-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/fa1d2b16a09f064648184e35504adbdb.pdf
fc89e1563c2f43ea788f70af6bb75888
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
13645
OA/ID Number:
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
[Regulatory] Reform Legislation House Debate [Binder] [8]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
92
3
4
1
��;
\
H2864
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
Tanner
Tate
Tauztn
Taylor (NC) .
Tejeda
Thomas
Thorn bony
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torklldsen
TorricelU
Towns
Traflcant
Ulttioa
Vento
VIsclosky
Volkmer .
Vucanovich
Waldholtz .
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts <OK>
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Abercromble
Becerra.
Bellenson
Bennan
Bonior
Borskl
Boucher
•Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TD
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MD .
Conyers
Costello .
Coyne
DeFazlo
Dellums
Dicks .
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbln
Engel
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Oephardt
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)"
Hllliard
Hlnchey
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnston .
Kanjorskl .
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Klldee
Kllnk
LaFalce
Lantos ~
Levin
Lewis (OAj .
Luther
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsul
McDeonott
Mfume
Miller (CAJ
Mink
.
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler .
Weller
.
White
Whltneld
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
..
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zellff
Zlmmer
NOES-W
Obey
Owaas
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosr.
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Reed' .
Reynolds
Rivers
Roybal-AUae
Sanders
Scott
Serrano
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompwo
Thurman
Torres
Tucker
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman ..
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
ANSWERED "PRESENT''^1
Lowey
NOT VOTING—10
McDade
Neal
Bllonu
McKlnney
Rangel
Coleman
Dickey
Meek
Gibbons
Moorhead •
• 1911
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi changed
lils vote from "aye" to "no."
Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from
"no" to "aye."
So the b i l l was passed.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
:1.
AUTHORIZING
THE CLERK TO
MAKE TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING CHANGES I N H.R. UttSi
SECURITIES
LITIGATION: REFORM A C T
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that i n the engrossment o f the bill, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections
and conforming changes to the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within
which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material, on H.R. 1058, the b i l l just passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
March 8, 1995
lic debate and to give our constituents
the opportunity to express their views
on this historic legislation.
Mr. Speaker, a byproduct of. this
schedule change, one that I know Members will be particularly interested i n .
Is that there will be no votes on next
Monday, the 13th.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday' the House
REMOVAL OF NAMES OF MEM- will convene r t 12:30 for morning hour.
BERS AS COSPONSORS OF H R 56 Business w i l i begin at 2 o'clock, and
..
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask there w i l l be no votes before 5 o'clock
unanimous consent that the following on Tuesday next.
Members be removed as cosponsors of
H.R. 56: Messrs. WELLER, FUNDERBURK,
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
MINGS. HOLDEN. CRAPO, KNOLLENBERG,
OF H.R. 956, COMMON SENSE
MCDADE. BRYANT of Tennessee. BASS.
LEGAL
STANDARDS REFORM
and OXLEY. and Mrs. WALDHOLTZ.
ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
Mr. UNDER. Mr. Speaker, by directhe request of the gentleman from
tion of the Committee on Rules I call
Texas?
up House Resolution 108 and ask for its
.There was no objection.
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
H. RES. 108
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given
Resolved. That at any time after the adoppermission to address the House for 1
tion of this resolution tbe Speaker may. purminute.)
suant to clause Kb) of rule XXm. declare the
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the House resolved into the Committee of the
benefit of Oie Members, the next order Whole House on the state of the Union lor of business is the rule and general de- consideration of the bill (H.R. 956) to estubbate only on H.R. 956. This is an llsh le^al standards and procedures for
agreed-to rule. We do not expect a vote produce liability litigation, and for otiier
on i t . Thereafter, we would go right to purposes. Tbe first reading of the bill ahaJl.
General
be
general debate. The gentleman from be dispenaed with. and shalldebate shalltwo
confined to tbe bill
not exoeed
Missouri (Mr. VOLKMER] just shook my hours equally divided amony and controlled
hand and agreed to this, so I think we . by the chairmen and ranking: minority memcan safely say there will be no further bers of the Committee on the Judiciary and
votes tonight.
the Committee on Commerce. After general
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, i f the gen- debate the Committee of the Whole shall rise
motion. No further
tleman w i l l yield so I can speak out of without shall be in order consideration of
the bill
turn Cor 1 minute, let me just say I do a subsequent order of the except pursuant to
House.
not pretend to speak from great knowledge, but I would advise members that
• 1915
I have been Informed that that assurThe SPEAKER pro tempore {Mr.
ance may not be able to hold up as to EWINO). The gentleman from Georgia
no votes. I just do not want Members [Mr. LINDER] Is recognized for 1 hour.
to leave here. That is not coming from
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the
me;
purpose of debate only. I yield the cusMr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would tomary 30 minutes to the gentleman
just point out that the rule that Is from Texas IMr. FROST], pending which
about to be debated provides for 2 I yield myself such time as I may
hours of general debate. This is not a consume.
rule dealing with the ainendment procDuring consideration of this resoluess: That rule w i l l not come on the tion, all time yielded is for the purpose
floor-until tomorrow. I wanted to make of debate only.
that clarification.
•• Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 108
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, as the gen- provides for 2 hours of general debate
tleman Is aware, any Member on either on H.R. 956. the Common Sense Legal
side, can call for a vote on even this Standards Reform Act. Snch time is to
unoontested rule. "
be divided equally between the chairmen and the ranking minority members of the Judiciary and Commerce
FURTHER LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM committees, after which time the Com{Mr. ARMEY asked and was given mittee will rise without motion.
permission to address the House for 1
Mr. Speaker, this is a rather simple
minute.)
rule which will not require a great
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker. I wish to amount of discussion. The House has
addrees tbe House for the purpose of completed 3 days of dialog on the first
announcing a schedule change.
two components of legal reform, and
Mr. Speaker, last week I announced House Resolution 108 simply assures a
that the House would be considering full discussion of H.R. 956.
term l i m i t legislation on Monday and
This rule is designed to allow the
Toesday, March 13 and 14. After meet- House to continue this week's historic
ing w i t t i the term l i m i t supporters, we discussion over how to restore sanity
have decided to move term limits to to our Nation's legal system. These
the end of the month to maximize pub- critical reforms will benefit virtually
�March 8, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
H2865
every phase of American life, and I be- percent of all tort filings i n State speakers on my side who wish to be
lieve that 2 hours of general debate courts. The National Center for State heard on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
provides ample time to discuss these Courts reported last year that since
reforms that, will l i m i t the devastating 1990, the national total of State tort my time.
legal costs on the U.S. economy and filings has decreased by 2 percent. They
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield
estimated that i f this trend continues, such time as he may consume to the
the American work force.
The Committee on Rules had delayed in the next 10 years State courts will gentleman from New York [Mr. SOLOreporting the second component of this experience a decline of 10 percent in MON], chairman of the committee.
rule until earlier this afternoon in State tort filings. This, Mr. Speaker, is
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker. I thank
order to provide more time to consult hardly an explosion. Quite the opposite the gentleman from Georgia for yieldin fact.
with the minority and the leadership.
ing me the time.
I t has been our intention to present the
My Republican colleagues contend
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support
minority with every opportunity to that this legislation Is required be- of this rule for H.R. 956, the Common .
offer and vote on amendments to the cause juries are making outrageous Sense Legal Standards Reform Act of
principal sections of this bill, and the and excessive punitive damage awards 1995. The rule provides 2 hours of genRules Committee wanted to guarantee that damage American business, both eral debate equally divided between the
an additional day of discussions to pro- large and small. My Republican col- chairman and ranking members of the
vide Members on both sides of the aisle leagues contend that the only way to Committee on the Judiciary and the
with this opportunity.
protect business and insure its com- Committee on Commerce.
The majority has supported, these petitiveness is to cap punitive damage
This is part 1 of a two-part rule
• measures i n the past, and I am pleased awards.
which will provide Members adequate
that House Resolution 108 was reported
But the fact of the matter is, Mr. time to debate the principles associfavorably from the Rules Committee Speaker, punitive damages are only ated with product liability reform as
yesterday by voice vote. I urge my col- rarely awarded—39 States already do well as a large number of both Demoleagues to support this rule, and I look not permit them or severely l i m i t their crat and Republican amendments to
forward to a thoughtful and delibera- size. These limits have been imposed at this bill.
tive debate on all of the significant is- the State level in spite of the fact that
Recognizing the merits of this rule,
sues raised by this b i l l .
consumer products are responsible for
the Rules Committee favorably reMr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of an estimated 29,000 deaths and 30 m i l - ported this rule by a voice vote.
lion injuries each year. In fact, bemy time.
The rule will allow a fair and open
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield my- tween 1965 and 1990, punitive damages
were awarded in only 353 product liabil- debate of the important issues associself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I w i l l not oppose this ity cases, 91 of which were asbestos ated with this bill.
Mr. Speaker, our legal system needs
rule, but I must take this time to ex- cases. Three hundred ahd fifty-three in
press my strong opposition to this so- 25 years hardly add up to excessive reform. I t has been reported that
Americans file a lawsuit every 14 seccalled reform of product liability. Mr. number of awards.
Mr. Speaker, the GAO has reported onds in this country. This litigatibn
Speaker, I am joined i n my opposition
to this bill by a variety of groups in- that the size of damage are closely re- explosion has been most evident in the
cluding, to name but a few, the lated to the severity of the injury and area of products liability lawsuits.
Between 1973 and 1988, as courts libConsumer Federation of America, the the economic harm suffered by the vicConsumers Union, the American Asso- tim. Is i t excessive or outrageous to eralized product liability laws, the
ciation of Retired Persons, the Na- award punitive damages in the case of number of product liability cases intional Conference of State Legislators, a severely burned 4-year-old when her creased by 1.000 percent. The cost of
pajamas catch fire? Is i t excessive or these suits has been estimated to be as
and-theYWCA.
Mr. Speaker, these groups oppose outrageous to award punitive damages high as J80 billion a year—this is greatthis legislation because i t is an assault when an oil tanker runs aground and er than the combined profits of Amerion American consumers—the very bespolls a large portion of the coastline . ca's 200 largest corporations.
The cost of these frivolous lawsuits is
American people the Contract With of Alaska? I think not.
America seeks to assist by getting govMr. Speaker, the Rules Committee devastating to America's businesses,
ernment off their collective backs. met earlier this evening to consider consumers, and families, Today, our
This bill does get something off some- amendments to this bill. The rec- excessive reliance today on a patchone's back, but what the bill really ommended rule severely restricts the work quilt of conflicting State statutes
does is provide Immunity to manufac- number and scope of those amendments and common law relating to product
turers and.industry. The bill does i t by which will be debated on the floor. My defects burdens interstate commerce. .
making I t very difficult for injured Republican colleagues have long com- discourages innovation, exacerbates l i consumers to seek redress In the courts plained that the process In the House ability insurance costs, compromises
and thereby insuring that dangerous was closed and did not permit open de- American competitiveness, and forces
products remain on the market.
bate on critical issues facing this Na- Americans to pay higher prices.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will dis- tion. I f this issue is so critically imporH.R 956 will establish uniform Fedmantle 200 years of State common and tant, the Rules Committee majority eral rules by which manufacturers and
statutory law. This bill Ignores the should have seen f i t to open the process consumers alike will be able to abide
- fact that at least 45 States have under- . when we consider this legislation for -as they engage in interstate commerce.
taken significant reform in response to amendment tomorrow. I would hope The commerce clause of the Constituthe perceived problems in local civil the American people deserve at least tion reserved this right for the Federal
justice systems. I f we are to undertake that much.
Government and I believe i t is time for
civil judicial reform, such reform
I noted that the majority leader just the Federal Government to correct this
should complement, not undo, the ef- a few moments ago announced that we area of our legal system. This bill must
forts of the States. This legislation are not going to have votes on Monday be passed to prevent the further growth
does not do that.
and that we will not have votes on of these burdens.
My Republican colleagues contend we Tuesday until 5. And yet we were told
I urge my colleagues to support fair
must pass this legislation because of an in the Committee on Rules that we just rule and the bill.
explosion of product liability litiga- do not have enough time to consider all
Mr. FROSfT. Mr. Speaker, for purtion. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely these amendments that Members want poses of debate only, I yield 2 minutes,
to offer. They cannot have i t both to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs.
no evidence to support this claim. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, product liability ways. They cannot cancel, effectively COLLINS].
claims filed in Federal courts have ac- cancel 2 days of votes and then tell the
(Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and
tually declined by 36 percent between Members that we do not have enough was given permission to revise and ex1985 and 1991 and they represent only 4 time to vote. There are a number of tend her remarks.)
iS.
�H2866
;
:
I. "'.I
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
March 8, 1995
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speak- ment solution from Washington^ Sixty- •been adeptly denied-admtttance to this
er. I rise in opposition to this rule and eight percent said the Federal Govern- floor for years.
Many times in the House. Mr. SpeakI do so for a number of reasons, f i r s t ment shouldn't tamper w i t h a justice
and foremost of which is the fact that system that lets citizens hold wrong- er, Members who have no interest: i n
H.R. 1075 Is far from the commonsense doers accountable, and 66 percent said legislation w i l l indifferently reply " I
reform that i t purports to be. While politicians shouldn't tamper with a have no dog in that fight." I have noththis legislation is bolstered by a good system that holds large corporations ing but dogs in this fight, friendly dogs
deal of Republican rhetoric . l t is sup- accountable to any individual.
. all: the insurance community, the busiported by l i t t l e empirical need.,
Seventy-five percent of the respond- ness community, the medical commuMy GOP colleagues insist there is an ents believe that "The only way cor- nity, the trial lawyers, and individual
explosion of product liability litigation porations will stop making dangerous constituents throughout my district;
and punitive damage awards which is products is I f they know they cam be this compounds the complexity of this
issue, parties with whom I enjoy harnegatively impacting American com- sued."
petitiveness
and stifling business
Eight out of 10 agree that "Corpora- monious relationships, but who find
growth i n this country. This is pure tions should be held accountable for themselves at odds with each other on
bunk, Mr. Speaker.
their actions when they injure someone this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by what
Product liability cases represent less even If I t Is an accident,"
Over 75 percent said that the current we are proposing here, because i t is my
than one-half of 1 percent of all civil
filings in the State courts. In addition, system should either remain the way I t belief that the law of torts and sura mere 355 awards for product liability is. or be tilted more i n favor of those rounding issues thereto, which usually
involve the insurance industry directly
punitive damages have been given out injured in accidents.
over the last 25 years, and those few , Sixty-six percent of a l l people, and 72 or indirectly are more appropriately
awards have served to not only hold ob- percent of women believe that the addressed in the 50 State legislatures
viously negligent manufacturers ac- "award a jury gives to the accident vic- and/or the 50 offices of State insurance
countable but also increase consumer t i m should not depend on how much commissioners. I am not comfortable.
Mr; Speaker, extending the tentacles of
safety. Ironically, there has been a 232 the victim earns."
percent explosion commercial l i t i g a The survey also shows that there are the Congress, into an area that has tration between corporations over the some common sense legal reforms t h a t ditionally been administered and regusame time period which H.R. 1075 people want. They include requiring lated at the State level.
doesn't even address.
I , too, am uneasy about the proposal
court records to be open and available
Moreover, liability costs to American for.reference rather than kept secret) a of capping the amount of damages. The
industries represent less than 1 percent change I support and hope to accom- awarding of damages, in my opinion, is
of total operating costs and the fact re- plish along with Representatives SCHU- best determined by the juries, the trymains that a l l companies, both foreign MBR and DOGOETT should H.R. 1075 pro- ers of the fact in lawsuits. When we
begin tampering with damages, this inand domestic are subject to the same ceed forward.
laws In each State as well as abroad.
This Is kind of thing the public evitably constitutes an invasion of the
What the current product liability sys- thinks about when they hear the term province of the jury. That province
tem has done is increase American I n - "common sense legal reforms." I t is ' should be invaded only very infrenovation and our reputation for safe pretty clear that what they don't think quently, and only under extremely rare
and reliable products—something i n about are the unnecessary and draco- . circumstances.
which we can take pride and must con- . nlan provisions such as those embodied
There are extreme examples of jury
tinue.
..
.
awards that are applied in defense of
i n H.R. 1075.
Mr. Speaker. H.R. 1075 represents aa.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on each side of this argument. Mr. Speakabsolute Federal power grab i n an area this rule and support the innocent vic- er, but extreme examples do not serve
that has historically been the province tims of corporate misconduct, not the as valid reasons for dramatic change,
nor for immediate reform.
of the States. As a popular phrase I n perpetrators of such activity.
Finally, during debate in the House
my city of Chicago stateSi " S t i c k ,
• 1930
Committee on the Judiciary i t was imaround and the weather is bound to
change." I t seems a similar phrase
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield plied that this issue pits rich against
poor. That was indeed unfortunate, becould be used to refer to the manner i n myself such time as I may consume.
which my friends on the other side o f
Mr. Speaker, there are corporate fat cause this is not opulence on the one
the aisle continue to legislate w i t h re- cat contributors on both sides of this, I hand and poverty on the other. There
spect to State's rights.
-=-^.^7.^:;,.-.; suspect-The trial lawyers contributed are wealthy, poor, and mMrtle class
H.R. 1075 w i l l not create u n i f b r a i t y " iB m i l l i o n ' t o "the folks on the other represented on . each side of this very
emotionally charged issue.
i n pi^uct ;iabiU.ty^,laws.;,a8,.toe^Na-^ side.
. . ;••
.
Perhaps some adjustment, some finetional i ^ ^ e n T ^ ~ o f ^ i A l » i ^ ^ b A m » - " " i i f r Speaker, for,' punioses' of "debatehas testified. H.R. 1075 will not improve only I yield 5 minutes to the genUeman tuning, i f you w i l l , is needed, but I fear
the steps proposed by the bill at hand
the functioning of our civil justice sys- from North Carolina (Mr. COBLE].
tem. The only thing H.R. 1075 w i l l do is
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank are giant steps when deliberate baby
preempt those State laws that effeo- the gentleman for yielding time to me. steps might be more appropriate.
Uvely allow for injured consumers to
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purMr. Speaker, much has been said
be properly compensated for the barm about the Contract With America. I poses of debate only, I yield 3 minutes
caused them i n favor of protections for think i t has served most Americans to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
the GOP's negligent, corporate, fat-cat well. I think most Americans are em- CONYERS].
contributors. This sure is not common bracing I t warmly.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given
sense to me or my constituents Mr.
That is not to say that I endorse a l l permission to revise and extend his reSpeaker.
of the provisions of the contract. I n marks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker. I begin
Before my colleagues cast a vote on tact, I have some problems with the
this rule. I would ask them to consider bill that will be before us tomorrow. I by commending the gentleman from
do intend, however, to vote i n favor of Texas [Mr. FROST] for a valiant effort
the following:
that nonetheless has produced the
A recent national telephone survey the rule now before us.
asked registered, voters*what they,
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the most grievous rule that I have had to
want, and don't want, as well as the Committee on the Judiciary, I voted in work on in my- career in the Congress.
kinds o f things they mean when they favor to bring this bill to the full
On the matter of product liability,
think about common sense reforms. .
House because this issue deserves to tee not discussed i n this Chamber for many
Seventy-three percent said that the debated ftilly and openly in the House, years, we now are presented with a
regulation of the civil justice system is not i n the Insular environs of a com- modified closed rule. 6 hours of debate,
just more of the same old bis Govern- mittee. This bill, as we all know, has 15 amendments. designated by name,
i
�March 8, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
limited by amount of time, none being
given over 40 minutes, none, and under
these circumstances i t makes legislat-'
ing almost a travesty. I want this body
to know that I have never felt so badly
about the way that we have been treated i n the Committee on Rules, not just
this side, but the whole Congress, i n
taking up this measure.
Mr. Speaker, right off the bat. we are
not going to be able to do much about
the preemption of State laws, because
we are putting caps on punitive damages on State laws.
In New Jersey, the damages, punitive
damages that are now available against
sexual predators will now be capped by
this law. In Minnesota, a victim injured or killed by a driver under the i n fluence of drugs or alcohol, the punitive damages will be capped under this
law. In Illinois, punitive damages that
are available to any person who sells or
transfers an Illegal drug to a child will
be capped under this law.
This Is absolutely outrageous, that
we would be taking a few minutes to
quickly run through a bill i n a contractual effort to keep within a time l i m i t .
Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends-on the
other side, and I have raised this a couple of times, i f this Is not friendly legislation to big business, then we do not
know where we are and what we are
doing. I f you need the Wall Street
Journal to help you out, here i t is:
"Big business is striking I t rich in the
GOP contract." I could say that, and I
do. but they said i t .
Just i n case Members want to pretend that this is consumer-friendly or
friendly to working people, i t is not. I t
is an outrage.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
HOKE].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise i n
strong support of this rule and i n
strong support of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, this rule or this bill is
the kind of legislation that article 1,
Section 8 of the Constitution cries out
for, the commerce clause, which says
that the United States Congress has
the power to regulate commerce between the States.
