[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 64 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4756-H4764]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY REFORM ACT OF 1996--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 104-207)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the further
consideration of the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R.
956) to establish legal standards and procedures for product liability
litigation, and for other purposes.
The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill,
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
General Leave
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 956.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the gentleman
from Viriginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the Committee on Commerce,
and I ask unanimous consent that he may be permitted to yield blocks of
time to other Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, one of the least meritorious reasons the
President has listed for his veto was that this bill infringed on
States' rights. The newly discovered respect for the 10th amendment is
heartening but somewhat misplaced. In our mobile society, 80 percent of
our manufactured goods are shipped across State lines, and the
unpredictability of a patchwork of 50 different sets of laws and
liabilities is a major factor prompting this commonsense bipartisan
reform.
We do not help the consumer when factoring into insurance premiums
the uncertainties of compliance with a myriad of different State laws
and unpredictability of punitive damage awards. We only add to the cost
of the product and render our industries less competitive with foreign
companies.
Plaintiffs collect less than half of every dollar spent on the civil
justice system. The rest goes to lawyers and court costs. One study
found the cost of this litigation explosion last year alone was $152
billion, and this is money that could be spent on hiring new workers
and investing in new equipment.
Tort reform does not deny valid claimants receiving adequate awards.
It merely reduces the arbitrary excesses that harm consumers by
discouraging many new products from being marketed, medical devices
such as heart valve, pacemakers if they utilize silicon.
The Washington Post, no conservative house organ, says the primary
beneficiaries of our current system are a group of wealthy and powerful
professionals. Guess who they are speaking about? The arbitrary
potential liability that can be imposed through unrestrained punitive
damage forces unjustified settlements, increasing insurance costs, and
the public, the consumer, loses in the end. Negligence should be
actionable and deserving plaintiffs should recover adequate damages,
but it is the arbitrary excesses that make our tort system top heavy
[[Page H4757]]
and this is what this legislation seeks to reform.
Thanks to the veto, the status quo will continue, costing consumers
dearly. They will pay more for products or go without them because they
will be pulled from the market because of the liability exposure.
The junior Senator from West Virginia said it all when he said, and I
quote, ``Unfortunately, special interests and raw political
considerations in the White House have overridden sound policy
judgment.''
Mr. Speaker, the American public wants and deserves reform of our
current out-of-control legal system. We need to replace the liability
lottery that pervades our courts with sensible procedures. We need a
legal system which will fairly compensate injured parties without
making defendants pay well beyond their share of the fault, simply
because those defendants are perceived to have the deep pocket.
It is no mystery to the average citizen that each of us pays for
runaway product liability costs in the form of higher prices for the
products we buy. Yet in placating the trial lawyers, the President has
denied us all the benefits of long overdue tort reform. The sad thing
is that the legislation the President has vetoed is a comparatively
modest proposal, much narrower in scope than the bill which passed the
House of Representatives on March 10, 1995 by a vote of 265 to 161.
This conference committee version is strongly supported by groups
such as the National Federation of Independent Business, the American
Council on Life Insurance, the National Association of Manufacturers,
and the Health Care Liability Alliance. It also has the aggressive
backing of many Members of the President's own party, among them
Senator Jay Rockefeller, whom I mentioned before.
The bill vetoed by the President contains provisions which would
vastly improve the way product liability cases are tried and settled.
It properly puts the blame for product liability injury on the
manufacturers, not someone who is merely a reseller or someone who
supplies component parts to a manufacturer of medical devices.
It also provides that if the use of alcohol or illegal drugs is more
than 50 percent of the cause of an injury, the manufacturer is not
liable. It would reduce the damages for which a defendant is liable by
the percentage of responsibility for the harm attributed to the misuse
or alteration of the product involved.
The President says he objects to the 15-year statute of repose,
presumably because it is 5 years shorter than the Senate version. What
he does not explain is that the 21 States which have enacted statutes
of repose have all chosen limitations of 15 years or less. If we want
U.S. manufacturers to be able to compete with foreign manufacturers,
many of whom have only recently entered the market and thus bear no
exposure for old products, we have to enact uniform, sensible cutoffs
on liability.
The President also criticizes the specifics of what the bill does to
limit a plaintiff's ability to recover damages. Let us not focus on
what it does not, or rather, let us focus on what it does not do.
It does not change a plaintiff's ability to recover payment for loss
of income, medical expenses and other economic damages.
While it imposes limitations on the recovery of punitive damages, the
conference report version is much more generous to plaintiffs than was
the original House-passed bill. Our bill limited punitive damage awards
in all civil actions to three times economic damages or $250,000,
whichever is greater. The conference report limits punitive damage
awards only in product liability cases and the limit is twice economic
and noneconomic damages or $250,000, whichever is greater.
In a major departure from the philosophy of the House approach, the
conference report would permit a judge to exceed these limits under
certain circumstances. The conference report also does not place any
monetary cap on the amount of damages for pain and suffering and other
noneconomic damages that may be recovered.
Let us remind ourselves of the consequences of failing to enact
reform. This legislation would unleash an American job creation boom,
translating into real growth for our economy.
It would particularly benefit small business, which has created the
vast majority of all new jobs in this country since 1987. The need for
this relief for the small business community is shown by the fact that
it was the top issue to emerge from the 1986 White House Conference on
Small Business. Tort reform and specifically many of the provisions
contained in H.R. 956 was once again a high-priority recommendation of
the 1995 White House conference.
