[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 26 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1576-H1582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 956, PRODUCT LIABILITY FAIRNESS
ACT OF 1995
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on
the bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal standards and procedures for
product liability litigation, and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the 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 Senate Amendment to the bill H.R. 956 be
instructed to insist upon the provisions contained in section
107 of the House bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXVIII, 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, this may be the last activity for the day
and for the week, and so I will move with as much expedition as I can.
We do not have a lot of speakers on the matter.
I am very pleased to come before the House with a motion that will
instruct our conferees on the subject of product liability reform in
terms of a requirement that would insist that the foreign corporations
in America do business the same as those that are domiciled in this
country.
As the senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have
brought this motion to instruct conferees to insist on a House-passed
provision that ends special treatment for foreign corporations when it
comes to civil litigation in the United States. In other words, this
thoughtfully crafted amendment merely seeks to ensure that foreign
manufacturers who sell products in the United States, that they play by
the same legal rules that govern the conduct of other and all other
American companies.
We have supported this measure in the House, and we are merely
instructing our conferees to stick with us. Section 107 of the House
bill provides that Federal courts shall have jurisdiction over foreign
manufacturers who knew or reasonably should have known that their
product would enter the stream of commerce in the United States, and,
second, that service of process may be served wherever the foreign
manufacturer is located, has an agent or transacts business, and,
third, any failure by such foreign corporation to comply with a court-
approved discovery order shall be deemed an admission of fact to which
the discovery order relates.
As the record and history demonstrate, under current law, the foreign
corporations legally can suppress the production of constitutional
discovery information by hiding behind the protectionist shield of the
Hague Convention or some other treaty. This, of course, runs counter to
a basic premise of American jurisprudence; namely, that the person who
causes an injury should be held legally accountable and has the ironic
effort of causing all economic consequences to be borne by American
consumers, insurance companies, employers, or the Government.
There were 258 Members who voted for the original Conyers amendment,
and my colleagues might want to check the March 19, 1995, Congressional
Record to see if they were among those numbers.
If foreign companies are permitted to reap profits from selling their
products here, can it be more reasonable that they should be held to
the same standard and legal procedures as our own companies? And
certainly, in tragic cases where the American consumers are victimized
by defective foreign products, foreign corporations should not be able
to avoid responsibility for injuries suffered because of their
products.
We need a level playing field for American businesses, and rule of
fairness for the American consumer victimized by defective foreign
products is essential.
[[Page H1577]]
As we know too well, the unlevel economic playing field caused by the
various current foreign trade barriers is exacerbated when foreign
companies can literally get away with murder here by shunning their
legal responsibilities while pocketing profits for selling products in
our own country.
So we are asking not that we give American companies an upper hand,
but that we take away the leverage, the advantage, the unfair edge that
the foreign companies based in the United States have.
We have supported this amendment. I trust that you will be kind
enough to support the motion to instruct conferees.
So I ask that members vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct pending
before the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees is an attempt by
opponents of product liability reform to discourage or preclude
agreement between the House and Senate on this important legislation.
If you favor excessive litigation related expenses, inflated settlement
offers, increased liability insurance rates, and higher prices for
goods and services, you may want to tie the hand of the conferees. On
the other hand, if you want to foster U.S. competitiveness in
international markets, preserve and expand employment opportunities
here at home, and protect the American consumer, you will oppose this
motion to instruct.
A vote for this motion to instruct is a vote to potentially kill
product liability reform in this Congress. I am very skeptical that the
Senate is willing and able to pass a conference report which includes
the Conyers amendment. Adoption of this motion would interfere with our
ability to arrive at a final agreement with the Senate on this most
important bill.
The motion to instruct does not end special treatment for foreign
companies, in fact it would require that special rules be applied in
product liability litigation involving foreign manufacturers.
Foreign manufacturers would be subject to suit in any Federal court;
foreign manufactures would be subject to service of process anywhere in
the country; and discovery omissions by foreign manufacturers would be
deemed admissions of the facts sought to be discovered.
