Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DOGGETT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOGGETT. I have a question, not a statement.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from California opened the debate on this rule by informing the House that this is a new era in addressing the deficit. And I have to agree with him completely. In fact, it is a brand-new, sparking era because as recently as last Friday I was engaged in colloquy here on the floor with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and the distinguished majority leader, and they all informed me that it would be entirely out of order, under the rule proposed for this debate, to allocate even as much as 1 cent to deficit reduction. So I am glad we made some progress, if it is indeed progress, here in the House, in that in the period between last Friday and now we have found out from the majority that they have a new interest in deficit reduction and indeed a new era. I sought to engage the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] in a colloquy during his opening remarks concerning this sudden change. And I would propose, since he would not do it on his time, to do it on my time. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] this question: Do I understand that under this rule it is proper to allocate these savings, that there will be an amendment to allocate savings to deficit reduction? Mr. Dreier. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOGGETT. And the Murtha amendment that I was told last Friday would not be in order? I am glad to know that they are now in order.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman will yield further, only momentarily to say, if I understand the answer, we will be denied any further opportunity to see that the cuts that are being made go to reduce the size of the Federal deficit to ensure they all go there, and that is something that is very important to those of us who believe in pay-as- you-go Government. And I am assuming we will be cut off entirely from the opportunity to see that that happens next week.

Mr. DOGGETT. Does not the bill as reported legislate on the same matter?

Mr. DOGGETT. Like the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, I am interested in getting something done about the deficit, and so the one amendment that I am most interested in that the gentleman made general reference to was that of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], to see that all of the rescissions go to reducing the deficit. Will that amendment be in order here on the floor?

Mr. DOGGETT. I was wondering about our procedure this next week. Under the new open rules under the Contract With America, when we took up the law enforcement block grants there were at least 10 Members who were denied the right to offer an amendment. On national security there were at least eight Members who were denied an opportunity to offer an amendment. On the regulatory moratorium there were at least 15 Members who were denied the opportunity to offer an amendment. On risk assessment there were a mere three Members including myself and a Republican colleague who were denied the opportunity to offer an amendment. On the takings legislation, two Members, at least two Members were denied the opportunity to offer an amendment. This week the numbers went up dramatically, four on attorney accountability, three on securities litigation. But 60 specific amendments, germane Members cut off from the opportunity to offer them even though we have all afternoon, and now apparently under the answers from the majority leader all of Monday and Tuesday that could have been allocated, and I am just wondering with reference to the matters that are scheduled for next week, will we have more Members cut off and denied the opportunity to offer an amendment, or do you think it will stay at the current high level?

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT. This is as the gentleman suggests a poorly crafted amendment that applies not only to careless conduct but to grossly careless conduct, to intentional conduct. It applies not only to the family physician the nursing home that intentionally abuses older Americans. But to suggest that this has something to do with health care reform is frivolous in and of itself. The studies have shown that all the medical malpractice insurance and litigation in this country amounts to a big 63 cents out of every $100 spent on medical care. If that is where you want to start health care reform, I would submit that we start with the other 99-plus dollars out of health care and not focus on the part that relates to protecting people who are harmed by those who are careless or in this case engaged in intentional misconduct.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the section that is being deleted by the Cox amendment requires the foreign manufacturer to appoint an agent for service or process. The prior amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] did not touch that issue at all. So what this is doing is something very inconsistent with the spirit of the Conyers amendment, but if this amendment should pass, contrary to the author's representations, it would do great damage just as the gentleman has suggested.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the House, previously, by an overwhelming margin adopted the amendment of the ranking Member, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. It does deal with trying to assure parity that we, for once, do not give all the advantages to the foreign manufacturers, that we realize the importance of American manufacturers and now the spirit and the principle of that amendment is being undermined by the amendment being offered at this point, because it deletes the section in this particular provision that requires these foreign manufacturers to have an agent for process, something that every American manufacturer has to do.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. If the young women who are pictured on this box of Girl Scout cookies, if they get injured and they are scarred or maimed for life, will they get less unless the amendment is adopted than the corporate lobbyists who sent these boxes of cookies to every Member?

