Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. We need an analysis of these rules. This is just cursory. This is off the top of my head. Let us go into this in depth.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I have watched a lot of debate in my life on television usually between Senatorial candidates. Sometimes the hyperbole gets pretty extreme. One phrase I have heard pretty often, ``You are shameless, you are shameless.'' I would never bring that word to bear here in this Chamber. I must say I advise my friend from Texas of an old equitable doctrine called clean hands. You do not come to court complaining of somebody's dirty hands unless you have clean hands yourself. That is the problem, the fatal flaw with your argument. There are eight Democratic amendments made in order, six Republican, on this legislation, and your complaint is we are only five times as generous as you were. Now, I look at the motor voter bill. That was a big one, one amendment, one. Assault weapons. Did that reach into the States and the cities and the communities? Zero, zip, nada, no amendments at all. My God, and you have the chutzpah to complain that you have got eight amendments here? How do you do it? What do you drink? What do you eat that gives you that? How about reinventing government? How many Republican amendments on that one? Zero. How about campaign reform? There is a big one. How many Republican amendments did you permit in your Committee on Rules? Zero. Motor voter, assault weapons, omnibus budget reconciliation, one Republican amendment. Thank you, thank you very much. One Republican. It is just too much, to take all of this moaning, and weeping, and gnashing of teeth, with your record. Clean your hands, please.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from New York. Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the thing that just bothers me is that all of the speakers that are complaining here, that are squawking, every one of them voted for every single restricted rule in the last 2 years.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Common Sense Legal Standards Reform Act of 1995. Mr. Chairman, this is an historic debate. After more than a decade of work by Members on both sides of the aisle, product liability and legal reform legislation is finally being considered on the floor of the House for the first time. For too many years discussion and debate was blocked by Members who are unsympathetic to the goals of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is directed at some basic fundamental problems with our civil justice system. It is intended to address the serious problems of lawsuit abuse. Lawsuit abuse saps our economy, eliminates jobs, pits neighbor against neighbor, injures our country's global competitiveness. In the words of former Attorney General William Barr, ``Our civil justice system is slow, expensive, uncertain, and capricious.'' Mr. Chairman, lawsuit abuse is harming American industry and American workers. The uncertainty and unfairness of the present system discourages employers from investing capital, making better and more innovative products, and creating new jobs. Lawsuit abuse undermines our international competitiveness. Our companies pay liability insurance costs which are 20 to 50 times higher than foreign competitors. Those higher costs translate into higher prices for U.S. products, which in turn reduce our exports and job opportunities, they otherwise would provide. Lawsuit abuse slows research efforts to find cures for many serious diseases. According to Science magazine, many of America's leading medical research and pharmaceutical companies have decided to abandon, or to avoid altogether, products that would be extremely helpful to America's health system. Numerous other life-saving medical products are not reaching the market because of liability concerns. Lawsuit abuse means higher prices for consumers. Higher liability costs necessitated by the current legal atmosphere, and the lack of clear national standards, are ultimately passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for products and services. Our legal system acts like a hidden tax, a ``litigation tax'' on the American consumer and too little goes to the injured victims. The U.S. Department of Commerce has estimated only 40 cents from each dollar expended in product liability suits ultimately reaches injured victims. The tort system is too costly. The current system imposes a staggering cost on the United States. The annual cost of this tort system is estimated at $117 billion. It is the most costly system in the world. Mr. Chairman, no single State can effectively resolve these problems. Frequently, a product is manufactured in one State, and sold in another State, while the alleged injury occurs in a third State. On average, over 70 percent of the goods manufactured in one State are shipped out of the State and sold elsewhere. So, the fundamental interstate character of this area of the law gets a uniform national solution. Mr. Chairman, excessive, inflative punitive damage awards have effects far beyond the borders of one State. They affect the investment