The President's veto can only be viewed as an affront to this
important segment of the American economy. Of course it is not a
perfect bill, but it is a very good bill. It may not solve all the
problems in our legal system, but it would be a workable first step in
that direction.
It fairly balances the interest of plaintiffs and defendants in
product liability cases. We are presented with a unique opportunity to
obtain the ends of justice by giving the system certainty and imposing
rational limits on damages.
Mr. Speaker, after nearly two decades of effort to fashion a
comprehensive set of product liability reforms, we have the chance to
enact a bipartisan consensus package of bottom-up reforms. These
reforms are desperately needed to restore some fairness to our present
system and to remove roadblocks to our country's economic growth and
job creation.
We need to send the message to all Americans that this Congress means
what it says in its commitment to broad-based legal reform and about
bringing an end to lawsuit abuse. I urge my colleagues to join me in
voting to override this unwise veto.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to suggest to you that the President
of the United States was correct to veto the bill before us, the
product liability bill, as being harmful to working Americans and
particularly discriminating against women, so I urge a ``no'' vote to
sustain the veto.
This proposal to override is a continuation of the majority
Republicans' war on public safety, on workers, on women, and on
seniors. They continue their war for the special interests who have
spent over $26 million in campaign contributions in an effort to tilt
the legal system further in their favor. So let us not kid ourselves,
no matter what is said here today, about where the special interests
concern lies.
{time} 1845
So far, amazingly, I have not heard the lawyers get beat up yet, but
this is only the beginning of the debate. I always enjoy that part,
where the lawyers are singled out as special interest people, when the
hugest special interests in our political system are in there solid
working on the other side.
That is the simple truth of the matter, and that is what this is all
about. I was pleased that the President would veto this measure. I
warned the committees in the process that this would likely happen,
please include a few provisions that would have made this product
liability bill make more sense. But, no. We had a conference committee,
you may remember, in December. We had one opening meeting, and that was
it. So much for any bipartisan attempts at working anything out.
I have been in more than one conference in this Congress that
proceeded much along those lines. We were shut out. Fortunately, the
President stepped in, and now, having had this veto, we are here now to
determine whether we will override it or sustain the President in his
veto.
Now, this bill has some problems. It has a lot of little problems,
but it has some very big problems. The product liability bill would not
only cap and limit the amount of damages an injured victim can recover,
but would in many instances completely cut off the victim's right to
seek compensation. Completely cut off the victim's right to seek
compensation.
This is coming out of the Committee on the Judiciary, the committee
that is supposed to be the watchdog over the freedoms of people.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H4758]]
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman tell me under what
circumstances someone is completely denied a right to seek recovery for
damages?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we could cut off their
rights to seek compensation even in clear, uncontested cases of
negligence.
Mr. HYDE. How so, would the gentleman tell me?
Mr. CONYERS. I will in just a moment, if I can proceed.
Mr. HYDE. That comes as a surprise to me. Maybe the gentleman knows
something I do not, which is entirely possible.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it has happened once or
twice in this session. I will be happy to clarify this for the
chairman, because he sounds sincere in his desire for this information.
It especially discriminates against working people, who this Congress
will not provide an increase in the minimum wage for. It discriminates
against women, who might lose their reproductive capacity as a result
of deadly injury brought on by irresponsible corporate behavior.
So this is a one-way street of federalism, return power to the
States, so long as it disadvantages consumers and the common folks. I
reject that completely.
Now, to make matters even worse, we are considering this override at
the very same time that the Republican majority I proposing to gut the
safety regulations and eliminate safety agencies like the Consumer
Product Safety Commission. That is going on in another bailiwick.
And if you do not think the threat of private lawsuits can help keep
dangerous products off the market, just think about the history of
personal injury litigation over the past decade or two. We know what
has happened by the lawsuits brought by the parents of children who
have been killed by wearing flammable pajamas. That was a direct result
of personal injury litigation. Or the women who have been maimed by the
copper 7 intrauterine device. There again, lawsuits, long and hard,
that brought about a change in dangerous products.
Both the products are now off the market, thanks to good legal work
and trial work and the threat of punitive damages. And that is what
punitive damages are about.
This bill, however, will not reduce litigation, cannot reduce
litigation, because we are up against the myth that product liability
suits are exploding. Let us deal with that right off the bat here.
Product liability suits represent less than 2 percent of the
litigation that goes on in the United States of America, less than 2
percent, and even those two 2 percent of cases are dropping, it is
going down. And with that drop, product liability premiums are also
dropping. So there. How much can we be interfering with economic
development and expansion in the United States?
Punitive damages is always a great subject. Where are they taking
place and how frequently? Punitive damages occur in about 14 cases a
year, going back to the 1960's. The cap of $250,000 on punitive damages
is a joke. It is not a deterrent. That is all punitive damages are for,
and that is why they are used so rarely.
How can a Fortune 500 company, making annual revenues of billions of
dollars, be deterred from placing a dangerous product on the market
because of the threat of a punitive damages award that is hacked to
literally nothing under this bill? That is why the special interests
are behind the bill.
The next point that should be considered a big one as a reason to
sustain the President in his veto is that this bill will also limit
victims' rights to recover the non-economic damages when there are
joint tortfeasors. So if a jointly produced product induces a loss of
reproductive capacity in a housewife, she will be limited in her
recovery, but if an expensively paid corporate executive is injured by
a product and loses his salary, obviously, under this test, the bill
ensures that he will be fully compensated.
So we have talked about the political special interests, but what
about others? The electric, water, and gas utilities industries have
obtained a provision overruling liability laws in states which hold
them strictly liable for utility disasters. Is that a good thing for
the consumers in America?