The best way to provide a level playing field for American businesses
is not to legislate different discovery standards for foreign
businesses, but to rein in the costs of product liability cases and
change our legal system from a game of Russian roulette to one which
provides fairness and certainty to all litigants.
Far from creating a level playing field, the Conyers amendment
discriminates against foreign companies by requiring them to subject
themselves to service of process to a degree not required of any other
litigant. American corporations are not required to make themselves
available to suit anywhere in the United States, merely because they
knew or reasonably should have known that their product would be in the
stream of commerce in that jurisdiction.
A person injured by a product manufactured by a foreign corporation
will be able to sue and recover damages even if the foreign
manufacturer is not subject to suit in the United States. The
conference report will include a provision making product sellers
liable as manufacturers when the manufacturer is not subject to service
of process under the laws of the State where the action is brought.
This new rule is unnecessary. There is no evidence that foreign
manufacturers routinely refuse to appear in American courts, and the
Hague Convention already establishes procedures for service of process
on foreign corporations.
The motion raises significant constitutional and international law
concerns, represents a serious potential irritant in our bilateral
relations with other countries, and raises the specter of foreign
retaliation against American firms.
As a signatory to the Hague Convention, the United States is bound to
follow its procedural rules. The Conyers amendment, if adopted, would
require the United States to renege on its international obligations in
this regard.
The Commission of the European Communities and its member states have
expressed strong opposition to the Conyers provision, because it
ignores the rights of defendants in countries outside the jurisdiction
of the country of litigation, and ignores the sovereign rights of
countries which have different procedural rules than that of the United
States.
If the Conyers provision is enacted, it is likely that other
countries will also ignore the provisions of the Hague Convention, and
begin applying their own procedural rules to American companies whose
products enter the stream of commerce abroad. American businesses stand
to lose, not gain, from this provision.
The special rules for foreign manufacturers are not supported by
American businesses. Many domestic companies have international
affiliates that would be adversely affected by the special rules; many
use component products manufactured abroad.
The special rules will disadvantage American businesses when both
foreign and domestic manufacturers are defendants in the same
litigation. They will encourage plaintiff's lawyers to join foreign
companies so as to expand the venues in which suit can be brought. This
will raise the cost of litigation for American companies.
I strongly urge the House to defeat the motion to instruct. We must
not create a stumbling block to product liability reform.
{time} 1500
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to my friend,
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the dean of the House of
Representatives and dean of the Michigan delegation.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for
his leadership in this matter. This is a splendid motion to instruct,
and I would urge all my colleagues to support it.
This is not something which has come full blown on us and it is a
matter of surprise. We have all seen this before. This exact language
passed the House 258 to 166.
The comment is made that perhaps this might inhibit the passage of
product liability legislation. Nothing is further from the truth. What
does the proposal do? The proposal treats U.S. corporations, U.S.
manufacturers, and U.S. workers the same way that sneaky, dishonest,
fly-by-night foreigners are treated.
Having said that, what it says is as follows: That Federal courts
have jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers, who knew or who
reasonably should have known that their product would enter the stream
of commerce in the United States.
Second, the amendment states that the service or process may be
served wherever the foreign manufacturer is located, has an agent, or
transacts business.
For the benefit of my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary,
that is standard, boilerplate language that you have seen 100 times. As
a matter of fact, you cannot open a law book with regard to service
without seeing this kind of language.
Finally, the motion says that the failure of foreign corporations to
comply with court ordered discovery orders will be deemed an admission
of fact to which the order relates. In other words, if they do not
cooperate, the court will draw the necessary and proper conclusions
from their refusal to cooperate.
Now, what is at stake here? What is at stake here is a very simple
thing, the protection of American consumers, the opportunity of
American people to litigate questions with regard to product liability.
That is important.
But something else is at stake here, too: Fair treatment of American
workers. Americans who work for American corporations in the United
States, competing with foreigners, can know that they are going to get
the same protection with regard to product liability that foreigners
get.
