[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 177 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11983-H11989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 956, COMMON SENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY 
                      AND LEGAL REFORM ACT OF 1995

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, pursuant to House rule XX, I move to take from the Speaker's 
table the bill H.R. 956, to establish legal standards and procedures 
for product liability litigation, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a 
conference with the Senate thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  The motion was agreed to.


          motion to instruct conferees offered by mr. conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Conyers moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House, at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the bill H.R. 956, be instructed not to agree to 
     any provision, within the scope of conference, that would 
     limit the total damages recoverable for injuries by aged 
     individuals, women, or children to an amount less than that 
     recoverable by other plaintiffs with substantially similar 
     injuries.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the motion I am offering would instruct the 
conferees to not agree to those provisions which limit the total amount 
of damages recoverable by seniors, women, and children to an amount 
less than that recoverable by other plaintiffs with substantially 
similar injuries.
  The Republican legal liability bills passed by both Houses of 
Congress are replete with provisions which will have a disproportionate 
impact on the most vulnerable members of our society. The House bill 
caps noneconomic damages in health care liability cases at $250,000, 
both bills limit punitive damages depending on the amount of economic 
damages, and both bills eliminate joint and several liability relating 
to noneconomic damages.
  The cumulative effect of these provisions on the elderly, women, and 
children is devastating. Since these groups generally earn less wages, 
a greater proportion of their losses is likely to be noneconomic. A 
middle-aged adult who loses his job could seek full compensation, while 
a child or a senior who loses a limb or is forced to bear excruciating 
pain for the remainder of his or her life would face arbitrary new 
damage limitations. A corporate CEO with a seven figure salary is 
entitled to collect millions of dollars in damages in lost wages 
resulting from medical misconduct, but a homemaker who loses her 
reproductive capacity as a result of medical malpractice would face a 
$250,000 limitation on her damages.
  The House bill also immunizes manufacturers of FDA-approved products 
from any possible award of punitive damages. This so-called FDA defense 
completely forecloses the possibility of punitive damages for defective 
products--even if the manufacturer has clear evidence of the dangers of 
a product. This will undoubtedly have a disproportionate impact on the 
ability of women to recover damages, since so many cases involving 
large punitive damage awards pertain to defective medical products 
placed inside women's bodies. We need look no further than the Dalkon 
Shield, Cooper 7-IUD, high-estrogen birth control pills, and high 
absorbency tampons linked to toxic shock syndrome to find recent 
examples of FDA-approved products which caused widespread injuries to 
female consumers.
  What is it about the elderly, women, and children that the Republican 
Party is so opposed to? The legal reform bills before us are blatantly 
unfair and discriminatory, and I would hope the conferees would have 
the good sense to remove these provisions from whatever final 
legislation may emerge from the conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion 
to instruct. I have long supported product liability reform 
legislation. However, I was compelled to vote against the so-called 
common sense product liability and legal reform bill passed by the 
House early this year because it had little to do with either product 
liability reform or common sense. Due in great part to extreme 
amendments added during floor debate, the bill passed by the House 
became a Christmas 

