[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3176-H3183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 956, 
         COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY LEGAL REFORM ACT OF 1996

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 394 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 394

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal standards and procedures 
     for product liability litigation, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is 
recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page H3177]]

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
materials.)
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 394 provides for the 
consideration of the conference report for H.R. 956, the Commonsense 
Product Liability Legal Reform Act of 1996, and waives all points of 
order against its consideration. The House rules allow for 1 hour of 
general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, the struggle to craft bipartisan product liability 
reforms has been over two decades in the making, and we have before us 
legislation that will save segments of our economy and create new jobs 
across America.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to unleash partisan charges that the 
President is playing politics with this important reform measure. The 
assessment that the President is playing politics has already been 
sufficiently made by members of the President's own party. I want to 
begin by recounting just a few of these appraisals of the President's 
motives.
  Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat, has stated that the ``President 
is dead wrong about this bill'' and Senator Jay Rockefeller, a 
Democrat, stated that the President has ``his eye on the electoral 
college.'' Senator Rockefeller continued by stating:

       Special interests and raw political considerations in the 
     White House have overridden sound policy judgment. I am 
     extremely disappointed the President has taken such a 
     shortsighted political view of a serious bipartisan effort 
     that would restore common sense to the American legal system.

  Mr. Speaker, in response to Senator Rockefeller's charge that special 
interests and raw political considerations in the White House has 
overridden sound policy judgment--I must say that this is nothing new.
  As has been the case with countless pieces of historic legislation 
that have passed both the House and Senate, the President has disavowed 
good public policy and embraced his special interest friends. In this 
case, we have reached bipartisan agreement on legal reform, and it 
appears that the only obstacles to these moderate reforms are the trial 
lawyers and an antireform, status quo President.
  The President is--and has been--the one roadblock to the reforms that 
the public wants. In his shortsighted, political view of the Nation, 
the President plans to add a veto of legal reform to his two vetoes of 
welfare reform and the historic balanced budget bill.
  The Commonsense Legal Reform Act will end many frivolous lawsuits 
which have imposed significant costs on small businesses and killed 
American jobs. These indiscriminate lawsuits have caused the withdrawal 
of products from the market, including medical devices and medication 
available in most of the world, sadly resulting in preventable deaths.
  The President has professed that the bill would reduce product 
safety, which it will not. His real anxiety about this reform bill is 
that it would reduce the fees of the trial lawyers who now receive from 
50 to 70 percent of every dollar spent on product liability litigation. 
The trial lawyers have bragged about Bill Clinton's commitment to 
terminate any legislative effort to end frivolous lawsuits. The 
Arkansas trial lawyer president boasted about the fact that Arkansas 
has had no tort reform and stated that--and I quote--``this success 
would not have occurred without Bill Clinton. I can never remember an 
occasion when he failed to do the right thing where we trial lawyers 
were concerned.''
  Mr. Speaker, the future of the country is more important than some 
payoff to the trial lawyers. Our competitiveness overseas is being 
undermined. Rather than deal with the product liability litigation 
problem, American firms have left markets to foreign competitors and 
decided not to develop new products, technologies, and medical 
breakthroughs. These losses are impossible to calculate, and it is 
clear to everyone except the President that thousands of American small 
businesses are just one lawsuit away from bankruptcy. The provisions 
included in this bill were greatly pared down from the much-needed and 
broader changes we passed in the Contract With America. The bill does 
not include everything that I would have wanted, but this Congress 
understands that sometimes you have to compromise, and this is a start 
down the right road.
  This is about restoring fairness to the American legal system and 
this bill should not be a political issue. These are modest, but 
critically important, reforms that will benefit the American people. I 
urge my colleagues to support the rule and the reform legislation, and 
I urge the President to reconsider his unfortunate veto threat of 
commonsense legal reforms.
  I want to close by quoting the Washington Post editorial page:

       The President's announcement over the weekend that he will 
     veto product liability legislation has surprised and 
     disappointed even senior Democrats in the Senate--and well 
     it should. The decision is a terrible one. But the lawyers 
     want the sky to be the limit. The President's decision to 
     capitulate to their pressure is transparent, shortsighted, 
     and wrong. The compromise should be accepted by both 
     Houses and signed by the President.

