[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 463-475]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       WORKPLACE GOODS JOB GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 412 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2005.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Quinn) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1049


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2005) to establish a statute of repose for durable goods used in 
a trade or business, with Mr. Quinn, Chairman pro tempore, in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would first like to thank the bipartisan cosponsors of this bill, 
the gentlewoman (Ms. Kaptur), a Democrat; the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Shimkus), a Republican; and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), another Democrat, for their strong support of this bill.
  Our bill, the Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 
1999 is a straightforward, commonsense product liability reform measure 
that limits frivolous lawsuits while ensuring that no injured party 
ever goes uncompensated. This modest proposal is critically needed to 
encourage economic growth, maintain the competitiveness of American 
durable good manufacturers and keep U.S. manufacturing jobs from moving 
overseas.
  I hope that today we can engage in an honest and principled debate 
over this very important issue. However, I should warn my colleagues 
that opponents of this bill may, and I want to emphasize may, try to 
cloud the debate with anecdotes that do not hold up under closer 
scrutiny.
  In the Committee on the Judiciary, for example, we heard opponents 
allude to various cases to make their points, but they did not tell us 
all the facts. In one case, they did not tell us that as the technology 
improved, the company developed a new safety device and began to 
retrofit their products. They did not tell us that the company sent out 
13 notices to past purchasers to inform them of the new safety 
technology. They did not tell us that the printing press in question 
was 20 years old or had been resold five times and that the current 
owner, a leasing company, did not make the safety repairs. They did not 
tell us that the company leasing the machine deliberately altered the 
press and removed other safety guards. And they certainly did not 
mention that the employee who was injured was injured when he 
deliberately and inexplicably reached into the moving printing press.
  So I ask that Members consider this bill on its merits and not be 
swayed by unreliable stories from those who continue to support 
frivolous lawsuits, lawsuits that are devastating to small business 
owners, devastating to their employees, and ultimately very expensive 
to consumers and to taxpayers.
  Our bipartisan bill would help remedy this problem by recognizing 
that after a reasonable length of time, 18 years, manufacturers should 
not bear the burden of capricious litigation over products that have 
functioned safely for many, many years. It is essentially a statute of 
limitations past which a company cannot be sued for an injury caused by 
an overage product.
  However, unlike a statute of limitations, a statute of repose 
measures the time available to file a claim for personal or property 
injuries from the date of the initial sale of the capital equipment. 
This limitation would not apply in any case where the injured party is 
not eligible to receive workers' compensation, ensuring that all 
employees retain the ability to seek compensation. I want to emphasize 
that, that if workers' comp does not cover the employee, this statute 
has absolutely no effect at all, so we are not jeopardizing anybody's 
right to recover here.
  This is a reasonable proposal, based in part on the General Aviation 
Revitalization Act of 1994 which created a similar 18-year statute of 
repose for the general aviation industry. The General

[[Page 464]]

Aviation Revitalization Act overwhelmingly passed Congress and was 
signed by the President. It is now the law of the land. It is also 
important to note that 19 States have already enacted some form of a 
statute of repose, all of them shorter than 18 years. Our bill will 
create a uniform standard that will discourage forum shopping by 
creative trial lawyers.
  Mr. Chairman, even though manufacturers of durable goods are targeted 
as deep pockets, the vast majority of these product liability cases 
never actually go to trial or are won by the defendant manufacturers. 
However, these suits result in extremely high costs for small 
businesses and for their employees, with most of the money going to 
trial lawyers and expenses, not to the injured plaintiffs.
  These suits involve decades-old equipment, once considered state of 
the art, which has been modified without the original manufacturer's 
knowledge or products that are not even being used for their intended 
purchase oftentimes. Obviously, lawsuits related to these overage 
products, some of which have been out of control of the original 
manufacturer for 20, 50 or even 100 years, can be endless. They are 
unfair.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in our 
efforts to help small businesses and workers and consumers and 
taxpayers by supporting the Workplace Goods Job Growth and 
Competitiveness Act which is a commonsense reform measure that ensures 
compensation for all employees while seeking to end frivolous lawsuits.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to observe that the danger of the 
legislation before us is that it would cut off the right of workers to 
hold wrongdoers accountable when they are injured by a defective 
product that is more than 18 years old, regardless of how long the 
product was built to last and regardless of whether or not the 
potential plaintiff has suffered an injury yet.
  So while this bill is a dangerous piece of tort reform, the most 
egregious aspect of this measure is that it singles out American 
workers injured or killed on the job and prevents them from recovering 
damages from manufacturers of the defective workplace machinery. How 
can we start off the 21st century in the United States of America under 
such prosperous circumstances by the first thing we handle out of the 
Committee on the Judiciary in the year 2000 is a measure to further 
limit the right of recovery of workers injured by defective products 
that may be more than 18 years old?
  I suggest this is a return to the middle ages. We are turning the 
clock back rather than moving into the new century. The measure that we 
are discussing today is inherently unfair to American workers, because 
under this measure they would only have access to their State workers' 
compensation system which typically only allows for lost wages and 
medical expenses. But if an innocent bystander, who happens to be 
nearby and is injured by the same piece of machinery under the same 
circumstance as the worker, the bystander can sue for lost damages for 
medical expenses, for future lost wages and for pain and suffering, 
loss of limb and permanent disfigurement.
  What we are creating is a measure that the bystander can receive full 
compensation while the worker's recovery can be drastically limited. 
Are we seriously about to do that here today in the House of 
Representatives? This is why the working families are currently 
permitted under State law to sue the responsible third party, the 
manufacturer, and under the measure before us this bill cuts off that 
right.
  And so the bill is unfair to workers, but it is also unfair to 
employers. Here we get both the employees and the employers. The 
employers will suffer how? First, they will not be able to recover for 
any property damage they suffer when older equipment fails and damages 
the workplace.
  Secondly, the employers would no longer be able to recover the funds 
paid to an injured employee through workers' compensation. Currently, 
employers can recover these workers' compensation payments for many 
damages awarded employees in court.

                              {time}  1100

  Now, the bill also raises concerns that deal with the issue of 
Federalism. This measure may run afoul of the commerce clause limiting 
congressional authority to the regulation of interstate commerce and 
the 10th Amendment, which reserves all of the enumerated powers to the 
States.
  So here we have before us a measure, the first out of the Committee 
on the Judiciary in the year 2000, a measure that takes away the rights 
of working families, the rights of their employers, and the rights of 
States all at once. Is there any surprise that the labor movement in 
the United States opposes the measure? The AFL-CIO, the United Auto 
Workers, the Communication Workers, the Machinists, the Teamsters all 
oppose this measure, and it is very significant that the White House 
has issued an advisory that suggests that the President will veto this 
measure.
  Now, the measure before us is not about growth or competitiveness; it 
is about limiting in a mean-spirited way the rights of American workers 
and their employers in a very important area. So I hope that as the 
Members of the House listen to this debate, that they will join with 
those of us who have vowed to oppose it and to vote against it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a senior member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 2005 because it establishes a 
partial statute of repose. I say ``partial'' because it only applies to 
suits brought by employees. Supposedly they are covered by Worker's 
Compensation, but Worker's Compensation only covers 40 percent. Anyone 
else injured, killed or maimed by defective products can get full 
recovery. This partial statute of repose only applies to employees; and 
is, therefore, a mean-spirited application, just hurting the employees 
and nobody else.
  Now, the statute of repose is generally a bad idea because it gives a 
disincentive to manufacturers to make sure that their products are 
safe, and when they find out those products are not safe, they have a 
disincentive in repairing them. If you are late in this time period, 
say 17 years, you are better off just running out the clock, just 
letting the time run, because you know that you will not have the 
responsibility after 18 years. If you try to fix it, then you find the 
situation where the 18-year clock starts all over again, and therefore 
there is a disincentive to come and fix dangerous materials and let 
people know and recall the goods so that the workers will be protected.
  But this is just another mean-spirited attempt to deny opportunities 
for workers, and applies the statute of repose so that those employees 
who are killed or maimed will not be able to get full recovery.
  It is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I would hope that we would 
defeat this bill, and let the law stand as it is.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who has worked on labor issues and is the former 
mayor of the largest city in Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of workers and in defense of injured 
workers. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2005. With its title it 
implies job growth or encouragement of competitiveness. The bill 
instead deprives Americans of their rights when they are at work.
  H.R. 2005 is a radical change from current law. It turns all American 
workers into second-class citizens. Under this bill, if you are working 
when you are injured by a defective piece of equipment, you can no 
longer seek compensation for your pain and suffering, loss of limb or 
loss of life.
  This bill actually bars injured workers from being fully compensated 
for