[[Page H 11984]]
tree for special interest groups that makes radical changes to the 
Nation's legal system that go far beyond fair and balanced product 
liability reform.
  For example, the bill creates numerous and varying standards for 
preemption of State laws that would create confusion rather than 
uniformity. It abolishes joint liability for noneconomic damages in all 
civil cases--not just product liability actions--and limits noneconomic 
damages in medical malpractice cases to only $250,000. These provisions 
fail to recognize that pain and suffering, disfigurement, loss of limb, 
sight, or reproductive capacity are very real harms and that they have 
the effect of treating low-income workers, retirees, women, children, 
and disabled persons less favorably than corporate executives and 
others who have large economic losses. And floor amendments to the bill 
deleted important provisions that would ensure that foreign 
corporations who sell defective products here will not be treated more 
favorably than our own companies.
  The motion to instruct is one that all Members should support. It 
simply says the conferees should not agree to provisions in either bill 
that tend to limit recovery for damages by seniors, women, and children 
compared to others who suffer substantially similar injuries.
  In recent days, we have fought legislation our Republican colleagues 
have rammed through the House that will disproportionately hurt 
seniors, women, and children, while wealthier persons are enriched even 
more. The most glaring example of this treachery is the Speaker's plan 
to cut Medicare by $270 billion while giving tax breaks of $245 billion 
to the rich. It seems the other side will stop at nothing in their 
attempts to carry out their extreme agenda that will have the effect of 
hurting the most vulnerable of Americans.
  Treating seniors, women, and children the same as other persons is 
truly a commonsense proposal. I urge my colleagues to support this 
simple and straightforward motion.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, one of the principal goals of civil justice 
reform legislation is to restore fairness, rationality and 
predictability to our Nation's legal system. We want our legal system 
to be even-handed. The notion that these reforms will adversely affect 
particular groups, women, the elderly and children, is just not 
accurate. Mr. Speaker, it is an emotional device used by opponents of 
legal reform to confuse the issues and to divide supporters.
  The much-needed reforms contained in the Common Sense Legal Reform 
Act treat all plaintiffs the same. The motion fails to recognize the 
distinction between economic damages, that is reimbursement for actual 
out-of-pocket losses on the one hand, and noneconomic damages, which 
are damages for intangible items such as emotional distress or pain and 
suffering on the other.
  Because noneconomic damages are not based on tangible economic 
losses, such as medical expenses or lost wages, there are no objective 
criteria for determining the amount of such an award.
  As a result of their subjective nature, noneconomic damages vary 
widely, the awards vary widely, even for similar or identical injuries. 
This introduces an issue of unpredictability and caprice into the civil 
justice system.
  Mr. Speaker, because there are no objective standards for assessing 
noneconomic damages, jurors often pick figures out of the air. It 
depends on how well the plaintiff's lawyer can play the violin. For the 
same reason, judicial review of noneconomic damage awards is virtually 
nonexistent.
  Noneconomic damage awards may well be disproportionately high. Jurors 
in many jurisdictions routinely make excessive awards for intangible 
losses. Similarly, the motion to instruct fails to distinguish between 
compensatory damages and punitive damages.
  Mr. Speaker, under our legal system, punitive damages are not 
intended to compensate injured parties. Instead, they are intended to 
be a punishment and a deterrent. Punishment for particularly reckless 