  Mr. Speaker, the Senate did their job by passing the bill by a 59-to-
40 margin, and I expect the House to follow suit by passing this bill 
with equally overwhelming support. I urge the President to forgo 
politics and do his job.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report and to 
the rule providing for its consideration. This conference agreement 
caps punitive damage awards to consumers who have been harmed because 
of the products they have purchased and used. This conference agreement 
removes any incentive that might currently exist which makes 
corporations and manufacturers keep those harmful products off the 
market.
  In the name of competitiveness, the conference has proposed a new 
legal framework that truly lives up to the old adage, caveat emptor. 
Mr. Speaker, I cannot support any legislation which places profit ahead 
of responsibility, and which puts the bottom line ahead of public 
safety. This agreement, all in the name of reform for the sake of 
reform, takes away expected and necessary protections for workers and 
consumers. The American people deserve better.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this conference report. I do not 
understand why this House should be a party to creating a legal climate 
that would hurt consumers who have already been injured by the 
negligence of product manufacturers.
  Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this legislation have used little hard 
evidence in their zeal to push for passage of this legislation. But, I 
submit there are real people whose real cases demonstrate precisely how 
the current system has improved public safety and has promoted 
responsible corporate behavior.
  For example, what would the proponents of this legislation say to the 
parents of the 4-year-old girl whose pajama top caught fire and who 
suffered second- and third-degree burns all over her upper body? Would 
the proponents say that there should be a cap on punitive damages when 
the manufacturer of the child's pajamas was well aware of the 
flammability of those garments? So well, in fact, that one company 
official admitted that the company was always sitting on a powder keg, 
even though treating the pajamas with flame-retardant chemicals was 
economically feasible?

  Well, Mr. Speaker, the scars on that little girl--both physical and 
emotional--are permanent and she bears those scars only because of the 
negligence of that company. The $1 million punitive damage award in 
that case was small recompense for that little girl and her family. And 
yet, this conference agreement would deny that little girl such an 
award. And, Mr. Speaker, it was that award that served as the prime 
motivator for removing those garments from the market.
  Or, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about defects in cribs. Two years ago, a 
5-month-old baby boy died from injuries suffered from a defective crib. 
He died

[[Page H3178]]

in spite of the fact that the crib's manufacturer had ignored warnings 
10 years before by the U.S. Product Safety Commission of just such 
defects. Or, let's talk about exploding Pintos, or asbestos insulation 
in office buildings and in schools, or tractors that suddenly self-
shift gears. There have been court cases involving all these products 
that have resulted in punitive damage awards to those who have been 
injured, maimed, or killed by them. Those punitive awards have 
benefited us all, Mr. Speaker, because they have forced companies to do 
the right thing--to fix, to recall, or to discontinue the manufacture 
and sale of products that injure, maim, or kill people.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, we too have a chance to do the right thing today 
for American consumers. I encourage my colleagues to take a stand and 
to reject this conference agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no requests for time, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gunderson). The gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas and the 
gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time.
  I just want to say to Members, I certainly hope they help us defeat 
the previous question, because Members of this body have voted twice to 
do something that is now no longer in this piece of legislation, and I 
think Members are going to be really surprised when they find out that 
the Senate removed this.
  What is this? Well, this is a very, very key component that, it is 
kind of like a Federal long arm statute, but it says that for any 
foreign manufacturer that wants to partake of the benefits of this law, 
the benefits of this law, they must subject themselves to discovery and 
to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts.
  Now, I think with the benefits go the responsibilities, and we are 
giving them a great benefit when we pass this. When we pass this bill, 
what we are doing is limiting their liability, allowing them to get 
away with all sorts of things. I think it goes way too far. But I just 
say to this body, if you are going to do that, and you are not going to 
have this provision dealing with foreign manufacturers, I think that we 
ought to strike the name of this. How can you possibly call it common 
sense? Because once again, you will be putting our manufacturers under 
