John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that the American people want more than productive change, it is an end to hypocrisy and gamesmanship when it comes to Government reform. And that is what this rule is about. It is the ultimate game of hide and seek. It offers phony term limits proposals that Members can hide behind. It's so gamed to lose that by design voters will not be able to seek the truth after the debate. It's the big duck. The American people should not be mistaken. Term limits will not prevail because Republicans have so gamed this process that it never really had a chance. Let me explain. First off, the Republican rules committee has prevented all perfecting amendments. That is a travesty for Members who want to make honest any of the four alternatives that we will be voting on. Some Members like myself for instance, who believe that term limits will create a rise in amateurism in the institution, believe that if we are going to have term limits let's make them effective immediately, and not exempt current Members. That is right. Other than the Democratic substitute, none of the Republican alternatives apply to terms currently served by incumbents. The most restrictive one--the Inglis substitute--would allow me to serve 43 years in the House--43 years. The McCollum and Hilleary substitutes would allow me to serve 49 years in the House. Speaker Gingrich would be allowed to serve 37 years under Inglis. Under McCollum and Hilleary he would be allowed 31 years. And of all the Republican substitutes, only one--Hilleary--would preserve the States rights to do what they deem most appropriate when it comes to term limits. Finally, this rule totally denigrates the Judiciary Committee. The committee reported bill is not even made in order. The entire purpose of committees is to refine issues in a manner proper for floor consideration. This makes a mockery of that. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a fraud and a game on the American people. Let us defeat it and get on with an honest debate, not a game of hide and seek.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] to control the time on our side in opposition.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendment No. 15. Point of Order

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 15.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for the excellent job he has done. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit makes two simple changes, first restoring the provision from the committee-passed bill which would require foreign manufacturers to be subject to service of process in this country before they could benefit from the bill's provision, and then second increase the cap on punitive damages from a quarter million dollars to $1 million. Although the body approved a separate amendment by a 92-vote margin that I offered yesterday dealing with foreign manufacturers, that amendment merely ensured that foreign manufacturers were subject to Federal court rules in terms of discovery and jurisdiction. However, we all know that being subject to court rules is not worth anything unless you can actually serve the company with process and bring them into court. Unfortunately, the first Cox amendment approved yesterday I like to think inadvertently knocked out my service-of-process language. This gutted the whole bill. So the Cox amendment gutted the whole provision of being able to hold foreign wrongdoers responsible for their actions. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, what we just heard explained as the reason for opposing this amendment is absolutely astonishing. We are saying we should not subject a foreign manufacturer to our legal process because of free trade considerations. Now, ladies and gentlemen, if we are prepared to say that they should have a more lenient way in our courts than our own manufacturers, I will be astounded to hear such a statement. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. I apologize for having such little time. This amendment makes sure that foreign manufacturers comply with the U.S. Court rules if they choose to have their goods sold in this country, and that includes discovery, which is one of the most important parts of court rules, if there is a lawsuit against a foreign manufacturer. Our hearings revealed that many times our liability laws are of little use against foreign companies because it is so difficult to obtain jurisdiction over them and obtain discovery of the documents necessary to establish legal liability. And that is why within my 5 minutes I have asked the former chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] to share this time with me. Mr. Chairman, I think my amendment will make sure that foreign firms can be brought to justice in this country just as American companies can be. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. The list of broken promises and pledges of the Republican majority continues to grow with every day. First the new Republican majority refused to protect Social Security from cuts under the proposed balanced budget amendment contrary to the protection that the new Speaker promised Social Security would receive. The amendment went down as a result in the Senate. Next, came the promise to return crime fighting tools to the States, a promise promptly revoked in the prison funding legislation which dictated strict eligibility requirements to the States that they could not meet. And then came the promise for open rules, a promise which has been broken on nearly every major bill coming out of the Judiciary Committee. Sure, strict time limits that include voting time which allow for open amendments, are not quite closed rules. But the strictures of these time limits have repeatedly cut off meritorious amendments not just by Democrats but by Republicans as well. And now on one of the most important bills affecting every American's right to be free from harm, every American's right to go to court to right a wrong done to them, we have the ultimate in closed rules. A rule that allows only a limited number of amendments on a highly technical and complicated body of law. A rule that irresponsibly allows amendments nongermane amendments limiting rights of medical malpractice victims, an issue which was not properly considered and refined in committee, to be hoisted onto members for a vote of first impression on the House floor. This rule refused to make in order the vast majority of amendments that Judiciary Democrats requested be made in order. It refused my amendment making particularly egregious conduct subject to criminal liability, amendments dealing with reproductive rights, the statute of repose, making businesses play by the same rules as individuals, requiring insurance reporting. How ironic it is that such a restrictive rule comes on a bill that is attempting to restrict people's fundamental rights. That's right, this is not a bill to clean up the legal system, as a matter of fact it is doubtful that this bill will cause any reduction in American litigation. Rather this bill is about depriving people of fundamental rights, of rights to be free from unknowable harms in our midst, in the every day products we consume. This bill is about depriving people of legal rights when they are wronged. This bill is about telling manufacturers that its OK to produce children's pajamas which are flammable, pharmaceutical which will injure rather than cure, household products which will maim, because the deterrent purpose of punitive damages will be so limited that wrongdoers will only have to pay small sums in punitive damages relative to the huge profits they will reap. And not only does this bill guillotine damages in Federal court, but it does so for State laws as well. That's the ultimate Washington power grab. Folks at home, listen up. This bill will severely limit punitive damages in your State laws for sexual abuse of children, victims of drunk driving, and criminals who sells drugs to children. Women of America, listen close. This bill says a male corporate executive who loses wages because of temporary incapacitation will probably get more damages than you if you're sterilized by defective products in the marketplace. This bill is about limiting individual rights, particularly for middle income Americans. The rule is about limiting members amendments to expand rights. The bill cuts off the American people's rights to go to court, the rule the right to go to the House floor. Never before has the Contract With America been bolder in its statement that it is really a ``Contract With Corporate America.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, the current language in this bill is carefully balanced. It offers a carrot and a stick. The end result is a substantially more balanced playing field.