or egregious acts and deterrence against similar reckless acts in the 
future. Using economic damages rather than noneconomic damages as a 
measurement for appropriate punitive damages to me makes sense.
  Like criminal fines, civil punishment in the form of punitive damages 
should bear a reasonable relationship to the conduct for which the 
defendant is punished. Economic damages are susceptible to fairly 
accurate determination and, therefore, provide an appropriate basis 
from which to calculate punitive damage awards, ensuring that similar 
cases are treated alike.

                              {time}  1115

  By contrast, using inherently subjective noneconomic damages as a 
basis for calculating punitive damages could ensure that defendants in 
similar cases will be subject to widely varying punitive damage awards. 
Because noneconomic damages may be exceedingly high, they provide no 
meaningful limit on the size of punitive damage awards. Basing punitive 
damages on noneconomic damages would enhance the windfall nature of 
punitive damages and increase plaintiffs attorneys' contingency fees 
and unduly inflate punitive damage awards.
  It is important to note there is no right to punitive damages. Again, 
punitive damages are not about compensating the injured party. Those 
who would use noneconomic damages as a basis for calculating them seek 
only to increase punitive damage awards at the expense of rationality 
and predictability.
  A number of States that permit punitive damages have enacted statutes 
using economic damages as the basis for such awards. For these reasons, 
I strongly urge this House to reject the gentleman's motion to instruct 
conferees on H.R. 956.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again, waging class warfare on middle-income 
working families.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be clear what this bill does.
  If you are a corporate CEO making $1 million a year and God forbid 
you should get in a car accident because a faulty gas tank explodes, 
this bill say you can receive up to $3 million in damages.
  But if you are a working mom or a senior citizen making $15,000 a 
year, and you should get in a car accident because of the same faulty 
gas tank, you can only receive up to $250,000 a year.
  That is what this bill does.
  This bill says that the lives of corporate CEO's and corporate 
bankers and the economic elite are more important and more valuable 
than the lives of working men and women. And that is shameful.
  Mr. Speaker, we live in a country where 98 percent of the growth in 
income since 1979 has gone to the top 20 percent.
  Yet in the past 3 weeks, this House has voted to cut Medicare, 
Medicaid, and student loans to give tax breaks to the wealthy.
  Two weeks ago today, it voted to take $648 out of the pockets of 
families who earn less than $50,000 a year, just so we can give a 
$14,000 tax break to a few lucky families who earn over $350,000 a 
year.
  And today, we are trying to write special rules for the wealthy one 
more time.
  Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. It is a tragedy when anybody is 
injured by a faulty product. Let us not make women, children, and 
seniors pay a special price.
  I urge my colleagues: Support the motion to instruct and stand up for 
fairness for a change.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the class struggle goes on. Every time some of the 
outstanding spokesmen for the other side take the well on almost any 
issue, we find ourselves in some nuanced version of dialectical 
materialism. Does the minority really want to help the elderly? Then 
let them join us in helping to reform a confusing and irrational 
liability lottery that is almost totally unpredictable. It makes many 
injured victims wait years, years before they receive any compensation 
for their injuries. Does the minority really want to help women? They 
sure say they do. Then let them join us now in overthrowing the system 
that is discouraging the development of new beneficial and lifesaving 
treatments for breast 

