Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my intention to yield in just a few seconds to the ranking member of the Committee on rules since he has to then go up to the committee for a hearing. After he completes his statement I will reclaim my time because I would like to give the traditional opening statement. I would point out, Mr. Speaker that what we have just witnessed is one of two things. Either it is incomplete staff work on the part of the majority side because of the enormous pressure, time pressure being put on their staff by the majority Members, or it is bait and switch. I do not know which it is. But we are under a very unusual procedure where we are being asked to amend on the floor a rule granted in the Rules Committee yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I read with interest comments by Speaker Gingrich which appeared in yesterday's newspapers about the editorial boards of many of our Nation's newspapers. The Washington Post reported that Speaker Gingrich told a group of business executives Monday night that many newspaper editorial boards contain Socialists. Speaker Gingrich has been accused recently of exaggerating the truth or making plain misstatements of facts. Quite frankly, I do not know whether the Speaker is telling the truth in this instance or not. But I am willing to give the Speaker the benefit of the doubt. According, I call on Speaker Gingrich to name names. Who are the Socialists on the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News? Who are the Socialists on the editorial board of the Fort Worth Star Telegram? Who are the Socialists on the editorial board of the Houston Post? Who are the Socialists on the editorial board of the San Antonio Express News? Who are the Socialists on the editorial board of the Austin American-Statesmen? Who are the Socialists on the editorial board of the New Orleans Times Picayune? Who are the Socialists on the editorial board of the Daily Oklahoman? If you are telling the truth, name names, Mr. Speaker. We are all waiting.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman]. (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]. (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would remind my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], that it was their party that ran for office last year, promising open rules, not promising partially open rules, not promising modified rules, promising open rules. I would raise a question about the cleanliness of the hands, I say to my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]; your contract and your Speaker promised open rules. That is not what we have here today. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is a friend of mine, and an honorable person. However, he has engaged in this just extraordinary double negative. That was, it was bad in the last session, and so that justifies doing bad things in this session. This is not what his party ran on in November. His party ran on open rules and open process, and now he is trying to justify an extraordinarily closed process that would rewrite 200 years of civil law in this country by saying what was done in the last Congress was terrible; this is not quite as terrible; but we are justified in doing this because of terrible things that were done in the previous Congress.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 minutes

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, people watching this debate at home on television may wonder what in the world is going on here. Let me take just a moment to explain. Mr. Speaker, under the procedure imposed by the majority for the consideration of this bill, there are two rules, one rule tonight providing for two hours of general debate, and there will be another rule tomorrow, proffering a certain number of amendments, only five hours and 40 minutes to deal with all the amendments in the bill. The second rule is so outrageous that Members who want to be able to speak against the bill must take time during the consideration of the first bill, because of the fact that the majority has so severely limited the opportunity to offer amendments. That is why Members are standing up and speaking on the merits, on the outrageous provisions of this bill, during consideration of the first of these two rules. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. FROST. There will be ample time as it goes on. I only yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) opposition to this rule and I do so for a number of reasons, first and foremost of which is the fact that H.R. 1075 is far from the commonsense reform that it purports to be. While this legislation is bolstered by a good deal of Republican rhetoric it is supported by little empirical need. My GOP colleagues insist there is an explosion of product liability litigation and punitive damage awards which is negatively impacting American competitiveness and stifling business growth in this country. This is pure bunk, Mr. Speaker. Product liability cases represent less than one-half of 1 percent of all civil filings in the State courts. In addition, a mere 355 awards for product liability punitive damages have been given out over the last 25 years, and those few awards have served to not only hold obviously negligent manufacturers accountable but also increase consumer safety. Ironically, there has been a 232 percent explosion commercial litigation between corporations over the same time period which H.R. 1075 doesn't even address. Moreover, liability costs to American industries represent less than 1 percent of total operating costs and the fact remains that all companies, both foreign and domestic, are subject to the same laws in each State as well as abroad. What the current product liability system has done is increase American innovation and our reputation for safe and reliable products--something in which we can take pride and must continue. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1075 represents an absolute Federal power grab in an area that has historically been the province of the States. As a popular phrase in my city of Chicago states, ``Stick around and the weather is bound to change,'' it seems a similar phrase could be used to refer to the manner in which my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to legislate with respect to State's rights. H.R. 1075 will not create uniformity in product liability laws, as the National Conference of State Legislatures has testified. H.R. 1075 will not improve the functioning of our civil justice system. The only thing H.R. 1075 will do is preempt those State laws that effectively allow for injured consumers to be properly compensated for the harm caused them in favor of protections for the GOP's negligent, corporate, fat-cat contributors. This sure is not common sense to me or my constituents Mr. Speaker. Before my colleagues cast a vote on this rule, I would ask them to consider the following: A recent national telephone survey asked registered voters what they want, and don't want, as well as the kinds of things they mean when they think about common sense reforms. Seventy-three percent said that the regulation of the civil justice system is just more of the same old big Government solution from Washington. Sixty-eight percent said the Federal Government shouldn't tamper with a justice system that lets citizens hold wrongdoers accountable, and 66 percent said politicians shouldn't tamper with a system that holds large corporations accountable to any individual. Seventy-five percent of the respondents believe that ``The only way corporations will stop making dangerous products is if they know they can be sued.'' Eight out of 10 agree that ``Corporations should be held accountable for their actions when they injure someone even if it is an accident.'' Over 75 percent said that the current system should either remain the way it is, or be tilted more in favor of those injured in accidents. Sixty-six percent of all people, and 72 percent of women believe that the ``award a jury gives to the accident victim should not depend on how much the victim earns.'' The survey also shows that there are some common sense legal reforms that people want. They include requiring court records to be open and available for reference rather than kept secret) a change I support and hope to accomplish along with Representatives Schumer and Doggett should H.R. 1075 proceed forward. This is kind of thing the public thinks about when they hear the term ``common sense legal reforms.'' It is pretty clear that what they don't think about are the unnecessary and draconian provisions such as those embodied in H.R. 1075. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule and support the innocent victims of corporate misconduct, not the perpetrators of such activity.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will not oppose this rule, but I must take this time to express my strong opposition to this so-called reform of product liability. Mr. Speaker, I am joined in my opposition to this bill by a variety of groups including, to name but a few, the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, the American Association of Retired Persons, the National Conference of State Legislators, and the YWCA. Mr. Speaker, these groups oppose this legislation because it is an assault on American consumers--the very American people the Contract With America seeks to assist by getting government off their collective backs. This bill does get something off someone's back, but what the bill really does is provide immunity to manufacturers and industry. The bill does it by making it very difficult for injured consumers to seek redress in the courts and thereby insuring that dangerous products remain on the market. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will dismantle 200 years of State common and statutory law. This bill ignores the fact that at least 45 States have undertaken significant reform in response to the perceived problems in local civil justice systems. If we are to undertake civil judicial reform, such reform should complement, not undo, the efforts of the States. This legislation does not do that. My Republican colleagues contend we must pass this legislation because of an explosion of product liability litigation. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. In fact, Mr. Speaker, product liability claims filed in Federal courts have actually declined by 36 percent between 1985 and 1991 and they represent only 4 percent of all tort filings in State courts. The National Center for State Courts reported last year that since 1990, the national total of State tort filings has decreased by 2 percent. They estimated that if this trend continues, in the next 10 years State courts will experience a decline of 10 percent in State tort filings. This, Mr. Speaker, is hardly an explosion. Quite the opposite in fact. My Republican colleagues contend that this legislation is required because juries are making outrageous and excessive punitive damage awards that damage American business, both large and small. My Republican colleagues contend that the only way to protect business and insure its competitiveness is to cap punitive damage awards. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, punitive damages are only rarely awarded--39 States already do not permit them or severely limit their size. These limits have been imposed at the State level in spite of the fact that consumer products are responsible for an estimated 29,000 deaths and 30 million injuries each year. In fact, between 1965 and 1990, punitive damages were awarded in only 353 product liability cases, 91 of which were asbestos cases. Three hundred and fifty-three in 25 years hardly add up to excessive number of awards. Mr. Speaker, the GAO has reported that the size of damage are closely related to the severity of the injury and the economic harm suffered by the victim. Is it excessive or outrageous to award punitive damages in the case of a severely burned 4-year-old when her pajamas catch fire? Is it excessive or outrageous to award punitive damages when an oil tanker runs aground and bespoils a large portion of the coastline of Alaska? I think not. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met earlier this evening to consider amendments to this bill. The recommended rule severely restricts the number and scope of those amendments which will be debated on the floor. My Republican colleagues have long complained that the process in the House was closed and did not permit open debate on critical issues facing this Nation. If this issue is so critically important, the Rules Committee majority should have seen fit to open the process when we consider this legislation for amendment tomorrow. I would hope the American people deserve at least that much. I noted that the majority leader just a few moments ago announced that we are not going to have votes on Monday and that we will not have votes on Tuesday until 5. And yet we were told in the Committee on Rules that we just do not have enough time to consider all these amendments that Members want to offer. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot cancel, effectively cancel 2 days of votes and then tell the Members that we do not have enough time to vote. There are a number of speakers on my side who wish to be heard on this matter. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to this rule. Legislation of this complexity and which may ultimately have an enormous impact on securities markets and investor transactions in this country deserves informed and considered debate. H.R. 1058 was not thoroughly examined in the Commerce Committee, and now, this rule does not give the House an opportunity to thoroughly consider this legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is ample proof that in the haste to send this legislation, along with the other pieces of H.R. 10, to the full House, a significant issue was left out, or perhaps forgotten. That issue, relating RICO to securities transactions only came to the attention of the Rules Committee yesterday afternoon--2 days after the original rule, H.R. 103, had been reported to the House. In order to provide for the consideration of the RICO issue, it was necessary for the Rules Committee to meet and report yet another rule on H.R. 1058. Yet, in spite of the fact that another issue was added to the debate on H.R. 1058, the Rules Committee did not see fit to allow the House any more time to debate these important issues through the amendment process. Mr. Speaker, House resolution limits consideration of all amendments to H.R. 1058 to 8 hours. That 8 hours includes time for voting--which, in effect, places strict limits on the consideration of amendments. I opposed this limit during the debate on this rule in the Committee on Rules last Friday and last night and I bring my opposition to the floor today. Limiting the time to consider amendments ultimately limits the debate and the number of amendments which may be offered. This limitation is contrary to the stated objectives of the Republican majority to open the House to free and unfettered debate. Considering the complexity of this legislation and the potential impact it may have on our economy, I question whether 8 hours is really an adequate amount of time to debate this matter in a free and unfettered manner. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] originally requested 12 hours for consideration of amendments on this bill. The majority has asked that the Democrats on the Rules Committee confer with our leadership to determine the number of hours that we feel would be adequate to cover the anticipated amendments to legislation scheduled for the floor. The Democratic members of the Rules Committee made a responsible request last Friday: that request was based on our best estimates of the time needed to thoroughly debate this legislation. Our request was based on our discussions with the ranking minority member of the Commerce Committee after his consultations with his members. Last week, the majority of the Rules Committee saw fit to only grant 66 percent of the requested time. And, last night when an additional issue, some say a major issue, was added to the issues to be considered by the House, the majority refused to grant any additional time for consideration of amendments to H.R. 1058. Mr. Speaker, it is for this reason that I must oppose this rule. Last week we made a good faith offer under the terms articulated by Chairman Solomon and last night we reiterated our position. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic members of the Rules Committee believe the 8-hour time limit is inadequate for the consideration of this legislation because of the enormity of the issue, as well as the addition of the RICO amendment. We support efforts to deter those who abuse the judicial system by filing meritless lawsuits. We support efforts to provide substantive sanctions on those who engage in these activities. The desire to make corrections in the process is indeed bipartisan--the only question is how to accomplish those corrections. Members need time to consider all the options. Democratic members have made a good faith effort to participate in the deliberations on the rule for this bill, but again our efforts have been rebuffed. In spite of bipartisan desires to end frivolous lawsuits while protecting average investors and honesty in the securities market, this is not a bipartisan rule. For this reason, I urge defeat of the rule.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the propose of debate only, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)