There is such a hodgepodge of legislation that exists i n this country from
State to State with respect to product
liability legislation that we are i n a
.situation where we absolutely need, we
require, we must have a bill such as
this that will standardize the way that
product liability is dealt with in every
State.
The reason for that is that in fact everything that Is manufactured in this
country is manufactured i n a way that
i t flows immediately i n interstate commerce. There Is clearly justification,
rationale, and frankly, the necessity of
dealing with this problem at a congressional level for the entire Nation..
Mr. Speaker, this is a genuinely proconsumer bill. I t may not be what the
trial lawyers want, i t may be anti-trial
lawyer. Members may describe i t that
way; I am not sure that I agree with
that, but i t is clearly pro-consumer, because what i t Is saying is that we w i l l
not allow a lottery to be thrown any
more to find out i n what State or at
what situation a particularly persuasive, a particularly eloquent, a particularly loquacious and compelling attorney w i l l be able to bring forward a
judgment that could never be brought
i f i t were a criminal situation ^-Inging
a fine against a particular defendant.
That is really one of the things that
is at stake here, is that we have to remember that when we are talking
about punitive damages, when we are
talking about the awarding of punitive
damages, we are talking about awarding damages in addition to economic
damages, i n addition to noneconomic
damages. I t is after the plaintiff, the
damaged person, the aggrieved party,
has actually been compensated, been
compensated for all of the economic
losses that they have incurred and a l l
of the noneconomic losses they have
incurred.
What this bill does is i t says that punitive damages will be either a maximum of $250,000. or three times the economic damages that have been i n curred. The reason that that is important is because we h a ^ something i n
this country called a Criminal Code,
and the Criminal Code Is designed to
punish people for their. wrongdoings,
for their criminal acts.
If we have a sexual predator i n New
Jersey violating criminal statutes,
then that is when the Criminal Code
should be used and that person should
be sanctioned, should be found guilty,
and should be thrown away, but that is
not the purpose of punitive damages.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, people watching this debate at home on television may wonder
what i n the world is going on here. Let
me take just a moment to explain.
Mr. Speaker, under the procedure imposed by the majority for the consideration of this bill, there are two rules,
one rule tonight providing for two
hours of general debate, and there will
be another rule tomorrow, proffering a
certain number of amendments, only
five hours and 40 minutes to deal with
all the amendments i n the bill.
The second rule is so outrageous that
Members who want to be able to speak
against the bill must take time during
the consideration of the first bill, because of the fact that the majority has
so severely limited the opportunity to
offer amendments. That is why Members are standing up and speaking on
the merits, on the outrageous provisions of this bill, during consideration
of the first of these two rules.
Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate
only. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. SCHROEDER]. •
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker. I
thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
H2867
Mr. Speaker, this whole process is absolutely ridiculous. Let us talk about
what we are doing here. We are taking
the tradition of this country that has
been in effect since this country began,
and we are just throwing i t up i n the
air and starting all over. We are doing
i t with one hearing. In which everybody was allowed 5 minutes to question
witnesses, i t was a huge panel of witnesses, and now we are not allowed any
real amendments tomorrow.
There are all sorts of amendments,
but they have been filed way, way
down. I was not allowed to present
mine, and many others were not allowed to present many of theirs. They
have put real strict time l i m i t s on i t .
I think most people in this body have
no idea what they are doing. However,
before people at home say "Oh, there
they go again, they are all whining;
don't the Democrats sound terrible,"
let me tell the average American how
they are affected by this.
If you go Into a drugstore and you go
to buy some drugs, you assume that
they have been looked at by the Food
and Drug Administration, and you as-_
sume a certain safety level. You can
forget that, because last week we did
away with all that through risk assessment and regulatory reform and all the
other stuff, because we wanted to lighten up on the pharmaceuticals.
Then you say "Okay, as an American, i f I did buy something and I t did
not work, I can always hold the company accountable by suing them."
Guess what, now we are taking on the
other bookend tonight. That Is what
we are going to be talking about the
next 2 days, taking away your right to
sue, severely limiting your, right to
sue.
Therefore, the two things that Americans have relied upon, the l i t t l e guy,
the little guy, to hold the big guy accountable i n this great system that we
have, so we did not have Bhopal, and so
we did not have those kinds of things,
have really been radically changed In
this contract. I am saying tonight
"Wake up, America."
When you also look at what we are
doing with punitive damages and preempting State laws. I t is absolutely
amazing.
• 1945
•
The prior speaker, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. CONYERS], OUT leader, was pointing out all the different
laws there are. We could go on and on
and on.
How about this one? Any agency that
recklessly or willfully makes a mistake while transferring electronic
funds.
You want to know how the average
American could be messed up by that
anymore? New Jersey would allow unlimited punitive damages in that case
if you proved that they w i l l f u l l y did i t .
"Hey, wrong. We're taking that away
from them."
These things are very clearly on
point..
�H2868
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
. How about Virgrinla where somebody .. As a matter-of fact, this is not a 6can have unlimited punitive damages hour debate, this is a 12rhour debate.
or there are no caps right now i f an . We have taken put the time for voting
award is made available from a person which your side has consistently asked
who is injured or killed i f someone is us to do i n the Committee on Rules.
driving Intoxicated? Someone like the Six hours of actual debating on amend£ j j o n Valdez or someone driving a ments.
%
train or a bus.
Let me Just say that the gentleman
Under this, "No, we're going to cap from Michigan was debating not this
it."
rule. This rule is about 2 hours of genThere are all sorts of issues i n here eral decw^e. He was debating tomorfor women and for children.. This is an- row's rule. Tomorrow's, rule, he was
other women-and-children-first bill, be- speaking about with the time frames.
cause noneconomic damages do not As a matter of fact, tomorrow's rule
count. That means that i f you are a has eight amendments i n order from
parent that stays at home, you know
what your value is? Zero when i t comes Democrats, six from Republicans and
to noneconomic value, because you did one bipartisan. I think i t was just
not get a paycheck. I f you are a child, about March or May of last year when
we were given the choice of voting up
the same thing.
or down on the assault weapons ban
I f i t is about your reproductive or- with no opportunities for amendments.
gans or i f i t is about a fetus, the I think this is hardly more egregious
amendment I wanted to offer went to
those Issues, because women have seen than that. .
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of deover and over and over again the drug
industry play fast and lose with them, bate only. I yield 5 minutes to the genwhether we are talking about toxic tleman from North Carolina [Mr.
shock syndrome, whether we are talk- HklNEMAN].
Mr. HEINEMAN. I thank the gening about lUD's, DES, or any number
tleman, from Georgia for yielding me
of things.
To say to women that the value of the time..Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong supyour reproductive organs are nothing
unless I guess you have a job as a sur- port of the rule and the bill Itself.
rogate mother, then I suppose you Why? Because meaningful tort reform
would have economic damages, but is of great importance to all Amerithat is not the average woman i n cans, not just big business as the trial
America and we are not even allowed lawyers would have you believe. By
to present that amendment, the one limiting runaway, punitive damage
that I think was the family-friendly awards, we have the opportunity to
help .a myriad of local groups, such as
amendment..
I hope people realize that we are hot the L i t t l e League, and the Boy Scouts,
yelling to yell. We are yelling because the Girl Scouts, cities and town govwe are throwing up hundreds of years ernments, entrepreneurs, small busiof tradition i n this country and this is ness, doctors and nurses, and other prothe night where the l i t t l e guys did not viders of service.
have the money to put i n the legislaAmericans pay billions of dollars a
tive machine so the .legislative. ma- year i n litigation and higher Insurance
chine Is getting ready to roll right over premiums resulting from product l i them.
ability and personal injury cases.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield These litigation costs are prohibitive
and stifle necessary innovation and remyself such time as I may consume.
In response to the gentlewoman's search and development.
comment that we are taking away the
In a recent survey, 47 percent of U.S.
right to sue. only i n Alice i n Wonder- firms said they withdrew products frbm
land does that kind of languige.sufflce. the market for fear, of litigation. TwenI t reminds me of the character i n one ty-five percent had discontinued some
of those Alice-in-Wonderland stories form, of research and development.
that said. "When I use a word, I t means Fear of litigation, that is what i t was,
exactly what I want i t to mean."- .
a fear of litigation.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, w i l l . Frivolous Utigation even threatens
the gentleman yield? .
• - •.;
L i t t l e League. The astronomical cost
Mr. LINDER. I yield to. the. gentler of litigation and fear of being sued
scares . away volunteer coaches, umwoman from Colorado. . . . .^
Mrs. SCHROEDER. What does the pires, and even the families of kids.
gentleman mean, that I am Alice in L i t t l e League has seen its liability inWonderland?
, • . . • , —• • surance skyrocket, up 1,000 percent
Mr. LINDER. The langruage the gen-, from S75 a league to $795 a league.
tlewoman used, that this is taking
Unbearable litigation insurance costs
away the right to sue., has an Alice-in- and fear of being sued unnecessarily Is
Wonderland quality about i t .
a common problem to all nonprofits.
The gentleman from Michigan who That is why the Common Sense Legal
says this is the most egregious rule he. Reform Act will provide the predicthas ever seen has a very short memory, ability and proportionality i n all civil
because less than.a year ago on the as- tort cases
sault weapons ban. no amendments
Passage of the Common Sense Legal
were allowed from either side at any Reform Act is a vital step forward to
time; a totally closed rule, an up-or- provide equity throughout our civil
down vote.
' ..
Justice system for all Americans.
:
[
3'
March 8, 1995
Let's rein In those who are abusing
the system and are negatively impacting small business, the YMCA, the
United Way, the Boy Scouts, the Girl
Scouts, and the Little League.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Common Sense Legal Reform
Act.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEINEMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just wanted to ask the gentleman
about the State statutes that do allow
civil recovery of punitive damages in
the incidents of sexually abused children and so forth. I am sure the gentleman would agree with me that we
should not be capping those in here,
yet the attorneys we have talked to
have all said that is what we are.doing,
whether i t is sexually abused children
or whether i t is any number of these
other things where States have allowed
civil suits.
What do we do about that? I thirik.it
is terrible that we are not allowed to
have a debate on that.
Mr. HEINEMAN. As the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. HOKE] had spoken before, he said that punitive damages are
a surcharge and the meat and potatoes
of litigation addresses itself to economic and noneconomic damages.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HEINEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I happen to enjoy
working with the gentleman. I know of
his career as a law enforcement officer.
I do not believe that you would approve of us preempting the State law's
punitive damages on sexual predators
that are found guilty in any State.
That is not a law enforcement position,
It is not a civil rights position. I t
should not be your or my position.
. Right?
Mr. HEINEMAN. No. I do not believe
so.. I believe that what.we are talking
about are Federal tort cases, cases that
are brought before the Federal Government. As far as punitive damages are
concerned, punitive damages happen to
come about by the fact that people go
overboard in their conduct, in their
premeditated conduct almost as much
as the law says in this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman is
against punitive damages for sexual
predators when the State law provides
i t and we are capping i t in this bill?
Please.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I f the gentleman
would yield, I think i t is very clear
Mr. HEINEMAN. Excuse me. Let me
reclaim my time. We are talking about
the replacement of State law by Federal law. Federal law is to address i t self to product liability as well as all
other civil cases as the bill states.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate: only, I yield 5 minutes
�March 8, 1995
«
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
H2869
to the gentleman from California [Mr. every rules debate scream about. You me this time, and I congratulate him
•BERMAN].
.
are denying the. amendments.
on his handling of this rule.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the
I am going to give a couple of examI think i t is very important that we
gentleman yield?- ples. Punitive damages: There is a cap bring the debate back to what we are
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gen- on punitive damages. The gentleman here about tonight. What we have, as
from New Mexico [Mr. SCHIFF], a Re- • the gentleman from Texas has properly
tleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I lust want to cite the publican, proposes an amendment to said, is the first of two rules. This eve- law to the other side so there is.no con- l i m i t that cap on all punitive damages ning's rule I think we could call the
fusion. Title n . Punitive Damages Re- just to product liability. He proposes starter rule. I t is designed to begin the
form, section 201(c). "Except as pro- another amendment to. raise the cap to . discussion of product liability reform,
vided, i n any Federal or State court on 3 times all damages, not Just non- and we want to have enough time over
the next 2 days to consider all of the
any theory where punitive damages are economic damages. '
sought." Applicability aind Preemption.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. amendment proposals, but offered by
This preempts State laws where puni- MCCOLLUM], a Republican proposes an Members from both sides of the aisle.
tive damages are concerned! no ques- amendment to raise the cap from
I t was clear from our mini-marathon*
tion about i t . Maybe that is the reason $250,000 to $1 million and from $250,000 Committee on Rules meeting yesterday
. that the gentleman made the response to $500,000. You deny each and every which lasted about 6 hours as we will
that he did to me on that question.
one of those amendments and every recall, that Members acknowledge both
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
other Democratic amendment, except the significance and complexity of
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise not one, the amendment, which I think is a product liability reform because we
in opposition to this rule. This rule Is good amendment, but I t is an amend- had 82 or so amendments. The two
only to deal with the general debate . ment which has no chance of passage, committees of Jurisdiction, Judiciary
issue. I rise, and I hardly ever do, i n op- by the gentlewoman from Oregon that and Commerce, worked diligently to
position to a rule, the rule that is eliminates the cap entirely, because present the House with a solid product.
being filed tonight, because I am so you cannot stand the test of a sugges- The combined bill we expect to conoutraged by what i t has done. Let's tion that something less extreme than sider in the coming days starting totalk for a moment about what the Re- what you are proposing but which still morrow and the next the day, under a
publican majority is doing.
addresses the problem of runaway puni- carefully structured and I believe fair---On a bill which is different i n many, tive damages might be offered on the rule, takes important steps to bring
about consistency and fairness in prodmany respects from the bill passed ei- floor, might win.
ther out of Energy and Commerce or
I t is patently unfair, indefensible. I uct liability law, while setting the paJudiciary, in other words, a bill unilat- am waiting to hear the explanation for rameters for consideration of damage
erally changed, we are being asked now why
the Schiff amendments, the claims.
to debate, without any kind of commit- McCollum amendments, the other
Now, there is going to be disagreetee record on a number of its provi- Democratic amendments were not al- ment, on some of that. This is not. an
sions, with a rule that will be offered lowed, so you could allow the most far easy subject, but I think i t is impor- .
tomorrow that will authorize amend- out amendment, an amendment that I tant to point out that the gentleman
ments which were never raised in com- plan to vote for, by the way, but an from Michigan who got up and said
mittee and which massively expand the amendment that would totally wipe that he was feeling bad about this rule
scope of the bill. But neither one of out any cap on punitive damages.
tonight is feeling, bad a l i t t l e prethose points I think are that critical.
Let's talk about joint and several l i - maturely because when I went back
I have not been one of the people who ability. You allow no amendment to and took a look at some of. the probhave been decrying the Republican de- strike joint and several, the change in lems, this is a mighty good rule. There
cision to limit the time. You have to joint and several liability. You do not Is no problem with this rule. And if he
l i m i t the time i n House with 435 Mem- allow my amendment to say that the is concerned about the rule that is.
bers. I am not even one who decries minor tprt-feasors no longer have joint coming tomorrow, then I would suggest
doing a modified closed rule.
liability but the major tort-feasors do. that we do a little comparison, remindThe balanced budget amendment I And you allow a Cox amendment never ing Members that we had 15 amendthough was a fair rule. You gave the offered in either committee to extend ments made in order out of 80-some"
Democrats the change to take the the elimination of joint liability to submitted. Eight of those happen to be
shots they wanted to and the amend- every tort case in the country. A l i t t l e Democrat almendments. One happened
ments that they had. But i n this case, automobile accident case i n a rural to be bipartisan, and 6 happened to be
you are doing exactly and in the most county i n Montana is now preempted Republican.
outrageous and egregious form what by the proposed Cox amendment which
Let me make a comparison with that
you accuse tho Democrats of doing. you allow, never offered, and allow no and some of the rules, the modified and
You are denying the Democrats the amendments to modify.
closed rules of the 103d under the other
chance to participate in choosing their
leadership. At that time we had the
• 2000
amendments and you are carefully seReinventing Government Act. That
lecting out of a large number of amendYou do not allow the Frank amend- came through with 34 amendments subments that have been offered those ment which would have put a 20-per- mitted to the Committee on Rules; 3
•amendments which would moderate cent l i m i t on joint l i a b i l i t y for both allowed, zero Republican.
this bill and the amendments which economic and noneconomic damages. I t
How about campaign reform, 35
would moderate the excessive provi- Is an outrage, and I think tomorrow .1 amendments submitted upstairs in the
sions of this bill and which have a am going to repeat this speech and I Rules Committee, 1 allowed? How.
chance of passage, which are In many am going to find even better examples about Motor Voter, 19 amendments
cases being proposed by members of because you should have to face that submitted to the Committee on Rules.
you own party, you are denying them you have betrayed everything you have 1 allowed?
the chance in allowing the amend- been saying i n this rule.
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation, 51.
ments that are the most extreme, that
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the amendments brought before the Comraise the issue i n the most clearer fash- purposes of debate only, I . yield 5 min- mittee on Rules. 8 allowed, 7 Democrat,
ion and which are destined to lose.
utes to the gentleman from Florida 1 Republican. The RTC Completion
Act, 12 submitted, 1 allowed.
You are determining the results of [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given perNow I ask Members when they bring
the legislation by the process of the
rules. I t is just what you ran on in No- mission to revise and extend his re- a performance standard like that
against what we are going to propose
vember and said you would never do. I t marks.)
is just what the Speaker said he would
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker. I thank the for the second staging of this rule
never do, after the election, i n his ac- distinguished gentleman from Georgia, which we will be happy, to discuss with,
ceptance speech, what you at every my colleague, Mr. LINDER. for yielding the Members tomorrow, I suggest they
press conference scream about and In
:
f
�K2S70
it!.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
might want to go back and refresh and that is a very different kind of legtheir memories about how i t was i n the islation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield mylC3rt and how much more open and how
much fairer i t is in the 104th i n the way self 1 minute. •
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from
.we are handling these things.Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will Florida [Mr. Goss] is a friend of mine,
and an honorable person. However, he
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the has engaged in this just extraordinary
pentleman from California because he double negative. That was, i t was bad
is going to ask i f the Democrats were in the last session, .and so that justifies
allowed selection. They were invited to doing bad things in this session.
This is not what his party ran on in
participate always, and my friend from
California, Mr. DREIER, is going to November. His party ran on open rules
speak in just a moment. I think i f the and open process, and now he is trying
% gentleman will save his question for to justify an extraordinarily closed
the gentleman from California [Mr. process that would rewrite 200 years of
DREIER], he will find the gentleman civil law i n this country by saying
from Califomia [Mr. DREIER] is going what was done in the last Congress was
to answer that question. I am happy to terrible; this is not quite as terrible;
yield to the gentleman from California. but we are justified in .doing this because of terrible things that were done
Mr. BERMAN. I might, just add. on • ih the previous Congress.
that point that was not going to be my
Mr. GOSS.
question.
. . . . . tleman yield Mr. Speaker, will the genbriefly?
Mr. GOSS. Well, I hope the genMr. FROST. There will be ample time
tleman is going to ask that question.
as i t goes on. I only yield myself 1
Mr. BERMAN. That is directly con- minute.
trary to what the ranking member of
Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate
the Rules Committee and the ranking only,. I yield 4 minutes to the genmember of the Judiciary Committee tleman from Texas [Mr. BRYANT].
have told me.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. ChairMr. GOSS. Present ranking? Ranking man, I would say to the gentleman
last year, ranking this year? I would be from Florida [Mr. Goss] that the sky is
very happy, I am not sure Which rank- falling when your party takes two bills
ing members the gentleman is talking that came out of committee and reabout. But I guess I could further com- writes them, and sends them out here
plete my statement by saying all these and, lo and behold, we find out what
egregious closed rules that we com- they do is they take, put a cap on puniplained about so mightily last year, tive damages for somebody who sexuand I just read the gentleman's statis- ally abuses a child. I would say the sky
tics, the very people who are complain- is falling. That is a curious position for
ing about this relatively open, rule your party to take. They put a cap on
compared to them a l l voted for those punitive damages for somebody that is
egregiously closed rules and the killed or Injured by a drunk driver or
somebody who is on drugs. I would say
RECORD is clear on that.
So I think i t is a l i t t l e bit disingen- the sky is falling i f your bill does that.
uous to say the sky is falling on this
I would say the sky is falling i f you
very important subject when we have, put a cap for punitive damages for
made in order 15 amendments, have got somebody that sells drugs to a kid. And
all kinds of debate time out there. We that is what the Republican bill does
have taken out. as we have been asked that has been sent out here, that you
to do in the Committee on Rules, the rewrote after i t came out of commitwalking time, the voting time and we tee.
An very interesting about this rule
have i t adjusted down to pure debate
you are talking about here for tomortime.
The gentlewoman from Colorado, row, you are bragging about i t ; and we
who is rising, who I w i l l yield to In a are going to hear some more bragging
moment, complained she did not have here about i t in a minute I guess, the
all of her amendments made in order, gentleman said he spent 6 hours in the
but I believe she does have one of her Committee on Rules rewriting the rule
amendments made i n order i f I am not but there, are less than 6 hours of demistaken.