By the way, everybody is a consumer. Even the fat cats are consumers.
The rich are consumers. The poor are consumers. Working people are
consumers.
What are we thinking about here?
Oh, more special interests. The gun sellers and the bar owners
obtained special language limiting their potential liability for
careless sales to third parties, Now, that should go over big with the
American citizenry.
This is a bill of the special interests. It is by the special
interests, for the special interests, who have done so much to show
their appreciation of the promoters of this piece of legislation, that
could not pass a very modest level of muster from the White House.
We will be remembered in this 104th Congress as the Congress that did
not do much, and even when we tried to do something, it was so poor
that it had to be vetoed. I am counting on that veto being sustained,
because those who continue to insist that we have to limit the rights
of working Americans, limit the rights of consumers, make the legal
system less accessible, I think are doing a disservice to the legal
process and to the Congress that we are operating in. It is another
example of a Republican legislative effort that is heading for the
trash bin.
The President is right to veto the bill. It is harmful to consumers,
it disrespects working Americans, it is discriminatory against women,
and for any of those reasons and more, I think there is more than
enough reason to vote no to sustain the veto.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, last month, this Congress handed the trial lawyer's
lobby the biggest defeat they've ever faced, when we passed bipartisan,
common sense product liability reform--reforms that would end the
lawsuit lottery that is making the trial lawyers rich at the expense of
every one of us who buys an American-made product--a ladder, an
automobile, groceries, you name it.
It was a win, most of all, for American workers. That's because these
product liability lawsuits are eating up $132 billion in this country
every year--money that could be used to build new plants, buy new
equipment, create new jobs.
And let's make no mistake about it, if we don't override this veto,
those workers will be the ones to pay.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' report for April showed that this
economy created just 2,000 jobs in all of last month--fewer than 3 new
jobs per State per day, and virtually every one of those in the public
sector.
Yet while 2,000 were lucky enough to take jobs behind the desks of
Government, another 17,000 American workers--8\1/2\ times that number--
lost their manufacturing jobs.
They'll join the army of 319,000 Americans who've lost factory jobs
in the year that began in April 1995.
These are the ones who are paying the price for Bill Clinton's veto
of product liability reforms.
Well, Mr. President, you put the interests of the rich trial
lawyers--the ones who gave so much to your campaign--ahead of the
interests of those hundreds of thousands of laid-off American workers.
Ever since the liberal judges radicalized this country's product
liability laws, the result has been a bonanza for America's trial
lawyers, and a disaster for American factory workers. A 1988 conference
board survey of chief executives found that 36 percent had reduced
manufacturing operations because of fear of product liability lawsuits,
15 percent had laid off workers, and fully 8 percent had to close down
factories altogether.
This is the second time in 6 months that Bill Clinton had a choice
between American workers and his trial lawyer buddies. Both times, the
workers lost.
Last December 19, remember, Bill Clinton vetoed commonsense
securities litigation reform--another corruption of our justice system
that makes a handful of lawyers rich, at the expense of all of us.
Back then, I led the fight on the floor against the veto. And less
than 12 hours after the President used his veto pen, this Congress
handed him the first override.
[[Page H4759]]
It was as proud a moment as I've had as a Member of this House.
Today, Mr. Speaker, let's do those American workers a favor. Let's
repeat it.
{time} 1900
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], dean of the House, dean of the Michigan
delegation, my good friend, and once the former chairman of the
Committee on Commerce.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I begin by expressing my great affection
for the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary, and also the distinguished gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman of the Committee on Commerce. They
are fine Members and dear friends of mine and I have enormous respect
and affection for both of them.
Mr. Speaker, I was, as this body knows, the individual who was in on
addressing the problem of product liability early on. Our committee
began the effort by moving out the first piece of legislation that ever
came out of a congressional committee on this.
It is my view that product liability lawsuits have been much abused,
and that serious and adverse economic consequences have struck the
American economy, the American worker, and American businessman because
of that, and I intend to vote to override the President's veto.
But, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I do it with a sense
of heaviness in my heart. Without any ill will towards my good friend
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], I want to make it plain that I think that
was a very bad speech. This is not an issue which we should make a
partisan issue. It is a broad question of the public good. Are we going
to correct an abuse which is here?
The hard fact is that the handling of this bill has given the
American public, I think, and the Members of this body, a clear
impression that what is happening here is essentially a partisan
exercise on the part of our Republican colleagues. Members on this side
of the aisle were very much excluded from the discussions in the so-
called conference which took place. There was no real conference in the
traditional sense. Members had no opportunity to participate. There was
no opportunity afforded the White House or the administration downtown
to discuss concerns which they had with regard to the bill.
That is a very bad way to proceed. It was not an open House which
functioned. It was not an open committee or an open conference which
functioned. Rather, it was a very much closed and secretive
undertaking. There were a couple of pro forma meetings which were, at
best, opportunities for perhaps Bull Run speeches or perhaps for
Members to say what they were going to do.
The real work was done behind closed doors at which Members, like
myself, who wanted to participate and who could have participated and
who would have participated in the bringing together of the divergent
views which exist on the subject of product liability in a way that we
could anticipate that this bill would then be signed into law, were
excluded.
I think we are looking here, then, at a situation where the way this
matter has been handled has been to assure not that a bill can be
signed and not that a major economic and social problem is addressed,
but simply so that we can have here an exercise in fingerpointing,
something which is going to do two things: First, further alienate
Members within this body on this subject, and, second, to assure that
this bill is going to fall to a veto which has been given. A residue of
great ill will is going to be left in this body which is going to
adversely impact future efforts to address the problem of product
liability.
