John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I do so, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I agree that the interpretation given by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is correct. I think the gentleman has facilitated this, with a lot of time being saved by his having made the deletion. We have no objection to the technical amendment, and urge support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] for this modification, which has come about as a result of the discussions between our staffs. I think this is a very important deletion, because it makes the amendment more technical and takes out the part that was giving us a lot of trouble. I commend the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. He has worked on this matter for many years, and I have noted his change of position, his reluctance now to allow FDA approval to reign superior in this instance; we now have those who are seeking this amendment, many of them are at the same time holding FDA in a suspended state of animation, which could result in an important diminution of its powers and resources and ability to do the job. I have heard it said here on the floor several times, if there are ways to improve the FDA's ability to get the job done, then let us do it. But we may be going in the opposite direction. As badly as the FDA needs support, the problem right now is whether it is going to be able to continue funding at its present level. So I rise in clear opposition to an amendment which will ultimately have the effect of immunizing manufacturers of defective products who happen to obtain FDA approval. This amendment would provide a complete defense to liability for any drug or medical device that received premarket approval from the FDA. In other words, if the FDA for whatever reason allows a defective product on the market, the victims would not be able to sue at all. Even if both the manufacturer and the FDA have evidence of the dangers of a product but permitted it to be marketed anyway, the innocent, injured victim would be left without any opportunity for compensation whatsoever. Do the authors of this amendment really want us to place that much faith in an underfunded Federal regulator? It goes without saying that the amendment would have a disproportionate impact on the ability of women in particular to recover punitive damages which could occur from grossly negligent conduct, since many of the cases that involve large awards involve defective medical products placed inside women's bodies, the very products likely to need FDA approval. These are products such as the Dalkon Shield, the Cooper-7 IUD device, high-absorbency tampons linked to toxic shock syndrome and silicone breast implants. For each of these products, the manufacturer had information indicating the dangers posed by the product. So join me and the gentleman from Ohio in opposing this amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this important Furse amendment. Mr. Chairman, one of the most revealing features in the Republican Contract With America is the limit on punitive damages. Because this limit will take away one of the most effective means of protecting Americans from the products that will kill, maim, induce sterility, or otherwise injure. Of course, the most profound lie being told about punitive damages is that they are awarded too often. The truth is that punitive damages are awarded only in rare cases. Between the years 1965 and 1990, there were just 355 punitive damage awards in product liability cases. Excluding asbestos cases, there were an average of only 11 such awards each year, many of which were reduced on appeal. In exchange for the rare egregious cases that punitive damages are assessed, there are immeasurable gains in public safety. That's right, this limit on punitive damages to three times economic loss or $250,000 is a massive assault on public safety. I ask you to listen closely and I will tell you why. Parents of America listen to this. In 1980 a darling 4-year-old girl was permanently maimed with second and third degree burns when her highly flammable pajamas caught fire. She merely reached across the kitchen stove to turn off a timer. Company officials were quoted as saying they new the pajamas were unreasonably flammable, and that making them flame retardant was economically feasible. But they failed to take the steps needed to protect the little girl. It took the responsibly and make children's pajamas safe. Women of America remember the crime of super-absorbent tampons and toxic shock. The manufacturers of Playtex's super-absorbent tampons knew, according to the 10th Circuit Court's findings, that their product could increase the risk of toxic shock but, according to the 10th Circuit Court, ``deliberately disregarded studies and medical reports linking high absorbance tampons fibers with increased risk of toxic shock.'' Countless of innocent women suffered. It took $10 million in punitive damages to force Playtex to take the deadly product off the market. This is the type of crime the Republican contract would allow to go unchecked. Women of America will also remember breast implants that manufacturers knew were not safe. Women were left in wheelchairs, weak, ill, and disabled for life. Punitive damages got these off the market. And for anyone who likes the outdoors, listen to this. Had this bill been law during the Exxon Valdez, the punitive damage limit would have shielded Exxon's liability to just $860 million, the equivalent of 4 minutes of Exxon's annual revenues. And even worse, the punitive damages limit preempts all State punitive damages laws. This bill will limit punitive damages in State actions for sexual abuse of children [New Jersey Stat. Ann Sec. 26:5C- 14], Drunk Driving [Minnesota], for the selling of drugs on minors [Illinois], and for much else at the State level. This bill's obnoxiousness does not end there. It is patently discriminatory against women as well as middle and low wage earners. That's because punitive damages are calculated by economic damages alone, with noneconomic damages like the loss of reproductive ability being totally discounted. If an insurance executive making $1 million and a middle-class housewife who stays at home taking care of her family are both injured by the same product, the insurance executive would be eligible for $3 million in punitive damages, whereas the housewife eligible for only $250,000, less than 10 percent. This would be so even if the injury resulted in the woman's sterility. Where is this new majority's commitment to fighting these types of crime. Why such the rhetoric when it comes to stopping crime that occurs in the streets, but not crimes that occur in our commercial relations. Without this amendment, this bill will severely limit the rights of States trying to stop child sexual abuse, of women whose reproductive organs will be vastly undervalued, of average working Americans who depend on our laws to deter the biggest corporations from injuring us with defective products. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

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 limit 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, this bill is all about the rights of States, and I do not stand as a States righter, 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, and 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. It 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, it 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 home.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

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

Mr. CONYERS. I really am impressed by this recognition that some have gone too far, but to tell us that we should not suggest that business is going to benefit, for the chairman of Judiciary to suggest we should also, as we are washing each other's hands, and finding that nobody is guilty and that we are getting contributions from everywhere, that we also suggest that business is not the beneficiary, the clear beneficiary of some of these matters. That now, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is perfectly obvious, and I am not prepared at this moment, while I had dirty hands on the Committee on Rules, I do not think I am misinforming anybody to suggest to you that the beneficiaries of these restrictions that are being rushed upon us are not the consumers but are, indeed, the business interests of this country.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I just want to cite the law to the other side so there is no confusion. Title II, Punitive Damages Reform, section 201(c). ``Except as provided, in any Federal or State court on any theory where punitive damages are sought.'' Applicability and Preemption. This preempts State laws where punitive damages are concerned, no question about it. Maybe that is the reason that the gentleman made the response that he did to me on that question. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I begin by commending the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] for a valiant effort that nonetheless has produced the most grievous rule that I have had to work on in my career in the Congress. On the matter of product liability, not discussed in this Chamber for many years, we now are presented with a modified closed rule, 6 hours of debate, 15 amendments designated by name, minutes, none, and under these circumstances it makes legislating almost a travesty. I want this body to know that I have never felt so badly about the way that we have been treated in the Committee on Rules, not just this side, but the whole Congress, in 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 influence 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 in a contractual effort to keep within a time limit. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends on the other side, and I have raised this a couple of times, if this is not friendly legislation to big business, then we do not know where we are and what we are doing. If you need the Wall Street Journal to help you out, here it is: ``Big business is striking it rich in the GOP contract.'' I could say that, and I do, but they said it. Just in case Members want to pretend that this is consumer-friendly or friendly to working people, it is not. It is an outrage.

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

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. It should not be your or my position. Right?

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman is against punitive damages for sexual predators when the State law provides it and we are capping it in this bill? Please.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. No, I have no idea.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], who is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, by the way.

Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman will yield, we did not mean any percentages, Mr. Chairman. Nobody had any percentages in mind. The fact of the matter is if the law can apply in a case being prosecuted civilly, it ought to apply. Treble damages under RICO is an incredibly important tool, without which we are going to be at a loss for a lot of violations, including Mafia violations that are being reported in the Wall Street Journal.