[[Page 465]]

injuries caused by a manufacturer's defective product after an 18-year 
period.
  H.R. 2005 takes away rights of workers when they are on the job. It 
discriminates against workers and their families by depriving them of 
the right to remedies granted to all other citizens under State law. 
This bill could be called the ``Workers' Right to a Safe Workplace 
Repeal Act.''
  Everyone here knows, or ought to know, that intrusion into the 
availability of State tort remedies is grossly inappropriate absent 
compelling evidence that the manufacturers need this bill's special 
protections. This bill fails to demonstrate legally why manufacturers 
should receive privileges outweighing current law that entitles workers 
to be fully compensated for their injuries.
  This bill also fails morally in attempting to deprive injured workers 
of just recourse due to faulty equipment. If after 18 years a 
manufacturer is still making money from the use of old equipment, then 
the manufacturer should be held liable for injuries to workers using 
the equipment. If a manufacturer gets a benefit, they should also pay 
when workers are hurt.
  The bill's sponsors have failed to identify a liability crisis or 
widespread pattern of abuse of costs associated with defending product 
liability cases. In fact, according to their own 1998 product liability 
survey, only six product liability cases went to trial, and in only one 
case did the jury find for the plaintiff.
  U.S. manufacturers do not need H.R. 2005 to be competitive. What they 
do need is enforcement of our trade laws that prevent dumping, 
something that I have been on this floor on their behalf for, and they 
need laws that ban the import of products made by child and prison 
labor, something I also support.
  In conclusion, there is virtually no reason to believe that H.R. 2005 
will benefit manufacturers to the extent that would be worth depriving 
American workers of their rights and of their ability to be fully 
compensated under existing State laws.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2005.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, there is one point that I think needs to be made, and 
it can be made very briefly, and that is when you deny the employee the 
right to recover, if the Worker's Compensation had been paid by the 
employer and there is a recovery from the manufacturer of the dangerous 
product, the employer gets his Worker's Compensation back. So we are 
shifting the burden of the loss from the employee, who would get full 
recovery, and the employer, who would get his Worker's Compensation 
back, and the entire benefit of this goes to the manufacturer of the 
dangerous product, who could have in fact known of the danger, but 
because of this legislation did not bother to tell anybody that there 
was a fix that was needed.
  This not only hurts the employee, but it also hurts the employer, and 
the bill should be defeated.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, although today the sun is shiny and bright outside, it 
is a rainy, dreary day for American workers. We have left workers out 
to dry while the umbrellas of safety and seller-manufacturer 
responsibility have been folded. American workers, whose productivity 
make for the great part of our economic growth, deserve better.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to H.R. 2005 for many reasons. First, it 
does not adequately protect injured workers. Second, it provides more 
protection for machines than people. Third, this bill hurts small 
businesses, as well as employees.
  Mr. Chairman, the heart of this debate is not about frivolous 
lawsuits. We all stand opposed to frivolous lawsuits. I personally 
stood opposed to frivolous lawsuits as an attorney, judge, and county 
prosecutor. Really, as I stand here on the floor in Congress, I want to 
stand up on behalf of trial lawyers, because trial lawyers are the 
people who work on behalf of the injured and the sick and the lame. We 
all recognize and realize that frivolous lawsuits are extremely costly 
and burdens our legal and judicial system. H.R. 2005 is not about 
frivolous lawsuits; it is about responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2005 is misguided and misplaced. We have State 
laws that work. Sellers and manufacturers have a duty to ensure 
equipment or defective products under their care are safe. This duty is 
not an extreme one. It is the part of the trade-off between workers and 
producers.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit that H.R. 2005 is truly about manufacturers 
and sellers not taking responsibility. Basically, manufacturers and 
sellers are abdicating their responsibility for their equipment under 
this rule.
  Mr. Chairman, is it not ironic that in these same hallowed chambers 
we often speak of civic responsibility, family responsibility, and 
financial responsibility; but yet today we stand muted to the basic 
responsibility owed to the workers of America.
  This bill will allow some manufacturers to escape responsibility for 
allowing dangerously defective products in the workplace. We cannot 
stand idly by and allow injured workers and their families to suffer 
this fate.
  Workers' rights are cut off if they are injured by a defective 
product that is more than 18 years old, regardless of how long the 
product was built to last, its useful life. Working people are singled 
out. They stand to lose rights while their employers gain rights 
dealing with the same defective product.
  H.R. 2005 is also devastating to small business. As a member of the 
Committee on Small Business, we must realize that this bill eliminates 
the rights of business owners. This legislation extinguishes a business 
owner's right to hold the manufacturer of a defective workplace product 
responsible for the property losses the products caused or the 
business's Worker's Compensation deductible.
  Damage to property arising out of the accident is cut off. Who then 
will pay to renovate or refurbish property?
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, just imagine the countless factory workers 
and American citizens who use industrial machinery and construction 
tools injured at work or at home from defective products which may be 
18 years old or older. I represent the 11th Congressional District of 
Ohio, a district filled with both manufacturers and workers. We cannot 
turn a deaf ear on workers who keep this Nation strong.
  I want it said that I am not anti-manufacturer; but I also believe, 
as my parents often told me, it is better to be safe than sorry. Let us 
be safe for American workers.
  In closing, our society, traditionally the number 18 symbolized a 
greater degree of freedom. At 18, many young people receive their 
driver's license; at 18, young people register to vote; at 18, young 
persons receive a greater degree of freedom in and around their homes.
  However, H.R. 2005 takes the number 18 and snatches freedom, limits 
rights of injured workers and does not even allow employers to recover 
for property damage by older equipment.
  Mr. Chairman, I remember 18, and it was a time of bad decision making 
and risk taking. H.R. 2005, with this statute of repose of 18 years, is 
a bad decision. It is bad for workers, it is bad for America. I 
wholeheartedly oppose H.R. 2005.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) 
for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the proposition that we ought to 
be defining a statute of repose and ought to bring about an enactment 
of an end to litigation wherever we can, always keeping in mind the 
rights of the pursuant of rights, the litigants, the plaintiffs, et 
cetera.

[[Page 466]]