"' "•' v f'-v^ bate on the whole bill, and we are not
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, even going to be working on Monday
now, apparently, a bill that wipes out
will the gentleman yield?.
Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the 200 years of common law.
I looked at these amendments. The
gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I gentleman knows what he said, that he
has an open rule here, he has been fair
thank the gentleman for yielding.
First of a l l . there were 60 germane and so forth like that: Sixty percent of
amendments as I understand that were the time In the rule for tomorrow is set
not made i n order. The ones made in aside for the very Republicans that
order have very severe time limits on wrote the rule in the committee, the
them, and the only thing I wanted to bill in the committee, and then rewrote
ask the gentleman about his analogy in the bill when i t came out of the comprior years is I cannot think of any mittee. •
There is only 2 hours and 20 minutes
piece of legislation that was preempting all of this jurisdiction from the set aside for amendments from DemoStates i n such a radical new direction crats that disagree with the bill. Do
March 8, 1995
not tell us i t is a fair rule. A t least you
ought to get out here and admit you
just tried to r i g i t so you are not going
to be embarrassed by meaningful
amendments.
The fact of the matter is you have a
bill out here for which there is no empirical data to support the allegation
that will underlie the. philosophy of the
bill. You are trying to tell the Arner. lean people, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. SOLOMON] ought to pay attention to what I am saying here because I am talking about what he said
a minute ago, he said all of these tort
filings are up and so forth. You do not
have any study that says that; I do not
know where you guys get the facts except I guess you all just talk to each
other at the country club and you Just
agree, " A i n ' t i t awful, ain't i t awful
what is happening?" and talk about
what the facts are.
The facts are that the National Center for State Courts found that product
liability cases are only 4 percent of all
tort filing. Tort filings in turn are only
9 percent of all civil filings, and civil
filings are only 27 percent of all filings,
which means product liability cases
represent 36/100ths of a percentage
point of the civil caseload and 97/
lOOOths of a percentage point of the
total caseload i n the State courts.
In addition to that, the studies indicate that the total number of these
cases is going down, not up, and the
Rand Corp.'s study indicates that only
10 percent of people who are injured
ever use the tort system to seek compensation for their injuries in the first
place.
Look, you guys are doing your corporate buddies a big favor out here.
That is what is going on. You have
written the rule In such a way we cannot offer amendments. The bill is a bad
bill, and when we start taking up
amendments tomorrow, the bill is
going to be made even more bad when
i t comes to final passage. And we have
so little time to talk about i t and offer
amendments that we are having to get
up on the rule tonight, the first rule
and 2 hours of debate and use the time
to talk about the contents of the bill.
What does the bill do? The bill lets
sexual abusers and drug abusers and
people that sell drugs to kids off the
hook.
I t also says If I commit an intentional tort, i f I get a baseball bat and
come over to your house and beat the
stuffings out of you with i t , or i f I burn
your house down because I do not like
you, there is a cap on punitive darnages, you cannot get but $250,000 in punitive damages i f I do that to you or
three times your economic damages,
which would not be much of a factor in
this situation.
You guys are on the side of wrongdoers, not just corporate wrongdoers
but every other kind of wrongdoers,
and you are saying States cannot , do
anything about i t because you have a
cap in here which, despite what wais
said by one of the speakers a while ago.
�March 8, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
H2871
Mr. MOAKLEY. Reclaiming my time,
why don't you see what you can do and
in answering , to my dear friend from
then come back and we will talk?"
But in the meantime the Committee New York, the chairman of the comon Commerce came down and other mittee, our side did not have that list
people from the committee came down until 4 o'clock. I never saw that list
and said that your committee was get- until 4 o'clock when I walked into that
committee room.
ting information from them.
Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will
Mr. DREIER. I expect I sort of beyield,, you had that yesterday all day
came the Intermediary here.
At this point, with the indulgence of long during the hearing; during the
my friend from soiith Boston I think hearing you had the list of amendGlens Falls ought" to be represented. " : ments, 82-amendments;as"-we went
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the through the testimony.
Mr. MOAKLEY. This was not the list
gentleman yield?
. Mr. DREIER. I am glad to yield to you and I were talking about. I mean,
the distinguished gentleman from that was matters that were going on
then.-aridlt was my understanding
Glens Falls, NY, the chairman of the somewhere we would have met andthat
sat
Committee on Rules.
down rather than go up and then see
DREIER].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman; I our choices already picked by you on
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given thank my good friend for yielding. But
permission to revise and extend his rer to my good friend from Massachusetts, the schedule to be voted out.
Mr. DREIER. I am just sorry I was
marks.)
[Mr. MOAKLEY] he has had an alphabetMr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would ical listing of 82 amendments. Fifty- not there for the conversation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. You have got good
like to take just a couple of moments one of those amendments are Democrat
to address one particular Item that was amendments, and I simply said give us ears.
raised in the debate earlier, and that a list of your priority amendments and
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2
has to do with the attempt made by let us consider them: And at 2:30 I ex- minutes to the gentleman from Illinois .
the majority, those of us on the Repub[Mr. HYDE].
lican side, to listen to and get some pected to get those so we could sit
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given
down and caucus, talk about the mission to revise and extend his pet.,
input from Members of the minority
re-~
when we came to discussing not the amendments, and try to be fair. When marks.)
rule that we are going to be voting on no list came, we simply 'went through
Mr. HYDE- Mr. Speaker. I have
in just a few minutes, but tomorrow's the list, picking out all of the issues watched a lot of debate In my life on
throughout all of the? titles and then television usually between Senatorial
rules because the one we are voting on
in just a few minutes is simply calling had to make the decisions ourselves.
candidates. Sometimes the hyperbole
Mr. DREIER. And we ended up mak- gets pretty extreme. One phrase I have
for 2 hours of general debate. So i t is
interesting we have begun debating a ing eight Democrat amendments In heard pretty often, "You are shamerule that we are not considering now order, five Repbulican amendments and less, you are shameless." I would never
on the House floor.
two bipartisan amendments;
bring that word to bear here in this
Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is ab- Chamber. I must say I advise my friend
I am very happy to see my good
from Texas of an old equitable doctrine
friend from south Boston, the former solutely correct.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the called clean hands. You do not come to
chair and ranking minority member of
court complaining of somebody's dirty
the Committee on Rules [Mr. MOAK- gentleman yield on this?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gen- hands unless you have clean hands
LEY] here, and of course my friend from
yourself. That is the problem, the fatal
Glens Falls, the distinguished chair- tleman from Califomia.
man of the Committee on Rules. I was
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank flaw with your argument. There are
standing in the back of the Chamber the gentleman very much for yielding. eight Democratic amendments made in
when a discussion took place between I do not even want to get Into the de- order, six Republican, on this legislathe chairman and the ranking minority bate about what was said or who chose tion, and your complaint is we are. only
member. Now my hearing is awfully what because I was not there for any of five times as generous as you were.
good, I had a hearing test downsUirs. I the conversations.
Now, I look at the motor voter bill.
could not hear exactly what was being
Mr. DREIER. I was simply repeating That was a big one, one amendment,
said, but I got a report from the chair- a discussion I had.
one. Assault weapons. Did that reach
man and the chairman told me that an
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 into the States and the cities and the
offer was made to the minority to come minute to the gentleman from Massa- communities? Zero, zip, nada, no
forward by 2:30 this afternoon with rec- chusetts [Mr. MOAKLEY].
amendments at all. My God. and you
ommendations as to what amendments
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield have the chutzpah to complain that
we might consider making in order, to the gentleman from Califomia [Mr. you have got eight amendments here?
and i t was not until we met at 4 BERMAN].
How do you do it? What do you drink?
o'clock this afternoon and gave a 10Mr. BERMAN. The question of the What do you eat that gives you that?
minute break at the request of the mi- number of amendments that are Demo- . How about reinventing government?
nority to look at the amendments that cratic and the number of Republican is How many Republican amendments on
were made in order that we heard any- all nonsense.
that one? Zero. How about campaign
thing at all about what ideas we wantAddress the issue of why you allowed reform? There is a big one. How many
ed to have considered.
the amendment that was the most ex- Republican amendments did you perMr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the treme and none of the amendments by mit in your Committee on Rules? Zero.
gentleman yield?
Republicans or Democrats that sought Motor voter, assault weapons, omnibus
Mr. DREIER. I am more than happy to refine the bill. I submit, and you budget reconciliation, one Republican
to yield to my friend, the gentleman will have to show me why i t is not so, amendment. Thank you, thank you
very much. One Republican.
from south Boston.
that you went through a systematic
It Is Just too much, to take all of this
Mr. MOAKLEY. Actually, the gen- process of making sure no amendment
tleman is partially correct. I had a con- that might moderate this bill, that moaning, and weeping, and gnashing of
versation with the chairman and I said, could win. could be offered, and only teeth, with your record.
Clean your hands, please.
"What have we got to look at; have amendments that could not win would
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the
you got a draft?" And he says, "No, I be allowed.
do not have a draft yet." I said, "We
You rigged the process, . until yoii gentleman yield?
would like to see what you have so we show me otherwise, and that is the real . Mr. HYDE. I yield to my friend, the
could talk about i t . " He says, "Well, outrage of this rule.
gentleman from New York.
applies to the State courts as well as to
the Federal court.
This is an outrageous procedure. I t is
an outrageous bill. I t is not based upon
any factual data whatsoever. But to
bring i t to the floor with a rule like
this where we have 2 hours and 20 minutes of debate and amendments
brought by the other side, by opponents of the bill, and is an embarrassment and humiliation, and you have
- forever forfeited-your ability ^to stand
on this floor or anywhere else and
criticize the Democrats for the way in
which they write rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Califomia [Mr.
?
�H2872
1'
1
"
fir
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purMr: SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I say to
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. poses of;debate only. I yield the balHYDE], the thing that just bothers me ance of our time to the gentleman from
is that a l l of the speakers that are Texas [Mr. DOGOETT].
complaining here, that are squawking,
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there
every one of them voted for every sin- may well be some debate about which
gle restricted rule i n the last 2 years.
of the various pieces of legislation conMr. HYDE. We need an analysis of sidered this week is the most outthese rules. This is just cursory. This is rageous. Is i t the reversal of 200 years
off the top of my head. Let us go into of American law with refert ". to the
way attorneys are handled in our socithis in depth.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for pur- ety? Is i t the potential for bilking
poses of debate only, I yield myself 30 those who invest our pension funds in
securities i n this country? Or Is i t deseconds.
I would remind my good friend, the nying the rights to those who are ingentleman from Illinois [Mr. HYDE], jured across this country from defecand my good friend, the" gentleman tive products?
from New York [Mr. SOLOMON], that i t
There may be debate about that. But
was their party that ran for office last there can be.no debate about what is
year, promising open rules, not promis- the most outrageous rule for considering partially open rules, not promising ation of any of these measures, because
modified rules, promising open rules.
we are tonight part of a double whamI would raise a question about the my, a double whammy to deny the peocleanliness Of the hands, I say to my ple of America through a gag rule on
good friend, the gentleman from H l i - this Congress the opportunity to disnois [Mr. HYDE]; your contract and cuss the f b l l dimensions of this issue of
your Speaker promised open rules. taking away the States rights at the
same time we take away the rights of
That is not what we have here today.
Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate victims.
only, I yield 1% minutes to the gen- , We know f u l l well there is ample
tleman from Oregon [Mr. DEFAZIO].
time to debate the dimensions of this
Mr. D E F A Z I O . Mr. Speaker. I hate to piece of legislation. We have just had
disagree with colleagues on both sides the distinguished majority leader come
of the aisle. I do not think i t is tremen- to the floor of this House and tell us we
dously important to the American peo- have all day Monday, be i t to play golf,
ple, you know, who allowed more be i t to be wined and dined by the great
corporate lobbyists who are so interamendments when..
The question is: What does this bill ested in this piece of legislation, but
do to or for the American people? This we have no time, not 1 minute, to
Corporate L i a b i l i t y Shield Act which spend on Monday discussing the rights
we will take up tomorrow I heard ear- that are being destroyed of the Amerlier described as pro-consumer, and I ican citizens through this piece of legheard some discussion of Alice in Won- islation.
derland. I f you think this bill is proWe have courts all over this land, we
consumer, you have stepped through have State capitals all over this land
the looking glass. .
struggling with the issues involved.
The next time the Ford Motor Co. Let them struggle on without the Fedknowingly puts out a defective product eral Government taking over these is-.
and keeps i t on the road and people sues and doing i t i n a way that is not
burn to death, they will have a l i t t l e actually debated on the floor of this
different equation to deal with. I t w i l l House. - .
be easier to keep I t on the road, beI t deserves more than one evening, i t
cause they know the punitive damages deserves more than one day when you
are going to be limited next time trample on the rights of our citizenry
around. That is pro-consumer?
in the way this Is being done.
Is i t pro-consumer to preempt the
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield
SUtes. 200 years of State law, to pre- myself the balance of our time.
empt every j u r y in every State i n
Mr. Speaker, I realize that i t is fun
America w i t h your Judgment and cap and interesting to debate the bill while
damages? I do not think that Is pro- discussing the rule, and tonight we deconsumer.
.
bated tomorrow's rule instead of toAnd how about the special provision night's rule about which I w i l l make
for the wealthy? You know, i f you get Just a couple of references.
punitive damages under this bill, you
I t is a fact that the minority was ofare going to enshrine something into fered an opportunity to prioritize their
Federal law. You can get three times amendments and tell us which ones, i n
your monetary damages, generally In- their Judgment, were most important.
cluding your wages. So i f you are an They did not do that.
electrician and you earn $30,000 a year,
I t is also true that of the 82 amendyou are limited, but i f you are a f a t cat ments that were printed on our desks
and you earn $250,000 a year, you can for roughly 2 days both during the
get three times that.amount. That Is hearing and during the markup of this
pro-consumer? .
•.:.'. .. ... . . .^ . :•:: bill, there were eight to nine subWell. I suppose that Is pro-consumer stantive idea differences. We had many
if the people you think of as consumers amendments offered changing the cap,
abolishing the cap; we had many
are the wealthiest people in America.
. This sticks.it to average Americans, amendments offered changing joint and
several. We made a sincere effort to
again, like every other bill this week.
March 8, 1995
find in each of the areas where there
were substantive differences and ideas
to find the amendment to be voted on
at that time, to debate i t and vote on
that idea.
If the amendments that are put
forth, the 14.amendments or 15 amendments, 8 Democrat, 6 Republican, and 1
bipartisan, i f they pass, i t will dramatically alter this bill i f i t passes and
goes to the Senate. The changes are
substantive. They are sincere, and they
are real. The debate will be long tomorrow and the next day on the substance
of the amendments. The opportunity
for the amendments to be voted on is
rather unique, in my experience here,
because we did not have opportunities
in the last Congress to offer many
amendments at a l l .
I urge my colleagues to remember
Just this: The rule we are voting on tonight says this, tonight there will be 2
hours of general debate on the bill, divided between the ranking members
and the chairmen of the two committees. Judiciary and Commerce. That is
i t . That is hardly, hardly a difficult
rule to take, and I urge my colleagues
to support the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
EWING). Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table..
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDINO FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 956. COMMON
SENSE LEGAL STANDARDS REFORM ACT OF 1995
Mr. LINDER. from the Committee on
Rules, submitted a privileged report
(Rept. No. 104-72) on the resolution (H.
Res. 109) providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 956) to establish
legal standards and procedures for
product liability litigation, arid for
other purposes, which was referred to
the House Calendar a: d ordered to be
printed.
N
m
PERMISSION FOR SUNDRY COMMITTEES AND THEIR SITBCOMMTTTEES TO SIT TOMORROW
DURING 5-MINUTE RpLE
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that th? following committees and their subcommittees be
permitted to sit tomorrow while the
House is meeting in the Committee of
the Whole House under the 5-minute
rule.
Committee on Banking and Financial
Services; Committee on Commerce;
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight;
Committee on International Relations:
Committee on National Security; Committee on Resources; Committee on
Science; Committee on Small Business:
�March 8, 1995
H2873
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; Committee on Veterans"
Affairs; and Select Committee on Intelligence.
I t is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that
there is no objection to these requests.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? •
*
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, we have consulted with the ranking member of
each of those communities, and I believe this is by agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of.objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
ket. They affect the present and the f u ture of virtually every American. In an
increasingly global economy our confusing, crazy-quilt, patchwork of 50
separate State liability laws presents
roadblocks .to America's economic
growth and job creation.
Opponents say we should not preempt
State law. Opponents of this legislation
ironically t a l k of interference with
states rights, but many of these same
persons are quite comfortable preempting State law, and allowing expansive
Federal regulation, in numerous other
areas with the EPA, FDA, OSHA,
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, NLRB, FTC, FERC. FCC, Securities and Exchange Commission,
CFTC; and, who knows how many other
Federal agencies regulating virtually
every segment of the American economy?
• It is ironic that the
multibillion-dollar litigation industry should be one
aspect of the economy, but they believe
the Federal Government
should not
touch. The truth is that they are for
the status quo.
..
-rr^'
This bill will not result in any new
Federal spending, no new Federal department or agency will be created, no
new Federal program will be established, no new Federal regulations will
be issued, no new Federal court jurisdiction is created, and no new costs to
the Federal taxpayer. Instead, what we
will have are constant, and consistent,
legal standards governing civil actions
brought in both Federal and State
courts. Instead Of the uneven patchwork of 50-plus, confused, and inconsistent State laws, there will be basic
uniform rules and legal standards that
everyone will understand.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is directed at some basic fundamental problems with our civil justice system. I t is
intended to address the serious problems of lawsuit abuse. Lawsuit abuse
saps our economy, eliminates jobs, pits
neighbor against neighbor, injures our
country's global competitiveness. In
the words of former Attorney General
William Barr. "Our civil justice .system
is slow, expensive, uncert"' . and capricious."
• .
Mr. Chairman, lawsuit abuse is harming American industry and. American
workers. The uncertainty and unfairness of the present system discourages
employers from investing capital, making better and more innovative products, and creating new jobs.
Lawsuit abuse undermines our international competitiveness. Our companies pay liability insurance costs which
are 20 to 50 times higher than foreign
competitors. Those higher costs transCOMMON SENSE LEGAL
STANDARDS REFORM ACT OF 1995 late into higher prices for U.S. products, which i h turn reduce our exports
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- and job opportunities, they otherwise
ant to House Resolution 108 and rule would provide.
X X I I I , the Chair declares the House in
Lawsuit abuse slows research efforts
the Committee of the Whole House on to find cures for many serious diseases.
the State of the Union for the consider- According to Science magazine, many
ation of the bill, H.R. 956.
of America's leading medical research
and pharmaceutical companies have
• 2029
decided to abandon, or to avoid altoIN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
gether, products that would be exAccordingly the House resolved itself tremely helpful to America's health
into the Committee of the Whole House system. Numerous other life-saving
on the State of the Union for the con- medical products are not reaching the
sideration of the bill, H.R. 956, to es- market because of liability concerns.
tablish legal standards and procedures
Lawsuit abuse means higher prices
for product liability litigation, and for for consumers. Higher liability costs
other purposes, with Mr. DREIER in the necessitated by the current legal atchair. .
mosphere, and the lack of clear naThe Clerk read the title of the bill.
tional standards, are ultimately passed
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the on to consumers i n the form of higher
rule; the bill is considered as having prices for products and services. Our
PUNITIVE DAMAGES REFORM
been read the first time.
legal system acts like a hidden tax, a
Importantly, in the area of punitive
Under the rule, the gentleman from- "litigation tax" on the American
Illinois [Mr. HYDE] will be recognized consumer and too l i t t l e goes to the in- damages, this bill goes beyond product
liability suits and extends punitive
for 30 minutes, the gentleman" from jured v i c t i m s . "
Michigan [Mr. CONYERS] will be recogThe U.S. Department of Commerce damage reform to all civil actions.
nized for 30 minutes, the gentleman has estimated only 40 cents from each
SEVERAL LIABILITY REFORM
from Virginia [Mr. BLILEY] will be rec- dollar expended in product liability
We will hear more about this as we
ognized for 30 minutes, and the gen- suits ultimately reaches injured vic- go along, but we have adopted the Calitleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL] tims. The tort system is too costly. fornia rule, which is working very well
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The current system imposes a stagger- out there.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman ing cost on the United States. The anPRODUCT SELLER FAIRNESS
nual cost of this tort system is estifrom Illinois [Mr. HYDE].
We distinguish between a seller and a
mated at $117 billion. I t is the most
• 2030 .
manufacturer, something that should
costly system i n the world.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield my-- Mr. Chairman, no single State can ef- have been done a long time ago; and.
self such time as I may consume.
fectively resolve these problems." Fre- very importantly, we initiate a statue
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given per- quently, a product is manufactured in of repose, a uniform statute of 15 years
mission to revise and extend his re- one State, and sold in another State, on all goods. A statute of repose specimarks.)
while the alleged injury occurs in a fies the period of time after manufacMr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in third State. On average, over 70 per- ture of a product during which a lawstrong support of the Common Sense cent of the goods manufactured in one suit relating to a product may be
State are shipped out of the State and brought. Thus, manufacturers cannot
Legal Standards Reform Act of 1995.