I view those events as a great calamity. I think American industry
does need relief from the kind of situation they confront, and I would
point to the long hearings which we held in which we heard from
industry, from individuals affected, even from the trial attorneys.
Those pointed up the need for change, but regrettably the process in
which we are now engaged is going to assure that there is going to be
no significant change. A veto is going to be upheld, vast
fingerpointing will occur, ill will will remain and grow, and the
problem of product liability litigation will not be resolved.
The final result of this is going to be that a great opportunity to
do broad good for the American public, for the American economy, is
going to be lost today.
My friend and colleague, Mr. Bliley, talks about how this is an
attempt on the part of the President to procure campaign contributions.
I would point out that we all will be charged with receiving campaign
contributions and I would point out this: There will be abundant
campaign contributions befalling my Republican colleagues because of
their views on this, probably larger campaign contributions than will
fall on a Democrat who supports the President's veto.
I do not think that we ought to attribute, either to our colleagues
or to the President of the United States or anybody else, the crass
motive of proceeding solely on the basis of campaign contributions. I
think we ought to give credit to each other for proceeding on the basis
of the board public interest and doing good and carrying out our oath
of office as we see that oath and that duty to compel us.
I reject the idea that we should then proceed in that fashion. I
think that that is the way in which we do greatest credit to ourselves
and to argue this question on the basis that somebody is doing
something on the basis of a campaign contribution demeans the
individual who is charged, but it demeans also the individual who makes
the charge.
I would urge my colleague, if we are going to address this question
here, let us address it from the standpoint of the broad public
interest. But let us when we do so understand that we have some duty to
bring all Members into the discussions, something which was not done
here and something which has impaired in a severe way our opportunity
to resolve a matter of very important concern to all Americans.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my great friend and the ranking
minority member of the Committee on Commerce that I would have not
brought up that about the President and about contributions had not the
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary brought out about fat
cats and Republicans, and I just thought we ought to respond and set
the record straight for what it is.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], the chairman of the subcommittee.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House to override the
President's unfortunate veto of this very moderate approach to product
liability. Let me say to my good friend from Michigan, who I have
worked with for so many years on legal reform and specifically on
product liability reform, that I am perhaps as frustrated with the
process as he is. That is, the obvious concern that all of us had in
the conference that the Senate made it very clear that the best we
could get out of this conference on legal reform was a product
liability bill, and that became the fait accompli.
So the stultifying meetings that we had, that the gentleman and I
participated in, were as frustrating to me as to the gentleman because
we would have done more, I think, had we been given the opportunity. I
know the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Virginia, the
two chairmen, share my concerns about that.
But be that as it may, we have before us a pretty moderate approach
to product liability, a bill that we worked on in our committee under
the great leadership of the gentleman from Michigan, the now infamous
``tort class from hell'' that went on for 10 days, in which we
produced, I think, a pretty good product, not dissimilar to the product
that we have before us today that the President chose to veto.
I would say to those folks, including the gentleman from
Massachusetts and others on the floor today who worked on that bill,
this really is that product.
[[Page H4760]]
It is a moderate approach. It does not deny people their ability to
recover damages for lost wages for pain and suffering, for medical
damages. It does put some limits on punitive damages that have gone out
of control.
As a matter of fact economist Paul Rubin at Emory University says
that $82 billion of the $132 billion spent on tort liability has been
pure waste, and that was just for 1 year, in 1990. That works out to
$900 per household of wasted money, meaning more cost to the consumer
in insurance costs and the like. That works out to $900 per U.S.
household paid in higher prices for goods, services, and insurance
premiums.
That is a very expensive proposition. Not only are we closing down
some companies and putting people out of work, but at the same time we
are costing the average consumer, the average household, $900 a year
more than they would have had to pay otherwise because of many of these
frivolous lawsuits.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues, this very moderate
approach to product liability, which is the first time this Congress
has really faced up to that very serious issue, deserves our vote to
override the President's veto.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
(Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
today's effort to override the President's veto of H.R. 956, the Common
Sense Product Liability Reform Act. Meaningful product liability reform
is one. Most important small business issues, we will consider all
year. The legislation we passed and sent to the President was a
bipartisan effort by scores of individual Members of this House and the
other body not only in this Congress but going back for several
Congresses.
I believe that the President's veto of product liability reform
legislation is a slap in the face to every small businessperson in this
country. The delegates to the 1995 White House Conference on Small
Business were dazzled by the President, who told them that his
administration was ardently pro-small business, but as we all know,
this President changes his mind. So, he has raised taxes, he has
championed a mandatory costly health care bill, and now he has vetoed
product liability reform which small business has been seeking for
years.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of this
Nation's small businesses have been crying out for meaningful product
liability reform for years, and it was one of the top issues at the
1986 and 1995 White House conferences.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to small business. Because of the high
cost of liability insurance and because small business operates without
large profit margins, just one lawsuit can totally wipe out a small
business.
Punitive damages are capped at $250,000 or two times noneconomic
damage, whichever is less, for small business. Sellers are not liable
if drugs or alcohol are more than 50 percent responsible for an
accident. It provides a mechanism for settlement out of court.
{time} 1915
The bill says a small business is only responsible for the
proportionate share of blame, and it provides a statute of limitations.
