Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Or does the chairman take the position whatever he wants will be the case and if he wants to give his party an advantage, he will do it?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Anytime there is silence in the bill on an amendment, can we safely assume that the proponent of an amendment will then be allowed to close?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we have a very important point here, and I must say I am distressed by the tone of these rulings. By what standards can Members know how a chairman is going to divine whether or not someone represents the position of the committee? Is there no objective standard as to who represents the position of the committee when the ranking minority member defends the position of the committee? I would point out this amendment as I understand it was considered at least in one of the committees and rejected by one of the committees. What are the standards?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Are there any standards by which the Chair perceives? This is a very disturbing statement the Chair has just made. The gentleman from Michigan is the ranking minority member, I believe, of one of the two committees of jurisdiction over this bill, and when we have had stated that there is nothing in the bill one way or the other, are we totally dependent----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, no more than the gentleman would yield to the gentleman from Texas. Maybe you have now adopted a theory that there is no more interstate commerce, that we are all one big unitary society. I think you are going a little far myself, but I take it after we heard the gentleman from Illinois who said everything in American life has been nationalized except this, that you have now conceded that everything is now fair game nationally and we will not hear the States rights arguments again. Fifty different State laws, is that not terrible? Of course where poor children are concerned, 50 different State laws is a good idea. Where school lunches are concerned, 50 different low levels of State nutrition, that is a good idea. Where Aid to Dependent Children 3- and 4-year-olds who need economic support, let's give it back to the States. I have never seen such selectivity about what goes to the States and what does not. I yield to my friend the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. To begin, Mr. Chairman, there is not the remotest evidence that George McGovern was talking about this particular amendment, because this amendment is not about product liability. The restriction on joint and several liability for noneconomic damages on product liability is in the bill. This bill, and I was glad to hear the gentleman from Illinois proclaim the death of States rights, because what this bill says is, ``This section shall apply to any product liability or other civil action brought in any Federal or State court on any theory where noneconomic damages are sought.'' This is an amendment that does not deal with product liability but that is already covered. This says any lawsuit anywhere in America where people are looking for noneconomic damages, we will tell the States how to run things. People said, ``Well, we've got to protect our manufacturing. We do a lot of exports.'' Then they mentioned the Little League. Well, it is not my impression we export that many little leaguers. I know the kids go overseas to play ball, but most come home. They rarely leave but one or two behind. The fact is that this is a statement by the Republican Party on the whole, not all of them, saying, ``We don't trust local juries, we don't trust local legislatures, we don't trust local judges. We will tell you how to run, not manufacturing, not interstate commerce, any civil lawsuit.'' Someone falls down the steps, someone is sued for libel, someone claims alienation of affection, anyone, so it is the most arrogant grab from the States by the Federal Government. Because it is not about manufacturing. We do not need that. The amendment is about every single lawsuit and it says we cannot trust the juries and we cannot trust the States. As to the noneconomic damage thing, I offered an amendment that said if you are less than 20 percent responsible, you do not get joint liability for economic or noneconomic damages. That must have been a good amendment. How do I know? The Committee on Rules would not let it in. The Committee on Rules is for openness on any amendment they think they can beat. The argument made is that it is unfair to the small tort-feasor to give that person joint liability. It is unfair economically and it is unfair in the noneconomic. The distinction is not between economic and noneconomic damages in a logical world but between the large and the small degree of responsibility. So I said all right, let's not discriminate between economic and non- economic with the gender bias and the class bias that that implicates, let's cut off the small versus the large. But the Republican Committee on Rules said, ``Oh, no, that's too logical and we can't have that, because if we're going to tell every State court in America how to deal with every lawsuit in America where anybody alleges noneconomic damages, then we better do it the other way.'' Plus we also have the gentleman's amendment which does weaken the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan. Under the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan, a foreign manufacturer must name an agent to be served here. The gentleman strikes that in this amendment. We would still theoretically have jurisdiction if we can find them to serve them. I mean in Croatia, they have jurisdiction over Serbian war crimes but they are not going to try many Serbs and we will still have technical jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers but if the gentleman from California's amendment passes and they do not have to designate an agent for accepting process, we will not get many of them into court. It is an abstract discussion and what he is saying is to every State court in America, every State court in America, if there is a foreign manufacturer, you can't require them to serve process and if you want to sue them in State court, good luck to you. Maybe the United Nations can pick them up on the way to try and find some Serbs in Croatia, because they will have about as much chance. This belies the notion that the Contract is about empowering the States. This says when we feel that the economic interests with which we are in most sympathy will be better served by nationalizing matters that have been State law for 200 years, we will do so. And we will claim it is according to interstate commerce, that will be the entering wedge. Then we will give you an amendment which says any civil action in any Federal or State court on any theory. This is the ``anys'' amendment. Every ``any'' that applies got put into this amendment. Any case, any State, any cause of action, any reason they want, congratulations, you are now under Federal law. This amendment brings back Selective Service. You have just drafted every State court and every State jury and every State cause of action and it has nothing to do with interstate commerce. Maybe the Republican party has adopted the theory that there is no more interstate commerce.