Mr. Chairman, this is an historic de- sold . elsewhere. So, the fundamental be sued for products 15 years after their
bate. After more than a decade of work interstate character of this area of the delivery. This is an important concept
already recognized in Federal law beby Members on both sides of the aisle, law gets a uniform national solutionMr. Chairman, excessive, inflative cause last year we passed the General
product liability and legal reform legislation is finally being considered on punitive damage awards have effects Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994.
the floor of the House for the first far beyond the, borders of one State.
ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEFENSE
time. For too many years discussion They affect the investment decisions of
This bill includes language that
large and small businesses. They ham- would prevent a claimant from recov.and debate was blocked by Members
who are unsympathetic to the goals of per job creation, and they discourage ering in a product liability action if
new products from going on the mar- that , person was more than 50 percent
this.legislation.
:
-
'm-
�H2874
4
in
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
responsible for the harm because of the
use of alcohol or drugs. .
Mr. Chairman, the American people
overwhelmingly support reforms in our
current legal system. Why is that?
Well, when the Girl Scouts of America
have to trudge door to door in our
neighborhoods to sell tons of thousands
Of boxes of cookies just to raise the
funds necessary to protect themselves
from liability, the American people
know that something is seriously
wrong w i t h our legal system. When
Americans see breakthrough work on
medical devices and medical vaccines
that could save lives halted because of
the fear of lawsuits, the public Is rightf u l l y outraged. In a society where lawyers, not the Injured victims, receive
over half of every dollar spent on product l i a b i l i t y litigation, i t is time for
change. Under our current system consumers lose, workers lose and businesses lose.
Mr. Chairman, as part of the Contract With America the Republican
Party made a commitment to end lawsuit abuse In America and return fairness and common sense to our legal
system. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 956 is at
the core of this pledge and deserves the
support of every Member of this body.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance
of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. CONYERS] for 30 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman. I yield
myself 4 minutes.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. My colleagues, we
have reached the moment In the frantic 104th Congress where we will begin
consideration of product liability reform, the conceded centerpiece of the
new majority's contract with corporate
America. But we should carefully study
the signatories to this contract provision: the party of the first part, the Republican Party; the party of the second
part, corporate America.
But where are the American people?
They are nowhere to be. found!
So. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear at
the outset of this debate. What masquerades under the arcane title of product liability reform is nothing less
than a frontal assault on consumers, on
the courthouses and the juries of the 50
States, and on the continued safety of
products found in our grocery stores,
at our schools, and, yes. at our very
homes.
Not to be allowed to be considered is
joint and several liability which has
now been severely reduced.
Not to be considered are various
amendments on punitive damages, to
raise the l i m i t at least to a million dollars and to include noneconomic damages.
Not to be considered is the Federal
preemption of State laws that include
sexual abuse violations, drug violations
and even, yes, regular assaults on individual to individual.
There is no way to change the law
under this very strictured debate. I say
to my colleagues, "Prepare yourselves
for a journey into a dream-like world
where proponents of this legislation
are unable or unwilling to distinguish
myth from reality for the myths have
grown way out of control."
Mr. Chairman, •"his bill is all about
the rights of States, and I do not stand
as a States Tighter, but for over 200
years each State developed its own law;
my colleagues know that. We have developed tort law at the State level by
citizens, by their courts, by their legislatures, arid they have done a great job.
The laws kept apace of striking the
proper balance between citizens rights
and business interests. In the past decade alone over 45 States have modified
their tort laws in various ways where
they needed correction, but this bill is
a move to federalize all State tort law
so that corporate lobbyists can get
from the Federal Government what
they could not get from the States.
The.pressure by corporations to do
this in the first 100 days of this Congress has been enormous. I t had to be
to make the Republican majority turn
its back and swim upstream from the
central theme of the Contract. With
America which is. obviously, returning
power to the States and to the people.
I ask, "Remember that theme that we
had only a few weeks ago? Remember
It?" Well, i t is history now, at least for
the next few days.
In this bill the new majority is saying. "Welcome back to the world of the
Great Society where the Federal Government will tell you how to run your
courts, your juries, your business and
your honie."
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance
of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bliley] for 30 minutes.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BLILEY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his remarks).
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
strong support of H.R. 956. the Common
Sense Product Liability and Legal Reform Act. While many amendments
w i l l be offered to this bill from both
sides of the aisle, I am confident that
H.R. 956 represents the best compromise possible from the communities
of jurisdiction.
The bill before the House today is the
culmination of almost two decades of
grappling with the Issue of tort reform
system under control, particularly in
the area of products liability. I am especially proud to have the opportunity
to bring this bill to the floor as chairman of the Commerce Committee.
While I am not a lawyer and do not
profess to comprehend all of the finer
points of legal discourse. I do know
that today's tort system has grown
into something that no one ever intended.
March 8, 1995
Today, people seem to talk to their
lawyers more than they talk to one another. For every problem, the answer
seems to be another lawsuit. I t used to
be that when you drank a case of beer
and fell of a ladder, you were drunk
and stupid. Now you sue the ladder
company because the ladder was somehow defective. The only people who
have profited from .this change in a t t i tude are the lawyers. Americans everywhere want this profiteering to stop.
That is why product liability is such
a bipartisan issue. In the Commerce
Committee, where my predecessor and
good friend, the gentleman from Michi,gan, has historically championed the
cause of meaningful product liability
reform, we have held well over a dozen
hearings and nearly 20 days of markup
on product liability reform legislation.
We reported out product liability reform legislation not just once, but
twice, with significant .bipartisan majorities. H.R. 956 is the ultimate product of those efforts, and there is a lot
for Members on both sides of the aisle
to support..
This bill injects some rationally into
how punitive damages are awarded. I t
lifts the burden placed- on interstate
commerce by 51 separate jurisdictions.
And i t gives manufactures a small de:
gree of predictability about what they
face when they put their product on a
truck bound for this marketplace we
call America: However, there is nothing in this bill which impairs the abili t y to legitimately injured people to
collect damages from the people or
companies who injured them. That is
what the tort system was designed to
do and no one wants to take that away.
There will be a great many amendments offered to this legislation over
the next several days. Some of these
amendments will improve the bill
while others are designed to gut i t . I
trust that Members will look at each
amendment and listen to the debate
carefully. And in the end. I hope that
Members will make the right (incision
and vote for a more rational and measured product liability system rather
than for the trial lawyers.
• 2045
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4
minutes to the gentleman frqm Michigan [Mr. DINGELL], the honorable ranking Member of our Committee on Commerce.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the distinguished gentlema.n
from Louisiana for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have supported product liability reform for over a decade.
In 1988 I presided over the infamous
"torts class from hell" when the Committee on Energy and Commerce spent
10 long days in a markup to report a
product liability reform bill. Regrettably, that bill died when other committees failed to take action. Since
then, I have repeatedly cosponsored
other major legislation on this subject
�March 8, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
and have sought to see to i t that i t was .
enacted into law.
.1 observed that this is a painful process to me because I t is my view that
the bill is being rammed through the
House. Unlike previous efforts, there
has been little meaningful attempt to
work out a bipartisan piece of legislation, fair and balanced. The rush to
judgment has produced a number of defects, inconsistencies, and errors, and
indeed i t has been fraught with what I
view as being procedural errors and
failures. Despite my misgivings about
the prdcess and certain provisions. I
voted i n favor of the Committee on
Commerce bill. I did so because the
core of the bill was consistent with
those that I had previously supported
and because there were assurances
made at the markup that some of the
bill's shortcomings would be corrected.
I w i l l note, however, that under the
probable rule, opportunities to correct
some of the defects which I seek will
become much smaller and much less
opportune, but before the ink on the
Committee on Commerce bill was dry.
Chairman HYDE and Chairinan BLILEY
introduced yet another bill, H.R. 1075.
This new bill differed significantly
from the bill I voted for In committee.
One major change is the punitive
damages provisions of H.R. 1075. They
. apply to all actions for harm, not just
product liability actions. I am curious
why this is so. I t is possible i t is motivated by any of a number of reasons,
one. to protect all wrongdoers from punitive actions and two, to open up the
b i l l so perhaps more extreme legisla, tlon unrelated, to product liability reform might be considered. I hope that
that second course will not be followed.
The idea of limiting punitive damages
and product liability actions is something I am willing to consider carefully
but I do not believe that this legislation should be use to enact wholesale
changes to all of our Federal and State
law with regard to civil actions i n the
courts of the Federal Government or
the several SUtes.
I am particularly concerned about
the amendments that might arise to
l i m i t medical malpractice liability and
to put severe limits on noneconomic
damages In all civil cases. I believe
that something should be done about
medical malpractice liability, but I believe i t should be done carefully and
with consistency i n terms of good practice of the kind that we have seen over
the years. This bill should be about
product liability reform, not about rewriting 'liability laws for all State and
Federal cases.
Amendments that go to key provisions i n this bill on product liability
reform should be debated on and they
should be voted on and sufficient time
should be given. I f the bill becomes an
attempt to rewrite all civil liability
law without hearings, without consideration in the committees of jurisdiction, and without proper notice and opportunity to participate for all Members, i t will certainly diminish biparti-
san support for the bill and threaten
support for product liability reform.
That would be a shame because we
worked too long to try to achieve reform of what Is a serious economic, social, and other problem.
I will participate in the debate allowed by this rule. I intend to listen to
the arguments on all sides. I hope that
fair and balqn^ed debate will lead to
fair and balanced product liability reform legislation, as I have for many
years. But tins bill cannot become a
vehicle for another attempt to deal
with issues outside the needed reform.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from
Pennsylvania [Mr.
GEKAS].
Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. Chairman, when the evidence Is
in, we hope that the American public
acting as the jury of us all will be able
to render a final verdict i n favor of
what we are attempting to do here, and
exhibit A among the evidence that we
are going to present the American people is title I I I . for instance, i n this bill.
Here is the situation, and I ask the
public to weigh this. We have an individual who is sufferii^r from severe
heart disease. The doctors who were attending this individual insist that the
only way that life can be saved or life
made better for this Individual is for a
valve of some sort to be implanted i n
tbe body of this individual. I t has come
to pass that medical devices that are
intricately prescribed for this kind of
condition have become scarce on the
market, not because the innovative
spirit of the scientists and doctors and
practitioners and inventors who are i n volved i n this field do not have new
products and new ways of doing things,
but because suppliers of the raw materials that go ultimately Into the manufacture of these medical devices have
found themselves liable to suits i n
which they have been found not to be
culpable In the long run, but which has
caused them millions of dollars i n expenses for litigation, not to mention
the time expended away from their ordinary business to defend a suit that
ultimately ends up on their favor, but
because they do not want the hassle bf
this kind of liability, they are leaving
the marketplace, and that leaves the
individual with the heart disease, the
consumer, i f you will, because this is a
pro-consumer tenet that we are advancing here on this products liability
biU, that consumer no longer has access to a heart valve that is Important
to saving that individual's life. That Is
what this is all about, and we can expand this type of example to hundreds
of other examples In the marketplace
which prevent, because of liability
suits and the reluctance of companies
to advance new products, depriving the
consumer of lower prices, of a better
selection, of new innovation devices
and, in the example that I have offered
to you here tonight and which Is supported by many people in this room
H2875
here tonight, the consumer,
the
consumer that we most want to benefit, the patient, the heart disease patient. - the brain-damaged individual,
the one who requires a hip joint or any
other kinds of medical devices that can
save lives or produce a better quality
of life, the marketplace is shrinking
because we do not have the type of legislation which we offer here tonight.
Mr. CONYERS. I am delighted to
yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Colorado [Mrs. SCHROEDER].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman. I
thank the gentleman from Michigan
for yielding.
• Mr. Chairman, I think the way to
frame this bill is this is the Washington-knows-best bill, and. for the life of
me. I cannot figure out why we are
doing this. We are here upsetting over
200 years of tradition and we are doing
i t after almost everyone has gone
home. Let's face i t , only the committees are here debating and this whole
- thing has been ramrodded through.
We are beginning to see now what
people who contributed to the cam-paign are .getting. The fat cats are
going to get their tax cuts and they are
going to get a huge liability shield, because that is what we are really constructing here is a shield for them
against any liability.
I t is almost like saying the Congress
has now decided that the highest value
in America is making money, making
money at any cost. I mean, we want
these fat cats to not have to deal with
regulation, heaven forbid, because they
might have to make something safe,
and then, i f you have taken the regulation away, you have got to change the
legal rules; because otherwise, they are
going to get sued. • So i f we can take away the regulation and take away the legal rules,
wow, and America will be out there and
we will be competitive again... I guess
this is the new trickle down thing. So
the employers will all be happy because they will have more money and
hire more workers i f the workers do
not happen to get hurt. But if they do.
i t is too bad.
I find this really, really surprising,
because this has very severe limits on
damages. We are saying to all the
State legislatures, we know better
than you. Of course not in school .
lunch. We are going to take school
lunches and give i t back to the State
legislature. They are nutritional experts but they do not know anything
about product liability or torts or
whether or not they want to put punitive damages on sexual abusive people
and so forth and so on. We are going to
take all that away from them and they
get to do nutrition, which I think is
really interesting.
Mr.. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I would be happy
td yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK' of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman. I do not want her to suggest
�H2876
f
li' i,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
that our friends on the other side are
indifferent to the fate of these children
at the Federal level. Is i t not true that
if everything they want goes through,
while the school lunch program would
be in the hands of the State and they
would decide without competitive bidding who would be the suppliers, i f a
child in fact were to have an untoward
incident i n what he or she ate, they
would sue under Federal law so " i t
would be a State administered law but
i t would be a Federal lawsuit?.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. You got i t . And
then, bf course, the child, not having a
wage, would have a lot of trouble because of noneconomic damages, and
children are certainly, most of them, I
think the child labor laws are still in
effect, but I have not looked, Is that in
the contract too, because a cliild does
not have a job, they come out on the
short end of the stick because they fall
under the noneconomic damages that
we are talking about.
I just find this something that is
very drastic, and i t really is changing
the course of what we thought government was for. I thought government
was to help protect the l i t t l e guy from
the big guy. Now we are finding out the
government Is helping protect the big
guy from the l i t t l e guy. ..
Well, most of the big guys I know
have done a pretty good job of protecting themselves and I must say, .1 am
very, very saddened by .this'.
• 2100 .
Mrs. SCHROEDER, As I stand here
looking at things that States have
done that make sense to me, I am saddened. When you see people saying we
ought to get kingpin drug dealers that
are out pushing drugs to young kids
and we ought to be able to get them In
civil court, where obviously the. standards are not as high; and we ought to
be able to h i t them with punitive damages, we are going to come In. tonight
. and say no, we do not think so. We do
not want kingpins to pay more than
$250,000.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BLILEY. Is the gentlewoman a
lawyer?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Yes, I most , certainly am.. . . . „:.r. ^..-vK-.
Mr. BLILEY. Is the lady's husband a
lawyer?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Yes, he most certainly is.
We know what punitive damages are,
and what we are doing tonight, is we
are putting a cap on punitive damages.
Now. the $250,000 might be a l o t to us,
but to a kingpin drug dealer i t is not
very much.
.Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OXLEY], the
chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the. Common Sense Product
Liability and Legal Reform Act..Prod-
uct liability reform has occupied the
..Subcommittee on Commerce, which I
chair, for almost two decades. I t is testimony to the strength of the opposition that never before has this House
considered comprehensive liability reform, but a new day has dawned. Let
those who wish to defend the status
quo do so, but my sense is that the
American public is far ahead of them
on this very important issue. Members
of both the majority and the minority
parties have worked Mfcrd for many
years on product liability reform, and
at least success is in sight.
Our bill comes to the floor today
under the able leadership of Chairman
BLILEY, and I commend him for his ef-
March 8, 1995
Manufacturers will be encouraged to
innovate and compete and sellers of
products will no longer face unlimited
punishment for sins they did not commit. H.R. 956 loosens the self-imposed
strangled hold our liability system
places on the American economy.'
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take
a lot of time, so I will close with the
words of Francois Castaing, vice president of engineering lor Chrysler Corp.
It is well understood that product liability
laws have a purpose. They are supposed to
compensate for injury, promote safety and
penalize gross negligence. If a corporation Is
irresponsible, it should be held accountable.
But the situation in the United States has
gone beyond punishing gross negligence. Now
punishment is meted out for many risks that
simply cannot be avoided when a product, is
produced and sold to a public that has wide
discretion in how It chooses to use that product. When no distinctions are made in assigning responsibility for risk and all companies are held responsible—and penalized—for
all risk, the ability to innovate, engineer,
and compete is compromised.
Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support
of this legislation. We have worked on
this for a number of years in our committee. I think the efforts by the Committee on the Judiciary and our committee have brought us here today,
where we can pass an outstanding bill
with a good, strong, bipartisan support.
I would say to those who would continue to defend the status quo, that the
burden of proof is on you to prove that
the current system is not inimical to
the American worker.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman/would i t
be useful for the Chairman to summarize how much time remains for each of
the parties?
The CHAIRMAN. The- 'gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. TAUZIN] has 26
minutes remaining; the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. BLILEY] has 22 minutes remaining; the gentleman from I l linois [Mr. HYDE] has 19 minutes remaining, . and the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. CONYERS] has 22 minutes
remaining.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairrrian, I yield 5
minutes to my friend, the honorable
gentleman from Texas, [Mr. BRYANT],
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
forts. I thank the ranking committee
member, my friend from Michigan, Mr.
DINOELL, for his leadership on this
issue.over the many years. I know he Is
frustrated by both the pace and the
process of this bill, but I commend the
gentleman for his commitment to reform, which has remained constant
. through these years.
I also want to thank the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. TAUZIN], my ranking member, again for his excellent
work in this area. I also want to thank
the Committee on Energy and Commerce staff who has worked long and
hard, Doug Bennett, Robert Gordon,
and Hugh Halpern for the' majority,
David Tittsworth for the minority, for
their constant and hard work as well.
My colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, know that the product liability
system in America costs the people of
this country dearly. We pay more for
products, we are denied life-saving
medicines, we force companies to lay
off workers, and we suffocate innovation. Just listen to the numbers.
Because of product liability exposure,
47 percent of American manufacturers
have withdrawn products from the U.S.
market; 39 percent have decided not to
introduce new . products; 25 percent
have discontinued new product research. These decisions hit consumers,
and i t hits them hard. The Conference
Board reports that again as a direct result of existing product liability laws,
36 percent of American manufacturers
have stopped some manufacturing; 15 [Mr. BRYANT].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
percent have laid off workers; and 8
percent have closed plants. What does from Texas [Mr. BRYANT] is recognized
. our ,product. liability system offer for 6 minutes.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. ChairAmerican workers? Lost jobs and lost
man, I thank the gentleman for yieldopportunities. . . . . .
Mr. Chairman, opponents of this leg- ing.
I would say to the gentleman from
islation have portrayed the bill as
anticbnsumer. Nothing could be fur- Ohio [Mr. OXLEY], yes, Chrysler Corp.
ther from the truth. The status quo is ought to be quoted in this debate. They
anticonsumer arid antiworker. Ameri- have had the best 5 or 6 years of the.
ca's liability system is a huge liability company's history. They are doing extremely well. I own two of their prodto American and its workers.
The bill before us today is effective. ucts. So is Ford and so is General MoIt is fair, and i t is long overdue. I t pro- tors. They are doing better than ever.
tects the right of those injured by de- Products liability cases have not kept
fective .products to recover all dam- them from doing well. They are doing
ages, both economic and noneconomic. extremely well.
I will say to the gentleman from VirI t puts an end to the abuse of punitive
damages and provides a reasonable ginia, [Mr. BLILEY] who said a moment
ago at the beginning of his remarks
statute of repose.
�March 8, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
that this is the end bf 20 years of working on products liability reform.- the
truth is. this is the culmination of 20
years of these big companies campaigning for products liability reform. Not
based possible upon any empirical data,
because there is not any to support
your case; not based upon any economic studies, because there is not any
to support your case.
You called the witnesses before your
committee, Mr. HYDE, and you called
-them before your committee, Mr. B L I LEY. You all set up these hiearings, and
I was at both of them. And I asked the
question, do any of you guys have an
.empirical data to show that there is.a,
products liability crisis in terms of the
Increase in the number of cases or. increase in the size of the verdicts? And
they all said no, we do not have any
data like that.
In fact, the data is just the opposite.
The National Center for State Courts
finds that product liability cases are
only 4 percent of .all tort filings; tort
filings are only 9 percent of all civil f i l ings; civil filings are only 27 percent of
all cases; which means that product l i ability cases represent a mere .36 percentage point of the civil caseload.
Thirty-six hundredths of a point of the
elvil caseload.
In addition, in recent years the number of product liability filings has been
steadily declining. I f you Challenge me,
I will quote the studies for you. Steadily declining.