one standard, but foreign manufacturers under an entirely different 
standard. They can limit their liability, they can do very well, but 
guess what? They do not have to be under the jurisdiction of U.S. 
courts and they do not have to be under the discovery proposals.
  Twice this House voted by 256 votes for this proposal. The gentleman 
from Michigan, the esteemed ranking member, Mr. Conyers, has pursued 
this and pursued this and pursued this, and convinced this body of this 
issue. Unfortunately, in the other body, it seems that foreign 
manufacturers have a lot more gravitas and something happened. It 
disappeared.
  So if we can defeat the previous question, this side will be moving 
to try and put in that very key component so that this really is common 
sense, and what our manufacturers get, foreign manufacturers are going 
to get too, and they are going to have a level playing field. I just 
think the American people are going to be very distressed to find out 
one more time foreign manufacturers are given the wing-wing, or a 
better deal under this.
  Now, I also have great trouble with the bill for one other reason. 
When we talk family values, we ought to mean family values, and we talk 
family values all the time. One of the things that this legislation 
does is it values a corporate paycheck way more than it does a person's 
reproductive capacity. If someone loses their reproductive capacity, 
that is considered noneconomic damage. Now, that may be noneconomic to 
some accountant, but to anybody with a heart and a soul, I think the 
loss of your reproductive organs is way, way more valuable than any 
economic damages you could ever have. What this bill does is that it 
puts punitive caps on that, and I just think that that is really wrong.
  When you look at the history of women's experience, whether it is 
with silicon breast implants, the Dalkon shield, with all sorts of 
things such as DES, and so forth, that have been marketed, and then 
turned out to harm women's reproductive systems, now we really are 
capping what kind of value that has. I think people would be shocked to 
know that a Congress that speaks family values is going along with 
this. So I urge a no vote on the previous question.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde.]
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, with great respect I would like to advise the 
gentlewoman, there is no limitation on economic damages or noneconomic 
damages. It is punitive damages only that there is a limitation. That 
provision was taken out of the bill and there just is no limitation on 
economic or noneconomic damages.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman, 
my esteemed chairman, is correct as far as he goes, but let us talk 
about joint and several and let us talk about punitive damages, and the 
punitive damages caps.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I 
thought you were talking about economic and noneconomic. The punitive 
damages, yes, there are limitations.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. That is right. And when you look at the economic 
damages, they always weigh in a whole lot more. The noneconomic 
damages, and without the punitive add-on to it, and the joint and 
several, I really think women or men, for that matter, I think we are 
going to learn more and more about men losing their reproductive 
capacity. We do not know why, but we are starting to see more articles 
about this new disturbing trend.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I am curious. Maybe the gentlewoman can 
tell me what the economic loss is for the ability to have a child. What 
is the economic loss of the inability to have a child? I do not think 
you can put a dollar figure as an economic loss on that. So if there is 
no economic loss and no punitive damages, what damages are they then?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman 
knows, this law would supersede the traditional common law, and it 
would eliminate joint and several liability for noneconomic damages 
such as pain and suffering. So obviously, the loss of reproductive 
organs is considered a noneconomic damage, and in the past, pain and 
suffering for that has been recognized, because common law recognized 
human beings and their pain. So when we supersede that, when we repeal 
that, that is my point.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, 
what I am trying to get across is what you are going to end up with is 
there is no damages, really, for a woman's loss of the ability to have 
a baby.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The President has threatened to veto heart transplants, heart valves, 
brain shunts, knee joint replacement, hip joint replacements and 100 
other medical devices that people are starving for, waiting for their 
lives to be helped with the implantation of these medical devices.
  Title II of this bill provides for relief for biomedical suppliers 
who in the past have provided a little bit of plastic for a heart valve 
or a little bit of a gimmick for a brain shunt, and now the suppliers 
who have been hit with tremendous lawsuits are going out of the 
business of supplying these little bit of elements for much-needed 
medical devices.