I truly regret this veto. For the sake of small business, I implore my
colleagues on both sides of this aisle to override the veto.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). The gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hyde] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Bliley] has 7\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
My colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. John Dingell], has
properly decried the process that excluded us. I can suggest to you
that the work product does not deserve much consideration here. But
also I would like to point out to my friends, just as we lay to rest
who is getting the money here, we cannot deny that the political action
committees of corporations and organizations favoring tort reform
contributed nearly $62 million between 1989 and 1994, as part of a
multimillion dollar lobbying effort to overturn America's system of
civil justice.
The trial lawyers, trial lawyers, contributed that $5.8 million, one-
tenth of the total of legal reform proponents who came together in a
massive coalition.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Scott], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of allegations and some, most of it,
exaggerated, a lot of anecdotes. Many of the anecdotes would have been
received under appeal under the present law.
The fact of the matter is that the number of these cases is
minuscule, especially when we look at the punitive damages cases, less
than one per State per year. These have a very strong deterrent effect
because every day corporations have to decide whether they are going to
recall dangerous products or modify dangerous products that are killing
or maiming people.
If this bill was passed, it would be cheaper to kill or maim people
than to recall or modify the products. Punitive damage cases end the
situation where corporations were selling children flammable pajamas
because it was cheaper to sell those pajamas than to modify them so
they would not go afire like newsprint.
We have heard about costs. We ought to have savings. A lot of people
are not being maimed and injured as a result of tort reform and the
deterrent effect.
Mr. Speaker, these laws we talk about as being uniform are not
uniform. The only laws that are affected by these laws are those that
are more draconian to consumers than the State laws. If the State has a
more draconian law, then that law stays in effect under this
legislation.
We also have a situation where joint and several liability is
abolished. That is where the consumer, if he has a good case, a winning
case, can sue many people and they have to decide how that damage is
going to be apportioned. If this bill passes, it will be up to the
consumer to try to find the unavailable defendants, those that may be
insolvent. All of that will be borne by the victim.
Mr. Speaker, on this vote we should protect consumers. We should
require corporate responsibility, and we should support the President's
veto by voting no on the motion to override.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Deal], a member of the committee.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would briefly like to say that we
should test this legislation by the light of reasonableness. When we
do, I would ask the question, is it reasonable for punitive damages to
be limited to a quarter of a million dollars or twice the compensatory
damages? Most people think so.
Is it reasonable to give injuries that have multiple defendants the
right to decide how much each of those defendants should have to pay
rather than having the one who may be the last culpable have to pay it
all? Most people think that is reasonable.
Is it reasonable to say a 2-year statute of limitations in which an
action must be brought after the injury? Most people think so. Is it
reasonable to have a 15-year statute of repose?
The President had to go no further than a member of his own Cabinet,
our former colleague in the previous Congress, Mr. Glickman, who led
the efforts in the last Congress to try to save an industry in his
district, a small aircraft industry, that was faced with a similar
prospect of extinction to find that this is certainly reasonable.
Based on the test of reasonableness, I would urge this Congress to
override the President's veto. I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a valued member of the
committee.
Mr. GEKAS. When the President vetoed this product liability bill, Mr.
Speaker, he also vetoed heart transplants, brain shunts, medical
devices for replacement of knees, of hips, of shoulders, 100 different
types of medical devices that are lifesaving or
[[Page H4761]]
health improving, borne by some 8 million Americans currently in the
use of those medical devices and who knows how many yet to come who
will require them. Why? Because the suppliers of vital elements that go
into these medical devices have been going out of business or refusing
to deal with the manufacturers of medical devices because of the large
suits, liability suits that loom in front of them should they dare to
supply a piece of plastic or a piece of wood or a piece of some other
kind of element that goes into one of these medical devices, even if
that little piece of that medical device had nothing to do at all with
the injury that brought about the liability suit in the first place.
What this bill would have done, if the President would have signed
it, would have been to release some of these companies from the burden
of supplying some of these vital elements to medical devices, and we
then in the Congress could rejoice on making ample supplies of these
medical devices available to our fellow Americans.
I urge we override this veto so we can go about the business of
encouraging the scientific community and the medical community to
develop even better medical devices, more in tune with life saving and
health improvement than even now we have on the books, and allow the
President to be enlightened that a veto such as the one he has
exercised here threatens the lives and the health of our fellow
Americans.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], one of the unsung members of the Committee
on Commerce.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the Common Sense Product Liability Legal
Reform Act is an interesting title for this bill. I suppose the
Republican majority decided to put common sense into the title because
it is so clearly absent from the rest of the bill.
This legislation would take away the rights of working American
families to meaningfully punish huge corporations that put faulty and
sometimes deadly products onto the market and hurt American families.
Eliminating such protections would give product manufacturers or
sellers a green light to cut dangerous corners, to reap higher profits.
The result? More deadly products like the Dalkon Shield, exploding Ford
Pintos, flammable children's pajamas, defective heart valves and other
nightmares that cause serious injury or death.
Now, interestingly, these cases are only 1 percent of the cases.
Thirty-three percent of the cases in the courts are businesses suing
other businesses. And the National Law Journal, looking into 12,000
cases that have gone on for more than 3 years in Federal court, came to
the conclusion that almost all of them were businesses suing other
businesses.
If we are going to deal with the backlog problem, let us look at
that, not whether or not an individual where a lawnmower blew up in the
wife or the daughter or the child's face can sue to collect. Let us
deal with these businesses. So what weighty legal issues are businesses
suing each other over? Let us take a look.