There is no data to support the movement you are asking this House to take
in this bill. The fact is this is the culmination of a 20-year campaign that
goes on. on the radio as we speak. One
of the cases that you all like to talk
about and be derisive of and they like
to talk about on the radio all the time
is the McDonald's coffee case.
Well, we found out the other day why
you had not heard the other side of the
McDonald's coffee case, because the
lady who filed the case has a secrecy
order imposed upon her. She could not
talk about i t . While McDonald's was
talking about i t , she could not talk
about i t . What were the facts? McDonald's was warned 700 times by complaints from people saying they had
been burned by this super-heated coffee.
The average temperature of the coffee was 180 to 190 degrees. You are
warned not to keep your hot water
heater over 135 degrees because i t
might scald your children. Yet McDonald's continued. Here are pictures of
three cases that you did not read about
right here. You did not hear about
these cases.
Here is an 11-year-old boy from South
Carolina. The coffee he was holding
spilled, causing horrible scalding. Tests
conducted during the trial showed that
the coffee was 180 degrees when spilled,
even though i t was poured 15 minutes
earlier. That is what happened to that
11-year-old kid.
..
I have a picture here of a 3-year-old
child. She was burned when she was
lV4-years-old. The same situation.
McDonald's coffee, they were warned
but they, did not do anything about i t .
Other folks in the coffee business have
not had this problem.
This woman; this is a tragic case.
She was critically burned when a cup
of McDonald's coffee burned down the
front of her body in Las Cruces, NM.
She spent the following months in the
hospital, remained wheelchair bound
after the discharge, the wounds never
completely healed, and she. died 2
months after being released from the
hospital.
Now, you can make fun of these cases
If you want to, but what are these people supposed to do, Mr. HYDE? What are
these people supposed to do, Mr. B L I LEY? Just take it? They complained
and nothing was done. The only way
you get corporate America, to move is
tell them i f you do not do something
about i t , you are going to be sued or
you are going to lose money one way or
the other. How else are they to deal
with it?
You can make fun of these people i f
you want to, but they were burned,
they were hurt. So they took the case
to finality. You did not hear about
these cases. You heardiabout the socalled $2.7 million verdict which that
lady got. You know what? She got i t
because the jury heard this company
had 700 times been warned and still did
not change their behavior. The jury got
mad and stuck them with a big giant
punitive verdict. Of course, i t was cut
down to $400,000 by the Judge later.
That is what goes on. and that is
what you are trying to prevent. You
have put a cap now on punitive damages in this bill. What a curiosity.
Your cap on punitive damages now
says that even i f a person is found
guilty in court of sexually abusing a
child, now the Republican bill is going
to put a cap on the punitive damages.
I think what I have said speaks for
itself. This is a bad bill. You ought to
be ashamed for bringing I t before the
House.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I yield to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Let me ask the gentleman i f the lack of any data to support this bill Is why these special inters
ests are hiding behind the skirts and
the l i t t l e league outfits of the Girl
Scouts of America, and whether you
are aware of the fact that the Girl
Scouts of America have repudiated this
ad that Is on television?
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I am aware of
f t . I t is an outrage. That is exactly why
they are hiding behind i t . They have no
empirical data to back that b i l l up.
Mr: DOGGETT. For every one of
these so-called horror stories they tell
us about, there is a real live horror .
story, just like you told us about at
McDonald's.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 30 seconds to tell, the gentlemen on
the other side I have 3 pages of studies
H2877
here. I know they are not familiar with
them, but i f they want to see them, we
will get them Xeroxed and have them
sent to their offices..
Mr. Chairman; I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HOKE].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding, and I thank
the gentleman for his leadership i n bringing this bill So the floor. I t has
been a long time coming. I would say
to my friends on the other side of the
aisle, first of all, that I personally sat
in a meeting in which the executive di. rector of the Girl Scouts of America for
Washington. DC. told an entire group
of people In a public place that they
had to sell 87.000 boxes of Girl Scout
cookies just to pay their insurance premiums; that they no longer can use
diving boards in their pools, they can
no longer rent cars, they no longer can
have horses in the summertime in their
camps, because of their problems with
liability insurance..
The other thing I would say is, what
I really want to talk about is exactly
what they are concerned about, and •
that is special Interests, because the
fact is that there are Democrats in this
House that are working overtime to defeat these reforms to end lawsuit
abuse. And i t is an ugly side of American politics that is rarely talked
about. But you have got to follow the
money i f you want to figure out what
is really, going on.
What you find out when you follow
the money is that i n the 1993-94 cycle,
341 Democrats were given money by
the American Trial Lawyers Association. Ninety-four percent of all of the
contributions that that PAC. that special Interest political action committee gave were to Democrats. Thirteen
out of 15 Members. Democrat Members
of the House Committee on the Judiciary received substantial contributions,
up to $12,000. We are talking about
$114,500, $2 million given In the last
cycle, the 1993-94 cycle, to Democrat
candidates.
While i t is lovely to talk about that
this is for the women and this is for
children and what we are really doing
is protecting consumers, I thank you
have to ask yourself who is really
being spoken for in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, Just to sum up, the
fact is i f you want to take a look at
politics in America, i t would be very
disingenuous, you would be missing the
point, i f you did.not also look at the
money. When I t comes to money, the
trial lawyers have purchased themselves an awful lot of time in this Congress. They have made tremendous investments over a long, long period• 2115
And when you are going to see this
debate, you will see this debate
couched in the terms of consumers versos anticonsumers, of prochildren versus antichlldren. of prowomen versus
antiwomen. That Is not what this debate is about. I t is pro-trial lawyers,
against proconsumers, people who are
�CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
H2878
il
in
1
if;
March 8, 1995
Mr. Chairman. I yio?^ 3 minutes to
really trying to make the system work and give i t no hearing in this Congrt
and no.markup in committee, if it is the gentleman from Colouulo [Mr.
for American workers once again.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman. I yield withdrawn and then pulled back, and ' SCHAEFER].
4 minutes to the gentleman from Mas- then i t comes up to be debated for a . (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given
grand total of 40 minutes in the House, permission to revise and extend his resachusetts [Mr. FRANK]. ,..„.
Mr. FRANK of Massachuseits..' Mri do not expect those of us who conscien- marks.) Chairman, we are seeing over these tiously agree with you to vote with . Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding time.
next couple of days one of the most you;
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
We have a list of amendments, 40
complete degradations of the legislaMr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairtive process I have ever, heen sorry minutes, 20 minutes. 10 minutes, exenough tc y itness. I am a supporter of tending this legislation to virtual'^, man, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
product liability reform. I voted in the every civil lawsuit in America, expresslast Congress for medical, malpractice ing the contempt the majority appar- state it.
reform. I voted for caps. I was prepared ently feels for the jury system, because
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Do the rules
to support a good product liability bill, what they say is the jury does not prohibit implying a motive or the imcount. . • . . , - '
proper motive on the part of your adbut the procedure and the substance to
We.got an example of the intellectual versary in debate for presenting legiswhich we are going to be subjected over
the next couple of days are so degraded " level of the argument when the gentle- lation?
and degrading and I cannot be part of woman from Colorado was interrupted
The CHAIRMAN. The rules of the
by the. gentleriian from Virginia. The House prevent Members from engaging
it.
•..
In the first place, we have the,great gentlelady was nice enough to yield in personal attacks.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I thank the
inconsistency of people talking about and the gentleman said, Are you.a lawStates' rights. And the gentleman from yer and is your husband a lawyer? That Chair. But my further inquiry was, do
Illinois said. Well, we are being incon- is third-grade type, of debate and this Is the rules prohibit you from implying a
sistent. No, most of us have not what we are getting in this complex prohibited motive, unsavory motive for
offering amendments. for advocating
claimed to be either consistently for legislation.
States' rights or Federal rights. Many If you only have 40 minutes to talk legislation?
The CHAIRMAN.. The rules do not
of us have said. You look at It issue by about it, I suppose that is what you
issue and you see what.makes the most get. And i t comes from someone who prohibit Members from engaging in dishas been supportive of malpractice re- cussions of political motivation.
sense.
The Republican Party that has form and who wants to support product
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. What about
clothed itself in States' rights garb liability, reform. I say to those of my motivations that relate to your peruntil and unless their corporate allies friends who want i t , i f you are serious sonal occupation or your personal
decide they want i t differently and about It, you will break this alliance sources of income?
then they change.. And when the cor- with people who show such disrespect
The CHAIRMAN. The rules prohibit
porate allies say. Do not let States ex- for the legislative process; such dis- Members from engaging in personal a tperiment with single-payer health in-' respect for your intellects, such total tacks.
surance, don't amend ERISA, they say. disresi>ect for the jury system., and deMr. BRYANT of Texas. I thank the
OK. And when we federalize, tort law, cide because they have raw numbers, Chair.
they say, OK, especially when" i t has people who will vote however they are
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise
nothing to do with manufacturing;..; I*' told, then they will win. They will win today in strong support of the Common
We heard a great rationale from the a short-term victory and and they will Sense Product Liability and Legal ReChairman of the Committee on the Ju- discredit the important cause of prod- form Act of 1995. .
diciary. This is all about manufactur- uct liability reform and those of us
Members of the House, frivolous litiing. The gentleman said In the Rules who really want to see i t will in fact be gation has become a fact of Amerieam
Committee, This is about exporte. We suffering, because what will happen is life whether we like to recognize it or
don't export Little Leaguers. Some- by this unfair, overloaded, under-de- not. Too often bringing people to court
times they play the Taiwan but they bated bill, they will bury the good.
has taken .the place of personal responcome back. They are not ah export. ..
Mr. BLILEY. I yield myself 1% min- sibility. Much of this behavior is due to
the distorted incentives built into our
The amendments that are about to utes.
I w i l l point out to the gentleman on current product liability laws.
come—and this is all preordained,
Today, many people no longer look
these amendment will pass—the the other side that between 1973 and
amendments that are going to come 1988 product liability suits in Federal at themselves first to blame but in:
will put limits on the amount of. non- courts increased 1,000 percent. In State stead search out the easiest way for a
economic damages that can be awarded courts, the increase was between 300 big court settlement. Overzealous litiinto virtually any civil case in Amer- and 500 percent. One estimate of the gation costs consumers literally bilica. So this argument that this is Justi- total cost of these suits is $132 billion lions of dollars every year. This price
fied because manufacturing is an eco- a year, a sum equal to the combined inflation comes in the form of liability
nomic activity is nonsensical. The Girl profits of the Nation's 200 largest cor- insurance costs built to price products
porations. And I stipulate that that.is and services, estimated to be approxiScouts do not manufacture.;
debating mately $1,200 per person each year.
There may or may not be a case for the reason that we are here ••.,' •
this.- .-Uw.....
. This litigation tax, as you might call
covering the Girl Scouts or. the Little
To the gentleman from Massachu- it, is extremely regressive, raising the
League pr every other lawsuit, but we
of products
are are not talking about manufactur- setts I would say, when we were ac- price afford them. to those that least
Unfortunately, the
ing. We are also not talking about any- cused, today in a bill that we passed can
Committhing that resembles a respectable leg- overwhelmingly with bipartisan sup- Committee on Commerce andcrafted a
tee on the Judiciary
islative process. In. the Committee on . port for .securities litigation reform, piece of legislation that have
restored sani
the Judiciary controversial amend- that we were bringing this because we to the Nation's liability system. ty
I
were rewarding our fat cats, maybe
ments on medical malpractice, et
like to
one portion of
cetera, that were offered were with- some of us might beg to say that the . wouldand that addressbiomaterials acthat
is the
drawn so they couldn't be debated. gentleman on the other might be try- cess provision, and my good friend the
ing to defend them.
They will now come forward here.
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
I haye voted in the past for medical Mr. Chairman, that may be one of GEKAS] did hit on that but I would like
the reasons that they so vociferously to expand a bit.
malpractice reform. I have voted for
limitations, and I say to my friends defend the current system is that one
One of America's leading industries
who are pressing for that, i f you make of the heaviest contributors to their
a pact of this sort to take legislation campaign coffers are the trial lawyers is the biomaterial device field. Thcsof the United States. . .,, .....
products literally save and enhance .
:
�March 8, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
lives everyday from pacemakers to artificial heart valves to cataract replacements. These products provide recovery and allow people to continue
their lives.
The suppliers of base materials oftentimes provide the manufacturer with
elements of the device that are too
costly to produce except in mass quantities but alone have no implant value
or purpose. Unfortunately, in recent
times these suppliers have been named
as codefenderits i n lawsuits, and in al. most every case they are cleared of
. less. in. the process,they are forced to
expend financial" resources to achieve
^exoneration and to provide insurance.
The litigation risk has caused many
supply companies to simply stop providing base materials for these llfesavIng devices. Consequently the.inability
of device manufacturers to obtain the
needed base supplies is causing the
death of the biomaterials industry in
this country.
The biomaterials section addresses
this tragic consequence of overzealous
litigation. This language, will ensure
that simply unless the supplier is negligent in the design specification requested by the device manufacturer or
if the supplier is also a party i n the
overall manufacture or marketing of
the device, the supplier is cleared of l i ability.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues
to support this long overdue legislation, the Common Sense Product L i ability and Legal Reform Act, which
will help put an end to frivolous litigation while preserving each person's
right to seek out compensation for real
injury. •
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me return the very
. fine compliments of the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. OXLEY] the chairman of
our subcommittee, for the work-that
was done in our Committee on Commerce on this b i l l .
I should also quickly acknowledge
the extraordinary efforts put In over
the last 12 years of the former chairman of our committee. Mr. DINGELL,
who spoke earlier tonight. Mr. DINGELL
has been committed to the Issue of
product liability, reform for many,
many years. This was i n 1988 when our
committee finally agreed upon a prod-.
- uct liability, reform bill and produced
i t for the House, that bill cafortunately never made I t to the House floor
because i t could not. come out of the
other subcommittee of jurisdiction. As
a result, the product liability reform
bill that Mr. DINGELL and our committee fought so hard for in 1988 died its
unnatural, death In Congress and i t has
never until this day had a chance to be
debated again.
The bill we have before us is In many
ways like that bill of 1988 and in many
substantial ways very different. I t Is a
bill that does, i n fact, divide standards
of liability between economic and noneconomic damages.
H2879
Joint and several liability for eco- that product, causes some harm, i t
nomic losses,. the losses you can put makes sense to make sure the harm is
your finger on, the ones you can put an repaid, the harm is made whole, but
easy dollar equation on, and several should the government punish someone
proportionate
liability
for non- in a civil action or i n a regulatory or
economic losses, losses that are harder criminal action, for an action that the
to estimate, the pain and suffering, the government itself approved? We are
mental anguish, and such that jurors going to debate that tomorrow and I
very often award in numbers that sur- hope frankly we can come to the conclusion that that exemption ought to
prise us.
The bill also deals, as our bill d'f" in be returned to the bill as i t did apply
1988 with punitive damages, albo i t to the bill in .1988.
deals with them very differently and
As I said, the major difference In the
with a statute of repose although i t punitive damage.section is a cap in this
application to all civil suits. We'will
•' deals with i t very differently. " '
I want to-for:.a minute talk .about -debate that. I personally have a prob"those-dlfferehces. In--the statute' of lem - with punitive damages^.in civil
repose that we produced i n 1988, a stat- suits, so capping them is not as severe
ute, a section of the bill that was de- a problem for me its i t is for other
signed to end liability for products folks.
that were manufactured many years
But I want to make a point that I
ago. the statute of repose time was set hope we get a chance to make in debate
at 25 years. This bill sets i t at 15. We tomorrow. I am disappointed frankly
are told the reason i t is set at 15 is to when I see the list of amendments that
coincide more nearly with State stat- will be offered that we will not have an
utes of repose which are generally In opportunity to offer more amendments
the 10- to 12-year range. But the big in this section. Punitive damages are
difference is that this statute of. repose designed to punish a defendant who put
extends beyond capital goods, the us all at risk. My question is why_
goods that are normally depreciated, should those damages go to the plainheavy machinery, and now extends to tiff? My question is why should not a
all products. That Is a big change and very large percent of those damages go
one that we will want .to debate I am to the general public? I f a company, a
sure when we get to the amendments person, puts us all at risk with a prodon that section and on the bill.
uct, the plaintiff obviously ought to reOn the punitive damages area, there ceive some benefit for having brought
are two very—three very large dif- that suit and called that to the court's
ferences as we look at the bill as i t attention and recovered some measure
arises on the floor. The first large area of damages for the rest of us. But a puof difference Is the fact that the puni-: nitive damage award, a quasi-fine,
tive damage cap, which is set i n this ought to i n fact Insure to the benefit of.
bill which was apparently not i n the the public at large. Some States have
bill i n 1988. is set not only at $250,000. on done that in their laws. We will have a
products but i t now Is made to apply to chance to look at at least one amendall tort law and all civil suits, both ment that does that but I would hope
State and Federal law, i n civil actions that the majority would permit us to
for harm where plaintiffs, i n fact, prove look at different ways of characterizing
by a clear and convincing evidence con- punitive damages so that the public at
large benefits when a fine is levied In a
' duct that was specifically intended to - civil case i n the form of .a punitive
cause harm, intentional harm.
damage.
• 2130
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance
There are two other differences. In of my time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the bill that we produced i n 1988, we
clearly said that the provisions on myself 1% minutes.
statute of repose did not apply to any
I would ask my friends on the other
plaintiff who did not have their medi- side of the aisle, do they think there is
cal bills paid. That bill, that provision, really any coincidence in the fact that
is still included in this bill, but I un- for 20 years the Judiciary Committee
derstand there will be an amendment has refused to allow a bill on this subfrom the other side to delete that lan- ject to come to the floor for debate and
guage. I hope that does not occur, I the fact that their members that were
hope we have a chance to debate the there in the majority received overreason why that provision was i n the whelming contributions from the Trial
1988 bill and is currently contained in Lawyers Association?
this'statute.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Will the genIn the punitive damage area, there tleman yield?
Mr. BLILEY.. On his own time.
was an exemption from punitive damMr. BRYANT of Texas. You asked a
ages for drugs that were previously, approved by the FDA. That exemption question. Let me answer i t for you. Do
has been deleted from this bill. There I have the time, Mr. Chairman?
will be an attempt, I w i l l join i n that
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will
attempt, to reinstate that exemption. be in order. The gentleman from VirThe reason is, punitive damages are de- ginia controls the time.
signed in our civil procedure as a quasiMr. BRYANT of Texas. Will the genfine. How ludicrous i t is to find a com- tleman yield?
pany for producing a product that we
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
ourselves as a government approved. I f from Virginia is recognized.
:
�H2880
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
March 8, 1995
1
I i.l
•i
1
:
!
Mr. BLILEY. Would .the-Chair ask
the grentleman to stop interrupting?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Virginia controls the time and is
recognized.
> . ,
—
Mr. BLILEY. I thank the Chair. May
we have order?
The CHAIRMAN. The committee w i l l
be in order.
Mr. BLILEY. I thank the Chair!
I ialso would point out that in a recent article i n the Wall Street Journal
that Creighton Hale, the CEO of L i t t l e
League Baseball, wrote of a case i n
which' a volunteer coach was sued for
. punitive damages in pain arid suffering
after one of his youthful outfielders
waa beaned by a pop f l y . These types of
suits lead to skyrocketing insurance
costs.
•
'.
A spokesman f o r . the- Girl Scout
Council of the Nation's capital tells us
that they have to sell an additional
87,000 boxes of cookies annually just to
pay their liability premiums.
With that, Mr. Chairman,.! yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. HASTERT], a valued member of the
committee.
Mr. HASTERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I
certainly thank him for his great work
on the b i l l on product liability. And
certainly the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. OXLEY], our chairman of the subcommittee, has done yeoman's work as
well, working the last few years with
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. D I N GELL], the chairman of the then majority, in t r y i n g to put together H.R. 1910.
I have been involved In trying to
work on product liability' since I first
came to Congress and certainly
have
looked forward to participating in this
debate on ..the floor for many,
many
years. •
-•
•• '•
Last year I was the cosponsor with a
gentleman from the other side of the
aisle by the name of Doc Rowland, a
former member from Georgia, who was
committed to bringing on the Fairness
in Product Liability Act, and along
with that we had garnered 126 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.
I might also add that many of the
provisions of this bill came from H.R.
1910, which was that act. I t is plain to
see that this is a bipartisan issue.
I was also extremely pleased to see
that this issue was important enough
that i t was included In the contract.
As Members, know, this Issue of product l i a b i l i t y reform is a mature issue
that has been around for some 14 years.
The Committee on Commerce was fortunate to hear from some true veterans
of the field that have appreciated the
hard work and commitment that many
have made to this issue. I know they
are just as pleased as I am to see the.
House is finally considering i t on this
floor.
Since I first became involved with
product l i a b i l i t y , I have been amazed
at the adverse effects our current system has on American productivity,
competitiveness and innovation:
:
We talk here a lot in Congress about
competitiveness. We t r y to find ways
to encourage i t through legislation. I
can tell Members without a doubt that
i f We enact this bill, we will boost the
ability of American industry to compete. The best news is i t will not cost
taxpayers a dime.
