker. After an American Airlines 
DC-10 crashed in Chicago in 1979, one of the most serious aircraft 
crashes in history, the airline's lawyer instructed the author of an 
in-house report on the accident to destroy all notes, memoranda, and 
other data. Many believe that this material could have established the 
fact that the airline knew of a crack in the engine bulkhead before the 
accident occurred.
  As I stated, to prohibit these practices, my amendment would have 
required manufacturers to retain for 25 years their documents and other 
data which directly relate to the elements of a product liability 
action.
  [[Page H2910]] Strong civil penalties would have been imposed by my 
amendment in instances where evidence was destroyed or concealed. If a 
court found that a litigant willfully destroyed or altered any key 
evidence, it could have concluded that the facts at issue did, in fact, 
exist as contended by the opposing party. Monetary penalties would also 
have been assessed, as they are a tried and true method for encouraging 
compliance with the law. A rebuttable presumption would have applied 
where the documents were nonwillfully eliminated in some other way.
  My amendment is necessary for a number of reasons. First and 
foremost, it would ease backlogs in our court system and shorten the 
time it takes for cases to be resolved--a primary goal of H.R. 956, or 
so I thought. Where documents are destroyed or made unavailable, the 
result is more searching and time consuming discovery because secondary 
and more attenuated sources of evidence must be used.
  In the process, attorney's fees are needlessly increased, limiting 
the number of claimants who can afford to bring their cases to court. 
Also, there is a higher likelihood of error by the factfinder by using 
secondary sources of evidence instead of the essential documents 
themselves. Thus my amendment would save not only the valuable time of 
the court and the litigants, but also increase access to our justice 
system for more citizens as well as promote fairer and more consistent 
verdicts.
  Finally, my record retention amendment would encourage parties to 
come forward promptly with requested documents to avoid the monetary 
penalties and adverse presumptions of my proposal. In subsequent cases 
involving the same product, settlement prospects would be enhanced 
because manufacturers would not want these negative findings to apply 
again.
  At the very least, my amendment would have encouraged manufacturers 
to rethink the wisdom of destroying, altering, or hiding vital 
documents. Under the best of circumstances, it would have forced 
companies to act in the most responsible manner and take safety 
precautions or correct defective products where records warn of such 
hazards. After all, I believe greater product safety remains the bottom 
line. Obviously the GOP does not.
  Mr. Speaker, if anyone doubts the importance of record retention, 
they should consider two memorable cases. First, what recourse would 
asbestos victims have had if someone did not locate the Johns-Manville 
memo showing that the company knew of the health hazards of its product 
as early as 1930? Second, what compensation would have been awarded to 
the Grimshaw family if the cost-benefit analysis done by Ford in its 
Pinto accident cases had not ``come to light?'' The answer in both 
cases is little, if anything, and the victims would have been denied 
true justice.
  I am sorry the majority on the Rules Committee don't care much for 
justice of any kind.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this ludicrous rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to deliver a eulogy for a major 
pillar of the Republican Contract on America. This rule buries perhaps 
the only part of the contract that justifiably earned the support of 
most Members on both sides of the aisle.
  The Republican majority has entertained us over the past few weeks 
with moving lectures on the importance of States rights and local 
autonomy. They have further declared what they describe as a new 
openness, which supposedly allows unprecedented freedom of debate on 
important issues on the floor of this, the People's House. How 
hypocritical and really tragic, then, that on this legislation that 
obliterates the rights of consumers to be protected against dangerous 
products and against those cynical corporations that calculate that 
there is more money to be made by selling exploding cars or medications 
with life-threatening side effects than by cleaning up their act. The 
closed rule would severely censure the debate.
  I and others, for example, have proposed amendments that would 
preserve the States' authority over tort law. These amendments were not 
made in order. Is this the fine print in the contract? Are we to be 
forced to listen to pious homilies about local control, about an end to 
the Washington-knows-best attitude, but when it comes to something as 
important as the rights of consumers who have been injured or killed, 
local authorities no longer are on the list of the Speaker's approved 
political vocabulary and it is not even considered important enough to 
allow it to be debated on the floor of the House?
  The State's authority over tort law, over medical malpractice and 
product liability, is to be consigned to history without even a 
moment's debate on the floor? What a mockery. What hypocrisy. The 
Republican leadership is afraid of an open debate on the arrogation to 
the Federal Government of the entire field of tort law.
  For 200 years, Mr. Speaker, tort law and consumer protection have 
been entrusted to the States. Today an arrogant national government 
coldly steals that power without a moment's discussion on the floor of 
this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people are watching today's vote. I 
hope they keep track of who supports this political power grab. I hope 
the American people will remember this vote the next time someone who 
voted for this closed rule delivers a pious but empty and hypocritical 
sermon about States rights or about open government.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this terribly shameful closed rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I do not know who the previous speaker was 
talking about as being hypocritical, but we ought to be a little 
careful about how we describe other Members.
  Let me just say that 72 percent of the American people favor 
legislation that places tighter limits and restrictions on an 
individual's ability to sue another person or company; 84 percent favor 
requiring defendants to pay damage awards according to their percentage 
of fault, and 78 percent favor limiting the amount awarded in punitive 
damages to no more than three times the amount of economic damages.
  Mr. Speaker, the thing that gets me is that lawyers, with all due 
respect to them, take 50 to 70 percent of every dollar spent on product 
liability litigation, driving up the cost of everything. Since 1977 the 
revenue of the lawsuit abuse industry has compounded at 12 percent per 
year. That is faster even than the health care industry. And Americans 
pay $130 billion a year in litigation and higher insurance premiums as 
a result of product liability and personal injury cases.
  Mr. Speaker, our legal system needs reform. It has been reported that 
Americans file lawsuits every 14 seconds in this country. This 
litigation explosion has been most evident in the areas of product 
liability lawsuits. That is what this legislation deals with here 
today. That is why we need to pass this rule without question and get 
on with this debate. This Congress has been gagged for 20 years from 
debating this issue on the floor of this Congress.
  Finally, the American people are going to be heard. We are going to 
debate this issue in a few minutes, and we are going to pass it and 
send it to the Senate and on to the President. And that President had 
better sign this bill because the American people want it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, let me inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Linder] has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any other speakers at this 
time, and I will reserve the right to close the debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] 
reserves the balance of his time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I want to serve notice that I intend to ask 
for a rollcall vote on the previous question, as well as on the passage 
of the rule, if the previous question is agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the remaining 
time on our side to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] 
is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. REED asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  [[Page H2911]] This is an outrageous rule, and my opposition is not 
based on any underlying opposition to the bill as it came from the 
Committee on the Judiciary. I was one of two Democrats who supported 
this bill as it came to the Committee on the Judiciary. But what has 
taken place with this rule is that the Committee on Rules has cut off 
consideration of important amendments.
  For example, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] has an 
amendment that would clarify the issue of de minimis tort feasors. This 
amendment received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. It 
was not made in order.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has an amendment to raise 
the punitive damage ceiling to $1 million. Once again this amendment 
received bipartisan support in the committee and is not being allowed 
to be considered on this floor today. That is outrageous. I think the 
reason is because these amendments do have bipartisan support. They 
would have likely engaged not only a full debate but they may well have 
passed and may well have improved this legislation. And clearly, that 
seems to be the last thing the majority wants to do at this moment, 
make better legislation or conduct a fair and open debate on these 
issues.
  In addition to these points, they have made matters worse by 
approving a whole list of amendments which, if they pass, have the 
potential of making this bill a special interest Christmas tree, not 
tort reform but a special interest Christmas tree.
  Furthermore, they have compounded that by in fact, through the rule, 
changing amendments that they were adopting in the Rules Committee, and 
this is a travesty.
  Mr. Speaker, we should reject this rule and get on to real tort 
reform, not rhetoric on the floor.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close the debate.
  First, Mr. Speaker, let me address the question of closed rules that 
keeps coming up from the Democrat side. Not to sound too remedial, but 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] made it clear that the only 
reference in the contract was to full and open debate, not open rules. 
The only open rule promised in the contract was on the term limits 
bill, and it will be open.
  The ceilings of $250,000 for punitive damages will tend to be floors 
in the long run. But that is not the way most of these cases are 
settled.
  The bill also provides for three times economic losses. Judge Griffin 
Bell, the former Attorney General, was in my office 1 week ago and said 
that a case he represented, the famous case of a $100 million 
settlement from General Motors, with this bill, would have been a $6 
million settlement, which is about what the family is going to get 
anyway.
  To address a final point about States rights, the gentleman from New 
York made the case that we are taking away from the States. However, 
his mayor in a letter to the editor of the New York Times, after
 pointing out that a jury awarded $18 million to an 18-year-old student 
who decided to see if he could leap over a volleyball net in gym class 
and wound up a quadriplegic, awarded $4.3 million to a convicted felon 
who was caught mugging a 71-year-old. As the thief fled, a transit 
policeman shot him, leaving him paralyzed. The mugger sued and won.