                              {time}  1045

  So in title II, we solve that problem and we know the companies that 
have

[[Page H3179]]

been heretofore supplying these medical devices are going to be back in 
business. If we allow this bill to be vetoed, and I hope it is not, 
what is going to happen is that the medical device developers and 
manufacturers will again be short of the materials they need to create 
these devices. We ought to pass the rule and pass the bill and then 
urge the President not to veto it.
  Mr. Speaker, there are 8 million people in our country who today have 
some kind of medical device implant, pacemakers, as I said, brain 
shunts, all kinds of things, including hip joints and knee joints, 
which are part of the makeup of many of the Members of Congress. But if 
we do not pass this bill, then the suppliers of the basic elements 
required for these medical devices will simply not supply them because 
of the fear of massive lawsuits. That is what we are talking about.
  When you talk about the consumer as being damaged by the passage of 
this bill, I am telling you that the person who is waiting for a heart 
transplant is being damaged by the failure to pass this legislation. 
The recipient of a brain shunt is being damaged by the failure to pass 
this legislation, and he is a consumer too.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
this. I would urge that we defeat the previous question, and we oppose 
the rule under which this bill will be brought up today. The last 
speaker spoke about consumers, and that is what I would like to talk a 
little bit about here today and hope they do not get lost in this whole 
discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, today we will hear from my friends on your side of the 
aisle that it costs so much more to do products, whether it is a 
medical device or a simple stepladder. It costs one-third more because 
of product liability insurance. We have heard a lot about especially 
the stepladder; it seems to be the one that is making the TV news. So I 
called my local hardware, Walter Brothers True Value up in Menominee, 
and I said, how much does it cost for a stepladder, an 8-foot aluminum 
stepladder? They said it is $130. So if one-third of it goes for 
product liability insurance, then we should be able to reduce that upon 
enactment of this bill by $43, so that stepladder should now only cost 
$87.
  Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment to do just that, to make sure 
that consumers are protected, not only for product safety but also 
protect their pocketbook and the cost that they say would be generated 
if we pass this legislation. Of course my amendment was rejected. So 
let us see who gets the money here and who gets protection here.
  Will the manufacturers be required to reduce their costs by one-third 
underneath this bill? No. Will the product liability insurance 
companies be required to reduce their premium notices by one-third? No. 
Will the consumer be required to do anything in this bill? Yes.
  They will be required to give up some rights. They will be required 
to bring action. They will be required to give up rights for punitive 
damages for faulty manufacture, for defective products, for inadequate 
warnings. So who is losing here? The consumer. The consumer.
  From the fall on the ladder, the windfall goes not to the consumer 
but to the insurance company and the manufacturers. Not just 
stepladders, but the decrease in the cost of vaccinations, will that 
occur in this bill? Is there any requirement here? No. How about 
medical insurance? No. How about child safety seats? No.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to limit the rights of ordinary people to 
bring a cause of action for their injuries and damages, and it is a 
windfall for large corporations, manufacturers, and the insurance 
company. My amendment would have helped to ensure it would put some 
integrity into the system to make sure those cost savings are passed 
back to the American people and, unfortunately, my amendment failed and 
was not even considered by the majority.
  So I have great reservations and hope we will oppose the previous 
question and hope we go back and get an equitable rule on this.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Does the gentleman consider a person who is waiting for a 
heart transplant a consumer that ought to be protected and should have 
the benefit of a heart transplant and should have laws in place that 
will facilitate the flow of materials to the medical device 
manufacturer, who will eventually be part of the heart transplant 
device? Does the gentleman favor legislation that would make it easier 
for a transplant recipient to receive that transplant?
  Mr. STUPAK. Yes. I favor that the hear transplant be done safely for 
less money.
  Mr. GEKAS. Of course.
  Mr. STUPAK. for less cost.
  Mr. GEKAS. Of course.
  Mr. STUPAK. And that the consumer be protected. That is not in this 
bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker. I would like to tell the gentleman from Michigan that 
his amendment was not ignored by the majority. It was considered and 
found wanting.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I am really truly amazed. I heard this 
morning when I came over the Speaker talk about what great things they 
had done yesterday with the legislation, but one of the things he did 
not mention in that legislation was the exemption of certain insurance 
policies under that health bill from State regulation. Now we do not 
have any Federal regulation. That is taking away States' rights from 
the majority.
  Mr. Speaker, they always talk about States' rights, what States 
should be able to do, and then in this bill, right in this bill, one of 
the worst things I have ever seen proposed is that in product liability 
cases, in the future under this legislation, in the State court, we are 
not going to be able to follow State law. Never, never in the history 
of this country has that been done, never.
  We cannot follow State law. We have to follow this law in State 
courts. It preempts all 50 State product liability laws as relates to 
suits by consumers. But if it is a suit by a commercial firm against a 
manufacturer, it is not preempted. Hey, wait a minute. Why? Well, that 
is business and business. It is OK for business and business, State 
law. But when it comes to consumers and manufacturers, then it is not.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought that we should provide that if we want to do 
it for Federal courts and Federal law, that is one thing. But for this 
reason alone, the preemption of all State product liability laws, we 
are telling our State legislatures out there, our State courts that 
they do not know what is going on, they do not have the right to decide 
what laws should affect cases, not only in the State of Missouri, but 
the State of Wisconsin, the State of New York. No, we have to follow 
the Federal law in the State court. Never has that been done. For that 
reason alone, I urge the President to veto this legislation.
  One other matter that I like to bring out that has not been discussed 
here, utilities out here, gas companies and others. There is strict 
liability on what they do. That means if they do it, and we prove that 
they did it, we do not have to prove gross negligence or anything else. 
Not anymore. Not under this bill. They have damage caps. We still have 
the strict liability. But damage caps are on it.
  To give a little example, and these things happen not regularly but 
every once in a while throughout this whole United States. We have 
natural gas, which I use in my home, both up here and out in Hannibal, 
used in my office when I was practicing law back in Hannibal for 
heating, et cetera. Once in a while, there are gas leaks and there are 
explosions and people get hurt. Ok, so we get economic damages, we get 
our out-of-pocket.

  But what happens when the utility has been notified, that gas company 
has been notified well in advance not one time, not two times, not 
three times, but at least a dozen times over a period of 2 weeks and 
they do nothing and you have an explosion and people

[[Page H3180]]

