[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.
____________________