[[Page H1578]]
Foreign corporations are going to know that they cannot now any
longer come into this country and market shoddy, cheap, dangerous,
unsafe products, and then retreat to their home country, secure in the
knowledge that the hurt they have done to American citizens, that the
unfair competitive advantage which they have seized on behalf of
themselves, will redound to their benefit, to the hurt of American
corporations, to the hurt of American workers, and to the hurt of
American consumers.
I would urge my colleagues to vote for this on the grounds of basic
fairness. I would urge my colleagues to vote for it on the basis of
common sense. I would urge 258 of my colleagues who voted for this
before to vote for it again on the grounds they have already shown good
sense and voted for it once. I would point out that every single
Democrat, save one, voted for this. I would point out that some 70
Republicans among my colleagues voted for it.
The American people are going to say when you go home, Why was it
that you did not vote for the protection of American industry and the
fair treatment of American industry? Why was it you did not vote for
the protection of the American consumer? And why was it that you did
not vote for equal treatment of American industry with foreigners?
That is all this is about, fairness; foreigners and Americans are
treated the same way in the marketplace. If you vote against this
motion to instruct, you are voting for preference for foreigners.
I have a few words for my friends on the Republican side which I
think they will find useful and interesting. You have observed of late
you have a new star shining on the horizon of American political life,
his name is Pat Buchanan, and he is talking about the failure of other
Republicans to look to the well-being of American workers and American
goods. He is talking about shutting our borders and putting huge
tariffs.
We do not need to do that today. All my Republican colleagues need to
do is carry out the mandate that they heard up in New Hampshire or in
Arizona or in other places and to genuflect at the altar of Mr.
Buchanan is simply to vote here for fairness for Americans, for
fairness for American industry, for fairness for American consumers,
and to treat foreigners like we treat American corporations, no better.
If you vote against this, you are voting for a preference for special
treatment for foreign manufacturers. You are voting to hurt American
workers, American industry. I urge my colleagues to vote as the House
did once before. Let us not be afraid. Let us vote for an instruction.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, simply to comment
how enjoyable it is to be instructed on questions of jurisdiction and
service of process from Mr. Justice Dingell. He just short-circuited
the real issue, which is jurisdiction, not where you serve process.
Jurisdiction under the amendment under discussion is bad, it states,
The Federal court in which such action is brought shall
have jurisdiction over such manufacture if the manufacturer
knew or reasonably should have known that the product would
be imported for sale or use in the United States.
That does not apply to any domestic corporation, and it is not
boilerplate. It is something radically different.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
instruct.
Rarely have we been treated on this floor to such protectionist
verbiage, perhaps not since the mercifully failed textile protectionist
bill that worked its way through this Chamber on more than one occasion
and was mercifully vetoed first by President Reagan and then President
Bush. Those vetoes were sustained.
This provision in the bill dealing with a very real issue of product
liability, all of a sudden we are inserting this debate and language
dealing with the so-called evil foreigners and all of the terrible
things they are going to do to the American consumers.
Let us make one thing very clear: The provision in the bill provides
for adequate service on any foreign manufacturer that sells products in
the United States. That is not in question. There is the ability to
provide service and bring those defendants to a court of law.
There was no provision at all dealing with this issue in the Senate.
The other body somehow has lurched into the truth for a change, and we
ought to recognize that they were wise in what they did.
The issue really is this: Do we want an effective product liability
bill passed into law for the first time in I do not know how long, or
do we want to try to obfuscate the issue by waving the bloody shirt of
protectionism dealing with a bill that has absolutely nothing to do
with trade but has a lot to do with changing the legal system in our
country? That is really the question.
The gentleman from Michigan, the former chairman of the Committee on
Commerce, did yoeman work in working through a product liability bill a
couple of Congresses ago. We marked that thing up for 10 long days. The
gentleman from Michigan, my good friend, showed great leadership in
providing the kind of legislation that really, I think, led us to where
we are today, and that is on the verge of getting a sound product
liability bill passed.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are those who would seek to try to derail
this bill, both outside and inside this Chamber, who have a different
agenda than passing a good, fair product liability bill, and anything
we can do to obscure that is apparently all right with them.