  The statute of limitations and the statute of repose have come down 
to us here in our time from well-developed and historic beginnings both 
in England and later in American law. It says in pure language there 
comes a time when no longer is it feasible, nor does it do a societal 
good, to allow litigation to occur.
  The statute of limitations is one where we know that after 2 years or 
4 years or 6 years, whatever the particular issue might require, there 
comes an end to the litigation. Yet we still hear people saying, well, 
why can we not open it to somebody who was injured after 2 years or had 
a contract dispute after 6 years? Why can we not open it?
  The courts have time and time again said, the end of litigation is 
just as important to our society as is the beginning of legislation and 
litigation. So just as it is a right for everyone to sue and to gain 
benefits, there is a concomitant right in people to resist that right 
when it becomes too ancient in time, too removed from the evidence that 
prompted the suit, to allow a societal good to emerge.
  So that is why the statute of limitations and the statute of repose 
are a part of the body of law. There has to come a time for the good of 
the entire civilized world of law for an end to litigation in a 
particular field.
  For that reason, I support the effort of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot) to bring about this sensible legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2005, the Workplace 
Goods, Jobs Growth, and Competitiveness Act. This legislation would 
create a national statute of repose for 18 years, providing American 
manufacturers with much needed protection.
  This legislation is simple, and I commend my colleague from Ohio for 
his common-sense approach to this problem.
  Although older machines may appear old, obsolete and inefficient when 
compared to modern manufacturing processes, they often represented 
state-of-the-art technology at the time they were sold. For example, I 
ask my colleagues, particularly those who question the wisdom of this 
legislation, to take a walk through the Smithsonian's Museum of 
American History, and look at the older manufacturing machines. 
Although many of the machines in the exhibit look like they belong in a 
museum, rather than still in use, they may have been considered modern 
miracles when compared to the technology of the time--and those are, in 
many cases, precisely the machines that we are talking about in this 
legislation. We are not talking about state-of-the-art, modern miracles 
of science and technology, but machines that may have been developed 
and manufactured in the 1940's, 50's and 60's, or even prior to that. 
These machines have operated for years without any problems, and yet 
opponents of this legislation would propose that they be held to 
today's manufacturing standards. This is unrealistic and expensive and 
blatantly unfair.
  This legislation would give the manufacturers of those older machines 
protection from product liability suits based on the theory that there 
was a defect in the machine. If a machine has worked flawlessly for 
over 18 years, it should be presumed that the machine is safe and free 
of defects, and therefore the manufacturer should be shielded from 
product liability claims.
  I would also like to take a moment to speak in opposition to an 
amendment that may be offered later today by my colleague from 
Nebraska, Mr. Terry.
  Mr. Terry's amendment unfortunately would substantially weaken the 
underlying legislation. What this legislation seeks to accomplish--
i.e., protect manufacturers from suits over older machines, would be 
stripped by this amendment. If enacted, this amendment would require 
defendants to litigate not only what the definition of ``state of the 
art'' for any particular product is, but would result in extensive 
discovery over what was and is the state of the art, increasing legal 
fees, costs, and time wasted in defending this type of suit. Thus, 
rather than protecting small businesses from frivolous suits, this 
amendment would expand the number of these types of suits.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this fair, 
common-sense reform to help ensure America's competitiveness, here and 
abroad.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been very touched by the notion of my friend, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), that we need the time to 
cut off litigation is very important. But should we cut off the 
litigation of an injured employee who is the victim of a defective 
product that was supposed to last far longer than 18 years, because 
today we have a bill on the floor that says 18 years will be the limit 
and after that one is on their own?
  I say no. I say that we do not cut off the right of a person to sue 
under those circumstances. In many other cases, I would be inclined to 
agree with my colleague from the Committee on the Judiciary about the 
time that we need to cut off and limit litigation, but not here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of H.R. 
2005. Regardless of what we are being told today, this legislation will 
not help people back in Oregon or anywhere else in the United States 
find safer or better paying jobs. We have worker safety laws to ensure 
that people are not exposed to dangerous machinery at their place of 
employment; and, frankly, whether this equipment was bought last week 
or during World War II it should be up to our State government, not 
Congress, to decide what is best for their citizens and to regulate the 
statute of limitations as they pertain to industrial machinery.
  Mr. Chairman, in Oregon we already have workplace product liability 
laws and statutes of repose for durable goods in the workplace and they 
have done a terrific job in protecting the millions of people in my 
State that work with their hands for a living.
  So with that in mind, I will oppose this legislation and urge my 
colleagues to join me in saying that it is okay for our State 
governments to run their own affairs, not Congress telling them what to 
do.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) 
not just for yielding to me but for his leadership on this important 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2005 is designed to free manufacturers from 
unnecessary legal costs and litigation costs and to enhance America's 
manufacturing competitiveness around the world. This bill will 
accomplish these goals by limiting product liability suits against 
durable good manufacturers after 18 years.
  Faced with the threat of potential lawsuits, many innocent 
manufacturers settle these suits rather than face the expense and 
uncertainty associated with protracted litigation that could be decades 
old. The cost to our society in the forms of higher prices on products, 
the flight of American manufacturers abroad and higher insurance rates, 
are already too high to American workers. No longer should lawyers and 
their clients be able to make a quick buck on the back of hard working 
people.
  This bill also will help promote competitiveness in the American 
manufacturing market, creating more jobs for skilled American workers. 
Currently, American durable good manufacturers are liable indefinitely 
for products they sell to the public. Japanese and European durable 
good manufacturers operate under a 10-year statute of repose in their 
home markets. This shorter period of exposure to litigation decreases 
their operating costs.
  Finally, this bill will protect the safety of American workers, and 
the public, should injuries occur as a result of defective products. 
This bill only will apply if a claimant receives worker's compensation. 
If a claimant is not covered by worker's compensation, he can sue the 
manufacturer of a durable good under existing law. This bill ensures 
that claimants will absolutely be able to recover for their lost income 
and medical costs.
  This is a good bill for American workers. It is a good bill for our 
economy. It is a good bill for our national competitiveness, and I want 
to thank my colleague again for his leadership on this measure.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).

[[Page 467]]


  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, what better way to begin this Congress in 
the new millennium, when we have a leadership here in the House that is 
engaged in a perpetual debate, should the Congress do nothing or should 
the Congress do just a little?
  With plans for doing so little, perhaps absolutely nothing for the 
typical American working family, it should come as no surprise that one 
of the first pieces of legislation, indeed the first piece of major 
legislation, that this House would take up in the new millennium is one 
that says the House is not going to do anything for working people; and 
we want to be sure that another branch of government cannot do anything 
for working people either.
  We want to say to the judge and jury across America that has the 
audacity to suggest that just because a product is old a manufacturer 
ought to be responsible for the harm done by a defect in that product, 
no, let us throw that out and let us substitute the views of a do-
nothing House to totally insulate from any accountability, any sense of 
personal responsibility, that manufacturer for the damage that is done.
  They say that 18 years is the cutoff. I do not know why it should be 
18 years and why they do not lower it to 6. We have had Republicans in 
charge of this House for 6 years. That seems interminable to some of 
us, and though it is soon going to come to an end they have pulled 18 
out of the air.
  Currently, a judge and a jury can consider as a part of determining 
whether a product is defective how old the product is. They apply the 
standard of knowledge that was available when the product was 
manufactured.
  Who are some of the people that are going to be impacted by the 
decision today? They are going to be the delivery person who just 
happens to be walking through the manufacturing setting at the time the 
product blows up, no right of recovery under this bill. They are going 
to be the repair person who happens to be there repairing another piece 
of equipment and when a fire begins as a result of a defective product, 
no right of recovery.
  It is wrong and this legislation should be rejected.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot) for his leadership on this very important, commonsense 
issue that is currently before the House today.
  Despite the immediate preceding remarks by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett), in an effort to throw out all of the little partisan 
slogans that their polsters and focus groups tell them to use, this is 
not a partisan issue. It is not even a political issue in any sense of 
the word. It is a commonsense issue that simply brings some rationality 
and uniformity to a problem that is facing our courts all across this 
land and facing manufacturers and workers all across this land.
  It is a very limited, very focused, very directed piece of 
legislation that has been very carefully crafted and very thoroughly 
thought out by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and others on the 
Committee on the Judiciary in particular who have looked at it.
  Let us first start, Mr. Chairman, with what this legislation does not 
do. It does not take rights away from anybody. It does not apply to all 
goods. It does not void express warranties. It does not take the 
ability of a worker who is truly injured without recourse away. It is 
not inconsistent with existing policies in some States. It simply, 
though, brings uniformity within the realm of Federal jurisdiction to 
all the States.
  Nobody is pulling anything out of thin air, as the former speaker, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), indicated. The years that are 
contained in this piece of legislation, 18 years, is well established. 
It has precedent, and it actually extends further than the years that 
are provided for in some nearly 20 States, I believe, Mr. Chairman, who 
already have statutes of repose similar to this.
  So in many respects, it is providing additional relief, a longer 
period, within which an action can be brought than is established under 
the laws of all of the different States that have addressed this.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, this is a national problem. 
This is a problem that currently gives rise to very lengthy, very 
costly, very unfair litigation, without anything approaching uniformity 
across the land for products such as these that move in interstate 
commerce, for example.
  In our district, in Georgia, Mr. Chairman, as probably in almost 
every district across the country, we have manufacturing plants; and I, 
as I am sure most if not all Members have done, have toured those 
manufacturing plants to shake hands with the workers, to meet with 
management, to simply tour the physical plant and get a better feel for 
the products produced and the men and women who are producing those 
products in their home districts.
  Much of the equipment in some of those plants that I have visited is 
very old. One can tell. These are magnificent pieces of machinery, but 
in many instances they are very old pieces of machinery. In many 
instances, one can tell, even through the untrained eye, that these 
pieces of manufacturing equipment, these durable goods, have been 
modified extensively over the years. They have to be. In the course of 
normal business, when a machine breaks down, one fixes it, one modifies 
it.
  To say that a piece of equipment that might have been in this 
particular plant or any number of plants but has simply fortuitously 
wound up in one particular plant that might have been manufactured a 
hundred years ago or 75 or 80 years ago, and has been modified many, 
many times since then, clearly and obviously unbeknownst to the 
manufacturer of that product, to now say that in all instances the 
manufacturer of that product is liable for all subsequent injuries, 
without any limitation whatsoever, notwithstanding the fact that they 
may have no control and almost always have no control over 
modifications to the machinery, is absolutely unfair.