McDonald's sought a temporary restraining order to prevent Burger
King from airing ads comparing the Big Mac unfavorably to the Whopper.
Haagen Daz sued Frusen Gladje, alleging that it had infringed on Haagen
Daz's exclusive right to market premium ice cream with a Scandinavian
flair. Walt Disney sued the Motion Picture Academy to force a public
apology for an unflattering portrayal of Snow White at the Academy
Awards ceremonies. Scott Paper sued Proctor & Gamble claiming that it
allegedly misled consumers about the absorptive power of Bounty paper
towels by claiming Bounty was the quicker picker-upper.
And finally, Hormel Foods, maker of the luncheon meat Spam sued the
Muppets production company to stop them from calling a character in a
new Muppets movie Spa'am, alleging that the character represented an
unclean, grotesque boar that would call into question the purity and
the quality of its products. So the Republicans want to give Spam the
right to put the Muppets on the witness stand to resolve these business
issues, even if it takes 2 or 3 years in court. But if Joe Citizen has
a defective product which has maimed him or his wife or any of his
children, you are out of luck. We are putting limits on you. You are
ruining the court system with the 1 percent of cases you bring in. The
individual against businesses. But if businesses sue other businesses,
no restrictions whatsoever.
This is the world on its head. This is a special interest business
protection against individual Americans making corporations responsible
for their own actions when they hurt Americans in our country.
The President's veto should be sustained.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], a member of the committee.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, what can we conclude about this Presidential
veto? This is the second time the President has vetoed a tort reform
bill passed by this House and Senate, passed by large numbers of both
Republicans and Democrats. In fact, the last time he vetoed a tort
reform bill we did, in fact, override his veto.
What can we conclude about this veto? First of all, we can conclude
the President must think this bill is extreme. The gentleman in the
well who just spoke obviously agrees with him. But the Democratic
Senator Rockefeller who supports the bill on the Senate side said
special interests and raw political considerations of the White House
have overridden sound policy judgment. Democratic Senator Lieberman who
worked closely with the President throughout this process said,
President Clinton is dead wrong about this bill. It must be reasonable.
Let us look at the bill. It says that it is going to hold
manufacturers primarily responsible instead of sellers. It says that it
is going to reduce manufacturers' liability to the extent that a
claimant has altered or misused a product. And it says that there is an
absolute defense to drug and alcohol abuse. That certainly sounds
reasonable to me.
What can we conclude? The President is against all tort reform. We
ought to override his veto.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
My good friend's comments, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley],
about trial lawyers reminded me of the saying that we always use when
we are condemning lawyers: First thing we do, let us kill all the
lawyers.
I want to remind my colleagues that that comment we often use comes
from Shakespeare, ``Henry VI.''
{time} 1930
Mr. Speaker, in the sense in which that line is used, a corrupt king
and his followers are trying to figure out how to suspend everybody's
freedoms and rights, and the only folks who could possibly stop that
from happening? My colleagues guessed it: the lawyers.
So kill all the lawyers, if my colleagues want, but what they are
trying to do in this case is to stand between the Republicans and the
suspensions of the rights of the people, the people in this country.
As the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] has indicated there
is no litigation explosion in product liability cases. The litigation
explosion is in business versus business cases.
We have talked a lot about, in this Congress, personal
responsibility. Punitive damages, and having individuals have the right
to file lawsuits when they are injured by faulty products, is about
corporate responsibility. If we favor personal responsibility, should
we not also favor corporate responsibility?
And what about States' rights? I have talked about that before. My
colleagues have talked about it and say they supported it. But for
years and years and years, product liability has been determined under
State law, and here we are, federalizing product liability.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. White], a member of the committee.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues to consider
a question.
Let us say you have a neighbor who has a drinking problem, and one
night
[[Page H4762]]
he goes out and has too many drinks, he comes home, parks in front of
my colleague's house, it is a wonder how he got there in the first
place. He gets out of the car, barely can walk home, and on the way to
his house, in front of my colleague's house, he falls down and hits his
head on the mailbox.
Now, Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues think they should have to pay his
medical expenses? I tell my colleagues something: President Clinton
does. Because he vetoed this bill which solved that problem, among many
other problems we have in our legal system.
Mr. Speaker, I am a lawyer. I have great respect for the law. But the
fact is anybody who has practiced law in our system recently knows it
is dramatically out of whack and needs to be fixed. This bill is a
modest step in that direction. We should override the President's veto
and make sure this actually becomes law.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a member of the committee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is a ``three strikes,
you're out'' bill, and for my colleagues, many of our States already
have contributory negligence laws to accord for the poor fellow who has
lost his way. But, No. 1, this legislation would say to someone, a
woman who had been impacted in the 1980's by the Copper 7 intrauterine
device by a company that knew that this particular device would keep
women ultimately, because of its defect, from having children. Strike
one, she would not be able to prevail under this proposed law.
Strike two: Just think of the two ladies in a Chicago elevator that
fell to the ground because it had no slowing mechanism. They would not
be able to prevail, though they were disabled for life, because it was
older than 15 years old. How many of us get into elevators and begin to
look to see when its last birthday was? Strike two.
Strike three: A farmer in 1990 was driving his tractor that he bought
in 1966. It rolled over and killed him. He bought it from a Switzerland
company, and he would not be able to prevail because it was older than
15 years old. Yet in Switzerland they were putting rollover fixtures in
in 1959.