decisions of large and small businesses. They hamper job creation, and they discourage new products from going on the market. They affect the present and the future of virtually every American. In an increasingly global economy our confusing, crazy-quilt, patchwork of 50 separate State liability laws presents roadblocks to America's economic growth and job creation.s Opponents say we should not preempt State law. Opponents of this legislation ironically talk of interference with states rights, but many of these same persons are quite comfortable preempting State law, and allowing expansive Federal regulation, in numerous other areas with the EPA, FDA, OSHA, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, NLRB, FTC, FERC, FCC, Securities and Exchange Commission, CFTC; and, who knows how many other Federal agencies regulating virtually every segment of the American economy? It is ironic that the multibillion-dollar litigation industry should be one aspect of the economy, but they believe the Federal Government should not touch. The truth is that they are for the status quo. This bill will not result in any new Federal spending, no new Federal department or agency will be created, no new Federal program will be established, no new Federal regulations will be issued, no new Federal court jurisdiction is created, and no new costs to the Federal taxpayer. Instead, what we will have are constant, and consistent, legal standards governing civil actions brought in both Federal and State courts. Instead of the uneven patchwork of 50-plus, confused, and inconsistent State laws, there will be basic uniform rules and legal standards that everyone will understand. punitive damages reform Importantly, in the area of punitive damages, this bill goes beyond product liability suits and extends punitive damage reform to all civil actions. several liability reform We will hear more about this as we go along, but we have adopted the California rule, which is working very well out there. product seller fairness We distinguish between a seller and a manufacturer, something that should have been done a long time ago; and, very importantly, we initiate a statue of repose, a uniform statute of 15 years on all goods. A statute of repose specifies the period of time after manufacture of a product during which a lawsuit relating to a product may be brought. Thus, manufacturers cannot be sued for products 15 years after their delivery. This is an important concept already recognized in Federal law because last year we passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. alcohol and drug defense This bill includes language that would prevent a claimant from recovering in a product liability action if that person was more than 50 percent or drugs. Mr. Chairman, the American people overwhelmingly support reforms in our current legal system. Why is that? Well, when the Girl Scouts of America have to trudge door to door in our neighborhoods to sell tens of thousands of boxes of cookies just to raise the funds necessary to protect themselves from liability, the American people know that something is seriously wrong with our legal system. When Americans see breakthrough work on medical devices and medical vaccines that could save lives halted because of the fear of lawsuits, the public is rightfully outraged. In a society where lawyers, not the injured victims, receive over half of every dollar spent on product liability litigation, it is time for change. Under our current system consumers lose, workers lose and businesses lose. Mr. Chairman, as part of the Contract With America the Republican Party made a commitment to end lawsuit abuse in America and return fairness and common sense to our legal system. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 956 is at the core of this pledge and deserves the support of every Member of this body. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to trespass on the gentleman's time. I agree with the gentleman. But it really cuts both ways, and I believe it started on the other side with our camaraderie with corporate America and the economic royalists and all that tone was set, that they were our friends and we were doing this because they were telling us to do it. I agree with the gentleman, let us dispense

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to tell the gentlemen on the other side I have 3 pages of studies here. I know they are not familiar with them, but if they want to see them, we will get them Xeroxed and have them sent to their offices. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a valued committee member.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], a valued member of the committee.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a valued member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad], who is chairman of a task force on the subject of product liability.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. my time.

Mr. HYDE. I was talking about the rules. I was talking about your love affair with really closed rules during the entire last Congress and now complaining that we only gave you eight amendments this time.