                              {time}  1130

  This legislation says nothing to limit the liability of any person or 
company that may modify that piece of equipment, and through that 
modification or through that misuse of the equipment, cause injury and 
be liable for it.
  So I think the starting point, Mr. Chairman, for the debate and my 
urging our colleagues to vote for this piece of legislation is to 
recognize, as I have said and as the proponent has said, what it does 
not do, and to focus, instead, on the fundamental fairness, not only to 
American workers and American businesses of this piece of legislation, 
but also the rationality that it brings to our court system, and that 
it is not at all inconsistent with existing laws and existing 
procedures and public policy.
  So I commend the gentleman from Ohio for thinking through this 
legislation, for working on it so diligently, and for those Members who 
have spoken out for it here today and in committee.
  I urge our colleagues to pass this very, very limited, targeted, 
commonsense, fair piece of legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a former member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat eerie that just two days after the 
Alaska Airlines disaster, where an MD-80 jetliner crashed and killed 
some 88 passengers, we are now talking about absolving companies that 
manufacture defective products of their liability for those products.
  California, January, 1995, Reginald Gonzalez, 47 years of age, was 
operating a printing press designed and manufactured in 1973, 22 years 
earlier, by Heidelberg, Incorporated, when his hand became caught in 
the rollers, resulting in the traumatic amputation of his arm at the 
shoulder.
  Testimony during the trial revealed that the company that 
manufactured

[[Page 468]]

the product had added safeguards to the printing press model in 1974 
after it had been manufactured initially, and again in 1980, yet never 
took steps to notify the prior owners of the machine's dangerous 
defect.
  It was also learned in 1995 that at least eight other pressmen had 
their arms amputated or crushed while operating those pre-1974 presses. 
A jury found in favor of Mr. Gonzalez in the amount of $4 million for 
the loss of his ability to work.
  North Dakota, 1983, Todd Hefta was crushed to death while working for 
the city of Williston. Hefta was standing behind a 12-ton earth packer 
machine when another worker started the packer in gear. The packer, 
which was manufactured in 1963, 20 years earlier, by Ingraham Company, 
suddenly lunged backward at a rapid rate of speed, crushing Mr. Hefta.
  In both of those cases, if this bill were law, none of those 
individuals would get any compensation whatsoever. They would be having 
to rely, if they happened to have survived, on workers compensation. In 
the case of Mr. Hefta, who passed away, he is out of luck.
  If we pass this legislation today and if it were signed by the 
President today, any product manufactured prior to February 2, 1982, 
would now be absolved of any type of liability. That means any earth-
moving machine, any assembly line machine that happens to cause damage 
to the workplace and certainly injury or death to the worker would be 
allowed to go forward without any type of liability. We cannot do that. 
Let us not pass this legislation. Vote against H.R. 2005.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California referred to the Gonzalez 
case. That particular case is an example of why H.R. 2005 should be 
enacted. The Gonzalez case involved a manufacturer that designed, 
built, and marketed the printing press in question in 1973 to the 
prevailing standards of the time. The next year it retrofit subsequent 
printing presses with a guard over the area that Mr. Gonzalez was 
injured by, to comply with revisions in German safety standards that 
required all running nib points to be guarded.
  Contrary to assertions that were made, there had been no reported 
injuries on the pre-1974 model when the new barrier guard was added, 
and several years later injuries were reported on these models, and 
Heidelberg began sending out a series of retrofit notices, 13 in total, 
between 1986 and 1993.
  The printing press in question had been resold five separate times, 
and it was only by chance that the current owner, which was a leasing 
company, received the notice because they had purchased a similar press 
from the manufacturer in the 1970s.
  The leasing company failed to initiate the repairs and did not 
forward the warnings to its lessee, Mr. Gonzalez's employer. Next, Mr. 
Gonzalez's employer deliberately altered the press and removed or 
bypassed other factory-installed guards. Mr. Gonzalez, the injured 
claimant in that particular case who had worked as a pressman operator 
for 26 years, informed his employer before the accident that the press 
guards were missing from the machine. The company never bothered to 
order or replace the missing equipment.
  Finally, Mr. Gonzalez, contrary to his extensive experience in 
manufacture, warnings, and job training, deliberately reached into the 
running printing press that was rotating at speeds between 8,000 and 
10,000 times per hour to remove a spot of debris.
  After the accident, OSHA issued numerous citations and fines against 
Mr. Gonzalez's employer, including failure to have an injury prevention 
program in place. Heidelberg, after having no control over the printing 
press for over 20 years, after having sent out 13 retrofit notices, and 
because a negligent employer was protected from liability by the 
workers compensation system, ended up paying out $2.5 million to an 
injured worker who engaged in risky and unsafe work practices.
  This is precisely why a statute is needed.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Do I understand, without getting into all the factual context of that 
particular case, that if you have a situation where the manufacturer 
knows without a doubt that there is a defect, a hidden danger in their 
product, and they have an inexpensive way to fix and prevent that 
defect, and they receive reports that dozens of other workers have been 
maimed or killed as a result of that defect, and the manufacturer 
simply sits on their hands and does absolutely nothing, that as long as 
the product is 18 years old, under those conditions it will totally 
absolve the manufacturer from its responsibility?
  Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, that is not the point of the bill at 
all.
  Mr. DOGGETT. That is the effect, is it not?
  Mr. CHABOT. Under workers compensation, that is the only time under 
which this particular bill would have any effect at all. The employee 
is covered under workers compensation. That is the only time a statute 
of repose would have any effect at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Let me first say to my good friend, the gentleman from Hamilton 
County, how proud I am of the work he has done in leading this effort 
from the Committee on the Judiciary.
  As one who has been a member of the Committee on Commerce for a 
number of years, and have had many issues with the Committee on the 
Judiciary, I want to congratulate him on this effort.
  I think it is important to point out that this is a very limited 
effort that the gentleman from Ohio is putting forth. It is limited to 
capital goods in the workplace. It does not really affect planes and 
automobiles for hire that would not be covered by the act.
  No injured party will go uncompensated, because if he is not covered 
by some form of workers compensation in that particular State, then the 
action will be exempted from coverage by the statute.
  This is also important from the standpoint of the commerce clause. As 
I stand here as a member of the Committee on Commerce, it is important 
to point out that clearly Congress does have the authority to step in 
and legislate in this area because of the need to do this. The need 
arises from forum shopping, in which very clever lawyers file suits in 
States where they can get the best deal. This would certainly eliminate 
that possibility.
  A national statute of repose will also help improve our 
competitiveness here in the United States. While a typical U.S. company 
in many cases has liability exposure for machines, machine tools up to 
100 years, our foreign competitors in many cases have only that 
exposure for 20 years, and the competitors in many cases in Europe and 
in Asia have a 10-year statute of repose in their home markets.
  I also want to point out that not only is this a competitiveness 
issue for American manufacturers, but it is indeed a commerce issue, as 
well. This American manufacturing machinery industry, which has had a 
huge presence in our home State of Ohio, is the very foundation of our 
industrial economy. They make the tools that make the tools. That is 
why it is so important to our economy.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this legislation is similar to the General 
Aviation Revitalization Act, which passed this Congress and was signed 
by the President. As a result of that kind of reasonable legislation, 
over 25,000 new jobs have been created in the general aviation 
industry, so we have an indication of how successful that legislation 
can be.
  Once again, the gentleman from Ohio has done the American economy a 
service by sponsoring this legislation. I would ask all of my 
colleagues to support this bill.