This is a bad bill. This is not a bill of special interests with the
trial lawyers. This is about the American people. Let us vote for the
American people, and let us sustain the President's veto.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to this effort to
override the President's veto of the conference report on H.R. 956, the
product liability reform bill. This bill is not a good bill for
consumers. It certainly does not level the playing field among
consumers and manufactures.
While some elements of the current product liability system need to
be reformed, this bill goes too far. There has been no great explosion
of product liability lawsuits. The Justice Department's Bureau of
Justice Statistics indicates that product liability cases represent
only 1.6 percent of civil cases. Another influential study on product
liability lawsuits indicates that there have been only an average of 14
jury awards of punitive damages annually for the last two decades.
Contrary to arguments made by proponents of the bill, the current
system is not discouraging capital investment or increasing the costs
of developing new products. In fact, the General Accounting Office
reports that insurance costs to businesses represent less than 1
percent of most businesses' gross annual receipts. Moreover, the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners indicate that product
liability insurance premiums have dropped by nearly 30 percent over the
last 6 years.
There are several real problems with this bill. First of all, it
eliminates joint liability for noneconomic damages and caps punitive
damages at $250,000 or two times compensatory damages, whichever is
greater. The current system provides a powerful incentive for
manufacturers to make strong efforts to ensure that their products are
safe. A cap of $250,000 on punitive damages would mean that some large
companies may incorporate this figure as a cost of doing business as
they implement their quality control procedures for manufacturing
products. Moreover, a provision in the bill permits judges to award
punitive damages exceeding 250,000 in egregious circumstances would
rarely be exercised.
Second, it preempts State law when such law favor consumers and
defers to State law when such provisions favor the manufacturers. It
also raises the burden of proof standard to clear and convincing
evidence in order for a plaintiff to prevail in a lawsuit. It is
interesting to note that many members of the majority party who
strongly favor State rights are now eager to impose uniform, Federal
product liability standards on all 50 States.
Another problem with this bill is that it eliminates joint and
several liability for noneconomic losses because of its potentially
disproportionate impact on women, children, and the elderly. It does,
however, retain joint and several liability for economic losses such as
lost wages. Noneconomic losses such as disfigurement or loss of
fertility should be treated by the legal system the same way as
economic losses such as lost wages.
Additionally, I am concerned about the statute of repose provision
that prohibits courts from awarding damages for injuries caused by
durable goods that are 15 years or older. The definition of durable
goods is narrow and excludes various consumer products.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of the House to sustain the
President's veto.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cox], chairman of the policy committee, a member of the
Committee on Commerce.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, to respond to my colleagues, when
something is 15 years old, 20 years old, 30 years old, 100 years old,
at some point the manufacturer stops being liable and the person who is
responsible for maintaining the piece of equipment ought to become
liable, and that is the common sense that is in this bill.
The truth is that in my part of the country, in California, southern
California, we have a lot of lawyers in West Los Angeles. Just that
part of the city, there are more lawyers than in all of Japan.
California, our fourth largest industry is lawyers, just judged by
their legal fees. The only bigger industries in California are health
care, the movie industry, and computers. No. 4 is lawyers fees.
Our system is a great wheel of fortune, and to respond to my
colleague from Massachusetts about the fraction of cases that have
punitive damage awards or the fraction of cases that we are talking
about here, over 90 percent of all cases never get a single day of
trial. Therefore, they have no judgments; therefore, they have no
damages. Everybody settles on the basis of what we euphemistically call
transaction costs, by which we mean some sort of discounted estimation
of the lawyers fees it would take to get to the other end, and,
therefore, there is not any justice. Or if there is justice, it is
entirely random.
We started out in the House of Representatives with a much broader
bill. We covered services as well as products. We covered health care
lawsuits. All of this now is out. We are down to products, and my
colleague from Massachusetts joined with others to get everything else
out of the bill, and now he says we are only covering products. In
fact, he took out a rule that would have made people bringing frivolous
lawsuits pay the costs of the other side so that we get all of those
cases out of the courts, and now we are down to this.
The Washington Post has endorsed it. It is very reasonable. Our
Democratic colleagues in the Senate have said President Clinton here is
catering to special interests. I would not say that. But the truth is
that the high cost of litigation, the perverse incentives, the slow
cumbersome system that we have got right now, demands reform which we
have not had here for 40 years.
This bill deserves to become law. Override President Clinton's veto.
He has proven there is no tort reform he will support. It is up to us
to see this job through.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. Ganske], a member of the committee.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of overriding
the President's veto on the product liability bill.
A recent op-ed in my hometown newspaper criticized the tort reform
bill because it made it more difficult to collect punitive damages, but
that is the purpose of the bill.
When we see an Alabama jury awarding $4 million in punitive damages
in a case in which the plaintiff sustained only $4,000 in natural
losses, something is wrong.
Why do we need limits to punitive damages? Because the costs are
passed on to our constituents who pay more for goods and services to
make up for the high price of lawsuit abuse.
[[Page H4763]]
This legislation would ensure the injured parties are fully
compensated for all their losses, both economic and noneconomic. But it
would prevent them from hurting others by the excessive awards of
punitive damages which keep people from getting the types of goods and
services they need.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in overriding the
President's veto.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to a
question asked earlier by the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, he wanted to know the name of somebody who could get
their victims rights cut off and could not even sue. I give him the
name of Carla Miller because, under the statute of repose, we would cut
off any ability to recover in cases of clear misconduct or negligence.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Lofgren], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of talk today about what
the people want. Six weeks ago, the people of California considered
whether or not they should lose their right to a recovery when
wrongdoing occurred, and they voted not to do that. I think that when
they find out that the tobacco companies, the NRA and others want to
keep them from holding wrongdoers to account, that the Consumers Union
and Mothers Against Drunk Driving disagree, that they will agree with
me that we should not override the President's veto.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance
of my time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time on this
side to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear what this bill does. If one
is a corporate CEO, he can make $1 million a year; God forbid he should
be in an accident because of a product malfunction. This bill says that
he can receive full recovery of his economic losses. But if one is a
working mom, she makes $15,000 a year, and she should get in that same
accident, and that accident involves more than one wrongdoer, and God
forbid she should lose her ability to have children, she may never be
fully compensated for her pain and loss. That is what this bill does.