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

Mr. HYDE. I never doubted the business community will benefit from this legislation. I have never said otherwise. But I also do not make the distinction between the common working man and woman and the consumer and corporate America that you do. I think they each need each other, and when one is damaged, the other is damaged, and they should be working together, not at each other's throats.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 988, the Attorney Accountability Act of 1995. I would like to congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, for his outstanding efforts in connection with this legislation. H.R. 988 effectively tackles one of the fundamental problems in our legal system today: frivolous litigation. Mr. Chairman, the American legal system does not resolve claims as expeditiously as it should. Why? Because some who participate in the litigation process do not act responsibly. Parties are too quick to bring suit because they have nothing to lose for bringing even meritless claims. Attorneys, hoping for settlement amounts based on nuisance value, assist in encouraging possible litigants. One need only turn on the television late at night or turn to the lawyer section of the yellow pages to see incentives employed by such attorneys which, without measures to ensure accountability, serve to feed the lawsuit frenzy which plagues our Nation. Our system of justice has also lost some of its integrity by allowing the consideration of invalid and unreliable scientific evidence from so-called experts which may unfairly influence juries and other triers of fact in their crucial roles of deciding the outcome of a case. The legislation before us today will accomplish three goals. First, it will lessen the incentive to litigate claims which have little or no merit through the implementation of a loser-pays rule. Second, it will assure the reliability and validity of scientific evidence in cases involving such evidence. Third, it will prevent attorneys from filing frivolous lawsuits by appropriately imposing mandatory sanctions on those attorneys. This legislation will infuse greater fairness into the civil justice system--because parties and attorneys will be held accountable for their actions and are encouraged to be reasonable within the litigation process. It will also provide for prompt, easier, quicker access to our court system by decreasing docket congestion and encouraging the speedy resolution of valid claims. The result will be greater affordability and justice for all Americans with real and viable grievances. The loser-pays rule in section 2 reflects an amendment adopted by the Judiciary Committee, sponsored by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], who should be commended for his hard work. It fully achieves the goals we promised in the Contract With America--greater accountability, practical penalties for unreasonableness, and a settlement-based mechanism which will serve to eliminate many suits before they reach trial. Under H.R. 988, parties are allowed to discover the merits of their claims, but will be required to pay the opposing party's attorney's fees if they fail to act reasonably in settling a lawsuit or if they continue to pursue a frivolous claim. A litigant with a strong defense can rely on the protection of the loser- pays rule by placing a fair offer on the table. The more reasonable the offer, the more likely the adverse party to a claim will have to pay the attorney's fees. A plaintiff who unreasonably maintains a meritless claim or refuses to settle a claim who fares worse at trial or after judgment than the offer of settlement, will incur the defendant's fees. Likewise, an unreasonable defendant who refuses to settle or meet the claim of a plaintiff will have to pay the plaintiff's fees if after trial or judgment he fares worse than an offer made by the plaintiff. This mechanism has, built within it, incentives which encourage reasonable negotiation toward resolution along with a safety net for cases in which it would be grossly inequitable to apply the rule. Further, if both parties are unreasonable, the status quo is maintained and neither side receives the benefit of the rule. It is a fair, just, and workable loser-pays rule that is drafted to accomplish accountability while taking into account the unique history of negotiation which has long been a staple of American jurisprudence. The honesty in evidence contained in section 3 of H.R. 988 will mark a significant change in product liability and other civil cases where scientific evidence is frequently used. As we all know, it can be very difficult for juries to fully gauge and evaluate the quality and validity of the scientific evidence presented. And while we all agree that America's jury system is by far the best method of evaluating tort claims, it is imperative that where difficult technical and scientific proof is to be considered, juries know such proof will be reliable, valid and relevant. Otherwise, the risk of prejudice is too great. Plaintiffs' attorneys have had it too easy, Mr. Chairman. The same attorney who may implore the consensus of the scientific community for one case will employ a so-called expert in another who, on the basis of new or fringe scientific methods, ups the ante in a case to the detriment of a defendant. The market for so-called expert witnesses in this country is vast and growing, a market created by parties and attorneys who may employ any method to reap large financial awards at a huge cost to the American consumer. While no one wishes to deny a plaintiff with a valid claim from proving his case, accountability demands that cases by proven properly. scientific evidence by a judge unless such evidence is shown to be valid, reliable, and scientifically connected to the fact it is