  A jury awarded $1 million to the estate of a drunken woman who had 
entered a closed city park illegally and drowned in three feet of 
water.
  Then $676,000 went to the estate of a motorist killed after a drunk 
drove onto an expressway the wrong way and crashed into the motorist's 
car.
  Then the mayor's office in a letter to the editor said this: 
``Congress is reviving the principles of single `federalism' and 
returning power to the States, cities and other local governments. 
Toward that end, it should enact this simple measure to give cities 
like New York more control over their own fate.''
  The law department of the city of New York wrote in a memorandum in 
support of the Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act: ``I write to 
ask you to support'' these amendments.

       The city of New York has experienced an exponential growth 
     in tort settlements and judgments. In 1984, New York City 
     paid out $83 million in tort cases; this past fiscal year we 
     paid plaintiffs and their lawyers an astounding $262 million. 
     A substantial portion of that amount went for the all too 
     familiar amorphous awards known as `pain and suffering' 
     damages. Our civil justice system is clearly in need of an 
     overhaul.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
amendment thereto.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINDER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if I understand it, under the rule you are 
urging us to adopt, you have put out of order any amendments that would 
remove control of the States from this and focused it only on the 
Federal courts, so that the mayor of New York will have to turn to 
Washington rather than Albany, and the people of my State, instead of 
going to the State capital, will return to Washington for their product 
standards? In essence, you rip the tenth amendment apart?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman may have that opinion if he 
would like. I am just reading what the city of New York and its mayor 
said about it. The gentleman can take up his argument with him.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Gladly.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution and the amendment thereto.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of agreeing to the amendment and on the question 
of the adoption of the resolution.
  This is a 15-minute vote on the previous question.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 191, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 217]

                               YEAS--234

     Allard
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     [[Page H2912]] Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer
                               NAYS--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Armey
     Dellums
     Greenwood
     Hostettler
     Istook
     LoBiondo
     Moran
     Rangel
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1202

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio and Mr. WARD changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. BASS, DEAL, and TATE changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247, 
noes 181, not voting 6, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 218]

                               AYES--247

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clay
     Istook
     LoBiondo
     Mfume
     Moran
     Rangel

                              {time}  1212

  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________