[[Page H 11985]]
cancer, ovarian cancer and other deadly diseases that afflict women.
  A recent report by the American Medical Association contained the 
following quote:

       Innovative new products are not being developed or are 
     being withheld from the market because of liability concerns 
     or inability to obtain adequate insurance.

  That is pretty clear, who is standing in the way of protecting women.
  How many more Americans, men and women, will lose their lives because 
our current system discourages new and lifesaving products from ever 
being developed? Well, does the minority really want to help our 
children? To hear them, they sure do. They are the only ones that do. 
Then let them help us pass legislation and cut the lawyers tax on 
childhood vaccines. Ninety-five percent of the price of a vaccine today 
goes solely for liability costs.
  The current liability system adds cost to virtually every product 
purchased by every American. Children suffer from the current system in 
many other ways. One only has to visit the many recreational parks that 
have been closed, little leagues that have been disbanded, swimming 
pools that have been altered or shut down, charitable groups such as 
the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts where parents are afraid to risk 
volunteering, all because of liability fears.
  We should be working together to pass this bill to help American 
children.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not the elderly, women, and children who are 
threatened by these reforms. It is the wealthy personal injury lawyers 
who are threatened by reform. It is they who are pushing a small 
minority of our colleagues to derail these reforms in any way possible.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this motion and let us at long last 
get onto long overdue reform of the tort system.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 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, there have only been 355 punitive 
damage verdicts in 25 years, 355 in the whole United States. Yet the 
minority comes forward and presents this to us as though it is a 
crisis. There is not a single study, not a single study, not one study 
that confirms this assertion that there is a lawsuit explosion or that 
there is an explosion in size of verdicts or an explosion in the number 
of punitive damage verdicts.
  What is a fact, though, is that there is only one place, one place in 
the United States where the humblest citizen is equal to the most 
powerful person, the most powerful corporation or the most powerful 
institution, one place where they are equal. That is the American 
courtroom.
  And this new Republican majority is doing everything it can for its 
corporate supporters and its rich and powerful supporters to see to it 
that that is no longer the case. And that is the only thing this whole 
debate is about.
  Has anybody on the other side, I wonder, read the Conyers proposal 
for instructing the conferees? What it says is that the conferees 
should not agree to any provision that would limit the total damages 
recoverable for injuries by aged individuals, women, or children with 
an amount less than that recoverable by other plaintiffs with 
substantially similar injuries.
  Now, if the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the Republicans 
truly believe that their bill is not unfair, that their bill does not 
disadvantage aged individuals, women or children, they should have no 
objection whatsoever to this instruction. But they do. Why? Because 
their bill plainly does.
  A bill which limits punitive damages, which by the way are for 
intentional conduct that hurts somebody else virtually on purpose, for 
taking a baseball bat and pounding somebody, for stealing from 
somebody, depending on the type of lawsuit that it is, if punitive 
damages are only three times economic damages, then the little guy or 
women who does not make very much money and loses their livelihood can 
only get three times that. But the rich guy, represented by the folks 
on this side of the aisle, he could get three times of whatever he 
makes. That is what this debate is all about right here.
  The fact of the matter is, these guys represent the corporate 
interests and the rich folks that do not want the American who is a 
little guy or a little woman to be equal in the American courtroom to 
them. That is all this whole debate is about.
  For goodness sakes, read this instruction. It just says that aged 
individuals, women or children should not be restricted to an amount 
less than that recoverable by other plaintiffs when they have 
substantially similar injuries. Surely their damages should be the 
same. I think every American would agree. Vote for the instruction 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to respond to one sentence from my dear friend from 
Texas. He said ``these guys.'' I think he was referring to us. What a 
contrast to the old days when we used to say ``my learned friends.'' 
Claude Pepper, where are you when we need you?
  ``These guys represent the malefactors of great wealth, the bloated 
bondholders, the economic royalists, the big corporations.'' If I may, 
in a humble way say, these other guys represent the plaintiffs trial 
lawyers.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren] who is a distinguished member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am a brandnew Member of Congress; I have 
been here just about 11 months and was not here to hear the flowery 
rhetoric of last year. These gals think there is a problem with the 
bill before us.
  I want to raise an issue that I raised in the committee and it has to 
do with the law of unintended consequences. At least, I believe they 
are unintended.
  Several States of our union have passed laws that allow victims of 
child molestation to sue the person who harmed the child and collect 
under punitive damage statutes. I think that is terrific. As a matter 
of fact, I offered, earlier this year, an amendment in committee to 
impose life imprisonment on child molesters, but that was ruled 
nongermane. I think the tougher we are against those who abuse 
children, the better off society is.
  I note that, unless the Conyers motion to instruct is approved, those 
statutes would in essence be repealed because we are federalizing the 
laws of the 50 States. I know that the chairman, who I truly admire and 
respect, does not intend this result. But the facts are that a child 
has no economic damages that are easily quantifiable. If an individual 
rapes a woman, she maybe able to quantify damages and lost wages from 
the trauma inflicted upon her. That case is very difficult to make if 
the victim of the molestation and rape is an 8-year-old. Under this 
bill, that child would be limited in recovery.
  However, because of the money that potentially maybe needed for 
counseling for that child, I personally believe that if we can go after 
the wrongdoer in that case and make them pay as much money as possible, 
that is a good thing to do. We should punish that person criminally. We 
should punish that person civilly. Without the motion to instruct, the 
laws of the States that are moving in that direction, and I would say 
in an orderly fashion and with a lot of justification, will be 
preempted by the Federal Government. I think it is a mistake.
  I would like to raise one other additional caution. In the Committee 
on Science we are going to be working on reform of the FDA, which Lord 
knows needs it. I am concerned that if the FDA exception in this bill 
is enacted at this time, it may have an unintended consequence on that 
serious work. In the end, it may be something we want to do, but I 
think the jury is still out. I think it is a mistake to do that without 
tying it into the overall FDA reform effort.
  With that, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Conyers], my 
esteemed ranking member.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might respond to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren], who is one of the very serious and pro-active 
members of 