offered to prove in a case. This standard was established by the Supreme Court in Daubert versus Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals in 1993, and should serve to weed out prejudicial evidence which could otherwise be used unfairly to persuade triers of fact. Further, under the bill, expert witnesses will be barred from testifying if they have any stake in the outcome of a case. Providing for integrity in expert witnesses is another important part of restoring accountability to litigation in American courts. Section 4 of H.R. 988 will impose mandatory sanctions on attorneys who knowingly bring frivolous cases, reestablishing a significant and necessary deterrent on attorneys who encourage the filing of such cases in hopes of achieving financial gain on settlement value alone. The bill will amend rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to bring back vital protections against the filing of thoughtless, reckless and harassing pleadings which have contributed to the demise of our civil justice system and which cause unfairness to those who are dragged into courtrooms without proper cause. Under the new rule, abusers who file lawsuits must be appropriately sanctioned by judges if found to be in violation and are provided no safe harbor to withdraw such filings. In effect, lawyers will be held accountable to do some research in advance, to evaluate cases before adding to limitless congestion of the courts and will face sure penalties for their misconduct. Mr. Chairman, it is high time that Congress make clear to a nation fed up with inflated legal costs, long delays for viable claims and abusive tactics by lawyers, witnesses and opportunistic litigants, that we are ready and willing to take action to ensure that our legal system will operate fairly and expeditiously. Judges likewise need to be required to impose sanctions against abuse. We should no longer tolerate frivolous filings. H.R. 988 contains fair, responsible measure which will encourage accountability and, when necessary, sanction misconduct. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure which will restore confidence in our civil justice system and serve as a model to the states. It will provide to the American people what we promised when we signed the Contract With America, real and significant legal reform. I urge support of H.R. 988.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke]. Mr. Chairman, this is the week to bash lawyers, and next week it is the week to bash politicians, and frankly, as one of each, I feel beleaguered. I want to say a kind word for contingency fees. I say to my colleagues, They are the way poor people get access to darn good lawyers, and you don't just walk into a lawyer's office, and he says, ``Sign the contract.'' There may be investigations. In fact, if the lawyer is worth his salt, he'll have to hire and send out investigators to get statements from witnesses, pictures of intersections, hospital records, the police report. There is a lot of work, there is a lot of expense, involved, and the lawyer does that on the if come. Maybe he'll collect it, and maybe he won't, but he has every incentive to work hard to maximize the settlement because his contingency fee depends on that. But people who cannot afford an hourly rate, people who have cases where the injury is bad but the liability is thin, all sorts of situations arise, but you get access to good lawyers in the contingency arrangement. Now we get excited about how many hours were spent on this case. They tell a great story about the bank that opened up one morning, and they could not get the vault door open, and they called the locksmith. It took him about 6 minutes, and he sent them a bill for about $2,000, and the bank president said, You only spent 6 minutes. He said, Yeah, but I went to school for 6 years to learn what to do. Many times a lawyer spends very little time, but because this lawyer has a great reputation in this field, the insurance company gets sensitized to the fact that it is cheaper to settle at a fair figure than to horse around and get clobbered later on. So I just suggest I know the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], who is one of the most useful members of our committee, he has an idea here that has some merit to it because contingency fees can be abused, clients can be abused, judges can be abusive, all kinds of wrong things can happen, but in the grand scheme of things a poor person can retain a very good lawyer on a contingency fee basis, and the client will make a good settlement; the lawyer, it is worth his while, and justice is served. So, Mr. Chairman, with deep regret I must oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] and say a kind word for those good lawyers that I have encountered in my lifetime.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the fundamental goal of the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act (H.R. 926) is to reduce the inevitable growth of costly regulations imposed upon our society. The bill achieves this by ensuring enforcement of current law to protect small business, the Regulatory Flexibility Act--and by encouraging greater public participation in our rulemaking process through the imposition of impact analysis on agency rulemaking. It is our hope that through the achievement of this goal, a less inhibited atmosphere will exist, which will allow U.S. commerce to thrive. The amendments before us to the Regulatory Flexibility Act are important because they would provide small businesses with a means to effectively enforce the goals/purposes of that law. The Regulatory Flexibility Act was first enacted in 1980. Under its terms, Federal agencies are directed to consider the special needs and concerns of small entities--small businesses, small local governments, farmers, et cetera--whenever they engage