[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.
____________________