United States liability costs are 15
times greater than Japan's and 20
times grejtor than Europe's. These
costs represent American dollars not
spent for research or development or
employee benefits or new job creation.
U.S. costs are higher because all manufacturers, U.S. or foreign, sell most of
their products at home. Since liability
costs per product are based on liability
exposure, and exposure is so much less
under the legal systems of our competitors, our liability costs are higher than
those of other countries.
I t seems to me that we should be encouraging American companies to stay
in business. But this flawed system
under which we currently work has
just the opposite effect. We are not
saying that you cannot file a suit i f
you have been wrongfully harmed or a
company has been knowingly negligent, but i f you pick up your lawn
mower to use as a hedge trimmer, then
you should not be able to sue the manufacturer. This bill only limits the
number of lawsuits that have little or
no merit.
If we were only interested in employing lawyers, then maybe we would not
need to be concerned about product l i ability. But American families are paying more for everything they buy, from
their air conditioners to their Zenith
TV's, because companies must pay billions for meritless lawsuits.
I know some argue that we simply do
not need to create uniform standard
product liability laws. I have heard the
opponents of the bill saying Republicans are doing an about-face, trying
to pass laws on States from the Federal
level, but the fact of the matter is that
the creation of Federal uniform standard laws has been called for twice by
the National Governors Association.
Humor me for just a minute, but i t is
my guess that these folks are tuned in
to what Is needed at the State level.
I t is critical that the manufacturers
of each of our districts have a good
grasp of what their responsibilities are
as producers. And our constituents'
rights as consumers should not vary
widely from State to State:
I am hopeful that we will be able to
address this issue, not only Republicans and Democrats as a united front
here but as legislators committed to
fixing the inequities and inconsistencies that currently exist in our laws.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3
minutes to my friend the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. BRYANT].
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I thank the
gentleman for yielding me the time.
I would say that I think that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HASTERT] is
speaking out a sincere belief. I would
Just call upon you and those similarly
situated in your position to base those
kinds of beliefs on empirical data and
there is no empirical data to support
the conclusions which you offered to
the House in your remarks. That is the
fundamental reason why we oppose this
legislation.
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
BLILEY] has talked about campaign
contributions. That is an unfortunate
topic to get into I think from Ms
standpoint. We could talk about campaign contributions'from the cigarette
industry which is located in your district, I know. In fact, I think i t is the
capital of i t . But let me say this. I
think the gentleman will be for this
legislation even i f he did not live within a thousand miles of a cigarette factory. I think he believes in i t . I am not
taking issue with your belief in i t . But
you suggested that our position is
based upon the fact that the trial lawyers make contributions. I think I am
typical in saying that 'many of the
Members who have taken a strong position like mine have received as much
as $10,000 in campaign contributions in
each cycle, every two years, from the
trial lawyers political action committee, out of probably $900,000 or so that
gets spent. I have received probably
$150,000 in campaign contributions
from the companies' political action
committees that support your position,
and that is true of all of us over here,
and you know that. There is one American Trial Lawyers Association PAC.
there must be 2,000 corporate PAC's out
there that agree with you.
I really think i t is important, i t is
more I think accurate of you to base
your arguments, your conclusions,
your opinions, i f you had some data,
and I do not think you do, you would
base i t upon that, but to suggest i t is
based on campaign contributions 1
think demeans all of i t . I do not think
i t is based on those from you or based
ori those from me. But I do question on
where you guys are getting your information.
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr
HYDE] waved around a list of studies
earlier this evening and he waved them
around once in the committee. I would
like to get the list. I will come over
and get i t in just a second.
The ones he read off in the committee were all studies that supported our
side of the issue. I read to you from the
minority report which made very clear
that the number of products liability
cases are going down, they are not a
significant percentage of the overall
cases. Obviously American industry is
doing very well and I hope i t does better in the future, but for goodness
sakes, we have got to pay attention to
the fact that we do have situations
where corporations behave irresponsibly because they are human beings
and all of our laws, all of our jurisprudence is written to deal with the behavior of a minority of every class, not
a majority.
I think General Motors, Ford and
Chrysler are great assets in our society
;
�March 8, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
but I think that they have in some
cases behaved horribly. The Pinto case,
all these other automobile cases, with
an exploding gas tank, where they flip
over, where they have not put a roll
bar where they ought to put a roll bar
and they cripple people. Look, they are
human beings, giant bureaucracies.
Some human beings i n one corporation
do not know what the other human
beings are doing. We have no way to
protect the public from this except a
system of private litigation.
As the point I made a moment ago. I
think should be reiterated, that private
litigation is a tiny percentage of the
overall litigation..
When you guys get up and talk about
all the lawsuits, you forget that the
lawsuits are commercial cases, 80 percent of them are commercial cases, not
persona] injury cases.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman. I am
pleased to yield 3Vi minutes to the disr
tlnguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. SCHIFF], a valued committee
member.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman
for yielding me the time. I particularly
want to. commend his integrity in giving me this time since he knows full
well i n advance I do not fully support
the leadership position on this bill.
.^.jMr.. Chairman...I support a products
liability b i i l ! J think the* ratiohaie for
i t is not perfect. I think arguments can
be legitimately made against a Federal
products liability bill. But I think a
case can be made and has been made
for the idea that when goods are
shipped i n interstate commerce and the
same good is for sale In different
States, that there ought to be a Federal standard for how to handle tort
litigation i f there Is an alleged defect
in those goods because i t is the same
good, whether i t is being sold In New
Mexico or being sold i n Illinois.
However, there is no rationale for the
second part of this bill, because as
presently written, the first part of this
bill deals with products liability, the
second part, title I I , does not deal with
products liability. I t deals with all tort
litigation, and I a.m referring- speciflr
cally to the punitive damages provision.
As written, the bill says that all punitive damages actioned i n State court
are under the control of Federal legisl a t i o n . So that i f two individuals go
out on their front lawns and start a
fistfight with each other. Federal legislation will control the punitive damages standard, whatever i t might be. in
that particular case.
I want to say particularly to my fellow Republicans. I t is wrong. I t is
wrong for two reasons. First of all, i t
philosophically reverses everything we
have been arguing for the. last 2 months
on everything. From police block
grants to child nutrition programs, we
have been saying that the States know
best how to handle their local, problems. Today we are saying, "But they
don't know how to set up a tort system
H2881
within their courts on cases of simply ber that every consumer has the right
to be treated fairly. And they cannot
local application."
calculate whether or not they can
• 2145
make a little bit more money by exposSecond of a l l i t is dangerous prac- ing someone to serious injuries or dantically because Federal preemption is a ger.
genie that cannot be put back into the
With the changes made earlier this
bottle once i t is released i f we exercise week, Mr. Chairman, we make i t hard-Federal preemption with respect to pu- er for individuals to bring suit. Even if
nitive damages in a l l cases of whatever they bring a suit and win, i f they come
kind i n the State courts and we do so in under the amount offered in settlewith a policy of l i m i t i n g damages. A ment, a corporation is rewarded by
future Congress of a different philo- that legislation, but the plaintiff/havsophical mind can use that preemption ing had the nerve to challenge a corand reverse I t , not only reverse i t , but porate behavior, may end up losing
they can say there w i l l be no caps on their homes.
punitive damages anywhere ih the
Mr. Chairman, there are only a few
United States and they can preempt all
Of those States which have in fact al- punitive damage cases in American.
ready imposed caps on punitive dam- history. Let me just cite a few which
are typical of the kind of cases we are
ages.
talking about.
I offered an amendment to the ComWe are talking about a 43-year-old
mittee on Rules which would have al- teacher who was injured after having
lowed this body a vote on changing the being treated with surgical bandages
punitive damages . provision . from ap- when the company knew that the banplying to every single kind of case in dages were contaminated. They had
the United States of America, no mat- been notified on numerous occasions
ter what i t is, to limiting i t to product that the bandages i n the warehouse
liability. The rest of the bill is product were contaminated. The quality conliability, the argument i n favor of the trol director had placed a hold on the^
bill Is based on product liability. The bandages,. and they had nevertheless
only problem is i t is not what the bill decided to sell the bandages and dissays. I regret to say the Committee on pute the findings of the FDA and othRules did not make t h a | i n order.
ers that there was a contamination.
I-want to. conclude.,by_.thanking the ..._-The. plaintiff, suffered extensive scar- _
"gentleman again for the time and by ' ring;'"loss .of motion in 'his back' and'"
commending our Committee on Rules emotional distress. His medical billswith respect to my colleagues on the are only $1,200 and that is the kind of
democratic side. I have seen more behavior that would be protected i f we
openness and more fairness to rules pass this bill. That is Darby versus
granted under our Rules Committee i n Western Medical Enterprises, a 1984
2 months than I ' saw i n the previous 6 California case. And I want to cite that
years I was here, but i n this particular case so we do not get into these wild
case I think the Committee on Rules examples- that you can never track
with respect to them made a mistake down.
in not allowing a vote which is impor- . Mr. Chairman, i n Oglevie versus
tant as an issue and is important to the International Playtex, a significant puprevious votes by our own party.
nitive damage award, they had comMr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman. I am plied, technically complied with the
pleased to yield SVi minutes to the gen- Food and Drug Administration regulations, but the court found that there
tleman from Virginia [Mr. SCOTT].
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I first was an abundance of evidence that
want to point out that we obviously do Playtex had deliberately disregarded
not have enough time to debate the studies and medical reports linking
Issue. As we have seen, Members do not high-absorbency tampon fibers with ineven have time to yield to.each. other, ...creased,risk ,of -toxic shock syndrome
when other manufacturers were re- '
as is customarily.
Second, I wanted to point out since spending to this information by modithe Girl Scouts have come up, the in- fying or withdrawing their products.
formation I have is that the conference Moreover, there is evidence that
data base uncovered that only one pu- Playtex deliberately sought to profit
nitive damage award was ever awarded from the situation by advertising their
against L i t t l e League, Boy Scouts of high-absorbency tampons when they
America, or Girl Scouts of America. knew that other manufacturers were
This punitive damage award stemming recalling their products.
from a sexual molestation claim was
Mr, Chairman, there are also cases of
subsequently vacated by an appellate cotton flannel pajamas that the court
court.
found were Just about as flammable as
Mr. Chairman, the lawsuits we are newsprint. They were hit with a punitalking about are designed to empower tive damage case:
consumers who are ripped off, maimed
That is the kind of behavior we are
or injured, but with the right to go to trying to prevent.
court every consumer is somebody.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairmah. I yield
And i f a corporation thinks about rip- myself 30 seconds. I would hope that in
ping somebody off or recklessly expos- the. course of this very learned debate
ing them to serious injuries, because some Member on the other side would
they want to make a little bit more explain to us since they claim their
profit, that corporation has to remem- motives are as pure as the driven snow,
�H2882
ill!
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
why for 20 years the Judiciary Committee refused to allow any bill to come to
this floor for any debate or any vote. .
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman
from Iowa [Mr.
March 8, 1995
Mr. OXLEY. I want to commend the and who gets injured and therefore sufgentleman for his statement and to fers no real economic losses other than
point out the fact that we are making restoration of their medical losses,
these plaintiffs whole; that is essen- when you consider the fact that under
tially the idea behind the law, is to one of those amendments that person
make them whole. And I appreciate his wouid be limited to several liability to
GANSKE].
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise statement because I think i t really restore their losses for noneconomic
today i n strong support of the bill be- highlighted exactly why we are here damages, and i n addition may face a
fore the House. And I commend Chairr today and I congratulate the gen- cap on those same damages, you get
this kind of a situation. You get a situman HYDE and Chairman B L I L E Y for tleman on his statement
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield ation where they 1 .?.ve not covered any
their efforts to pass real civi! justice
myself 5 minutes.
economic losses because they had none,
reform.
Mr. Chairman, we live in an age when but they have been severely damaged,
This legislation creates uniform
product liability lawfe. I t is no news attorneys are not very popular. That perhaps incapacitated for the rest of
that juries have been out of control was evident when the movie "Jurassic their lives. They may suffer severely
over the past decade in awarding puni- Park" was such a big hit, and the only both pain and mental distress from a
tive damages far i n excess of what is person eaten by t h a t monster i n "Ju- disability for the rest of their lives arid
necessary to make a plaintiff whole. rassic Park" was a lawyer, and audi- yet maybe there is only one defendant
Part of the blame rests with the sys- ences stood and cheered. I was i n one of standing who may be responsible for
tem, because i t gives juries very little the movie theaters and witnessed that only 10 percent, and so they can only
collect 10 percent of those damages for
guidance with which to make such awesome event.
Having been schooled i n the law my- pain and suffering and disabilities.
awards.
self at LSU Law School i n Baton
On top of that, an amendment would
As Supreme Court Justice Lewis Rouge, and having a deep love and apPowell has pointed outr—
preciation for the art of lawmaking come forward to put a cap on those
Courts simply instruct jurors in punitive and the general artistry of well-crafted damages, so i t would be 10 percent of a
damages cases to determine what dollar laws and how they can help order our capped amount.
amount between zero and infinity would appropriately serve the States' interest * * * society and make our lives better when
• 2200
no act of the legislature guides them, nor do they work right, I want to quickly reI would hope my friends on the other
any judicial Instructions narrow the range of port that there are many lawyers i n
this body who do support product l i - side would think very seriously before
appropriate punishment.
the combination of those two amendMr. Chairman, nobody supporting ability reform, and I am one of them.
When I was a young state legislator ments are adopted. We have adopted a
this bill wants to deny injured individuals access to the courts. Those injured in Louisiana, we had a proposition then cap on noneconomic losses in our State
by a defective product should-have a before the States called no-fault insur- for medical malpractice, but we allow
proper legal remedy. Nothing in this ance. I and several other young attor- joint and several liability to make sure
ney legislators lead the fight for the that persons can collect the amount of
bill would change that.
Moreover, the bill does not place any adoption of a no-fault insurance bill i n that cap when they have suffered real
limits on the size of economic damage our State, a bill opposed generally by and severe extended disabilities and
awards. Contrary to what the trial law- the Bar Association and the Lawyers pain and suffering and mental distress,
yers want Americans to believe. In- Association of our State. We passed i t and perhaps had no other economic
jured Individuals could still collect out of the House; 17 of the 31 attorneys losses.
. To combine the loss of joint and sevevery penny to which they are entitled in the House voted for i t , a majority. •
I t died i n the Senate on a tie vote; eral, liability with a cap on those nonto make up for lost wages! both past
and future. The damages would also In- never became law. But nevertheless, i t economic . losses may, Indeed, create
clude past and future medical expenses Illustrated that an attorney can be and some real injustice in our society. I
for the individual. These awards for should be the most interested i n mak- would hope my friends on the other
economic loss would fully compensate ing sure legal systems work. I f any- side would strongly consider before we
the injured party for all of their out-of- body has a stake in improving the legal adopt those two amendments in tansystems of our country certainly those dem. ~
pocket expenses.
who have been trained i n the law, who
In short, before we extend these very
Trial lawyers would tell you that the haye come to learn to love i t and approvisions relating to punitive dam- preciate i t as a working Instrument of valuable reforms In product liability to
ages will deny fairness to injured par- good In our society, have a major re- all tort law In America, we ought to
ties. They could not be more mistaken. sponsibility i n correcting bad legal sys- think very carefully, arid we certainly
This bill does not ban punitive dam- tems and making good let'al systems ought to think about caps and the new
system of liability together.
jiges. But they are capped at $250,000 or out of them.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3
three times economic damages, whichThat is what this effort Is all about, minutes to the gentleman from Washever is greater. I n serious injury cases,
in which the plaintiffs would have and so I rise again tonight In strong ington [Mr. WHITE], one of our outlarge medical bills and lost wages, the support of reforms in our legal system standing freshmen.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman. I thank
cap on punitive damages can quickly and certainly i n product liability reexceed several million dollars. , •
: : forms, such as we produced i n 1988 and the gentleman, the esteemed chairman
Mr- Chairman, as Justice Pow^ll b a i such as we are trying to produce on the of one of our subcommittees, for his exfloor of the House this week.
cellent leadership on this bill.
also observed.
But I also rise to sound a note of
I would like to say, Mr. Chairman,
As recently as a decade ago, the largest punitive damages award approved by an appel- alarm and concern about some of the that as I have listened to the debate
late court in a product liability case was amendments that will be offered i n this over the last few days, one thing
{250,000. Since then awards more than 30 debate tomorrow, amendments that struck me, the fact is nobody is against
times as high have been sustained on appeal. would extend so-called fair-share liabil- tort reform from President Clinton
It is long past time to bring the law of puni- ity and establish a cap on noneconomic down to the lowliest, most junior,
tive damages into conformity with our no- damages to all lawsuits, not just prod- humble member of the freshman class
tions of just punishment.
uct liability suits.
in this House, probably me. Nobody is
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues
The combination of those two ideas against legal reform. We all recognize
to support this b i l l .
can be lethal. When you think about a the need to make these changes.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the young person, a woman who is a homeBut when the bill comes to the floor,
gentleman yield?
maker who does not have economic that is the time when we have to sepaMr. GANSKE. I yield to the gen- losses i n a lawsuit, or an elderly citizen rate the sheep from the goats, and I am
tleman from Ohio. .
. . . " , who is on a fixed retirement income sorry to say that now that the bill is
:
�March 8, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
H2883
on the floor and now that we may actu- around the country, i t makes sense to eral Government has no interest in. ,
ally be able to make some of these re- federalize I t .
and are not a cause of any particular
forms, we now bear that we are going
I do not even quarrel with all of the problem.
too far, we are going too-fast, we need features of this bill. A statute of
I do not understand why this bill has
more empirical data, we need more repose, which tells a manufacturer a provision In here which says a civil
Mine. .
• .
.there is a certain period of time after action brought for commercial loss
Mr. Chairman, we have had 40 years which that manufacturer has procured shall be governed only by applicable
for the citizens of this country, who and sold the product, that will pass, commercial or contract law. Why i f the
have been crying out for the kind of re- and he will no longe * be liable for parties to a contract provide for four
form we are hoping to adopt i n these things that go wrong with that product times actual damages as liquidated
next few days. The time is frnw. We unless he Intentionally misrepresented damages clause, that is OK. when the
aspects of that product that he was only losS is commercial, but if a person
need this bill.
Mr. Chairman. I would like to make selling. The Bryant amendment dealt is injured, they are capped, and they
one other point: As we listened to the with that slight change in the statute cannot get anywhere near that
debate, we are told that this bill is for of repose. He was denied a chance to amount: I t is a funny notion to put
the rich, i t is for the corporations, i t is offer that amendment. I think that can damage to property on such a higher
not for the average citizen, and I sup- -make sense.
pedestal than damage to the human
pose we are going to hear these themes
And I think you can talk about puni- body.
of class warfare for the next several tive damages i n the area of product l i I guess I just want to close my commonths of this Congress. But, Mr. ability. I personally think once you
Chairman, I do not know where these have left enough incentive for the ments, by dealing with the comments
people have been.
plaintiff to pursue the punitive dam- really made; I thought they were somewhat cheap and tawdry comments
I have spent the last 2 years shaking ages remedy, the notion that he might made by the gentleman from Ohio that,
every hand I could find i n the First get a million or multimillion-dollar essentially impugned the motives of
Congressional District of Washington, windfall is wrong, and that a signifiand I can tell you that the ordinary cant portion of that should be shared the Democrats who are opposed to this
citizens i n my district and probably i n with the State or a nonprofit agency or bill for why they are voting against
all of our districts are begging for this a third party, because the purpose of this bill. Like: the gentleman from
bill, and I w i l l tell you the reason why . - punitive-damages i s not .to make that- -Texas (Mr. BRYANT], . I . get contribuI t is not because they have got empiri- person whole. You need enough to go to " tions from the American Trial Lawcal data about how many additional him to let him have the incentive to yers' Association. .1 get far more contort suits have been filed over the pursue i t . but the purpose is to punish tributions from the corporate and assoyears, about whether there is an in- and deter future conduct, and so ciation PAC's that support this legislacrease or a decrease. They are asking amendments which speak to that issue tion.
for this bill because they are asking in a fair fashion I find acceptable.
I . have no doubt that my perspective
this body to restore some respect for
But there are many changes about on this bill perhaps is shaped by the
the law of our country. They know and this bill that make me curious. And fact that I wag trained in a law school.
we all know that every day in every first of all. we keep hearing talk about I do not think the gentleman from I l l i court i n this, country we get results product liability.
nois [Mr. HYDE] is doing this because
that do not make sense, that offend our
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. he is i n somebody's hip pocket or the.
sense of right and wrong, and they are BARR] i n the committee offered an gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BLILEY]
asking for us to change that.
amendment, findings and purposes, to or the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Mr.. Chairman, the system Is out of establish the Federal interest under OXLEY]. I think we see the world a l i t whack. I t desperately needs to be the commerce clause in doing this. He tle bit differently, and that is what
changed. We have an opportunity to do withdrew that amendment, but. the this whole place is supposed to be
that now, not for the corporations, but amendment reappeared i n a perhaps about, people coming from very diffor the ordinary citizens of this coun- slightly different form i n the bill we ferent backgrounds. We are all affected
try, and I hope that every single Mem- are not voting on, and I understand by our life experiences and our careers,
ber of this House will vote for this bill. that. That is i n title I . But there is not and we come down i n different places,
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield even a plausible effort to provide the and the notion that everything comes
5 minutes to the gentleman from Cali- constitutional basis for the Federal down to who ie in whose hip pocket deGovernment preempting a punitive bases the whole place, and while outfornia [Mr. BERMAN].