[[Page 469]]


  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this malicious bill threatens workers' 
safety and strips injured workers of their rights.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) did not want to answer the 
question, but if a manufacturer under this bill knew his product was 
unsafe, knew it was killing workers, knew it was injuring workers, and 
sat on his hands and did not fix it, did not do anything, he cannot be 
sued by the workers as long as the piece was over 18 years old.
  If in fact a durable good malfunctions and workers were injured, they 
would not have the right to sue the manufacturer for their injury, no 
matter how negligent it was, but the business owner would still have 
his full rights to recover for business interruptions due to the 
defective machinery. So the business owner gets to recover damages and 
the workers do not. This bill is effectively saying that profits are 
more important than physical injuries.
  Why the inconsistency? Either the manufacturer should be held 
responsible for his product or he should not. If the manufacturer 
cannot be held responsible for workers' injuries after 18 years, why 
should he still be responsible for the business owner's economic loss 
after 18 years? And conversely, if he is still responsible for the 
business owner's economic losses, why not for the injuries to the 
worker?
  This bill, Mr. Chairman, simply shows contempt for the workers of the 
country. It is an outrage. It should be defeated. I challenge the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) or anybody else on the other side to 
answer the question, not to say it is not the point of the bill, but is 
it not the effect of the bill that even if the manufacturer, after 18 
years, knows his product is killing people or injuring people, knows 
how to fix it, knows he should warn people, and does not, he cannot be 
sued for physical injury; he can be sued for business damages, but he 
cannot be sued for physical injury?
  Why should he not be subject to suit for physical injury in that 
case? Why is the business owner's economic damages more important than 
the worker's physical injuries, more important than loss of a limb or 
loss of fertility or life or permanent disfigurement? In what contempt 
do we hold the workers of the country? How contemptuous of the workers' 
safety is this bill?
  I challenge the gentleman from Ohio to answer these questions.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, despite some of the inflammatory language that we have 
heard this morning, I would argue that this is a very commonsense, a 
very modest approach to tort reform. There are absolutely no workers 
who will not be covered under this particular piece of legislation. It 
is a fairly narrow bill. It does not affect all products. We are 
essentially talking about durable goods, capital goods. These are 
machines that are found in machine shops in factories all over this 
country.
  A very good example of how a bill similar to this worked extremely 
well in this country is the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 
1994. We had an industry, the small aircraft industry in this country, 
that was going down the tubes. After this legislation was passed, we 
have seen it increase substantially. We have seen this industry 
substantially increase in how it has worked in this country. We have 
seen twice the number of workers. Now we have 25,000 additional workers 
in that field. The industry, as the gentleman who spoke earlier today 
has said, has been revitalized in a number of areas around the country.
  The United States also is at a competitive disadvantage to many of 
our other trading partners. For example, the Europeans and the Japanese 
do not have an 18-year statute of repose, they have a 10-year statute 
of repose.

                              {time}  1145

  A number of States have looked at this, and they have even shorter 
periods of statute of repose from 6 to 15 years. I think we have been 
very generous in making it an 18-year statute of repose. I think that 
is very reasonable. Under the circumstances, it avoids forum shopping. 
It avoids very high costs of litigation.
  The bottom line is, in these types of cases a very significant amount 
of the money that is won or settled, because most of these cases end up 
getting settled and not actually going to contract it, ends up in the 
lawyers' pockets. It does not go to the plaintiffs. It does not go to 
the claimants. It goes to the lawyers. And that is why they have been 
particularly vociferous.
  But that is one of the reasons we are seeing such a spirited debate 
from some folks on the other side of the aisle. But the bottom line is, 
this is good legislation for this country.
  I would urge its passage. I would yield to either one of the 
gentlemen.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, there are two questions, sir: One, the 
question of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), is it not true that 
the effect, if not the intent, and the point of the bill that even if a 
company, manufacturer, knows its goods are injuring or killing people 
and it sits on that knowledge, does not tell anybody, does not fix it, 
it would under this bill not be liable for anything?
  Mr. CHABOT. On that point, reclaiming my time, the gentleman must 
have a very low evaluation of what most of the business owners and 
people in this country have in this country.
  Mr. NADLER. Yes or no?
  Mr. CHABOT. I think it is fairly ludicrous that people would sit on 
that type of thing. I do not acknowledge that is what the effect of 
this would be. And the bottom line is, all workers are going to be 
covered under Worker's Compensation or this law has no effect at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining and may yield time now.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill bars workers who are eligible for Worker's 
Compensation from suing a manufacturer or seller of equipment, such as 
printing presses and machine tools, if more than 18 years has elapsed 
since the product was manufactured.
  The Republican leadership is bringing forth this bill to the floor 
under the guise of reasonably limiting litigation and helping 
manufacturers. Sure, it protects manufacturers. It protects negligent 
manufacturers. It protects reckless manufacturers. It protects these 
negligent and reckless manufacturers at the expense of our Nation's 
workers and employers.
  This bill will limit the employees to Worker's Compensation. That is 
two-thirds of their pay at best, no matter how severe the injuries are. 
Worker's Compensation does not make a person whole. It provides medical 
costs and very limited disability payments to cover some period, not 
their whole life, just some period of lost wages, no matter how severe 
the injury; no matter if someone loses a limb or the ability to work 
again.
  H.R. 2005 promotes inequality and injustice to one of our country's 
most important groups, the workers who toil in the manufacturing places 
of our factories every day, who frequently work with dangerous 
machinery.
  Owners of businesses and owners of management are generally excluded 
from Worker's Compensation plans. They still will be able to sue and 
recover for all their losses. But the workers, the very people who are 
the most at risk, will be limited to the few remedies offered by 
Worker's Compensation. I cannot support this biased proposal against 
America's workers.
  Why do my Republican colleagues think that the manufacturers need 
this protection? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that 
injuries for the year 1998 dropped to their lowest level since the 
1970's. There is no flood

[[Page 470]]