[[Page H 11986]]
our committee. I want to agree with her that the matters she mentioned, 
it seems to me, are not adequately dealt with in our bill, and it is my 
intention in conference to carve out of the exceptions in this bill 
crimes of violence, drunk driving, criminal activity that she mentioned 
as being inadequately compensated, child molestation, and I do agree 
with her.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my intention, and I am sure, with the help of the 
conferees, that we will make that a better situation in conference.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary agreeing with us on something. I am glad he thought of it 
now. This bill was in our committee. We tried to get a rule to this 
effect without any luck. Of course the gentleman does not control the 
Committee on Rules. But now that I find out that I am involved in 
dialectical materialism, I just thought I ought to find out what the 
heck it was, and it is the Marxian interpretation of reality that views 
matters as the sole subject of change and all change as the product of 
a constant conflict between the contradictions inherent in all events, 
ideas, and movements.
  I appreciate that because I have also learned that now the 
Republicans are also supporting women. The ladies, they do not 
understand; we are just raising this as a political issue to embarrass 
the Republicans' Contract With America. But the people in the Congress 
that are really out to help them and the seniors are these fellas that 
are on the other side that correct us when we say ``these fellas.''
  This distinguished group of Members of the Republican persuasion keep 
saying, ``Here we go again with a class war, class warfare. We only rip 
you off in the legislation.'' But then when we bring it to their 
attention on the floor, we are dialectical materialists, we are using 
the language unfairly. ``Women, seniors, children, this is for your 
benefit, don't believe these guys on the other side, the Democrats that 
are just trying to score political points. For goodness' sakes, we are 
going to limit your damages, and so why all this confusion?''
  This is one of the most revealing positions of the Republican 
contract. This is part of the contract, limit punitive damages, because 
the limit will take away one of the most effective means of protecting 
Americans from the products that kill, maim, and do sterility and 
otherwise injure, and what do we get accused of? We are protecting 
lawyers. That is what we are doing, and they are protecting the women.
  I ask, don't you understand, ladies and gentlemen of America? It is 
the Republicans and the contract that are helping you out. It's us that 
are really protecting the plaintiffs' lawyers.
  So between our dialectical materialism and our protecting the lawyers 
the real guys get accused of trying to use class warfare as a basis of 
further confusing this wonderful Contract With America.

  Of course the most profound mistruth being told about punitive 
damages is that they are awarded too often.
  Now we said there are 355 punitive-damages awards in product 
liability. But it we take out asbestos for the 30 years' period, it 
only amounts to 11 awards each year, many of which were reduced on 
appeal.
  Now is this new to the Committee on the Judiciary? I think not. We 
went over it a hundred times, and then we come to this floor when 
productive rights of women, of seniors, are now in issue, and it is a 
big gag; as my colleagues know, it is real funny. It is just another 
joke because they have got the votes, and they will probably roll us 
over anyway; right?
  Well, it is a terrible way to legislate, and I have got a number of 
stories about this. But the bottom line is that the bill discriminates 
against seniors, women, and children, and no amount of dialog on this 
floor is going to change it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In our ongoing classes on Marxian philosophy, Mr. Speaker, the 
gentleman from Missouri has proposed the thesis. I propose the 
antithesis and in conference we will get the synthesis, and if that 
needs any further explanation, we can do it after the debate.
  Nobody has ever said there are too many punitive-damage awards. I 
certainly have not. I do not know if there are or not. That does not 
enter into my calculus.
  But what does bother me is the possibility of wild, runaway punitive 
damages which are not to compensate the plaintiff, the injured party, 
and the case immediately comes to mind in Alabama where a doctor bought 
a BMW, and had to take it in for some servicing, and learned that it 
had been repainted, and so an award of $2 million punitive damages was 
awarded against the automobile company. Now I suppose automobile 
companies, especially if they are foreign companies, are not entitled 
to much justice over here, but that is the sort of capricious action 
that we are trying to straighten out in this legislation.
  So I hope the gentleman's motion to instruct is defeated.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis, and I will get more 
lessons after this. We see it is really just a big joke, my colleagues. 
I mean this is just a back and forth. It is not really too serious. We 
do not even know if there are a lot of product liability cases or not, 
but what difference does it make? Let us limit them because it is in 
the contract. That is why we have got to limit them. We do not know how 
many they are, and we do not really even care.
   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for yielding this time to me, and I hope that 
his motion carries.
  As my colleagues know, we cannot make light of what happens to people 
in this country and what has happened in the past to people in this 
country when corporations and corporate officers unfortunately and 
almost unbelievably from time to time have made decisions to 
systematically injure people and hide the cause of injury from those 
individuals.
  I have thousands of constituents who are caught up in the asbestos 
scandal of the past decades, and we have gone through the corporate 
minutes and the memorandums between medical committees, and the chief 
executive officers, and the board of directors and others about how to 
strategically retire people before they would find out that they had 
mesothelioma. We would find out how people were given bonuses to be 
retired, and gold watches, so that they would be off the rolls when 
they discovered they had the cancer and they were dying. I have people 
in my district who drag behind them breathing machines everywhere they 
go. They come to see me, or they go to the show, or they go to dinner. 
The husband is usually dragging a breathing machine behind him.