This simply discriminates against foreign corporations and
manufacturers, and invites retaliation by those very same folks against
American firms. Now, do we really want to set up this kind of statute
in the United States whereby American companies then, who would
manufacture and sell products all over the world, would be subject to
the same kinds of legal ramifications that are provided in this bill? I
think not.
This simply raises the cost of litigation, has the opposite effect of
what we are trying to do with the underlying legislation, and that is,
invites more litigation and invites more retaliation.
Mr. Speaker, I would call this anti-jobs provision the fat cat
lawyers act. It feeds trial lawyers at the expense of American
businesses and consumers. It is not in the best interests of American
businesses and consumers. Despite the rhetoric coming from the far left
and the far right, the principal point of American manufacturers is to
sell their products abroad.
The provision, as espoused by both gentleman from Michigan, would
have the opposite effect, would have a negative effect on our ability
to create and protect markets overseas. I would ask that this motion be
defeated and that we get on with the conference report that will send a
strong bill to the President for the first time in a long, long time,
dealing with a strong product liability legislation that all of us can
be proud of.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the senior Member of the House
of Representatives.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear one thing: There is no
Member of this body that has greater affection or respect for the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary or for the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], my good friend. They are great men,
great Americans, and dear friends of mine. I express to them my great
respect.
They are regrettably, however, very much wrong on their
interpretation of this legislation. All this does is treat foreign
manufacturers, foreign corporations, foreign workers, the same way we
treat U.S. corporations, U.S. manufacturers, and U.S. workers. That is
all. That is all this does.
This is a simple, long-arm statute in the motion to instruct,
something which my colleagues have seen time after time. And anytime my
distinguished friend, the chairman of the committee, cracks a law book
to look
[[Page H1579]]
at a service statute, he will find this kind of language relative to
American corporations. That is all we want to do, is to apply it to
American corporations and to foreigners.
I can understand there is a certain reluctance on the other side of
the aisle on this matter. This town is full of lobbyists working for
foreign corporations. Their single most important purpose today is to
get this language out.
Why? Because it confers an enormous economic advantage on foreign
corporations, to know that they can hide abroad after they have
manufactured shoddy or dangerous goods or provided services which have
hurt Americans. The Americans can go and sue an American corporation.
But without this language as provided in the language of the motion to
instruct, the foreign corporation is not reachable.
The issue here is a very simple one: Fairness to American
corporations, fairness to American workers, fairness to the American
economy, and not letting a bunch of sneaking foreigners get out from
under their legitimate responsibility to American consumers; and not
permitting a bunch of sneaky foreigners to get an economic advantage
over Americans, American workers, American manufacturers, American
industry, and the American Congress.
The motion is one which screams for the support of this body. It
says, if you are fair, if you want to be fair, if you are interested in
this country, its workers and its people, you will vote for this motion
to recommit and tell the foreign lobbyists this Congress works for the
American people, not for a bunch of foreigners.
{time} 1515
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
committee for yielding time to me.
I have the highest regard and admiration for my friend from Ohio and,
of course, from Illinois and for both of my friends from Michigan, who
are great Americans and patriots in this institution, but they are both
totally wrong on this issue.
Let me give one little example that I think is very important for us
to listen to. I heard it said twice, sneaky foreigners. Wow. That is
kind of a frightful statement to me.
When I think of, in Great Britain, the prospect of a small, little
barber, maybe he is a sneaky foreigner but if he has a little barber
shop there and he stirs up his own shaving cream and sells it to an
unsuspecting victim who comes to the United States of America and
happens to use it here, what happens when that person comes with that
shaving cream to the United States? The entire Federal bureaucracy is
unleashed on that unsuspecting victim.
It seems to me that this provision is clearly antitrade,
antibusiness, and it seriously jeopardizes our agreements that we have
internationally. And something else that has not been said is that
there are in fact recourses for people who do feel as if they have been
victims. That is under the Hague Convention today. So I believe that it
was a real mistake to have this measure get in there. It is another
attempt to expand the reach of the Federal Government, to bash our
trading partners.