of injuries or litigation requiring reform. The judicial process works. 
Frivolous claims get weeded out, and meritorious claims go forward. 
That is how our legal system works.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt) is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, sometimes we get lost in 
the technicalities of these legal bills. But we should start with the 
proposition that our liability laws in this country actually reflect 
the values of our country that personal responsibility and corporate 
responsibility are at the top of what we value in this country.
  So a question of who has responsibility for paying for a person's 
injuries boils down to a question of who has responsibility for causing 
those injuries. That is the whole basis of our liability law in this 
country.
  In this case, what this bill does is it says that, even if a 
manufacturer is responsible for the injury of a worker and the worker 
has absolutely no responsibility after 18 years, that worker is just 
dead out of luck.
  That is what this bill says. Regardless of how egregious the conduct 
in designing the equipment is of the manufacturer, how reckless they 
are, we are going to shift the responsibility for paying for the injury 
to an innocent party. That is completely contrary to our whole concept 
in this country of personal and corporate responsibility.
  That is the first objection I have to this bill. The second objection 
is that, in addition to undercutting the rights of employees and 
consumers in that substantial way inconsistent with public policy, we 
are saying to employers and to insurance carriers that even if they pay 
for that cost, they cannot even go back and make a claim against the 
negligent or reckless manufacturer who did nothing to take this 
equipment out of the stream of commerce.
  So whether my colleagues support the consumer, whether they support 
the employee, whether they support the insurance carrier, whether they 
support the employer, what they have done is shifted the cost to them, 
even though they had nothing to do with causing the injury. The cost 
has been taken away and the responsibility is taken away from the very 
corporate citizen and individuals on which the responsibility should be 
imposed, based on our public policy rationales.
  Ms. PELOSI. I rise to strongly oppose this anti-labor legislation 
that undermines the rights of hard working Americans. The ``Workplace 
Goods Job Growth Competitiveness Act'', H.R. 2005, sets an arbitrary 
cutoff date limiting injured workers from holding manufacturers 
accountable for defective products that harm workers. This bill 
discriminates against workers injured and killed on the job by 
preventing them and their survivors from recovering damages from a 
manufacturer or seller of durable goods more than 18 years after the 
durable good was first purchased or leased.
  Workers should not be limited by this arbitrary 18 year cutoff on 
manufactured products when many of America's industrial plants, 
machinery, and regularly used products, like elevators, are far older 
than 18 years. Many manufactured goods are clearly produced to have 
longer life spans and many manufacturers distribute marketing materials 
publicizing this fact in their sales pitch.
  This anti-labor bill would adversely affect injured workers who are 
covered by workers' compensation and drastically limits their potential 
recovery. Most state workers' compensation laws only compensate workers 
for medical costs and limited disability assistance and most do not 
compensate for non-financial damages, including loss of a limb; loss of 
fertility, permanent disfigurement; and related pain and suffering. 
When hard working Americans are injured by defective products, they 
deserve compensation for their injuries and suffering.
  In addition, this bill takes away the business community's right for 
compensation from defective manufacturers for related property damage 
to the business' owned property. The bill denies also businesses 
recovery of their costs for workers compensation payments paid to 
injured workers. By limiting employee and employer rights to recover 
damages, this bill increases costs and unfairly subsidizes the 
manufacturers of defective products at the expense of employers and the 
workers' compensation system.
  H.R. 2005 unfairly targets workers and treats them differently from 
other Americans. Suppose a 25 year old elevator were to malfunction and 
crash, severely injuring an elevator operator and a tourist. This bill 
would allow the tourist to sue for compensation and deny the elevator 
operator this same right. This provision is inequitable, unjust, and 
must be opposed.
  In addition to difficulties this bill inflicts on America's workforce 
and businesses, the bill also triggers Constitutional concerns. The 
Justice Department is concerned that this legislation violates the 
Commerce Clause which limits congressional authority to regulate 
interstate commerce and violates the Tenth Amendment, which reserves 
all unenumerated powers to the states. For all these reasons, the 
President is expected to veto this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to join with the AFL-CIO; the Machinists; the 
Teamsters; Communications Workers of America; and Public Citizen in 
opposing H.R. 2005. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2005.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2005, the Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999. 
H.R. 2005 is premised on the notion that a product which is used safely 
for a substantial period of time is not likely to have been defective 
at the time of manufacture, sale, or delivery. Any injury incurred 
after a reasonably long period of time is likely to have been due to 
either misuse or improper maintenance by someone other than the 
manufacturer. The longer the product is in use, the more difficult it 
is for the manufacturer to prove its product was not defective at the 
time it was manufactured. H.R. 2005 creates a uniform federal statute 
of repose for cases involving injury caused by durable goods. 
Currently, nineteen states have statutes of repose.
  I have long recognized the need for a national statute of repose for 
products, including workplace durable goods. In fact, my first year as 
a Member of this body, I introduced one of the first federal statute of 
repose bills.
  In sum, H.R. 2005 provides a balanced solution to the problem of 
endless liability, while protecting a claimant's right to bring suit 
for injuries incurred during the repose period. It places a reasonable 
outer time limit on litigation involving older products in the 
workplace, where injured claimants will have recourse to benefit from 
the worker compensation system. I commend my colleague, Mr. Chabot, for 
all his hard work on this long overdue, much needed legislation. I urge 
the passage of this legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
2005, The Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999.
  I understand the sentiment of the proponents of this measure. 
Certainly, after a reasonably long period of time, manufacturers should 
no longer have to defend lawsuits based on products that have long 
since left their control and may have been subject to misuse or 
improper maintenance by others.
  With that said, H.R. 2005 is an improper remedy. This proposed 
national statute of repose would extinguish valid lawsuits that would 
otherwise be permitted to proceed under state law. This is clearly an 
intrusion into the availability of state tort remedies, and there is 
compelling and well-documented evidence that the defendants' need for 
civil immunity outweighs the strong policy that individuals and 
businesses be able to seek relief for their injuries.
  I share the Department of Justice's prescient view that H.R. 2005 is 
flawed in myriad ways. The bill in its present form creates an absolute 
bar on recovery for property damage involving a durable good if the 
action is filed more than 18 years after the first purchase or lease of 
the good. H.R. 2005 would also bar civil actions for death or personal 
injury involving a durable good against a manufacturer or seller of a 
durable good filed more than 18 years after the durable good was first 
bought or leased, if the claimant is eligible for workers compensation 
and the injury does not involve ``toxic harm.'' H.R. 2005 provides 
exceptions to the 18-year bar for products used primarily to transport 
passengers for hire, products for longer than 18 years, and products 
already covered by the statute of repose in the General Aviation 
Revitalization Act of 1994.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to H.R. 2005 for other reasons. The bill, 
in its present form, would bar certain property damage claims and, 
unlike personal injury in the workplace, there is no alternative 
administrative relief for

[[Page 471]]

such claims by individuals or businesses. This irrationally bars some 
state lawsuits. Additionally, the bill would bar some State law claims 
in which an individual or company has been seriously damaged by a 
product--and even before some victims will be injured by the defective 
good--although the manufacturer was negligent or knew the product was 
dangerous or defective. Finally, I am opposed to H.R. 2005 because it 
usurps State policies on providing an avenue for redress for personal 
or property damages to individuals or small businesses caused by 
durable goods.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to get on with the business of tending to real 
issues confronting the American people: education, healthcare, social 
security and many other issues that are urgent. There is no hue and cry 
from the American people to establish a national statute of repose. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. H.R. 2005 is a bad 
bill.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in general support of this bill, 
H.R. 2005, because I represent a congressional district that as many 
durable good manufacturers. There is an issue of state preemption, and 
to that issue, I have been given assurance of leadership that if a 
conference committee is established that this issue will be discussed.
  Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it. This is a vote about keeping 
basic manufacturing in the United States.
  With all the wonderful economic statistics, few people know that 
there is a crisis in durable goods manufacturing. I represent Rockford, 
Illinois, a center of machine tool manufacturing. For the past 18 
months, I have heard from business leaders and workers back home that 
they have never had it this bad. The situation facing machine tool 
manufacturers is even worse than the recessions of the early 1980's and 
1990's. Some old timers even believe that business prospects are even 
worse than the Great Depression of the 1930's.
  Monthly U.S. machine tool consumption once again declined 18 percent 
in November. Exports of U.S. machine tools also dropped 65 percent in 
November. Compounding this decrease is that fact that machine tool 
imports are taking a greater share of the declining U.S. market--rising 
from 50 percent in 1995 to an estimated 60 percent in 1999.
  Why is this happening? One reason is that foreign machine tool 
competitors are able to price their product more competitively because 
their liability exposure is relatively small. Both Europe and Japan 
have a 10 year statute of repose. They are seizing market share from 
American machine tool workers right here in the United States! H.R. 
2005 would begin to level the playing field for U.S. workers making 
machine tools.
  Let me give you one concrete example. Rockford used to have Mattison 
Technologies, a manufacturer of large grinder machines. This small 
business used to employ 150 workers. Shortly after celebrating its 
100th birthday, Mattison went bankrupt because it could not pay a $7.5 
million product liability verdict on a machine built over 50 years ago. 
In fact, at the time the company closed, Mattison Technologies had 
received a summons suing them for a machine built in 1917--when the 
Czar still ruled Russia! Passing an 18 year statute of repose would go 
a long way towards helping the 60,000 American workers still employed 
in the U.S. machine tool industry.
  It's too late for the 150 workers at Mattison. Let's not repeat this 
mistake. Vote for H.R. 2005.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong objection to H.R. 
2005, the Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999.
  The title of this bill gives the erroneous impression that it will 
encourage ``job growth and competitiveness.'' Instead, it will only 
serve to harm workers and employers. The so-called Workplace Goods Job 
Growth and Competitiveness Act would terminate any rights of workers to 
hold wrongdoers accountable for a defective product over 18-years-old, 
even if the product was designed to be used for many more years.
  Some workers would be able to collect workers' compensation. However, 
that does not provide for noneconomic damages such as physical 
disfigurement, loss of limbs, blindness, infertility or pain and 
suffering. We cannot allow these workers to be sacrificed for the 
profit of manufacturers.
  This bill would also discourage manufacturers from notifying 
consumers of possible defects. H.R. 2005 makes it more cost effective 
to ignore a malfunction when they are discovered near the end of the 
18-year period than to publicize the defect or correct it.
  By adopting this 18-year statute of repose, Congress would send the 
message to America's working families that their injuries and costs are 
of less importance than any other victim of product malfunction. For 
example, if a worker and a visitor to the worksite are both injured in 
the same event, only the visitor would be able to seek damages.
  I urge my colleagues to see this bill for what it really is: an 
attack on the workers of America. If you really want to fight for 
American families, vote ``no'' on H.R. 2005.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2005