are killed and people are maimed for life and burned, disfigured. Two 
hundred fifty thousand dollars on punitive damages, that is it.
  That is what we are telling the consumers out there. That is all they 
can get. That is it. We have to follow this. We cannot go to State 
court. We have to do it under Federal law. We have to do it under this 
law. Veto the bill, Mr. President.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, not long ago we read about an 
arson that was committed at the DuPont Plaza Hotel, Puerto Rico. The 
place burned down, but it was an arson, so naturally the lawyers 
descended on the scene, and they did not sue the arsonist. They sued 
every manufacturer of anything that was contained in the hotel. They 
sued the manufacturer of the drapes and the beddings. They sued the 
manufacturer even of the casino dice.
  The kind of feeding frenzy that occurs at the filing of these 
lawsuits and the attempt to get everyone to settle is really best 
described as extortion. The people that are getting extorted in the 
first instance of course are all the people who are being made to pay 
for something that they did not do. But in the end, the people who are 
being made to pay are all of our constituents; in fact, all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, we pay more for things like our home insurance. We pay 
more for things like a new computer or even or common stepladder. We 
pay more certainly for our car insurance. All of these things are taxed 
by an unfair tort system that right now, because of excesses, not 
because of the substance of justice that we all want to preserve but 
because of excesses, has turned our civil justice system into a great 
wheel or fortune lottery.
  In 1987, my home State of California was home to 107,000 lawyers. 
Now, we had some rough years for our State's economy thereafter, but 
over the next 5 years, while other things were suffering, the legal 
industry did quite nicely, thank you. California gained 28,000 lawyers 
on top of the 107,000 for an increase of more than 25 percent. Today, 
there are more than 143,000 lawyers in California. Few, if any 
industries in California, in our State, can claim that kind of growth 
rate.
  As fast as the number of lawyers has been growing, legal fees, the 
revenues of the legal industry, have been growing faster still. In 
1987, the California legal industry, lawyers' fees, took in $10.4 
billion, or should we say took out from the economy $10.4 billion. But 
over the next 5 years, again when the economy was not doing that well, 
this amount grew to $16.3 billion. Those were the revenues of the legal 
industry, an increase of 57 percent.
  That $16.3 billion in revenues for the California legal industry is 
more than we spend on auto repairs, on funerals, on tanning salons, on 
1-hour photo finishers, video tape rentals, detectives and armored car 
guards, bug exterminators, laundry, day care, shoe repairs, septic tank 
cleaning combined. Combine all of those industries in California, you 
do not get as much as we shell out for lawyers. There is an excess and 
we are trying to scale it back.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not loser pays. This is not some of the things 
that we watch our competitor nations around the world use to rein in 
these excesses. It is a very simple reform. It applies only to products 
and to charities, and it does not, I would like to make this very 
plain, cap punitive damages. It does not.
  Everybody is complaining oh, my gosh, there is a $250,000 cap on 
punitive damages, but there is not at all. The cap on punitive damages 
in this bill is infinity. That is why it is so bipartisan. That is why 
everyone is willing to sponsor it. Technically, what we have said is 
that you can get as punitive damages the greater of $250,000 or twice 
compensatory damages. Compensatory damages is a lawyer's word for 
things like pain and suffering, emotional distress, injured feelings, 
and there is no limit whatever on that. Infinity is the limit on such 
damages, so they claim the sky is the limit there and multiply it by 
two and that is the limit on punitive damages in this bill.
  This modest reform is supported, therefore, by Democrats and 
Republicans in both Chambers. It is as modest as we can get, and those 
who stand up and oppose it, I say, want no reform at all.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to figure out why it is that the 
State of West Virginia cannot make its own decision in this regard as 
it has done since it became a State in 1863. I am trying to figure out 
why it is the State of California or Illinois or Texas or, whenever, 
Alaska cannot make its own decisions about how ti protects its own 
citizens as they each have done since they came into the Union.
  I am trying to figure out why it is that in an era when we seem to be 
moving in and this Congress seems to be wanting to be moving toward 
deregulation, toward, quote, taking regulation off the backs of people, 
unquote, in which the Government tries to safeguard the population in 
safety and workplace safety and consumer product safety and other 
areas, at a time when regulation is being cut back because we want to 
encourage the individual, why it is then we are not letting the 
individual retain the individual's ability to protect themselves and to 
protect themselves against products that are created unsafe, that are 
used in the workplace or by consumers.
  Regulation is going down at the same time you are going to tell 
individuals their ability to protect themselves is going down as well. 
Who is it that thinks you can stand up to a major international 
corporation and one person if you do not have the aspect that you are 
going to pay for what you do. Oh, I know the arguments that are going 
to be made. The argument is that, well, for compensable injuries where 
you can show the medical damages, no limit on that, and for noneconomic 
damages, that is pain and suffering, that is right, that means that you 
are in a wheelchair for the rest of your life and somebody is trying to 
put a dollar value on that. Good luck. However, they even limit that by 
saying joint and several liability, it would not be applied there. That 
means that if you have several defendants and one of them goes 
bankrupt, you cannot recover the full amount from the others. That 
would be eliminated.
  I am trying to figure out why it is the State of West Virginia is not 
able to enact the laws to protect its own citizens. It seems to me, if 
there is a problem here, frivolous lawsuits are being filed, then it 
would seem to me the States would be the first ones to leave.
  The gentleman from California who just spoke, I believe it was 
California that just defeated by referendum several so-called tort 
reform measures that go exactly to what is trying to be accomplished in 
this bill. You have got frivolous lawsuits, then, fine, there are 
sanctions against lawyers that can be taken. You want to stiffen those 
sanctions, that is fine; the States do that. In our State we elect our 
judges. Are judges giving away unfair, unruly verdicts? Fine, deal with 
those judges. Is there a problem that can be fixed by the legislature? 
Legislatures can each pass one of these pieces of legislation. Fine, 
deal with the legislature, and our people have an ability to get to 
that quickly at a time when the States are being the ones that are seen 
as closest to the people, and more power should be devolved upon the 
States. This seems to go in the opposite direction, does it not? It 
seems to say we do not trust the States to protect their own people. 
That is what I think is most offensive about this so-called product 
liability. I urge defeat of the rule and the bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HDYE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my good friend from West Virginia 
and a more aptly named human being I do not know, Mr. Wise, that back 
in 1789 that argument made sense. Each colony could take care of its 
own. But today we have a mobile society, and over 70 percent of items 
that are manufactured get into interstate commerce