And my friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], worked long
and hard on a very important telecommunications bill, which recognizes
that we have a global economy that has been created. He does that on
one hand and then supports this measure which just slaps what he
describes as those sneaky foreigners, and I think it is dead wrong. I
hope this House will unite in a bipartisan way in opposition.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let the record show that we on this side respect our friends who may
be in the United States and may not be citizens and who are welcome to
our shores and are doing business inside our borders. They are
complying with the law, and, therefore, they are considered friends of
ours. They have chosen to come and do business among us, and they
should be made welcome.
They should not, however, be given favored treatment. My dear friend
from California, who has been of such help on the Committee on Rules,
has pointed out that the little barber from some other country here who
concocts his own shaving cream somehow is going to be subject to the
venomous provisions of the Product Liability Act that we have passed
with this provision in it.
That may be a little bit overstating the case because the American
born, local neighborhood barber, who buys his Barbasol off the rack,
would be subject to the exact same treatment, if it is conceivable in
this hypothetical that anybody else would be. He would be treated the
same under the amendment that we have adopted.
By the way, this is not the idea of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Dingell]. It is an idea that has gone through the committee process. We
have had witnesses on it. It has been deliberated in the full House of
this body. It has passed overwhelmingly. We now come to the point where
we ask the conferees to ratify it. I am listening now to a huge outcry
about why now the conferees should not be reminded of the work product
we have already completed. It is a little bit amazing.
Of course, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is not only
one of the most articulate but one of the most learned men on the law
in our body. I am pleased to serve with him in that regard. When he
looks, again, over the weekend at the provisions of the 5th amendment
and the 14th amendment of the Constitution, and then reminds himself of
the State long-arm statutes, which allow any corporation, regardless of
whether it is domestic or foreign, to be subject to the reaches of the
very same provision, the long-arm statutes applied to domestic
companies.
We can reach out and get them, if they attempt to flee the
jurisdiction in which the harm occurred, and we are only applying the
same parallel to those corporations that might not otherwise be
amenable to the process.
What is the process? We have got to get jurisdiction. Then we can
make service and then we can get discovery. But for goodness sakes, if
you are located somewhere else on planet Earth, you cannot obtain
jurisdiction. It is as simple as that.
So for someone to suggest to me that the European Economic Community
will be unhappy about the work product that we have done in making
their companies subject to the same process as American companies, I
find the common remark, too bad. I mean, those are the rules, level,
even, applicable to one and all.
So what I am saying to my colleagues is that under the Constitution
and the long-arm statutes, a corporation, regardless of where it is
domiciled, is subject to the jurisdiction of State courts, if they can
foreseeably put products in the State stream of commerce. This just
includes, this does not just mean foreign corporations, but it means
the long-arm statutes apply to domestic corporations as well.
Please, my colleagues, let us not get lost in rhetoric here. Let us
have the little barber who has come from foreign shores and makes his
own shaving cream, I guess somebody does that in the country, and the
guy that takes his product off the shelf be subject to the same
provisions.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair advise how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Hyde] has
17\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a very confused situation and it really should not be. We are
talking about manufacturers from Prague, Czechoslovakia, for example,
former Czechoslovakia, now the Czech Republic, who do not do business
here. They do not have an agency here. They do not have anything here.
They are in Prague and they manufacture a product. Somebody buys it
and takes it over here, brings it over to the United States, and it
goes from Bangor, ME, to Tallahassee, FL, to Omaha, NE. And then
something happens, somebody gets hurt, and they have got jurisdiction
over this Czech Republic company in Omaha, NE. And they file a lawsuit.
[[Page H1580]]
They, under this bill, they have got jurisdiction. They make demands
for discovery, which if they are unanswered, are conceded as admitted
and a judgment occurs.