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Workplace Goods Job Growth 
     and Competitiveness Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. STATUTE OF REPOSE FOR DURABLE GOODS USED IN A TRADE 
                   OR BUSINESS.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act--
       (1) no civil action for damage to property arising out of 
     an accident involving a durable good may be filed against the 
     manufacturer or seller of the durable good more than 18 years 
     after the durable good was delivered to its first purchaser 
     or lessee; and
       (2) no civil action for damages for death or personal 
     injury arising out of an accident involving a durable good 
     may be filed against the manufacturer or seller of the 
     durable good more than 18 years after the durable good was 
     delivered to its first purchaser or lessee if--
       (A) the claimant has received or is eligible to receive 
     worker compensation; and
       (B) the injury does not involve a toxic harm (including, 
     but not limited to, all asbestos-related harm).
       (b) Exceptions.--
       (1) In general.--A motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or 
     train, that is used primarily to transport passengers for 
     hire shall not be subject to this Act.
       (2) Certain express warranties.--This Act does not bar a 
     civil action against a defendant who made an express warranty 
     in writing as to the safety or life expectancy of a specific 
     product which was longer than 18 years, except that this Act 
     shall apply at the expiration of that warranty.
       (3) Aviation limitations period.--This Act does not affect 
     the limitations period established by the General Aviation 
     Revitalization Act of 1994 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note).
       (c) Effect on State Law; Preemption.--This Act preempts and 
     supersedes any State law that establishes a statute of repose 
     to the extent such law applies to actions covered by this 
     Act. Any action not specifically covered by this Act shall be 
     governed by applicable State law.
       (d) Transitional Provision Relating to Extension of Repose 
     Period.--To the extent that this Act shortens the period 
     during which a civil action could be otherwise brought 
     pursuant to another provision of law, the claimant may, 
     notwithstanding this Act, bring the action not later than 1 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Claimant.--The term ``claimant'' means any person who 
     brings an action covered by this Act and any person on whose 
     behalf such an action is brought. If such an action is 
     brought through or on behalf of an estate, the term includes 
     the claimant's decedent. If such an action is brought through 
     or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, the term includes the 
     claimant's legal guardian.
       (2) Durable good.--The term ``durable good'' means any 
     product, or any component of any such product, which--
       (A)(i) has a normal life expectancy of 3 or more years; or
       (ii) is of a character subject to allowance for 
     depreciation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       (B) is--
       (i) used in a trade or business;
       (ii) held for the production of income; or
       (iii) sold or donated to a governmental or private entity 
     for the production of goods, training, demonstration, or any 
     other similar purpose.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any other territory or 
     possession of the United States or any political subdivision 
     of any of the foregoing.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF ACT.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act without regard to whether the damage to property or 
     death or personal injury at issue occurred before such date 
     of enactment.
       (b) Application of Act.--This Act shall not apply with 
     respect to civil actions commenced before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to that amendment shall

[[Page 472]]

be in order except those printed in the portion of the Congressional 
Record designated for that purpose and pro forma amendments for the 
purpose of debate. Amendments printed in the Record may be offered only 
by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be 
also considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Chabot:
       1. Page 2, strike lines 10 through 20 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) no civil action may be filed against the manufacturer 
     or seller of a durable good for damage to property arising 
     out of an accident involving that durable good if the 
     accident occurred more than 18 years after the date on which 
     the durable good was delivered to its first purchaser or 
     lessee;
       (2) no civil action may be filed against the manufacturer 
     or seller of a durable good for damages for death or personal 
     injury arising out of an accident involving that durable good 
     if the accident occurred more than 18 years after the date on 
     which the durable good was delivered to its first purchaser 
     or lessee and if--
       2. Page 2, line 14, delete the ``.'' and insert ``; and''.
       3. Page 2, insert after line 14 the following:
       (3) subparagraph (a)(1) of this section does not supersede 
     or modify any statutory or common law that authorizes an 
     action for civil damages, cost recovery or any other form of 
     relief for remediation of the environment as defined in 
     section 101(8) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 as amended (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(8)).


         Modification to Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
be modified in the form I have placed at the desk. I have given a copy 
to the minority.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Chabot:
       Page 2, strike lines 10 through 20 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) no civil action may be filed against the manufacturer 
     or seller of a durable good for damage to property arising 
     out of an accident involving that durable good if the 
     accident occurred more than 18 years after the date on which 
     the durable good was delivered to its first purchaser or 
     lessee; and
       (2) no civil action may be filed against the manufacturer 
     or seller of a durable good for damages for death or personal 
     injury arising out of an accident involving that durable good 
     if the accident occurred more than 18 years after the date on 
     which the durable good was delivered to its first purchaser 
     or lessee and if--
       Page 3, insert the following after line 14:
       (4) Actions involving the environment.--Subsection (a)(1) 
     does not supersede or modify any statute or common law that 
     authorizes an action for civil damages, cost recovery, or any 
     other form of relief for remediation of the environment (as 
     defined in section 101(8) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(8)).
       Page 3, line 15, strike ``This'' and insert ``Subject to 
     subsection (b), this''.

  Mr. CHABOT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, some of us do not have the modification. I am sure the 
committee has it, but I just came on the floor.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we will provide that to the gentleman 
immediately.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation 
of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire time. At this 
time I would like to introduce a perfecting amendment which was filed 
yesterday in accordance with the rule, and the amendment as modified 
also here today.
  This amendment does two things. First, it clarifies that this bill 
would in no way interfere with existing State statutes of limitation. 
This amendment simply states that the 18-year period runs to the date 
of the accident or harm and not to the date of the filing of the claim. 
This further ensures that all claimants will have adequate time to 
prepare and file suit. This simply clarifies the original intent of the 
bill and guarantees that claimants will always have the full time 
period allowed by the applicable State statute of limitations.
  Second, my amendment clarifies that this bill does not interfere in 
any way with the assertion of claims for remediation of environmental 
hazards, such as lead paint or asbestos, caused by a durable good that 
is more than 18 years old. Although we believe that this bill as 
currently drafted does not cover environmental remediation claims, we 
want to make that absolutely clear.
  My amendment expressly states this bill does not supersede or modify 
any statutory or common law that authorizes an action for civil damage 
or other relief for remediation of the environment. Our bill, the 
Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999, is a 
straightforward, common sense product liability reform measure that 
limits frivolous lawsuits, while ensuring that no injured party ever 
goes uncompensated.
  We have worked carefully with Members on both sides of the aisle to 
address legitimate concerns and craft a solid piece of legislation that 
benefits small businesses, employees, taxpayers, and consumers. I urge 
my colleagues to approve this amendment and support the passage of H.R. 
2005.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot) that this amendment, as reported and modified, is one that I 
have no objection to. But I would like to point out to him that it does 
not in any way change the objection that American workers are relegated 
to a second-class legal status with rules that apply to no one else. 
That is not corrected by this perfecting amendment.
  I would like to have him reflect on the fact that only American 
workers will be barred from recovery of many types of damages for death 
and disfigurement that occurs from injuries that involve older 
equipment. That has not changed by this amendment.
  Neither does it change the fact that this bill, H.R. 2005, does not 
apply to the rest of the public who could be injured by older 
equipment. Nor does the perfecting amendment change the fact that 
Worker's Compensation laws do not cover noneconomic damages that would 
otherwise be available to workers for injuries that result in death and 
disfigurement.