[[Page H3181]]

and a patchwork of 50 different sets of laws having to do with product 
liability gives insurance companies nightmares trying to predict what 
rates to charge. It makes it very difficult to comply with all of the 
different patchwork laws. So because interstate commerce is so 
intimately involved in modern-day manufacturing and shipping, it was 
felt useful to have some standard to which manufacturers could repair, 
to which insurance companies who cover these incidents could repair, 
and even plaintiff's lawyers could repair. So that is really the 
reason. It is a concession to modernity.
  Now, the gentleman who spoke before from Hannibal, who unfortunately 
had to leave the floor for one reason or another, or chose to, I would 
like to have informed him that his graphic example of the natural gas 
explosion is specifically excluded in the bill, and you know one of the 
problems I learned early in life is people know so many things that are 
not so, and reading the bill is a great idea. And if he had done that, 
he would have known that there is an exclusion. There are many 
exclusions, electricity, water, delivered by utility, natural gas or 
steam, water delivery; they are specifically excluded. So his example 
of the explosion that killed so many people and injured so many people, 
the sky would be the limit, would be a plaintiff's lawyers' dream.
  So I just wanted him to know that.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and the member of the Committee on Rules and my 
colleagues from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is misconstruing the concern that is being 
raised today of the people, those of us who have risen to oppose the 
rule, as not having a general sense and appreciation for the concerns 
of small businesses and the concerns of those who would want to have an 
equal balance and fairness between litigants in the courtroom.
  What disturbs me is the approach that this bill has taken. First of 
all, it refutes a basic principle that the Republicans have been 
espousing now for more than a year under the new Republican leadership, 
leave it to the States. My State, the State of Texas, has very 
adequately and very ably handled tort reform. It was a consensus effort 
between consumers and businesses alike, and they are now functioning 
under new State tort reform law signed by the Governor of the State of 
Texas. Yet this Congress now wants to tell my State that any law we 
pass today will preempt the consensus built over years and months of 
negotiation. That troubles me.
  Then we find ourselves faced with an unfair attack on consumers, 
particularly those who are not as economically endowed as the chief of 
one of our corporate 500 companies or maybe one who is maybe 
independently wealthy. And so if you happen to be retired, or a 
housewife, or a student, then you do not have a basis for a reward that 
is attributable and equal to the injury that you have suffered because 
your economic losses would be low. That is unfair to consumers.
  We find ourselves now passing legislation that will alter the 
standard of proof. For years this constitutional Nation has acted under 
a preponderance of the evidence in civil matters. Now we are asking 
consumers with little means to be able to go into court against major 
corporations and businesses with massive resources and now be required 
to prove clear and convincing evidence which would show a conscious, 
flagrant indifference to the rights and safety of those harmed. How 
unfair.
  First of all, I think many of my colleagues will admit when you go 
into a civil court on any major tort litigation, you wind up being 
there for at least between 6 to 10 years. It may be even longer. There 
is no rush to settlement on these cases, and so you have got the 
injured family, the family of a deceased loved one, tragically having 
to mourn their loss and then deal with an elongated process in the 
courts. And now this legislation would require the plaintiff to prove 
clear and convincing, to climb over this hill beyond what is going on 
in other cases in civil suits.
  Just take, for example, this provision that talks about older 
products, the older products provision that prohibits a course of 
action if the product is 15 years old. What about the playground 
equipment that a child may play on? Fifteen years is not very long. 
What if it is 15\1/2\ years? Does that severely injured child not have 
a remedy?
  What about the provision 82 Republicans supported that would put 
foreign manufacturers under U.S. laws? We do not have that anymore. 
What about the provision that we tried to amend this particular bill to 
protect products used by women, affecting reproductive organs, causing 
fetal malfunction? We do not have that. This is not a good piece of 
legislation.
  Let us leave it to the States. Let us resolve to find a way to be 
fair to the consumers of America.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the ostensible justification for moving this 
legislation today is that our criminal justice system is overcrowded, 
sluggish, excessively costly. We have to do something about it. And if 
this bill did anything about it, I think that we could give some praise 
to the Republican Party.
  However, what they have done here is avoid the real litigation 
explosion in our country. Product liability cases constitute only about 
2 percent of all lawsuits filed in State courts and only about 3 
percent of all civil jury trials. By comparison, 48 percent of the 
civil lawsuits filed in State courts and 18 percent of all the cases 
tried are disputes between businesses. These business-versus-business 
lawsuits accounted for 63 percent of the lawsuits since 1989 which 
resulted in a verdict or a settlement exceeding $50 million.
  So what has the conference report done on these lawsuits? Absolutely 
nothing. The Committee on Rules would not even allow me to bring an 
amendment out here on the floor on this blight upon the law system of 
our country. The conference report actually contains provisions that 
explicitly exempt all civil actions brought for commercial lawsuits 
from any of the harsh new procedural substantive provisions in the 
bill.
  Let us just consider some of the cases they do not want to deal with. 
McDonald's brought a temporary restraining order to prevent Burger King 
from airing ads comparing the Big Mac unfavorably with the Whopper. 
Walt Disney sued the Motion Picture Academy to force a public apology 
for an unflattering portrayal of Snow White at the Academy Awards 
ceremony. Advil sued Tylenol for such weighty legal issues as whether 
Tylenol was as effective as Advil for headache pain and whether Tylenol 
is unbeatable for a headache. Scott Paper sued Procter & Gamble, 
claiming it had allegedly misled consumers about the absorptive power 
of Bounty paper towels by claiming Bounty was the Quicker Picker-Upper.
  Now, did they go after these cases in this bill? Absolutely not. 
Business suing business frivolously, and area after area? Which case do 
the Republicans want to take on? It is where an individual has been 
harmed by a product, where the lawnmower, where some consumer product 
has exploded in the face of a family member. Those are the people they 
are going to take on. Those are the people they are going to tell 
cannot sue any longer.
  This is a disgrace. The real abuse in the courts are businesses suing 
businesses. That is 90 percent of the problem that we have got, 
frivolous case after frivolous case being brought. It is time that we 
brought the truth to these issues and rejected this conference report.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take enough time to point out to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts that he did not bring his amendment to 
the Committee on Rules and we do not amend conference reports.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, clearly this bill is anticonsumer. It is 
antiaverage person because indeed it is putting the greater burden on 
those