Now, that cuts both ways. That can cut against American companies
overseas. There is no need for this process. There is a process whereby
due process can be accomplished through the Hague Convention. But here
we are conferring jurisdiction, not service of summons, jurisdiction on
a court where a manufacturer nowhere near the United States knew or
should have known that their product might end up in California or
Seattle or somewhere.
Now, that is not treating foreign corporations or stinky little
corporations, to use the words of the next Secretary of State, but what
it is is conferring jurisdiction where there really should be no
jurisdiction and contrary to due process.
So that is why this is objectionable. If the gentleman is so
convinced that it is a sound law, it has been passed. It is in the
conference. I dare say, the gentleman from the other body will find it
very attractive. I do not.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a distinguished member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
I assure the chairman of the committee and others that I will not
take 3 minutes because I really think our colleagues want to get out of
here and leave this issue behind. But I do want to respond to the
chairman's comments and make sure that my colleagues understand the
choices that they have.
When a manufacturer in Prague manufactures a dangerous product,
knowing or in reasonable judgment should know that that product is
going to end up here in the United States, the question becomes whether
we should protect the manufacturer in Prague or whether we should
protect the individual citizen in Nebraska or North Carolina or
Michigan or Illinois or Ohio, what is our responsibility and what are
the public policy considerations here?
I want to submit to the chairman that if that manufacturer in Prague
knows or reasonably should have known that the individual citizen in
Nebraska could end up being injured by that dangerous product, it is
our responsibility, as Members of this Congress, to protect American
citizens and not to look out for the manufacturer in Prague.
So that is the choice we have got, and it is just a matter of
fairness. If a manufacturer in California sends something into North
Carolina and he reasonably knows or should have known that somebody in
North Carolina is going to get injured, we have got a long-arm statute
that can bring him down to North Carolina.
There is no public policy justification for protecting that
manufacturer in Prague. He is not a constituent of anybody in this
body. He deserves no more protection than a U.S. manufacturer. But
think about it. The citizen who lives in Nebraska certainly deserves
our protection, and that is what this statute is all about.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to say to my friend from North Carolina, I agree that we
should aim toward due process for everybody. The gentleman has
stipulated in his hypothetical that the product is shoddy. We have to
have a trial to determine who is at fault. The plaintiff in the United
States has a recourse, has a remedy, if that plaintiff is injured. He
can sue the seller of the product because the seller is treated as the
manufacturer in the United States if service cannot be had on the
manufacturer.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
{time} 1530
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. And the distributor may have $10 in the
bank, and the manufacturer in Prague, a multibillion-dollar industry,
is making these things, and is making them dangerously, and knowing
that an individual in the United States may end up being injured by
them, and it is the U.S. distributor that should be left holding the
bag? That is even worse as a matter of public policy, I would submit to
the gentleman.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I disagree. The gentleman
is looking for protection and recourse for the injured plaintiff, and
the injured plaintiff can have it against the seller. Now you wish to
have a multimillionaire manufacturer in Prague. They still are entitled
to due process, and it is not due process by requiring some
clairvoyance on the part of the manufacturer to know where that product
may end up in the United States.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. We are not talking about clairvoyance, we
are talking about knowing or reasonably expecting. That is the same,
the same identical legal standard that exists in the United States of
America. This is not clairvoyance we are talking about. It is the same
legal standard that every manufacturer in the United States is
subjected to.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman in Prague can find an
attorney in Omaha to run in and defend himself before he has defaulted
and the default judgment is entered so that due process gets at least a
pass at being respected.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I forever yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I hope the poor little person in Nebraska
that the gentleman was talking about----
Mr. HYDE. Who happens to be a multimillionaire in my hypothetical.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Maybe he is a multimillionaire.
Mr. HYDE. He is running for President, by the way.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. He is first and foremost a citizen of the
United States, and it is our obligation as Members of Congress to
support and defend and protect our citizens. That is the public policy.