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 damages award when Joe Smith hits siders are always going to talk about
minutes to the gentleman from Califor- B i l l Jones on the street, and this has It, the notion that people who are inhistorically been a State interest and side the process and rely on what is esnia [Mr. BERMAN].
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 no Federal Interest. All of a sudden the sentially a very cheap argument. I
minute to the gentleman from Califor- punitive damages for that intentional • think, is not healthy to this process.
t o r t are federalized and capped. There
nia [Mr. BERMAN].
I do not understand why the RepubThe CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is no premise for this.
licans, who are against this bill, are
from California [Mr. BERMAN] is recogI have talked to several constitu- they motivated by high motives, but
nized for 9 minutes.
tional law professors, Professor Van the Democrats who are against this bill
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman. I thank Alstine at Duke and others, since this are motivated by low motives? I do not
my friend, the ranking member of the bill passed out of committee. They think anybody seriously believes that.
Committee on the Judiciary, and I pai^ think this whole section is of doubtful
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the
ticularly thank the manager for the constitutionality, and the proponents gentleman yield?
Committee on Commerce, a committee of the bill do not even make an atMr. BERMAN. I yield to the genwhich I am not on. and to take a posi- tempt to justify i t on any constitu- tleman from Illinois.
tion which he does not share, and so I tional ground, a l i t t l e less on a policy
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I do not
ground, a ground that would say we want to trespass on the gentleman's
appreciate i t .
have an interest i n what^New Jersey's time. I agree with the gentleman. But
I would like to follow up on the
themes of the last couple of speakers. punitive damages award is against sex- i t really cuts both ways, and I believe
We have a product liability bill on the ual predators or what California says i t started on the other side with our
floor. Personally I do not find I t a bit for a lawyer who divulges certain kinds camaraderie with corporate America
offensive that the Congress chooses to of information or a journalist who vio- and the economic royalists and all that
federalize the whole question of tbe lates the shield law i n some fashion. tone was set, that they were our
it
tandards for product liability. I think These are a l l , and there are dozens of friends and we were doing this because
very good case can be made for giving other State remedies for punitive dam- they were telling us to do It. I agree
the manufacturers uniform rales ages for Intentional torts that the Fed- with the gentleman, let us dispense
1
�H2884
1
t
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
with that .line of argument on both wise. But I also do not make the distinction between the common working
sides.
Mr. BERMAN. This does sound like man ancl woman and the consumer and
another clean-hands argument, but in corporate America that you do. I think
the end. four dirty hands really do not they each need each other, and when
one is damaged, the other is damaged,
help the process.
Mr. HYDE. I was talking about the .and they should be working together,
rules. I was talking about your love af- not at each other's throats.
fair with really closed rules during the
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3
entire '.ast Congress and now complain- minutes to the gentleman from Georing that we only gave you eight amend- gia [Mr. BARR], a .valued member of the
ments this time.
committee.
"
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank
gentleman yield?
•
the distinguished chairman of the ComMr. BERMAN. I yield to the gen- mittee on the Judiciary, the gentleman
tleman from Louisiana.
from Illinois [Mr. HYDE].
Mr. TAUZIN. I want to commend the
I might point out.to the gentleman
gentleman for that comment. I t is time frpm California. [Mr. BERMAN] that the
that we stopped impugning motives to report of the committee of the House
either side in this debate. Our effort on this legislation very clearly indiought to be to build a good legal sys- cates that the amendment that I had
tem. I f we concentrate on that, perhaps proposed stayed in, was voted on, was
the American public w i l l appreciate not withdrawn, and the language, as
this a lot better.
far as I can tell, on findings and purMr. BERMAN. I want to make one poses which appears in the report is acother point. The gentleman from Vir- curate. I f he knows otherwise, I cerginia [Mr. BLILEY] several times, my tainly would like to know that.
friend, said that i f there was not -some
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will
interest In this, why did they k i l l i t for the gentleman yield?
20 years? For the same reason the
Mr. BARR. I yield to the gentleman
House Committee on the Judiciary did '.from California.
not pass a balanced budget amendment
Mr. BERMAN. I agree. I t only applies
or a school prayer amendment or a to title I . I t does not apply to title I I .
whole variety of things, because the There is no ostensible constitutional
majority of the committee at that time basis for title I I .
did not like the bill and we did not
Mr. BARR. That is fine. I appreciate
want to vote for i t , and that is why we the gentleman's remarks.
killed i t . and that is why i t did not
During the debate here this evening,
come out to the House floor; I t is no we have heard a great deal of talk, a
big mystery. I t is part of the process. great deal of sophistry, a great deal of
We just had a little change now; all of hyperbole about who this legislation, i f
a sudden certain things we never i t is enacted, is going to help. Is i t
thought of passing are rushing out going to help corporations, companies?
here. I t is part of the process.
You bet I t is. These are corporations
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will that provide products for consumers.
the gentleman yield?
These are corporations and companies,
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gen- small businesses that provide jobs in
tleman from Michigan.
our communities. Will i t help doctors?
Mr. CONYERS. I really am impressed You bet i t will. Will i t help pregnant
by this recognition that some have women? You bet i t will.
gone , too far, but to tell us that we
/ ....V• 2215
should not suggest that business is
going to benefit, for the chairman of
When I am home, Mr. Chairman, to
Judiciary to suggest we should also, as. my district, when I am in my district,
we are washing each other's hands, and I am like the gentleman from Texas
finding that nobody is guilty and that [Mr. BRYANT]. I talk with real people. I
we are getting contributions, from ev- do not talk with statisticians. I-do not
erywhere, that we also suggest that .review reports. I do not sit down across
business is not the beneficiary, the a table from a constituent who has a
clear beneficiary of some of these mat- problem who has had to see their busiters. That now, I say to the gentleman ness go under because of the exorbitant
from Illinois [Mr. HYDE] is perfectly costs of liability insurance. I talk with
obvious, and I am not prepared at this them, and I do not demand to see a remoment, while I had dirty hands on the port of how many cases there have
Committee on Rules, I do not think I been , in court before I listen to their
am misinforming anybody to suggest real.problems.
to you that the beneficiaries of these
The real people who are harmed by
restrictions that are being rushed upon our litigation system being out of balus are not the consumers but are, in- ance are pregnant women who in my
deed, the business interests of this district sometimes have to drive an adcountry.
ditional 30 or 40 miles to find an ob/gyn
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the doctor because there is none in their
communities because of the high cost,
gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gen- prohibitive cost, the prohibitive risks
of being sued and not be able to get intleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. I never doubted the busi- surance. That is a real problem that is
ness community will benefit from this not a statistic. That is not something
legislation. I have never said other- that may be in a report, but is a real
March 8, 1995
problem involving real people that we
are trying to help through reforming
and bringing balance back to our system.
When I am in my home district, when
I am in Marietta, GA, and I talk with
a small business person, and when I
talk with a Cub Scout leader who is unable to take a group of Cub Scouts
from my own neighborhood un a field
trip because he cannot get liability insurance to take that group of Cub
Scouts downtown, that is a real problem.
Mr. Chairman, those are real problems.
What we are trying to do here today,
Mr. Chairman, is not to revamp, or
reinvent, or throw out our legal system. What we are trying to do. Mr.
Chairman, is bring i t back to what i t
was intended to be. I t was intended to
be a system of laws and justice open to
people who have really been hurt, not
who want to look for responsibility,
not in their own selves, but somewhere
else where i t should not lie. We are
bringing balance back to a system that
sorely needs balancing being brought
back to i t . We are not closing out the
system. We are making i t more responsive to the people who really need i t .
I say that, Mr. Chairman, not based
on some artificial reports, statistic or
book. I say i t is based on real life problems that we see out in our communities. •
This is not the last word on this, Mr.
Chairman. This is the beginning of a
process. We will listen to people on the
other side, listen to people on this side,
read those reports as they are.' forthcoming to see what further changes
need to be made to make sure the system stays in balance, but we have to
start, and we should start with this
bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. JACKSON-LEE].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman very much for allowing me to simply try to bypass all
that has occurred maybe this evening
in terms of whose fault, who is responsible, and really talk to the American
people, business and consumer alike.
I would not have spent the time in
the Committee on the Judiciary attending to detail and working with the .
entire committee i f I did not think, as
the gentleman from Louisiana thought,
that this is important business. And
this business is the challenge for those
of us who were trained as lawyers and
those of us who are not to propose laws
that will work, and, whether or not we
have discussed this for some 40 years
prior, the key is whether or not this
legislation will last 40 years hence and
that we can be assured that collectively we have designed legislation
that responds to the concern that all of
us have raised, the idea of fairness for
the litigants who come into the courts
of America.
-
�March 8, 1995
H2885
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
I simply stand here to raise the concerns of women and children, and I dutifully attempted to work through the
Committee on Rules to seek an opportunity to raise an amendment that I
had raised in committee that talked
about exemptions for. women particularly with breast implant devices and,
as well, children who would have a
hard tirre, as the gentleman from Louisiana, and maybe a homemaker even,
of defining or being able to project economic damages because that child obviously has not worked, and I ask my
colleagues, "Even though you might
not project it, who would know that
someonefroman inner city like Houston, possibly in a place that you would
not expect would turn out to be the
rocket scientist, the President of the
United States which doesn't get a lot
of money, but therefore would, bf
course, have the future to earn a certain degree of money that is not projected for that individual?"
gentleman from New Mexico about preemption and whether or not this law
will now intrude into the many States
across the Nation who are working in
good Intention to develop tort reform
and to do it well according to their
State needs, and then, lastly, would we
be able to find out for sure as to whether or not the new device of punitive
damages standard and the applies: "ity
to all civil liability, or civil litigation,
is, in fact, fair and is, in fact, responsive to business and consumers^like.
Let me conclude. Mr. Chairman, by
simply saying, "What about a bifurcated bill that would have worked for
businesses in America? Why not do a
bill that really works for Americans
and is fair?" .
•
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman. I yield
myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I was struck with the
discussion we have had this evening
and hark back to our hearing on the
product liability issue in which the
representative trial lawyers - testified
that they were, of course, opposed to
Federal legislation^in -this- area. I reminded him of the time" when" In Ohio,
not too many years ago, the Ohio trial
lawyers appeared in testimony before
the Ohio General Assambly and said
that they felt that it was the province
of the Federal Government to deal with
a national problem like products liability, and indeed the States, if they were
to pass 50 different statutes, would be a
hodgepodge that would never solve the
problem.
It seems, to me a rather Interesting
dichotomy that we hope to address In
this Federal legislation. It is imperative, it seems to me, based on what we
have heard in the committee, in the
committee of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDB], to really provide a nan
tional standard for those goods that
are sold in interstate commerce, and
indeed over 70 percent of the goods that
are manufactured in this country are
sold in interstate commerce.
And so it behooves us in the Congress
to set those Federal standards, and
that is exactly what we propose to do
in this particular piece of legislation,
and I would urge that my coUeagues do
likewise.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance
of my time.
•
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to tha
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
But how can I tell Marilyn, who is a
loving grandmother in my community,
the hometown of Houston, whose
faulty silicon breast Implants "have
caused her total disability and agony,
that she would be limited In recovery?
What about Marilyn's daughter. Theresa, also who suffersfromsevere neurological disorders that have been
passed on to her by her mother? And
what about Theresa who has breast fed
her three children; and that is
Marilyn's 5-year-old granddaughter Is
now showing symptoms of silicon poisoning, too? My question, as the gentleman from
Louisiana raised, is why we could not
come together and deal with issues to
respond to the concerns of those who
would want to put legislation forward
that would last 40 years into the future.
I believe this is not a bashing game
because I know, as a former corporate
lawyer, that a vast majority of American companies want to do what is
right. America's manufacturers have
tended to be the very best in the world.
They can Improve further as we move
into the 21st century, but, when we
have some BO-some amendments offered
in good faith, I would hope, and I realize the Committee on Rules has to
work In fairness, anifthen, out of that,
the opportunity to discuss breast implant device? z • ....r :
•
>L
And then we wind up with eight that
does not take into consideration, if my WATT],
colleagues will, the concerns of chilMr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr.
dren and the inability to measure their Chairman. I think tbe gentleman from
economic damages and, of course, Michigan [Mr. CONYERS] has yielded me
women who may be having an ongoing such time as I may consume because I
problem with devices like breast im- have gotten the reputation for talking
plant devices.
a long time, but I want to surprise peoI think that we are not coming to tbe ple tonight. I know it is late, and I
table to address this In the fullest want to make three concise points and
measure that we possibly could, and so sit down.
I think the challenge we have, noting
I think this has been a good debate,
that there are two amendments that not long enough to do justice to this
were not in any committee, as far as I issue, but certainly a good debate.
understand, and now attempting to cap
The first point I want to make. Mr.
noneconomic damages, that we have . Chairman, is that this bill is referred
the question raised by the honorable to by my colleagues as the Common
Sense Legal Reform Act. and I have
seen, it go through the process over
time through the Committee on the
Judiciary, and I suspect tomorrow and
the next day on the floor it will cease
to be a Common Sense Legal Reform
Act and become a Nonsense Legal Reform Act..! think it is nonsense because it is contrary to everything I had
thought my Republican colleagues
stood for in their Contract With America.
I thought they believed in States
rights, but here I find in this bill that
we are preempting all State law on punitive damages on products liability,
and tomorrow an amendment will be
offered to preeiript State law in a number of other areas that have been traditionally reserved to the States, and I
will remind my colleagues that the
folks at the State level cannot want
conservatives telling them what their
values are and imposing their values on
them any more than they want liberals
doing that.
I thought my colleagues believed ih
not mandating things-to the States.But in this bill, after they have preempted State law on punitive damages,
preempted State law even on the burden of proof, which is a procedural
issue, I would submit to my colleagues,
they have turned around at the end of
the bill and said, "We deny you the
right to the Federal courts even
though we have set the standards by
which you must comply."
So I am scratching my head a little
bit and wondering If that is not a Federal mandate, then what is?
The second point I want to make is
that the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary, for whom I have the utmost respect, said In general debate
earlier that we have the most costly
legal system in the world.
;
. . ,• ...
:
. . -.
• 2230
.
I want my colleagues and the American people to know that not only do
we have the most costly legal system
in the world, but we have the very,
very best legal system in the world: we
are the envy of the world. Our jury system is something that every person
around the world will tell you works,
and despite that, with $6 trillion in
GNP. we spend less than 1 percent resolving all of the disputes that take
place on this issue. All of our disputes,
we spend less than 1 percent.
So I do not think we can take this as
a Justification for the massive revisions that we are undertaking. The jus^
tiflcation, it seems to me, is that we
are hurting little people at the same
time that we are protecting and upping
the standards and protections for
wealthy people, and that leads me to
the third point that I want to make,
and by far the most serious point that
I will make on this bill. I raise the
question with my colleagues, what will
the people do when they cannot get
Justice In the courts? What Is their alternative when there is no justice in
the courts?
�H2886
l§\
<>t-
I want my colleagues to contemplate
this issue. People go to court because
they feel" vigorously about issues. You
deprive them of that right, i t does pot
do away with the vigor with which
they approach these issues. I t just
means they must direct i t in some
other way. They must seek, their Justice in the streets. We used to, I understand, dual and take cut our guns and
shoot each other. Heaven forbid i f we
ever get back to that kind of system.
I will close arid tell you that I am
deeply troubled by the direction of this
bill, and I hope that there will be a
process for making i t better,.but i t w i l l
not happen..
•
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to yield 2 minutes to a valued
member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mrr
INGLIS J.
II
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
responsible for my actions, • somebody
else is a guarantor of my health aind
happiness and that really is not the
case. ••- • •
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. T I A H R T ] .
Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman
frbm Illinois for yielding me the time.
I just want to speak in support of
this, Mr. Chairman, because of the impact that has happened in my district,
because of the statute of repose or the
produce liability for airplanes. In Independence, KS, i n April, we are going to
break ground for a new plant. Cessna
Aircraft is going to build a plant and
bring 1,000 jobs into Independence, KS,
the Montgomery County area. There
will be another 1,000 jobs that are going
to be started in -Wichita. The spin-off is
going to create 7,000 jobs because of
product liability for aircraft.
I heard earlier that we were concerned because there was no measurable impact from product liability,
that there were no benefits that could
be.created from such limitations, that
i t was only going to hamper Individuals, but I am here to tell you tonight
that "in. my district of south central
Kansas, we are going to see 7,000 jobs
over the next 5 years. And we are excited about that.
The industry tells us that there may
be a.possibility of 25,000 jobs nationwide from product liability on aircraft.
Now, i f we expand that beyond aircraft,
i f we go into other products, we are
going to see that there will be jobs created.-But there will be people working,
and i t is not the rich people or the corporations that, are going to benefit. I t
is. the guy that carries a lunch bucket
to work. I t Is the guy that tries to create a safe environment for his kids, he
tries to clothe them and to feed them.
Those are the people we are benefiting
by product liability.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to consider, thi^ legislation, pass i t out of
here in a . quick manner, because i t is
good for the working people of America.,
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
my remaining 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. BREW-
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I
thank .the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding.
I rise tonight in strong support , of
this legislation and really to make two
points. One is a story, and then second,
what I believe to be the bottom line of
this whole discussion, but the story
first.
There is a plant in my district that
makes food processing equipment. I t Is
a very successful company that makes
very fine food equipment! processing
equipment that can grind meat, and do
all kinds of things like that, high-quality, highly skilled work that is done by
very trained people..,.,..
. .
Early in my campaign for the Con. gress of 1992 I visited that plant, and
the owner took me on a!tour, and he
showed me this very sophisticated
equipment they can build, and he told
me that actuailly the growth of his
business is out of that and into pizza
delivery boxes for export to Mexico.
The reason, he says, i t is a growth i n dustry i n Mexico, apparently pizza Is
selling well in Mexico, but also he cannot afford the liability insurance associated with that food processing equipment. He can no longer afford the multiple lawsuits that are filed against his
company, particularly when people
alter the product, take off the
warnings, and sue him many years
later for a product long ago forgotten
by his company.
STER].
•
I would submit to my colleagues.that , (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was
that is happening all across this coun- given permission to revise and extend
try, and i f we want to move out of his remarks.)
high-technology,
truly ; specialized
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I
equipment, highly sophisticated equip- rise this evening in support of H.R. 956
ment like this food processing equip- and w i l l offer an amendment with my
ment and into making pizza boxes, I colleagues Messrg. OXLEY, COBURN,
guess that is a l l right, but I think that BURR. TAUZIN, and STENHOLM.
is the wrous direction to go. We should . The enactment of this amendment
encourage these manufacturers to simply exempts. the manufacturer or
make these very skilled products;
seller of drugs or medical devices
The second observation I would make which are FDA approved, from punitive
is really the bottom line of all of this, damages.
is whether we are a nation that is .. I t is important to note that this
going to focus on responsibilities and amendment does not l i m i t actual or
not just rights, and that is really what noneconomic damages. But, ensures
it boils down to. In this debate, what that companies who have acted In
you are going to hear is a whole l o t of good-faith and received FDA approval
discussion about how somebody else is will not. be h i t with punitive damages.
;
March 8, 1995
When this amendment becomes law,
lives will be saved.
This country has the most rigorous
drug and medical device approval process in the world. Companies which research and develop new treatments
spend millions, and sometimes billions,
of dollars on developing and testing
new treatments in order to meet FDA
standards of approval and make these
important treatments available to the
public.
The out-of-control tort situation in
our' country is forcing companies to
back away from developing and putting
on the market many important new
treatments related to illnesses such as
cancer and AIDS. This amendment
would, to a great extent, remedy this
situation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make
a few remarks on the bill itself. I support final passage of H.R. 956. This bill
w i l l establish a unified set of standards
and procedures for product liability
and civil litigation.
The vast array of product liability
laws that face manufacturers, businesses, and consumers have suppressed
entrepreneurial creativity for fear of
frivolous lawsuits.
H.R. 956 will result In predictable and
marketable policies to consumers and
manufacturers, and enhance , job creation and innovation. I encourage my
fellow Members on both sides of the
aisle to vote In favor of the Oxley
amendment and final passage of this
critical legislation.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. RAMSTAD], who is chairman
of a task force on the subject of product liability.
Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the
time, and, Mr. Chairman; as one who
chaired the task force which drafted
H.R. 10, the Common Sense Legal Reform Act, I rise in strong support of
this legislation which derived from
that initial legislation.
I want to commend the respective
chairmen of the Committees on the Judiciary and Commerce for ensuring
that we honor our pledge to the American people to bring this legislation to
the full House for a vote within the
first 100 days.