[[Page H3182]]

who trust and buy products. It is saying to those persons that we 
prefer to protect the businesses that make and purport to make it safe 
for your consumption.

                              {time}  1115

  This is not a bill that is talking about frivolous cases. It is not 
frivolous, indeed, when there is an implant that destroys the life of a 
woman. It is not frivolous indeed when a mother buys a baby garment and 
that garment harms that child. These are not frivolous cases; these are 
cases about life and death.
  So why would you even claim that when an individual is injured or is 
maimed or killed, that is frivolous? How is human life frivolous? It is 
frivolous to say that a mother or child is less valuable than with 
someone who works. To compute the $250,000 cap based on that, and that 
the award is based on their economic value, is to deny the individual 
worth of all individuals.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. Americans know this is a bad bill. 
This is a bill to award big business, to remove their liability for all 
the consumers. I urge the defeat of this rule and the defeat of the 
bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, strangely, this piece of legislation 
rejects the notion that I have heard so often voiced from this 
microphone about the concept of personal responsibility. It is OK to 
demand personal responsibility of the most disadvantaged, of the 
poorest people, of the most vulnerable people in our society. But, for 
some reason, it is the position of those who support this conference 
report that it is inappropriate to demand full personal responsibility 
of those who kill and maim and destroy the lives of their neighbors.
  In many cases, the cases that generate the largest verdicts, that get 
talked about the most, result from those who place profits over safety, 
time and time again, when they had one report after another coming in 
from across America that people were being damaged, that they were 
being hurt, being killed by their products, and those reports were 
ignored and the lives of other Americans were endangered as a result. 
But that concept of personal responsibility is totally and completely 
disregarded by those who support this bill.
  The second concept that has been talked about so much, as if it were 
a new invention, is that of States rights. What is wrong with the 
jurisdiction and the legislatures of these 50 United States addressing 
this issue? Why is it that from this microphone there is only support 
for State wrongs, but never support for States rights?
  I say that the States ought to be able to address these issues 
themselves. I had a small business person in my office last week 
speaking generally in favor of this piece of legislation. Yet every one 
of the reforms that he thought were important to be implemented in this 
legislation had already been implemented by the Texas legislature.
  Why not have these decisions made on Congress Avenue in Austin, TX, 
instead of up here on the Potomac in Washington? What is going to be 
the dividing line? If we are going to have the Congress of the United 
States interfere in States rights in this issue, why not in every other 
part of our life?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of 
the conference report. Our out-of-control legal system is ruining the 
productivity of American manufacturing. Because the price of all of 
these crazy lawsuits and big judgments and product liability insurance 
premiums are all folded into our products that we try to sell, both at 
home and abroad, we end up being at a significant competitive 
disadvantage to our foreign competition, and specifically the British 
and the Germans and the Japanese.
  This legislation is a significant step forward to bringing American 
manufacturing more competitive. When that happens, that is going to 
mean more jobs for American people. So we are not talking about 
protecting big business here, we are talking about creating jobs at 
home, rather than having our legal system destroy jobs at home and 
create jobs abroad.
  Second, the original bill that passed the House contained medical 
malpractice insurance reform. It is no longer necessary to consider 
that issue in the context of this legislation, because the House took 
care of that issue last night when we passed the insurance reform bill 
with a medical malpractice reform component in it. So splitting off 
medical malpractice into other legislation has made this legislation 
easier to pass through reaching an agreement in the conference 
committee.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and chairman of the 
conference committee, for crafting a very good bill that will be in the 
public interest. I hope it passes by more than a two-thirds vote today, 
because that will send the White House a needed message to sign this 
legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Frost] for his management of the rule in this matter, and bring to 
the attention of the Members the one reason that this rule should be 
rejected. That is because the provision that I put in the bill that 
would have helped American consumers by making it easier to obtain 