Mr. HYDE. I can only express the found hope that when we do get to
debating immigration this hostility toward foreigners is somewhat
diminished. I do not mean on the part of the gentleman from North
Carolina, but others, who shall be nameless.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
because my chairman has made an important reference to a millionaire
running for President, and of course it could be, let us see, it could
be Forbes, Buchanan. Wow, this is a pretty long list of their guys,
millionaires running for President.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. In fact, they have so much money they could almost be
Democratic Senators.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, let us throw in the flat tax while we are
at it, too.
As far as the assertion that foreign firms are not seeking to avoid
suits in this country, I would ask all the members on and off the
Committee on the Judiciary to review the case of Floyd Miles versus
Morita Iron Works which took place in Cook County. The defendant
avoided jurisdiction by selling aerosol machines through a straw man in
Japan. Because there were insufficient contacts in Illinois, Mr. Miles
could not seek compensation.
So therefore, all we are saying is let us look at the overall
contacts nationwide as other countries do. By the way, this is not some
prejudicial law to people who are not citizens of this country. Rather
than limit it to their relief to a particular State, it is simple
fairness in the utmost.
So suggesting that this amendment already adopted would kill product
liability reform is unbelievable. I do not think the Members of this
body or the other body are subject to the manipulations of foreign
manufacturers, the European Economic Community or lobbyists that they
may hire to be working here. Let us keep within some limits of
reasonability and continue to approve the amendment that has already
been adopted by the House.
If I had not brought this motion to instruct conferees, every
reasonable conferee would be under the same responsibility to remember
what his colleagues had done in the Congress anyway. But to have this
provision now
[[Page H1581]]
being attacked as if product liability will survive or go down in
defeat based upon making foreign corporations equally liable reaches
the point that is almost ludicrous.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas
[Ms. Jackson-Lee], our distinguished member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me, and I thank the gentleman for his wisdom, and
the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], on the
Committee on Commerce, for his support for a very reasonable position.
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious debate. It really is. I am somewhat
puzzled with great respect to my chairman, and I might add that the
Committee on the Judiciary has done a major task in fostering positive
legislation in this last year, and I would expect under Chairman Hyde's
leadership we will do so in this year.
It is interesting that my Republican colleagues will talk about free
trade and the American people. I do not think America is a country that
is filled with protectionists. I think Americans simply want fairness.
If I might simply focus on what this small instruction will do, if I
can just narrow the focus, first of all, I would take issue. It is also
not the barbershop maker of lotion for shaving in Prague. It is the
multinational corporation that we are talking about, and in fact, it is
our neighbor in South Carolina or Texas or Nebraska, Mr. Speaker, Mrs.
Jones or Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jackson, who in fact might be impacted by
this multinational corporation.
This is a simple instruction that asks the conferees to remember
foreign companies and subject them to the same laws in product
liability as we would national companies here in this country.
In particular, might I remind those of thalidomide? Might I remind my
colleagues of the thalidomide that was used in the 1950's? Although it
was not approved by this country, it managed to get here, and we saw
deformed children, women who wanted to be fertile having deformed
children, children with flippers and other types of debilitating types
of deformities. What would have happened if that had fully come to this
country and Mrs. Jones and Mr. Jones, the loving parents of a child
that they loved, were not able to pursue this tragic occurrence?
This instruction deals with two major points, the points of service.
Do we realize that if it was a company, a foreign company, that we in
the United States could not even get service, we could not even get
them into the courthouse. They would not be able to be filed against
because they were a foreign national, something that some other major
company in this country could not hide behind.
Then listen to this. Mrs. Peterson, Mrs. Smith again, could not get
discovery. We could not penetrate to determine why this multinational
company would make such a product that would do such damage, the simple
principles of justice that we in America have the right to have.
Mr. Speaker, can we imagine that in a court of law we would have
certain rights against an American company but none against the
multinational company? Simple processes of justice: One, to serve them
to bring them into the courthouse, that is all. We are not saying
convicting them. They have their day in court. Does anyone think our
American justice would treat a foreign entity any less than an American
citizen, the court of law would apply, and then in preparing the case
one could not have the same rights of discovery, of disclosing what was
behind this dangerous product.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we are misguided here. This is not about
free trade, and I might imagine that my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle would never want to be told that foreign nationals have so
much control of this body that this would gut the products liability
if, for example, we would serve foreign corporations. We are not under
this kind of umbrage. Would we say that, that we are so frightened of
foreign nationals that we would not want a simple instruction?