It says that the lives of corporate CEO's and the bankers and the
economic elite in our country are more important and more valuable than
the lives of working men and women.
Mr. Speaker, we do not need a bill that tilts the balance away from
victims of defective products and toward the big corporations who make
them, and we certainly do not need a bill that gives foreign
manufacturers a leg up on American companies. If foreign businesses can
sell their products here, they should be held accountable if anything
goes wrong.
Mr. Speaker, we live in a country where 98 percent of all the income
growth since 1979 has gone to the top 20 percent, yet four times in
this House alone the Republicans and their leadership have blocked our
efforts to raise the minimum wage, and today once again we are trying
to write special rules for the privileged and the wealthy. Enough is
enough. It is a tragedy when anybody is injured by a faulty product.
Let us not make women and children and seniors pay a special price.
Mr. Speaker, these are the reasons why the President vetoed the bill.
I urge my colleagues, stand up for fairness, stand up for working
families, help us sustain the President's veto, and stand up for
fairness for a change.
{time} 1945
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This has been an interesting debate, and remarkable by statements from
the other side, many of whose Members know so many things that are just
not so, Mr. Speaker.
The gentlewoman from Houston, TX, talked about an elevator older than
15 years falling to the ground in a building, and denying the passenger
a chance to recover. My gosh, that is a negligence suit. Any building
that would have a faulty elevator, any lawyer that you can name would
have a theory to sue on that one and take the building over for
damages.
Mr. Speaker, nobody is denied a right to sue for damages. I heard
that again and again and again. It is the runaway punitive damages. You
can get your pain and suffering, your loss of use, your permanent
disability, your out-of-pocket expenses. Those are all recoverable. It
is the punitive damages that also are recoverable, but are restricted
from running away. That is all this bill does.
Mr. Speaker, we heard about the minimum wage from more than one or
two speakers. We heard it from my friend, the gentleman from Michigan,
and we heard it from the other gentleman from Michigan. This has been
an all-Michigan presentation, with the gentlemen from Michigan, Mr.
Dingell, Mr. Bonior, and Mr. Conyers. I am sorry we could not match you
in Michiganders.
But we heard about the minimum wage, we heard about the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, we heard about everything but this bill.
This bill protects a legitimate plaintiff. It does not do an awful lot
for the plaintiff's lawyers, but they do pretty good anyway. I hate to
say they are a special interest, but I do not think being a special
interest is the worst thing in the world. So are teachers; so are
Congressmen, for that matter.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if Members want to maintain the status
quo, then stay with the President. But if they agree with Senators
Rockefeller and Lieberman and other Democrats, as well as ourselves,
then vote to override.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Presidential veto of H.R. 956, and I do so for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, is the fact that it is far from the commonsense
reform that it has been advertised to be. While this legislation is
bolstered by a good deal for Gingrich-Armey Republican rhetoric, it is
supported by little empirical need.
This bill as passed by the radical Republicans, goes against States'
rights, it imposes arbitrary ceilings on punitive damages, eliminates
joint liability for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering
which prevents many persons from receiving full compensation when
injured, and it unjustly discriminates against the most vulnerable
members of our society--the elderly, the poor, the young, and women.
Liability costs to American industries represent less than 1 percent
of their total operating costs and the fact remains that all companies,
both foreign and domestic, are subject to the same laws in each State
as well as abroad. What the current product liability system has done
is increased American innovation and our reputation for safe and
reliable products--something in which we can take pride and must
continue.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 956, as passed, represented an absolute Federal
power grab in an area that has historically been the province of the
States. As a popular phrase in my city of Chicago states, ``Stick
around and the weather is bound to change,'' and it seems a similar
phrase could be used to refer to the manner in which my friends on the
other side of the aisle continue to legislate with respect to State's
rights.
Once again, the Gingrich-Armey Republicans have shoved down the
throats of the American public a big business special aid bill, and we
are thankful for a courageous President who isn't afraid to stand up
for the people as he did when he vetoed this bill.
People who have been wronged by negligence and failure of big
business to address issues of safety and sanity deserve to be able to
seek and get remedies that include monetary damages. This bill would
only undermine the ability of courts to provide relief to victims of
harmful products, and thereby take away incentives to protect the
health and safety of the public.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote to sustain the
President's veto of H.R. 956.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, May 6, 1996, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill,
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
Under the Constitution this vote must be determined by the yeas and
nays.
[[Page H4764]]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 258,
nays 163, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 162]
YEAS--258
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Payne (VA)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--163
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
King
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--13
Becerra
Bevill
Dickey
Engel
Klink
Laughlin
Molinari
Paxon
Roberts
Schroeder
Tanner
Torricelli
Weldon (PA)
{time} 2011
Mr. EDWARDS and Mr. HEFNER changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So, two-thirds not have voted in favor thereof, the veto of the
President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Knollenberg). The bill and the message
will be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.
____________________