  Why? Because the Johns Manville Corp. systematically made a decision 
that they were going to hide from these people the damage that the 
company and the product was doing to them for decades while they knew 
it. They did the research, very analogous to what we see going on in 
the tobacco industry. That company that mispainted that car and sold it 
as new, it was not a single-shot item. They systematically were doing 
it in States all over the country. They were representing that people 
were buying a luxury automobile that was new. It was not new. It had 
been damaged, and dinged, and what have you, and unfortunately a lot of 
people buy these for the pride of ownership and everything else. They 
were defrauded, and they were defrauded on a systematic basis.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why we need the plaintiffs' attorneys, because 
without the plaintiffs' attorneys who is it that is going to bring his 
case to the bar of justice? Who is going to take this case and bring it 
to the bar of justice? Who is going to get these people who worked all 
their lives in that asbestos company in my district the kind of 
recovery they need based upon their wages? Their wages were spit 
compared to the injury to them, and their families, and their premature 
death. Yes, you can calculate it out. They worked for not very good 
wages at all, and that 

[[Page H 11987]]
is the reward we are going to give them.
  These cases have faces on them. They have faces of people who 
calculate that they can get away with allowing X number of people to 
die in a Pinto automobile and still make it profitable. They can absorb 
the lawsuits. What they cannot absorb is when a jury gets fed up with 
these people, understands that they are harming their neighbors or they 
are harming their community, and they put down punitive damages. Then 
the company says, ``We better redesign the car, we better 
recalculate.'' How many low-income people, how many wives, have to 
drive a pickup truck with the gas tank that explodes and get minimal 
recovery, but if an executive is driving it on his ranch, his summer 
home in Montana, and it explodes, what is his recovery? Why are they 
treated differently?
  This is about equity, this is about fairness, this is about an 
average person not able, unfortunately, to unravel some of the 
conspiracies of silence, the withholding of information, that have gone 
on in the board rooms of the largest, most reputable corporations in 
this Nation, and without the plaintiff's bar those people would have 
never known what happened to them. They would have never been able to 
discuss it. They would never be able to discover it.
  Mr. Speaker, that access to that bar is what this motion is about, 
and we ought to support the gentleman's motion.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking 
member for his insight on a very important issue, and I respect my very 
able chairman for his leadership of the Judiciary committee, and would 
acknowledge to him that we should engage in this discussion quite 
vigorously because there is a willingness in a bipartisan manner, 
frankly, to look at this tort litigation system in this country and 
address it from a forthright perspective that would address all the 
concerns of people who appeared and expressed their interest on this 
issue, and I think frankly that we would have been able to resolve this 
had we looked at this issue as plainly as we are looking at it now 
through the motion of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. Speaker, the motion deals specifically with instructing the 
conferees not to agree to any provision within the scope of conference 
that would limit the total damages recoverable for injuries by 
individuals that are elderly, women, or children to an amount less than 
that recoverable by other plaintiffs with substantially similar 
injuries.
  Now I ask the House, I ask my colleagues, why is that not a 
realistic, commonsense provision? Particularly is it common sense when 
we recognize that those three categories of individuals would fall in 
an economic level that is substantially less than many Americans.