                              {time}  1200

  The perfecting amendment shifts the considerable cost to small 
business who will have to, as a result of this measure, pay higher 
premiums and who will be unable to recover for many property damages 
caused by defective machinery.
  Finally, this amendment does not change the fact that the opposition 
by workers and unions and the administration and consumer groups 
remains, notwithstanding this amendment.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Unfortunately, this bill is made only marginally better by the 
amendment that is offered. It is called a repose bill, but what we are 
doing in this debate on the amendment is the expose part. And if my 
colleagues will just listen to a little of this debate, what they will 
know that both sides agree on is that, by their silence, the proponents 
of this bill, if a manufacturer manufactures a dangerous product that 
can cause

[[Page 473]]

death or can cause serious injury, that manufacturer is totally 
absolved from any responsibility once that product reaches its 18th 
birthday. No more need it worry. Even though it knows how to correct 
the defect, even though it knows that dozens of people have been killed 
or maimed or burned alive as a result of the defect, the manufacturer 
need do absolutely nothing. And the only answer that the proponent, the 
author, of this amendment says is, well, we all seem to have kind of a 
bad attitude about the willingness of American manufacturers to correct 
the defects in their product.
  What this bill does is to assure the lowest common denominator of the 
worst and most irresponsible manufacturer is now the law of the land. 
It says that those manufacturers, indeed even if they put a silver 
medallion on the side of the printing press and they say this printing 
press is good for 25 years, and they know it is defective, they know 
how to repair the defect and they know dozens of Americans are being 
hurt by that product, they do not have to do a single thing. Zip. Nada. 
Nothing. That is what this bill does. That is what this reasonable bill 
does.
  Every Member that votes on this bill needs to know what they are 
voting to do, to totally absolve that manufacturer.
  There is the second issue, and the chairman-to-be just made that 
point, and it is one that has not gotten the emphasis that it needs, 
and that is the very strong anti-business bias to this bill. What am I 
talking about when I say an anti-business bias? It is designed to 
protect and absolve the giant multinational equipment manufacturers. 
But who does it ask to foot the bill when the sponsor says, well, we 
will just let the workers' compensation. Do not worry about it, the 
worker is going to be compensated.
  Those workers' compensation premiums are not free. Who does my 
colleague think pays those premiums? The thousands of small businesses 
around this country that are out there generating new jobs. Now they 
are going to have shifted to them the total responsibility for covering 
that same dangerous product that has the silver medallion that says it 
is good for 25 years and it causes harm. Now we are going to shift to 
the small businesses of America the responsibility of paying for 
damages that they did not cause. Some irresponsible manufacturer caused 
that damage.
  I would say anyone that is concerned about the growth of small 
business ought to vote against this bill, because it is an anti-small 
business bill.
  Third, what about the workers? It is so good to hear that they do not 
have anything to worry about; that they are going to be fully covered 
by workers' compensation. I have a feeling that the sponsors of this 
bill never had to try to live on workers' compensation in most of this 
country. That worker that lost his arm, that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra) talked about out in California, would have to 
live on a subsistence level under workers' compensation, and usually it 
is for a fixed period of time. It does not offer lifetime benefits to 
someone who just merely lost the use of their arm at the most 
productive time of their life.
  If a secretary was in that printing shop to pick up the stationery 
and she is burned and she is disfigured as a young woman, what will she 
get if this bill passes? Absolutely nothing from the manufacturer. If 
the Federal Express delivery person happens through there, what will 
they get if they are burned and have to go through the pain of a skin 
graft? Absolutely nothing under this bill.
  If that worker who is going to be so generously compensated with 
subsistence workers' compensation has to go through, as happened to a 
man in Texas, skin grafts because a defective product causes him to be 
burned over 30 percent of his body by hot spewing oil from a defective 
valve that was 20 years old, if he has to go through one skin graft 
after another and suffers with pain in going through that, how much 
does he get out of workers' compensation for that? Absolutely nothing 
for the pain and suffering of going through that process.
  The people who might be affected who are not workers are not fully 
compensated.
  I heard the gentleman say in his opening remarks that what he wanted 
is uniformity. Well, he is not providing any uniformity so that the 
workers of this land who would suffer as a result of these defective 
and dangerous products so that they would get a uniform amount that 
they can live on and support their families on. Some States provide 
practically nothing with reference to workers' compensation.
  This bill is wrong. Let us expose what repose is all about.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Ohio.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Terry

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Terry:
       Page 3, insert the following after line 14:
       (4) Products not state-of-the-art.--This Act shall not 
     apply in the case of a durable good that, at the time it was 
     produced, was not state-of-the-art.

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I believe, is truly a 
compromise position, kind of splitting the difference between the two 
arguments that we have heard here today, albeit it may create as many 
questions as it resolves.
  This amendment, I think, protects the manufacturers who sell good 
products at the time that it was made and sold but, because of advances 
in technology, may become different than a standard that we may apply 
today.
  For example, a machine is produced, made, manufactured in 1975, and 
this is the issue that my friend from Ohio is trying to resolve. When 
it was manufactured in 1970 or 1975 or 1980, it was made to the state-
of-the-art. It was a good product. It was not defective. But perhaps on 
a year 2000 scale, it is now defective, based on our technology of 
today. It is somewhat unfair to hold those manufacturers to that 
standard.
  So that is what my amendment addresses, but yet says if the product 
that was manufactured more than 18 years ago was defective, that 
jeopardized the safety of workers and Americans, that that manufacturer 
should not be immune after 18 years from that negligent act of putting 
out into the marketplace a defective product. So it is exempted if it 
could be proved that it was defective at the time.
  Now, each of us here, as much as we adhere to a philosophical 
premise, we are also a product of our life experiences; and let me tell 
my colleagues a story that I was personally involved with that I think 
exemplifies some of the issues of a statute of repose, albeit the fact 
the question here does not exactly duplicate what my friend from Ohio 
is attempting here.
  I knew a family and worked with this family. They bought a boat. It 
was an 11-year-old boat. I hail from a State that has a 10-year statute 
of repose. This boat, one time when they put it on the water and 
started it, blew up, killing one person and blowing the leg off 
literally of a 13-year-old boy and burning him from the waist down.
  Now, granted that fact pattern does not meet this piece of 
legislation, because he is not a worker and this is not in the 
workplace, and the boat is not a piece of machinery that one finds in a 
workplace. But, under Nebraska law, this boy was prevented, the man who 
was killed was prevented by a statute of repose from suing the 
manufacturer. And what we found out is that that boat was defective 
because it did not have a blower system the day it left. It was 
probably the only boat manufacturer at that time that was still 
manufacturing boats without this type of safety mechanism in it.
  Now, should they be rewarded for not adhering to the standards of the 
industry or using state-of-the-art technology at the time? No, they 
should not.
  So it is those types of life experiences and real life examples that 
I bring with me and we all bring with us that shape our views on such 
things as statute of

[[Page 474]]

reposes. But this does create some issues. First of all, it does create 
a desire for a national standard for product liability suits at a time 
when some of us are resisting trying to make national standards. So we 
do not improve the situation there at all.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) brought up earlier in the 
discussion that this amendment probably does not eliminate suits, and 
he is right. It does not create more litigation, as someone said, but 
he is probably right that it does not eliminate it.
  So while I believe it is a good compromise, and it is truly the 
middle ground by protecting those manufacturers who deserve to be 
protected, yet not protecting those who do not deserve the protection, 
it does, unfortunately, raise as many questions as it resolves.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's amendment is withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Manzullo). Under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Manzullo, Chairman pro 
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 2005) to establish a statute of repose for durable goods used in 
a trade or business, pursuant to House Resolution 412, he reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute? If not, the question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 194, not voting 18, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 7]

                               YEAS--222

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Carson
     Davis (FL)
     Doyle
     Hall (OH)
     Hinojosa
     Leach
     Meehan
     Myrick
     Rivers
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Tauzin
     Towns
     Turner
     Vento
     Wamp

                              {time}  1235

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. ROTHMAN and Ms. 
KILPATRICK changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM and Mr. RILEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page 475]]

  Stated against:
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 7, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________