Mr. DOGGETT. Will the gentlewoman yield for another question?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, at the same time last year I sat on the highest State court in the State of Texas, struggling with this very issue. Our court looked at what the standard should be on the question of punitive damages. It looked at ``clear and convincing evidence.'' It looked at burden by ``a preponderance.'' It looked beyond ``a reasonable doubt,'' and it chose not to pursue this standard. Other States have chosen to pursue the ``clear and convincing'' standard. There are some good arguments for it. But the one thing that is clear and very convincing about this debate is that our States are being denied that right and that people that come here praising the 10th amendment are shredding it in the course of this debate and are saying that State jurists and legal scholars and State legislators around this country shall not have the right to set the standard that will apply to their citizens. So much of this debate is build on the theory that we not only need trickle-down economics, that what we need is trickle-down government and that it ought to trickle down from Washington instead of gushing up from the people and their State and local leaders. I reject that, as this amendment does.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the philosophy of this amendment is embodied in the first sentence, which is to empower individual consumers with the information to avoid defective products; court records in all product liability actions are presumed to be open. The thrust of this amendment is that if we empower people to be responsible, to have the information to avoid defective products, they avoid litigation, and trial lawyers and all the problems that the authors of this legislation say their legislation is designed to resolve. It is rather shocking to hear a series of contradictions from those who oppose the amendment. First they tell us that we should trust the judges. Mr. Chairman, if we trusted the judges of the 50 States, we would not be here this afternoon with this piece of legislation in the first place. The whole theory of House Resolution 1075 is that this body does not trust the judges of the 50 States, nor the 50 legislatures. If we are going to address the problem as they see it, as they see fit to do it, why do we not try to do something constructive? That is what this amendment does. It says secrecy is not in the interests of the American people. In fact, court records across this country, and this is not an anecdote, it is based on fact, court records across this country hide facts that literally kill and maim thousands of people in this country. Two States have done something about it. The State of Florida passed a statute on the subject, and they have done a great deal to focus a little Florida sunshine, which is what we are trying to copy in this piece of legislation, so people are not deceived by facts that are sealed and hidden away in some dusty file drawer from the people that it could protect. The second State is my own State of Texas, where we chose to do it by trusting the judges in a court rule of procedure to deal with this problem. Of course what we do in this amendment does relate to court rules of procedure just as the rest of the bill does in dealing with bifurcation of punitive damages which is a rule of procedure that the majority has not the least bit of concern about interfering with the States on that. The suggestion that this particular amendment would open all records belies the very words of the amendment. It does not do that. There are legitimate privacy interests in every lawsuit. There are legitimate trade secrets. All that we ask is that the better law of the Federal jurisdictions, the law that prevails I think in most Federal courts today, be codified in this statute as we are codifying other law, and require the trial judge to do what only judges can do if they act in their proper role, and, that is, to balance the interest. Is the public's interest in avoiding more deaths and more injuries? Does it outweigh whatever interest is claimed by the manufacturer? Let me give Members some specific examples of where this kind of amendment, if it had been the law of this land, would have made the difference and would have prevented the destruction, interference and harm of thousands of lives. One of these examples is the whole problem with breast implants. In 1984, 8 years before the major crisis over breast implants, there was information available concerning the danger of these implants and it was locked up in San Francisco in a vault, sealed in the first places of this litigation. That information could have been there so that those women avoided those breast implants in the first place. Instead, we have the literal and physical scars on many American women that would have never been there had they known the dangers that were locked up in those file drawers. Another good example comes from the State of Florida, where it enacted this statute, where one pharmaceutical manufacturer of an arthritis medication actually convinced a court judge to prohibit any of the documents, not from being shared with Ralph Nader Administration so that they could do something about it. Indeed, the Food and Drug Administration learned much of the problems with breast implants, not from anything filed there but from what was sealed and secreted away in that vault in San Francisco. That is the kind of thing that is happening in this country ever single day where people come in with one price to settle a lawsuit if the documents are open and one price if they are sealed. Of course the person who is facing large medical bills, a serious threat to their earnings stream, many times is encouraged to take the higher price. But somewhere in all this the public interest gets left out. The role that we could play is by empowering citizens across this country to protect their own interests by knowing of the dangers that they face in the marketplace, making an informed decision, not locking this away but opening it up. I would trust the judge to use this statute as we propose it through this amendment to carefully balance the interest, but to assume and presume that this Government operates best when it operates in the sunshine, when it operates in the open. That is what this amendment is all about, against secrecy, in favor of empowering the people of this country to protect themselves. It is incredible that it would not be accepted because it represents true commonsense legal reform.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, there is considerable irony in the fact that the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary should lead off the presentation of this amendment by pointing to the example of what 17 States do with their statutes of repose, because the whole theory of this bill is to junk States' rights. If the people in Illinois in their constitution want a statute of repose with or without this, I say that is fine. If the people in Texas want it, that is fine. It is not our job to come along and junk States' rights and say, you have to do it the way we say do it in Washington. That is what is the theory and the approach of this bill, is not to rely on the States but rather to consider and argue and to contend that we have this terrible patchwork of States' laws that pose a great burden. There was a time in this country, my colleagues, when that terrible patchwork that is criticized here on this floor today was called something a little different. It was called the laboratory of democracy, the fact that each State might look at the laws of its civil justice system and decide what is most appropriate. And it is that laboratory of democracy with reference to our State civil justice system that is being thrown out the window of this capitol building by this piece of legislation. There is a second problem, of course, alluded to by my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]. And that is that this amendment takes a blame the victim approach. The problem here with this whole statute of repose is that it allows every manufacturer in America, and that is really all that the section does, to write on its product after 15 years, do not look to us, buddy. It says, we will not be responsible no matter how defective our product for anything after 15 years. And that would be fine and proper, except for the fact that they allow the manufacturer to do that in invisible ink. The same manufacturer can advertise on the Home Shopping Network this afternoon that you get a lifetime guarantee with our product. Indeed, you do. It is just that you do not get any right to recover after 15 years. So there is no burden placed on the manufacturer to identify the fact that in invisible ink we have limited the rights of the victim. I say blame the victim because the choice with this specific amendment is between those who put defective products in the stream of commerce throughout this country and those who do not have the insurance even to cover their own medical bills, because that is what this very good language took care of. One of the problems in the consideration of this entire week's legislative work in this Capitol is our failure to listen to the victims, to the people that have lost life and their family, a limb, those people have been excluded in this debate.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Gladly.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if I understand it, under the rule you are urging us to adopt, you have put out of order any amendments that would remove control of the States from this and focused it only on the Federal courts, so that the mayor of New York will have to turn to Washington rather than Albany, and the people of my State, instead of going to the State capital, will return to Washington for their product standards? In essence, you rip the tenth amendment apart?

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the focus of the gentlewoman's amendment, this bill as written discriminates against the young child who has a limb severed or is decapitated, really, as a result of playground equipment, a senior citizen who is burned horribly in a fire with a defective heater, a student who is exposed to toxic substances and is impaired for life, a homemaker, be that male or female, but usually it ends up being female, a woman who is at home providing for her family but not a wage earner at that time? All of these people are treated as second-class citizens under this piece of legislation unless the gentlewoman's amendment is adopted.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?