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. My sense would be, in most parliamentary situations, that the last enactment would supersede the previous one. So the notion that by a prior action we could somehow control a subsequent action is a dubious proposition at best. The gentleman has got a drafting problem. He cannot solve it by something that we did a couple of hours ago, because by a subsequent action we would be deemed to have amended or modified the previous action.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking member of the full Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. As a member of the reporting committee, I wonder, by whatever process of mental divination the Chair uses, if he would decide that I had the right to close on this.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we are seeing over these next couple of days one of the most complete degradations of the legislative process I have ever been sorry enough to witness. I am a supporter of product liability reform. I voted in the last Congress for medical malpractice reform. I voted for caps. I was prepared to support a good product liability bill, but the procedure and the substance to which we are going to be subjected over the next couple of days are so degraded and degrading and I cannot be part of it. In the first place, we have the great inconsistency of people talking about States' rights. And the gentleman from Illinois said, Well, we are being inconsistent. No, most of us have not claimed to be either consistently for States' rights or Federal rights. Many of us have said, You look at it issue by issue and you see what makes the most sense. The Republican Party that has clothed itself in States' rights garb until and unless their corporate allies decide they want it differently and then they change. And when the corporate allies say, Do not let States experiment with single-payer health insurance, don't amend ERISA, they say, OK. And when we federalize tort law, they say, OK, especially when it has nothing to do with manufacturing. We heard a great rationale from the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. This is all about manufacturing. The gentleman said in the Rules Committee, This is about exports. We don't export Little Leaguers. Sometimes they play the Taiwan but they come back. They are not an export. The amendments that are about to come--and this is all preordained, these amendment will pass--the amendments that are going to come will put limits on the amount of noneconomic damages that can be awarded into virtually any civil case in America. So this argument that this is justified because manufacturing is an economic activity is nonsensical. The Girl Scouts do not manufacture. There may or may not be a case for covering the Girl Scouts or the Little League or every other lawsuit, but we are are not talking about manufacturing. We are also not talking about anything that resembles a respectable legislative process. In the Committee on the Judiciary controversial amendments on medical malpractice, et cetera, that were offered were withdrawn so they couldn't be debated. They will now come forward here. I have voted in the past for medical malpractice reform. I have voted for limitations, and I say to my friends who are pressing for that, if you make a pact of this sort to take legislation and give it no hearing in this Congress and no markup in committee, if it is withdrawn and then pulled back, and then it comes up to be debated for a grand total of 40 minutes in the House, do not expect those of us who conscientiously agree with you to vote with you. We have a list of amendments, 40 minutes, 20 minutes, 10 minutes, extending this legislation to virtually every civil lawsuit in America, expressing the contempt the majority apparently feels for the jury system, because what they say is the jury does not count. We got an example of the intellectual level of the argument when the gentlewoman from Colorado was interrupted by the gentleman from Virginia. The gentlelady was nice enough to yield and the gentleman said, Are you a lawyer and is your husband a lawyer? That is third- grade type of debate and this is what we are getting in this complex legislation. If you only have 40 minutes to talk about it, I suppose that is what you get. And it comes from someone who has been supportive of malpractice reform and who wants to support product liability reform. I say to those of my friends who want it, if you are serious about it, you will break this alliance with people who show such disrespect for the legislative process, such disrespect for your intellects, such total disrespect for the jury system, and decide because they have raw numbers, people who will vote however they are told, then they will win. They will win a short-term victory and and they will discredit the important cause of product liability reform and those of us who really want to see it will in fact be suffering, because what will happen is by this unfair, overloaded, under-debated bill, they will bury the good.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I do not want her to suggest the fate of these children at the Federal level. Is it 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, if a child in fact were to have an untoward incident in what he or she ate, they would sue under Federal law so it would be a State administered law but it would be a Federal lawsuit?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I understand that. But that also does not contradict what I just said, which is if the whip organization had been able to turn it all around it would not have happened.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the minority accepts the amendment.