legal process and discovery against foreign manufacturers was quietly 
dropped in conference, at the insistence of foreign lobbyists. It was 
dropped, even though we then instructed the conferees to retain this 
provision in conference, overwhelmingly bipartisan.
  So join me in rejecting the rule to have this amendment that would 
make foreign manufacturers liable like domestic manufacturers are for 
defective products.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I just rise in support of the rule. It is a 
long time in coming on this product liability. I know many of us were 
on what is called the old subcommittee on competitiveness in which we 
had an opportunity to have hearings on this, and this has been part of 
the Republican contract for America. But, more importantly, it has been 
an agenda which both Democrats and Republicans have had bipartisan 
support for. This support goes back to the 103d Congress where I had 
the opportunity to be the ranking member with the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. She and I passed a product liability bill out 
of our subcommittee which had bipartisan support. So I am in strong 
support of this rule, and I hope the bill will pass overwhelmingly.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gunderson). The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question.
  If the previous question is defeated I intend to offer an amendment 
to the rule which would provide that the House will have adopted a 
concurrent resolution directing the Clerk to correct the enrollment of 
this conference report by adding the Conyers foreign manufacturers 
amendment, section 107 of the House passed bill.
  This amendment would level the playing field by subjecting foreign 
corporations to the same jurisdiction and discovery rules that their 
U.S. counterparts face.
  The text of my amendment as follows:


       amendment to rule on products liability conference report

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Section   . Upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall be considered to have adopted a concurrent 
     resolution directing the Clerk of the House to correct the 
     enrollment of H.R. 956 and consisting of the text contained 
     in the next section of this resolution.
       ``Section   . Resolved by the House of Representatives (the 
     Senate concurring), That in

[[Page H3183]]

     the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal 
     standards and procedures for product liability litigation, 
     and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives shall make the following corrections:
       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . FOREIGN PRODUCTS.

       (a) General Rule.--In any product liability action for 
     injury that was sustained in the United States and that 
     relates to the purchase or use of a product manufactured 
     outside the United States by a foreign manufacturer, the 
     Federal court in which such action is brought shall have 
     jurisdiction over such manufacturer if the manufacturer knew 
     or reasonably should have known that the product would be 
     imported for sale or use in the United States.
       (b) Admission.--If in any product liability action a 
     foreign manufacturer of the product involved in such action 
     fails to furnish any testimony, document, or other thing upon 
     a duly issued discovery order by the court in such action, 
     such failure shall be deemed an admission of any fact with 
     respect to which the discovery order relates.
       (c) Process.--Process in an action described in subsection 
     (a) may be served wherever the foreign manufacturer is 
     located, has an agent, or transacts business.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just would like to point out for those coming to the 
floor to vote on this issue that nobody criticized the rule. It is a 
normal rule for a conference report. The debate throughout the whole 
last hour has been on the bill. We will have an opportunity to debate 
that in the next hour and vote on that.
  I urge my colleagues to come to the floor and vote for the previous 
question, vote for the rule, and move on to the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 173, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 108]

                               YEAS--237

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

                               NAYS--173

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

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (IL)
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     Eshoo
     Fields (TX)
     Ford
     Fowler
     Gephardt
     Goodling
     Gutierrez
     Hayes
     McNulty
     Serrano
     Smith (TX)
     Stokes
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1142

  Mrs. KENNELLY, and Messrs. PETERSON of Florida, BARRETT of Wisconsin, 
and RANGEL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1145

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gunderson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________