[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.

                          ____________________