in a rulemaking subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. Under the law, each time an agency publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register, it must prepare and publish a regulatory flexibility analysis of the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, unless the head of the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not ``have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' From the beginning, the problem with this statute has been the lack of availability of judicial review as a mechanism to enforce the purposes of the law. Right now, if agencies do not do a regulatory flexibility analysis or fail to follow the other procedures set down in the act, there is no sanction. For years, small business groups have sought judicial review in the Regulatory Flexibility Act as a means of ``keeping the regulatory agencies honest.'' Our colleague and friend from Illinois, Tom Ewing, has been a leader in this effort. H.R. 926 would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, specifically providing for judicial review. In instances where an agency should have undertaken a regulatory flexibility analysis and did not, or where the agency needs to take corrective action with respect to a flexibility analysis that was prepared, small entities are authorized to seek judicial review within 180 days after promulgation. A court can then give an agency 90 days to take corrective action. If the agency fails to take the necessary corrective action within 90 days, the court is given the authority to stay the rule and grant such other relief as it deems appropriate. H.R. 926 is aimed at humanizing the Federal regulatory process. This is an provide affected parties--such as small businesses, small local governments, farmers and others--with a mechanism to ensure that the impersonal Washington bureaucracy takes into consideration the impact that a new rule or regulation can have on their businesses and their everyday lives. Title Z of H.R. 926 deals with regulatory impact analyses. This language would require Federal agencies to complete a regulatory impact analysis when drafting a major rule. Major rule is defined under the legislation as a rule likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $50 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State or local government agencies or geographic regions; or significant adverse impacts on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete domestically or internationally. The bill lists a number of specific criteria which Federal agencies have to consider as a part of their regulatory impact analysis. These include a requirement that the agency describe the necessity and legal authority for the rule; a description of the potential costs of the rule; an analysis of alternative approaches, that could substantially achieve the same regulatory goal; a statement that the rule does not conflict with any other rule or regulation; a statement as to whether or not the rule would require onsight inspections--or whether or not the rule would require the maintenance of any records subject to inspection--and an estimate of the costs to the agency for the implementation and enforcement of the rule. The bill encourages public hearings on important regulations. The bill makes it clear that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget will oversee the Federal regulatory process in an effort to ensure consistency and broad based fairness. It is important to note that the provisions of this section would not apply to major rules if it would conflict in any way with deadlines imposed by statute or by court order. The bill also requires that the Director of OMB submit a report to Congress no later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this act containing an analysis of Federal rulemaking procedures and an analysis of the impact of the regulatory process on the American public. Mr. Chairman, regulatory flexibility was a good idea when it was enacted in 1980. Unfortunately, we haven't seen its potential because our courts could not enforce it. Regulatory impact analysis by Federal agencies was a good idea in 1981 when President Reagan required it through Executive order. Unfortunately, Executive orders are not permanent and those impact analyses are no longer enforced. This legislation will ensure enforcement of both of these tools. This legislation is long overdue.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, this is genuinely noncontroversial legislation. S. 257 would amend the Federal charter of incorporation granted by Congress to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in 1936. Specifically, this legislation would amend the eligibility requirements for membership in the VFW, so as to include those servicemen and servicewomen who served ``honorably on the Korean peninsula or in its territorial waters for not less than 30 consecutive days, or a total of 60 days, after June 30, 1949.'' This would recognize the heroic service and sacrifice of the American troops who have served in Korea, including those stationed in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. This measure has already passed the other body on February 10, 1995. The principal sponsors of the counterpart House bill (H.R. 623) are the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee; and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], the distinguished former chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. All of these colleagues have been instrumental in moving this legislation forward.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 257) to amend the charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars to make eligible for membership those veterans that have served within the territorial limits of South Korea, and ask for its immediate consideration.