                              {time}  1145

  It is documented that women today still earn less than men. It is 
documented, obviously, that children are mostly unemployed. Certainly 
it is documented that elderly citizens are retirees and are on fixed 
income.
  It seems to me if we talk about a system that we want to have work 
for all Americans, we can clearly document that the tort litigation 
system, unfortunately and tragically as it may be for some, has brought 
about safer cars, better medical procedures, safer drugs and, 
certainly, better constructed homes that we can live in.
  I come from a community that now is suffering from two very 
explosive, toxic situations in residential areas, not in commercial 
areas, but in residential areas where women, children, and the elderly 
live. We do not know what it will take to compensate them for the long-
term damages of having been impacted by a toxic situation close to 
their homes.
  I would simply ask the question: If they go into a court of law 
seeking justice under the Constitution, are we going to tell them that 
this was just a frivolous incident, it did not matter, and we do not 
need to address their grievances in a fair manners? That we will cap 
the amount they can recover even if case is found totally meritorious. 
But to the contrary higher income level litigants would be able to 
receive higher recovery for their damages even though their injuries 
might be no greater than the elderly person, woman, or child.
  Specifically as it relates to children, children encounter severe 
burns, bicycle accidents, pedestrian car accidents, playground 
accidents. Many of them become quadriplegics. They tragically must 
depend upon that parent or guardian to take care of them for the rest 
of their life. They have no economic damages. Therefore under this 
legislation without this motion to instruct, these persons are 
penalized.
  So, in combination with our States, who have done a good job in tort 
reform, we need to, as well, address those cases of individuals who are 
least served. This is a worthy motion, and it simply gives to the 
conferees the responsibility to take care of the elderly, the women, 
and children in this massive Federal tort reform legislation. We should 
have done it in committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that we support the motion to instruct by the 
ranking member. This is important for real tort reform that in fair to 
many.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very appealing motion. On the face of it, it 
is impossible to imagine how anyone could be against it. I commend 
those who drafted it for the wording of it, the appealing wording of 
it. But what this will do is totally gut the effort to try to bring any 
rationality to the award of punitive damages. As appealing as this 
language seems, that is really what its goal is. That is what its 
objective is.
  To respond to the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues 
earlier, this concern about punitive damages is not a province of the 
right wing or the left wing in this country. Legal scholars across the 
political spectrum, liberal, moderate, and conservative, have expressed 
concerns not about the number of punitive damage awards perhaps, but 
the arbitrariness, the capriciousness of it in their award. We have 
seen those issues raised time and time again, recently, to the point 
where the constitutionality of this punitive damage process is in 
question again by people across the political spectrum.
  I raise one very practical problem with the application of this 
motion to commit. How would it be applied? Would we have the plaintiff 
conduct the trial? They award the damages, and then do we have to have 
a separate trial to have a substantially similarly injured plaintiff 
and have a second trial, and then take what would have happened in this 
hypothetical plaintiff's case and apply it to this other plaintiff's 
case?
  As appealing as this language sounds on the surface of it, it 
presents the litigation system in this country with an absolutely 
impossible task: two trials in the case, the actual plaintiff, and then 
this hypothetical similarly situated plaintiff. It is unworkable. It is 
a very clever effort to undo the sincere efforts to bring some 
rationality to the award of punitive damages.
  As appealing as the language sounds, Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to reject the motion.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins], whose announcement has left us speechless.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
motion to instruct. This motion is about fairness, plain and simple. 
All it asks is that any limits in this bill that place total damages 
recoverable for injuries not be less for women, children, and seniors 
than it is for others receiving substantially similar injuries.
  Is this common sense, that the greatest leniency in H.R. 956 will be 
reserved for manufacturers of products that hurt children? That is what 
this bill will do.
  Is it common sense to say that a pharmaceutical company could face 
lower penalties if its product kills a senior citizen rather than a 
middle-aged man? That is what this bill will do.

[[Page H 11988]]