Mr. CONYERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, on a point of procedure, would I have the right to close on this since this is an amendment against the bill?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment continues chipping away at the entire concept of punitive damages by reducing punitive damages over $250,000 by an additional 75 percent and giving it to the Federal or State treasury rather than to the individual who sued. Do State treasuries want these awards? New York said, ``No thanks,'' and repealed its apportionment law. In Colorado, the supreme court held that giving punitive awards to a State fund was an unconstitutional ``taking.'' Who benefits? The corporations who will simply build economic damages into their costs of doing business, without fear of facing large punitive damages that would have deterred them from knowingly selling products that cause devastating injury to the buyer. Who loses? Those at the lower end of the economic scale who will have less incentive to sue, especially when their recovery is determined by how much they earn rather than the outrageousness of the defendant's conduct. Some Members on the other side will argue that punitive damages should punish wrongdoers and are not intended to compensate plaintiffs, but they should know better. Lawsuits brought by victims, not Government regulation, brought about safety improvements like restricting asbestos use, like beepers on reversing garbage trucks that had resulted in numerous injuries to children, like recalling the Dalkon Shield. Punitive damages put an end to the exploding fuel tank and the heart by-pass drug that resulted in amputation caused by gangrene. The likely result if this amendment passes is more dangerous products on the market and less incentive for the victims to sue, a prospect that does not advance the common good but will only please the sponsors of this Contract with Corporate America. Please reject the Hoke amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Members of the Committee, we have seen a chipping-away effect that has now reached the point that I think Members on the other side will begin to be repelled by it. The entire concept of punitive damages are now being reduced by an additional 75 percent when they exceed $250,000 by giving it to the Federal or State treasury rather than to the individual who sued. When is this going to end? What reason does a person have to come into court with a lawyer, to risk his all, under the accentuated costs and risks that he must not attend, and then, if he recovers, it goes not to him, but it goes to the State or to the Federal Government itself? What kind of nationalistic scheme are we talking about? I say to my colleagues, ``You don't have to be a supporter of states rights to take exception to this.'' Where will we draw the line? What are we doing? Has each citizen become an apparatchik for the State even when he or she goes to court and recovers? The New York State court has said ``no,'' the Supreme Court of Colorado has said ``no,'' and now we should say ``no'' to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. We are confronted with a very strange amendment here, because what has not been mentioned by the author of it is that it seeks to exclude foreign manufacturers from the service of process requirement that American manufacturers are subject to. And so members of the committee, we are back to the same amendment on the other end that we voted only a few hours ago, where we said that a foreign manufacturer was subject to the same discovery proceedings that a national manufacturer, a domestic manufacturer is subject to. We said that we should not be able to have them avoid litigation because their discovery may take them to Europe or to Japan, that they must subject themselves to discovery. And this amendment, although strangely enough it has not been said yet, and you are going to have to read pretty carefully to find it anywhere, is that this is going to change the service of process in suits brought against foreign manufacturers. It is another way to let them out of playing the game on a level playing field with domestic manufacturers. I think we all know what some of them are doing. They sell their goods, freight on board, in Japan or Germany, just so they will not be treated as having contacts in this country which could subject them to suit there. They know that this makes U.S. citizens go through repeated hurdles to bring suit against them, ranging from translating the complaint into another language and asking the State Department to serve action, and even then the foreign business may elect to ignore the action. This is another backdoor way of giving a foreign manufacturer a leg up. To make sure that everybody knows what the gentleman is doing, I do not know why the gentleman did not just come out, the gentleman from California did not just come out and say what this is going to do. It is going to change the way service of process is implemented by a foreign manufacturer, and that is just the front door way of getting around the discovery amendment that would have given them a break that we just rejected. Why do you want to give different rules in court to foreign companies? What benefit do you see in that? I know there are a lot of foreign companies here, but do you not see, my friend, that citizens that are sued and want to sue will need to have service of process. And if you try to take this out, we are going to be doing ourselves a grave disservice to all of our constituents?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes a blow against U.S. citizens, the same as the other discovery amendment tried to do.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.