Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Perhaps the gentleman might yield on section 109.

Mr. DOGGETT. This amendment deletes section 109 from the bill. Section 109 of this bill requires that a foreign manufacturer to benefit from this bill at all, to get any benefit from it, appoint an agent for service of----

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, perhaps it is a peculiar observation at a time when we focus so much attention on lawyers and lawsuits to suggest that maybe a little bitty part of the problem of malpractice in this country, malpractice litigation, is malpractice itself. The statistics from the Harvard Medical School study conducted by a group of doctors in 1990 suggest that every 7 minutes in this country, someone dies in a hospital from medical malpractice. Maybe that has something to do with why we have a medical malpractice problem in this country. But the suggestion that, well, there will be mistakes completely avoids the question, because the question is, who is going to bear the burden of that mistake, and the suggestion by the author of this amendment that we can somehow give back a foot through medical technology suggests the ability to do something that only God can do.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. A couple of questions that the gentlewoman's comments have raised. The first one is I believe every Member has received today a package of old fashioned Girl Scout cookies. Does the gentlewoman have any understanding of why these special interests keep hiding behind the skirts of the Little League and outfits like the Girl Scouts instead of fighting their own battles?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, we have consulted with the ranking minority member of each of those committees and subcommittees, and there is no objection. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DOGGETT

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.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there may well be some debate about which of the various pieces of legislation considered this week is the most outrageous. Is it the reversal of 200 years of American law with reference to the way attorneys are handled in our society? Is it the potential for bilking those who invest our pension funds in securities in this country? Or is it denying the rights to those who are injured across this country from defective products? There may be debate about that. But there can be no debate about what is the most outrageous rule for consideration of any of these measures, because we are tonight part of a double whammy, a double whammy to deny the people of America through a gag rule on this Congress the opportunity to discuss the full dimensions of this issue of taking away the States rights at the same time we take away the rights of victims. We know full well there is ample time to debate the dimensions of this piece of legislation. We have just had the distinguished majority leader come to the floor of this House and tell us we have all day Monday, be it to play golf, be it to be wined and dined by the great corporate lobbyists who are so interested in this piece of legislation, but we have no time, not 1 minute, to spend on Monday discussing the rights that are being destroyed of the American citizens through this piece of legislation. We have courts all over this land, we have State capitals all over this land struggling with the issues involved. Let them struggle on without the Federal Government taking over these issues and doing it in a way that is not actually debated on the floor of this House. It deserves more than one evening, it deserves more than one day when you trample on the rights of our citizenry in the way this is being done.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Yet it is the kind of statistic that has been brought out every day this week and I guess we will hear it tonight and tomorrow also. It is totally and completely misleading, and this bill is going to do nothing about that statistic. Any business that is out there that has a commercial dispute with a supplier, either trying to collect a debt or because it thinks it has a legitimate defense to a debt, those suits are going to go on. And of that 90 percent, the vast majority of them will not be touched by one bill that is being considered on the floor of this House this week.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I would like the gentleman to go back to the Rand study again. Do you mean as presented by the last speaker that the Rand study is saying that 90 percent of the businesses that get sued or involved in suits that would involve the collection of debt between businesses, for example?

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

Mr. DOGGETT

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. DOGGETT. Let me ask the gentleman if the lack of any data to support this bill is why these special interests are hiding behind the skirts and the little 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. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, we have consulted with the ranking minority member of each of those committees and have no objection to their meeting while the House is in session. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. A further question, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman mentioned diversity jurisdiction. Does this also apply with reference to removal? In other words, if someone filed their action under State law in a State court that did not have a draconian, regressive, reactionary rule like that that is being urged tonight for adoption, could they be removed, if they were against an out-of-State party, to Federal court and suddenly find themselves as a winner pay, facing all of the hardships that you have suggested will emanate from this piece of legislation?

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

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, does the gentleman mean that instead of being a loser pay rule, this is really a winner pay rule? Somebody could go in, they could win, the jury could decide they were perfectly justified with reference to their claim, and they would still end up having this draconian rules applied to them?

Mr. DOGGETT. This is more a draconian rule.

Mr. DOGGETT. So they could have limited this bill to frivolous and fraudulent cases but instead, as a way of discouraging even legitimate suits that sometimes, of course, in a court in front of a judge and a jury could go either way, if someone takes a chance thinking they have got a good suit but they lose, it is not a frivolous suit, it is not a fraudulent suit, but when the jury weighs the evidence, they conclude that it does not have merit, that they are going to have imposed upon them the cost of some large concern in defending that suit and they could actually have the wages garnished, perhaps a car taken away, all kinds of things.

Mr. DOGGETT. If I understood that last answer, about frivolous or fraudulent suits, you would get the impression that this only applies to frivolous or fraudulent suits. Is it not correct that there is no requirement to prove frivolity or to prove fraud in order to impose these burdens and lead to the garnishment of somebody's wages.

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman will yield, if I understand, all you are really trying to do is take an Executive order that is in place now and put it into the statute, so we will be assured that any future administration would follow this principle of sunshine.

Mr. DOGGETT. I have some other questions for you, but the most obvious question is why would anybody be against this? Surely this is an acceptable amendment, and it will not be necessary for us to talk further if it is acceptable to the sponsors of the legislation. Surely they do not have any argument against this.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. So the gentleman wants them on these peer review panels?

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