I cannot believe that we have a situation where this body is so
frightened of foreign nationals that a simple instruction passed and
supported by 258 Members that simply said subject foreign corporations
to the same laws on product liability as would be our American
companies, service, one, to get into the courthouse and, two Mr.
Conyers, discovery to be able to determine what caused this tragic
incident that would bring these parties into the courthouse, and I
would be if I was anyone in Congress staying on the side of Mrs. Jones
in Nebraska or Mr. Smith in Texas.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, do I have the right to close in this
debate?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does have the right to close.
Mr. CONYERS. I have only one speaker remaining.
Mr. HYDE. Just one, yourself?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would not name that person yet. It is a
surprise.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers. Whatever the
gentleman would like to do, I am at his disposal.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and would ask the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Traficant] to close the debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Ohio is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I voted for this bill, and I think if
America is going to have true product liability reform, Congress should
not stop it at the border. I think discovery and part of this process
that we are discussing is very important.
But I wanted to talk about another issue here. I keep hearing
everybody come up here and afraid to deal with this so-called
protectionist term, and let me say this, my colleagues, we are at war
with several protectionist nations who continue to take advantage of
our economy.
I have heard the name of Buchanan invoked here earlier, and the
tragedy is, while Buchanan will be cannibalized, the problem is he is
one of the few guys talking about a major issue the American people are
concerned about, and that is trade and the negative balance of
payments, is Buchanan.
I also say this to the majority party. There can be no program to
balance the budget of the United States of America without addressing
this negative balance of payments and many of these factors that
contribute to it.
So what I would like to say is I want to congratulate the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Oxley]. I think on this issue they have become supersensitive to this
protectionist word, and what has been allowed is countries like Japan
and China just beat the hell out of us, and I think what my colleagues
ought to do is allow the amendment, allow the language of the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] supported by the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Dingell] that will ensure that these manufacturers will be
addressed properly under our product liability reform legislation. I
think it is common sense.
By the way, the other body. The other body resisted one of my
amendments that said it should be against the law to place a fraudulent
label on an imported product, and it took Mr. Hyde and others to keep
that in a crime bill.
{time} 1545
So if you are gauging anything on the other body, please do not cave
in to that. The problem is, we have this in our bill. The other body
does not have it in their bill. That should not be the determining
factor. We here voted in the affirmative. Let us stay in the
affirmative. I think it is a good bill. I support much of what you do,
Mr. Chairman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without
objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
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 ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
[[Page H1582]]
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 256,
nays 142, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 43]
YEAS--256
Abercrombie
Allard
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burton
Cardin
Chapman
Chenoweth
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McInnis
McIntosh
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Pomeroy
Poshard
Pryce
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Studds
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--142
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Cremeans
Cubin
Davis
DeLay
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goss
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heineman
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kim
King
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Porter
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Ros-Lehtinen
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Stump
Thomas
Thornberry
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Weldon (FL)
White
Wicker
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--33
Ackerman
Calvert
Chrysler
Clay
Collins (IL)
de la Garza
Durbin
Ehrlich
Everett
Fields (TX)
Filner
Furse
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Jacobs
Linder
McCrery
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Miller (CA)
Montgomery
Parker
Pickett
Quillen
Rose
Salmon
Shaw
Stokes
Velazquez
Watts (OK)
Wilson
{time} 1606
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Ms. Furse for, with Mr. Ehrlich against.
Messrs. BARTON of Texas, HOEKSTRA, SHAYS, and YOUNG of Alaska changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. PAYNE of Virginia, CRAPO, BUNN of Oregon, WELLER, PETRI,
TIAHRT, HEFLEY, STOCKMAN, SPENCE, JONES, and SMITH of Michigan changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________