  Is it common sense to make a law that says that victims of hazardous 
and unsafe products such as the IUD, cigarettes, silicone breast 
implants, and thalidomide will have less of a chance to recover damages 
if they are women? That is right. That is what this bill will do 
without this motion to instruct.
  One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is a rule for 
calculating punitive damages, three times the amount of economic loss 
or $250,000, whichever is greatest. That establishes an appalling 
unequal penalty based not on the severity of the harm caused by the 
thing, or the extent of negligence, or even malice, but on the income 
of the victim.
  There is not common sense, this is absolute nonsense. By tying the 
amount of punitive damages to monetary loss alone, it is not 
noneconomic damages like pain and suffering, but this bill takes away 
the threat of heavy punitive damages for products that severely hurt 
people with low incomes or no incomes, like children. Think about it.
  Under this bill, if a product kills a child, punitive damages, 
regardless of the situation, will be capped at a mere $250,000.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the distinguished ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the 
Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], my classmate 
from Boston College Law School, for his courtesy.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conyers motion to instruct the 
conferees on the product liabilities legislation. The motion is very 
simple, but it cuts to the core of the issue of how we are going to 
treat the aged, women, and children who have suffered injuries due to a 
defective or malfunctioning product or medical malpractice. The motion 
very simply states that the conferees be instructed not to agree to any 
provision that would limit the total damages recoverable for injuries 
by aged individuals, women, or children to an amount less than that 
recoverable by other plaintiffs with substantially similar injuries.
  Why is this necessary? The reason is that the House bill abolishes 
joint liability for noneconomic damages in all civil cases, not just 
product liability cases, and limits noneconomic damages in medical 
malpractice cases to only $250,000. These provisions have the effect of 
treating low-income workers, retirees, women and children, and the 
disabled less favorably than those who earn large salaries. Wealthy 
corporate executives who suffer injuries will be able to recover 
substantial sums of money due to their economic losses, but seniors on 
Social Security, women who work at home, they will be punished under 
this bill. Support the Conyers motion.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it has always been my understanding of the purpose of a 
lawsuit to restore the plaintiff to the status that they enjoyed before 
the injury. It is not an effort to lump all plaintiffs in the country 
together, so that everyone comes out even. It is to restore the 
plaintiff to the situation before the injury.
  Now, under present law, and it will always be thus, plaintiffs are 
different from each other. If Greg Maddox has an accident and has a 
sore arm, he is a multi-million-dollar pitcher in the big leagues, his 
sore arm prevents him from throwing the ball or throwing it as 
effectively as he could, and that is a tremendous loss.
  But if I get a sore arm, it is discomfort. I just grit my teeth and 
live with it. But the differences are enormous in terms of litigation 
to recover for a sore arm or a sore ankle from an athlete or a musician 
whose hands are damaged than somebody whose work does not involve that 
high degree of skill, or that member of the human body.
  All of this talk is not very logical, and it does not really make a 
lot of sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] to close the debate from our 
side, who is also a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me and giving me the honor of closing this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is really not unlike everything else that is 
going on in this House, because without the instruction to the 
conferees and compliance with this instruction, basically what we are 
saying to the conferees and to our Nation is that money is the only 
thing of value in this country, and we have been saying it ever since 
this session of Congress began. If you do not make a lot of money, if 
you are not rich, then you have no value. We have said it over and over 
and over again.
  This bill simply fits right into that pattern. If you, as the 
chairman of our committee has indicated, make a lot of money for 
throwing a baseball, then you are a lot more valuable than a person who 
sits at home and nurtures her children and provides the sustenance of 
life for our community, but you do not have any economic value, and 
that is what this underlying bill says, and that is what this Congress 
has been saying to America ever since this session of Congress 
convened.
  Mr. Speaker, that is basically what we are here arguing about. So if 
Members believe, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues, that the 
underlying value of a human being is based on the wealth that they 
have, the amount of money that they have, then they ought to vote 
against this motion to instruct the conferees. But if Members think my 
mother's love, sitting at home and nurturing me and serving our 
community and having compassion for me has some value, then they ought 
to vote for this motion to instruct. Please join me, and say to America 
that there is something of value in this country other than money.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190, 
nays 231, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 777]

                               YEAS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Istook
     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
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)

[[Page H 11989]]

     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--231

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     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
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     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
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     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
     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
     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
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Chapman
     Fields (LA)
     Gutknecht
     Montgomery
     Peterson (FL)
     Sawyer
     Shadegg
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1220

  Messrs. METCALF, LIGHTFOOT, FRISA, KING, KOLBE, HOEKSTRA, and BOEHNER 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was not agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees on H.R. 956:
  From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of the House 
Bill, and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Hyde, Sensenbrenner, Gekas, Inglis of South 
Carolina, Bryant of Tennessee, Mr. Conyers, Mrs. Schroeder, and Mr. 
Berman.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce, for 
consideration of the House bill, and the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Bliley, Oxley, Cox of 
California, Dingell, and Wyden.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________