Chairman HYDE,
Chairman BLILEY,
and Chairman OXLEY deserve a lot of
credit for their work, as well as their
members.
Now, I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that
some Members who support tort reform
are genuinely concerned about the Federalism Issue; that is, whether the
issue of tort reform should be left to
the States.
Members with this concern, I believe,
should find instructive the counsel of
three sources: Judge Robert Bork.
State Representative Steve Flowers
and last but not least, the American
people.
�March 8, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
First, Judge Bork is-certainly no fan
of an expansive reading of the- commerce clause, but. he readily concludes
that these reforms are well within the
scope of Congress's authority under the
commerce clause. I want to quote from
a letter dated February 27 to the
Speaker in which Judge Bork concludes that Federal intervention for
this, purpose is not merely constitutionally permissible. I t is very impor-'
tant to vindicate the Framer's constitutional design. Judge Bork's basic
. argument is that it -can no longer be
disputed that abusive litigation is having a profoundly. adverse impact on
interstate commerce.
s
I t is, therefore, necessary for Congress to protect interstate commerce
from parochial discriminatory regulation by States and localities.
Also, Members should pay particular
attention to State Representative
Steve Flowers of Alabama. Representative Flowers once believed that tort reform should be left to the States, but
not now. Why?
In 1993, the Alabama State supreme
court ruled that the State legislature
does not have the authority to impose
any cap oh punitive damages and
struck down the tort reform law that
Representative Flowers had authored
back In 1987. Even George McGovern in
the Washington Post, and most Members. I am sure, agree we should cap punitive damages. Since the Alabama's
supreme court's decision, Alabama's
punitive damage awards have gone
through the roof. Forbes magazine recently described Alabama as, "the
worst place In America In which to be
a civil defendant."
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the American
people understand the need for uniformity of liability laws. In a recent
survey of 1,000 adults, 84 percent-r-I
. mean. 84.percent of the people don't
agree whether I t is a pice day or not."
what the weather is like—but 84 percent of the people agree that because
State liability laws often conflict with
each other and because so many lawsuits cross State lines, there should be
one set of rules for the liability system
instead of 50 different sets of rules.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this addresses
the concerns of my colleagues regarding Federalism. We must address these
national problems, Mr. Chairman, with
a national solution and that national
solution lies in the legislation brought
here tonight. And I urge its support tomorrow.
Mr. BERMAN. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. RAMSTAD. I yield to the gentleman from Califomia.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am
curious. First of all. was title I I of this
bill, the preemption of punitive damages in nonproduct liability cases, part
of the Republican contract that you
were involved In drafting?
• 2245
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mi'. Chairman. I t was
certainly thought i f i t applied, the lim-
i
H2887
itation on punitive damages applied to grams, and export promotion. Enactment of
products cases, i t should, apply to all this legislation will reduce tort liability costs for
American companies and enhance American
civil actions.
Mr. BERMAN. Was that in the con- competitiveness in the world marketplace.
• Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very .
tract?
Mr. RAMSTAD. The cap on punitive distressed about some of the proposals that
have been considered and passed by the
damages was in the contract.
Mr. BERMAN. Was the cap in non- House recently. Although one in three Ameriproduct liabilities cases? Because . I cans will get cancer and one in four of us will.
think ' f c o n t r a c t was only limited to die irom it, the proposals we have been DMScaps on punitive damages in product l i - ing under the Contract With America are making it substantially easier for big corporations
ability cases.
Mr. RAMSTAD. The present bill I am to pollute our environment and bodies with
sure the gentleman recognizes applies toxic chemicals with complete immunity. They
to all civil actions, as i t properly make it extremely difficult, if not impossible,
for . the Federal Government to protect the
should.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the public health and take away the financial incurrent system of product liability law in the centives for private industry to use care when
United States is detrimental to our Nation's manufacturing products.
economic prosperity. The cost of insurance
Forces who think its appropriate to ignore
and litigation causes manufacturers to in- the public health successfully defeated imporcrease prices, provides a disincentive for business to create hew products, and impedes tant amendments I offered to the unfunded
interstate commerce. Tort (liability costs are mandates reform and the regulatory moratosubstantially higher in the United States than rium bills which would have allowed the Fedany other country and currently represent 2.3 eral Government to protect the public health—
especially from cancer-causing toxic expopercent of U.S. gross domestic product.
sures. On Monday, under the guise of attorney
For the past 20 years, the Democrat-con-, .accountability, these same forces successfullT^
trolled Congress has refused to seriously con-' passed-'a provision that would make it exsider obvious problems inherent in our product tremely difficult to-win a suit against a comliability laws! I am pleased that the new Re- pany that manufactures products that cause
publican majority has made product liability re- toxic injuries. It will likely prohibit evidence of
form a priority and i enmusiastically support newly discovered injuries that we are discoverH.R. 956, The Common Sense Product Liabiling in the toxic tort area like chemical sensitivity and Legal Reform Act.
H.R. 956 will enact several important re- ity and immune deficiency syndrome. Obviforms. It ensures that product sellers will re- ously, attorney accountability only demands
ceive reasonable protection against liability for accountability to corporate interests and not
manufacturer error. A plaintiff whose use of accountability to the consumer.
But those of us who want to protect the
drugs or alcohol is partly responsible for an
accident will be prohibited from collecting public health are beginning to win the fight.
damages from defendants with lesser degrees This legal reform bill was amended so conof responsibility. Limits are established regard- sumers harmed by. toxic products like the
ing a defendant's liability for non-economic Dalcon shield, DES, breast implants, and asdamages to a proportionate share of respon- bestos, can sue for compensatory damages.
sibility. A 15-year limitation for brining most li- The bill does not allow suits 15 years after,
ability actions will also be enacted. The bill purchase of the product. Yet, in committee the
also makes important reforms to the system of time limit provision was changed to exclude inawarding punitive damagesrlt addresses bur- juries that do'not -ordinarily 'appear within 15
den of proof, proportionality of awards, and bi- yearis of exposure. Although this provision adfurcation of proceedings.
dresses latent injuries like cancer and asbesIn addition, I support the Cox amendment to tosis, it is badly written and could leave many
H.R. 956 which expands the legislation to in- seriously Injured consumers without legal reclude reform of the medical malpractice sys- course. Which injuries ordinarily appear more
tem. Congress has spent a great deal of time than 15 years after exposure? Which types of
debating elaborate. proposals that would con- cancer? How about AIDS? And chemical sentrol skyrocketing medical costs. This amend- sitivity? What if an injury usually arises within
ment provides a simple first step to reducing 10 years, what happens to the victims who
the cost of medical care. In my State, Wiscon- were lucky enough to have a longer latency
sin, the average physician pays $40,000 a period? Will they not be able to sue? Clearly
year in medical malpractice insurance pre- this bill does not adequately protect consummiums, and specialists pay more. If you as- ers from cancer-causing and other toxic prod-.
sume that the average doctor works 2,000 ucts.
billable hours per year and. charges $20 per
Mr. Chairman, there is one other serious
hour, then the. first $10, or the average cost of flaw in this bill I would like to address. It is exthe first half-hour of the office visit, is the pa- tremely regressive. The cap on punitive damtient's share of the medical malpractice insur- ages is based, in part, on the victim's income.
ance premium. Medical malpractice premiums Not only does this allow wealthier victims to
haye been the fastest growing component of win larger recoveries, but it also creates an inphysician's costs. This amendment will reduce centive to use less care when developing and
frivolous malpractice suits and the correspond- manufacturing products that are typically, used
ing increases in insurance premiums. In my by low-income consumers.
opinion, reforming medical malpractice is an
This bill is a badly written bill that puts conessential start to reforming America's health sumers' rights in serious jeopardy and I
care system.
strongly urge you to vote "no" on final pasIn (he coming months. Congress will debate sage.
significant cuts in Government spending for reMr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman. I yield
search and development, small business pro- back the balance of my time.
?
�H2888
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back the balance of my time.,
The CHAIRMAN. A l l time has expired for general debate.
Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose;
and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
DICKEY) having assumed the chair, Mr.
DREIER, Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the
b i l l , (H.R. 956) to establish legal standards and procedures for product liability litigation, and for other purposes,
had come to no resolution thereon.
pi
COMMONSENSE PRODUCT
manufacturer for a properly designed
. LIABILITY. REFORM. NEEDED
airplane and properly built airplane?
For the last 2 days we have been deThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of . the House, the gen- bating legal reform on the floor, and
tleman from Kansas [Mr. TIAHRT] is some have stated that this reform is
unnecessary, that the system works
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to fine the way i t is. As we. talk about
carry on with what we talked about product liability, I would like to offer
earlier this evening. I t is natural for what is happening in Independence, KS,
each of us to feel sorry for a person as an example of what could happen in
who suffers i n an accident or mishap. other industries i f we could just pass
One of our fundamental freedoms is the the much-needed product liability reability to bring suit in order to receive form.
justice. When big corporations get
Because we passed the statute of
sued, we often side with the individual
against the companies. We think "big repose containing the General Aviation
bad corporation" and "poor individ- Revitalization Act i n 1994, Cessna Aviaual/' And when the big companies pay tion has announced i t w i l l build a new
millions of dollars in settlements, we manufacturing plant i n Independence,
SPECIAL ORDERS
pretty much shrug and say, "Well, they KS. Groundbreaking w i l l be this April.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under ai can afford i t . "
Cessna intends to invest over J7f> milprevious order of the House, the gentlelion in this community, and i t is all
But that is not really true, Mr.
woman from Maryland [Mrs. MORELLA] Speaker, because the people who pay the result of placing a reasonable l i m i t
is recognized for 5 minutes.
the price for those big settlements are on product liability.
the working people of America, and
Cessna's production of single engine
they pay i t at the cash register. When aircraft was destroyed in 1986, but beThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a companies are forced to pay out- cause Congress took action in the next
previous order of the House, the gentle- rageously high settlements, they even- 2Vi years, Cessna estimates they will
woman from Maryland [Mrs. MORELLA] tually have to cut jobs, raise prices,
produce 2,000 airplanes per year. Once
is recognized for 5 minutes.
and pass the costs on to the American again, this is not about more planes as
[Mrs.
MORELLA addressed the people. This does not affect the rich as much as about hope for southeast KanHouse. Her remarks will appear here- much as i t affects the hard-working sas and for 7.000 people who are going
families who have to pay this price,
after in the Extensions of Remarks.]
'ri"^--;:'^.,^.,,:..,. Mj.. Speaker, in 1994 Congress passed to be employed over the next 5 years.
The benefits of this plant will also be
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a the General Aviation Revitalization felt in Oklahoma and nationally. A l l
Act. This act implemented a statute of told, I t is predicted over 25,000 jobs will
previous order of the House, the genof 18
tleman from Maryland [Mr. WYNN] is repose engine years on suits involving be created from product liability resingle
airplanes, product liabilrecognized for 5 minutes.
i t y for airplanes. That means that form for airplanes. This is just one ex[Mr. WYNN addressed the House. His after 18 years, the legal liability of a ample that can happen when you rein
remarks will appear hereafter in the manufacturer is greatly diminished. in the lawyers and give manufacturers
Extensions of Remarks.]
This act applies to planes with seating a chance to pass laws.
This is clear Congress should pass
capacity of 20 or less. Cessna Aircraft
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a Co. which is headquartered in Wichita, commonsense product liability reform.
previous order of the House, the gen- KS, was for years the world's leading Jobs and security for people across the
tleman from Califomia [Mr. RIGGS] is producer of single engine aircraft. But Nation will be the result. People should
because of aging airplanes and the l i t i - have the right to sue. That Is not the
recognized for 5 minutes.
gation explosion that followed, Amer- question here. The question is should
[Mr. RIGGS addressed the House. His ica lost Its aviation manufacturing ad- there be reasonable limits on product
remarks w i l l appear hereafter i n the vantage.
liability, and the answer is yes.
Extensions of Remarks.]
In 1977, the single engine aircraft industry was producing over 13,000 airThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a planes per year. But with the onprevious. order of the House, the gen- slaught of the legal tidal wave, Cessna previous order of the House, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. GUTIERREZ] is completely stopped manufacturing tleman from Rhode Island [Mr. REED]
these planes by 1986. By 1994, the entire is recognized for 5 minutes.
recognized for 5 minutes.
[Mr. REED addressed the House. His
[Mr. GUTIERREZ addressed the industry produced less than 600 airHouse. His remarks w i l l appear here- craft, less than 5 percent of what was remarks will appear hereafter in the
previously produced, and many of them Extensions of Remarks.]
after in the Extensions of Remarks.]
came from outside America.
Mr. Speaker, this Is just not about
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a making fewer airplanes, i t is about losThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gen- ing American jobs. When the company previous order of the House, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. WELDON] is is forced to pay sky-high legal judg- tleman from Nevada [Mr. ENSIGN] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
ments in cases where their legal liabil- recognized for 5 minutes.
[Mr. WELDON of Florida addressed i t y is at best suspect, the working fam[Mr. ENSIGN addressed the House.
the House. His remarks will appear ilies are taking the h i t and we are linhereafter in the Extensions of Re- ing pockets of rich lawyers. What has His remarks will appear hereafter in
happened to Cessna and other compa- the Extensions of Remarks.]
marks.]
nies was that judges were holding them
accountable and liable for aircraft malThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a functions that could be reasonably acprevious order of the House, the gentle- counted for i n pilot error, maintenance previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. LOWEY] is
woman from California [Ms. WOOLSEY] failure, or simply just an old airplane
is recognized for 5 minutes.
.
Mr. Speaker, there comes a time recognized for 5 minutes.
[Ms. WOOLSEY addressed the House. when a plane is just old. Those who are
[Mrs. LOWEY addressed the House.
Her remarks w i l l appear hereafter in flying these old airplanes were simply Her remarks will appear hereafter in
, r^^w the Extensions orRemarks.]:
taking a risk. How can you blame the the Extensions of Remarks.]
- ' "
iV:.
March 8,1995
"
�March 8, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. GREEN] is recognized for 5 minutes.
[Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter i n the Extensions of Remarks.]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the Hpne, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. KINGSTON] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
[Mr. KINGSTON addressed the House.
His remarks w i l l appear hereafter in
the Extensions of Remarks.]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs.
CLAYTON] is recognized for 5 minutes.
[Mrs. CLAYTON addressed the House.
Her remarks w i l l appear hereafter i n
the Extensions of Remarks.]
%
fa- ;•
SUPPORT FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
AND COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION
ACT .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BRYANT] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BRYANT Of Tennessee. Mr.
Speaker, I would like to talk about
something we did last night on the
Committee on Agriculture on which I
serve, but first, before I get into that,
I would like to address briefly some of
the remarks I have heard on the debate
this evening concerning the tort reform bill, and particularly the punitive
damages aspect of that bill, the claims
being made on one side that sexual
predators and drug dealers w i l l no
longer be subject to punitive damages.
Certainly as an emotional issue as
this type of. conduct, these. types. of
conduct ar^', 1 wanted to clarify from
my viewpoint and from my experience
as a civil attorney for about 20 years,
which included about 2 years as a U.S.
attorney as a Federal prosecutor, my
experience i n the area of punitive damages and this type of conduct which I
find was not really connected.
I never saw, i n my experience, a sexual predator suit in civil court, but
rather the more likely remedy the law
has there is a criminal prosecution, the
aggressive criminal prosecution of people who sexually pray on children.
Likewise with drug dealers, what we
come out there with drug dealers is
they are arrested and prosecuted under
the criminal law. not suing them civilly, where we put these types of people
in jail for their conduct. Certainly in
the area of drug dealers' civil forfeiture, that was available to us as prosecutors, to seize the ill-gotten gains
that these people had, their assets,
their homes and cars, things that were
gained through the sale of drugs. I t was
certainly valid forfeitures. But not
again in my experience have I seen the
use of punitive damages i n either one
of those cases, but rather the more appropriate remedies of .putting these
people i n jail.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to talk
about the Committee on Agriculture,
on which I serve.
Last night, the House Agriculture
Committee passed H.R. 1135, the Food
Stamp Program and Commodity Distribution Act.
This legislation Is a big first step i n
the direction of real welfare reform.
For 2 years now. Americans have
been waiting for the current administration to end welfare as we know i t .
Last night, that process began.
What this legislation will do is give
that States the choice t o . determine
how they want to run their Food
Stamp Program.
One of the most important aspects of
this legislation is that i t would require
food stamp recipients must work to be
eligible to receive food stamps.
The hard-working taxpayers of. my
district i n Tennessee would agree that
if an able-bodied person is going to. receive food stamps, then they should be
required to work to receive them.
I t simply is not fair to stay on the
rolls and make no effort to better one's
self and t r y to become a productive,
tax paying citizen of efcciety.
Another important part of this legislation is that i t contains stiffer penalties for those caught abusing food
stamps.'
The Federal Government will now be
allowed to seize property and proceeds
from illegal food stamp traffickers
without having to go through mountains of red tape.
As a former U.S. attorney, I once
prosecuted an individual who tried to
purchase a vehicle with food stamps.
So I know firsthand that we must
crack down hard on waste, fraud, and
abuse i n the Food Stamp Program.
Mr. Speaker, the-.welfare . reform
process has indeed begun.
The welfare system of the past and
present has been a tragic failure.
I t has' encouraged dependency, discouraged self-reliance, and created a
burden for those of us who choose to be
productive.
Only until our welfare system encourages work and self-dependence w i l l
i t be truly beneficial to society.
H.R. 1135 w i l l do this.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R.
1135 when i t comes to this Chamber for
consideration.
DISCUSSION ON NEWSPAPER
STORIES
The SPEAKER pro.tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. HAYWORTH]
is recognized for 5 minutes.
'Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I t was iriy privilege to appear
on C-SPAN with one of our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle from I l l i nois to discuss the morning newspapers, and a rather lively discussion
H2889
ensued, and i t was very interesting to
go over many different articles i n the
Nation's press.
One article, however, we failed to get
to, and I would bring to your attention,
Mr. Speaker; and indeed the attention
of the American people, on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal,
an article entitled "Protest, Washington Style." Quoting from the article
now:
Newt Gingrich and other speakers were
prevented from addressing the National Association of Counties in Washington on Monday after 500 shouting protesters invaded the
hotel ballroom and used megaphones to call
for higher school lunch funding. Many of the
protesters had been bused in from out of
town', prompting Mr. Gingrich to ask some .
pointed questions. Why weren't they at
work? Who are they? Who paid them? Well,
it turns out the protest was organized by the
left wing activist group. ACORN, a frequent
recipient of Federal and state grants.
The Washington Times reports that 42 participants in President Clinton's new national....
service program are working for ACRON at a
cost to taxpayers of more than Jl.l million. .
Several operate out of ACORN's Washington,
D.C. offices. We may never know if federally
funded 'volunteers' helped ruin meetings fer;'
2,000 county officials, but we hope Congress ~
plans some oversight hearings on the groups
involved in Mr. Clinton's service program.
• 2300
I t was interesting today, Mr. Speak- .
er, to see yet more protesters arrive
here on Capitol H i l l . And I find i t especially interesting that i t appears that
some of these protesters are subsidized
with tax money from you and me and
from the American people, so now we
have really reached a new low in the
concept of protest.
And please don't misunderstand. I
uphold the first amendment and applaud the first amendment, and certainly people have a right to peaceably
assemble and petition the Government .
for redress of grievances. But the prob. lem comes as certainly there is a cloud
of suspicion that what we have now are
protesters subsidized with tax money
here to champion the tired old policies
of the past.
And what is even more true, and I
will come back to this fact until the
American people have i t clear in their
minds, all this talk about cutting the
school lunch programs, about cutting
the Federal nutrition programs, can
only be characterized as false.
Again, the numbers speak for themselves. This new Republican majority
is willing to fund these programs $200
million in excess of what President
Clinton has called for this year. And
moreover, we called for increases of 4.5
percent.
Now the guardians of the old order
bankrupt of any new ideas come here
and march to the will of this House and
say. No, no, those are cuts. Again, only
in Washington can i t be considered a
cut when you reduce a future, planned
Increase.
My friends on the other side are
upset because the increase will not be
5.1 percent. Instead, the increase is
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Waldman
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Waldman was Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting from 1995-1999. His responsibilities were writing and editing nearly 2,000 speeches, which included four State of the Union speeches and two Inaugural Addresses. From 1993 -1995 he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Coordination.</p>
<p>The collection generally consists of copies of speeches and speech drafts, talking points, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, handwritten notes, articles, clippings, and presidential schedules. A large volume of this collection was for the State of the Union speeches. Many of the speech drafts are heavily annotated with additions or deletions. There are a lot of articles and clippings in this collection.</p>
<p>Due to the size of this collection it has been divided into two segments. Use links below for access to the individual segments:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+1">Segment One</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+2">Segment Two</a></p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Michael Waldman
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1999
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
Segment One contains 1071 folders in 72 boxes.
Segment Two contains 868 folders in 66 boxes.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[Regulatory] Reform Legislation House Debate [Binder] [8]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 11
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36403"> Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763296">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F Segment 1
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/3/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7763296
42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-011-003-2015