Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, Government ought to do what it has to do, not what it would like to do. We would all like to play Walter Annenberg or Lorenzo de Medici and be patrons of the arts. If we are serious about getting the deficit down, we can no longer do the things that are luxuries, that are nice and pleasant. Let us go to the foundations. Let us go to the wealthy people who subsidize the arts, museums. Let them subsidize public broadcasting. It is good. It is worthwhile, but we have to borrow money to pay our bills. We can get by without this. We ought to fund it.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. It is unnecessary. Focusing on the pricing practices of insurers is irrelevant in many places because most large businesses self-insure and do not purchase liability insurance. This amendment places the future of a fair civil justice system in the hands of Federal Government bureaucrats. Americans overwhelmingly support the reforms in this bill and it is ludicrous to give the Department of Commerce the power to determine whether Americans will continue to benefit by these reforms. This amendment sunsets this legislation 5 years after the date of enactment unless the Secretary of Commerce certifies that insurance rates either have declined at least 10 percent or have not declined that much because of extraordinary circumstances. This sunset is ill advised because factors other than this legislation contribute significantly to determining rates charged by insurance companies and the beneficial effects of this legislation are not limited to anticipated savings in insurance-related costs. As the Committee on the Judiciary noted in its report, ``Our excessive reliance today on a patchwork of conflicting State statutes and common law relating to allegations of product defects excessively burdens interstate commerce, discourages innovations, exacerbates liability insurance costs, compromises American competitiveness and forces Americans to pay higher prices.'' We had more than the cost of insurance in mind when we crafted this legislation. The limitation on joint and several liability, for example, recognizes the injustice of requiring minimally responsible defendants to pay for all noneconomic damages. We propose punitive damage reform, an important title of this bill, not only to ameliorate adverse effects on interstate and foreign commerce but also to protect due process rights. The unfairness of ignoring extent of fault or responsibility in assessing liability for noneconomic damages and the unfairness of virtually unlimited punitive damage awards in a range of cases that extend beyond the product liability context necessitated congressional action. The 10-percent formula relating to insurance rates is flawed. Our objective of reducing insurance rates will be undermined rather than advanced by this amendment. The sunset creates uncertainty for insurance companies. They will not know whether the reforms incorporated in this legislation will remain in effect 5 years hence, and this uncertainty will affect risk calculations leading to higher rates. I am confident this legislation, without a sunset, will have a positive effect on insurance rates. I cannot predict how other developments extraneous to this legislation, such as accident patterns and medical care costs, may impact on the risks the insurance company faces. The business of insurance, let us remember, is subject generally to State rather than Federal regulation and the capacity of the Federal Government to achieve rate reductions is limited. If insurance rates do not decline by at least the arbitrary 10- percent figure, the explanation may have nothing to do with this legislation. The amendment gives the Secretary of Commerce excessive power to scuttle this legislation because only he or she can certify to the extraordinary circumstances to justify a deviation from the 10- percent requirement. Congress does not need a sunset to revisit the issues addressed in this legislation. We can do that in any and every session that is forthcoming. In response to experiences in the years ahead, we are free to modify and refine the new law. Perhaps stronger medicine will be needed to deter abuses in the litigation process. Perhaps unforeseen developments will justify amending our work product. But a sunset provision that essentially says we may have to return to square one at the say so, the fiat of whoever is the Secretary of Commerce, is not a sensible way to legislate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to engage in a cacophony, then, right. As I understand the gentleman's amendment, it cuts off subrogation claims, is that correct?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I direct that parliamentary inquiry as well. I was told that I have the right to close.

Mr. HYDE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HYDE. I was not going to object. I just wanted to make sure it is cleared with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].

Mr. HYDE. I am sorry; I did not see it in the rule.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, in looking at the rule, I do not see where a designee is allowed, for it says it may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, and that is for the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. I am not going to object. There he is. I was not going to object, but I wanted to know if this was cleared with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HYDE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman consider making the wrongdoer reimburse the plaintiff for the premiums he has paid for 22 years.

Mr. HYDE. If the gentleman will yield further, therefore, therefore, if the gentleman has insurance, if he is farsighted enough to pay premiums and make an insurance contract, and he is injured, and his insurer, his health insurance, pays that, the benefit of his foresight and the premiums that he has paid for years accrue to the wrongdoer. The wrongdoer walks scot free because the gentleman's company cannot subrogate against him. The gentleman is paid because he had the smarts enough, the wisdom enough, the foresight to pay premiums, and the real winner is the wrongdoer, am I right?

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

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there are three points to be made on this motion to recommit. The first one is on the first part of the motion to recommit, it has to do with service on foreign corporations. The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] was not the one that passed last night making foreign manufactures subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts in product liability actions. What the motion to recommit does has to do with service of process on foreign corporations. I tell you it is unnecessary. The Hague Convention, to which we are all subscribers, already provides for service of process on foreign corporations. So it is unnecessary and it is unneeded. As to the second part of the motion to recommit, it seeks to elevate the ceiling on punitive damages from $250,000 or three times the economic damages, which could exceed $250,000, to $1 million. Now, I point out with as much fervor as I can muster, punitive damages are not meant to compensate anybody. They are a punishment, they are a deterrent. There is no inhibition, there is no impediment to a plaintiff suing for medical expenses, economic expenses, noneconomic expenses, pain and suffering, loss of use. All of those things are elements of damages that are recoverable. We are talking now about punitive damages meant to punish somebody, and the purpose of this bill is to have a consistent, reasonable figure so insurance companies and manufacturers are not terrorized by the possibility of bankrupting punitive damages assessed against them in some of the States. Punitive damages impede quick settlements. They get in the way. The reforms in our bill are reasonable. The Governors Association said, ``We urge you to act swiftly to enact this legislation.'' Now, if you elevate the ceiling to $1 million, you adulterate and you diminish the effect of having a good products liability bill, a good tort reform bill. I hope Members will stay with the committee, stay with the bill and defeat the motion to recommit. I want to say something about the remarks of the gentleman who moved this motion to recommit. He called it a gag rule. I, for one, am very tired of having the Republican side berated for issuing rules that do not make in order 82 different amendments but do make in order significant amendments of the opposition. This rule, this rule made in order 8 Democrat amendments out of 15. I just say to the gentlemen and gentlewomen of this House that they have a short memory if they do not recall in the last session the motor-voter bill, where we got one amendment permitted; the assault weapons ban, where we got no amendments. Do Members hear that? No amendments. That is a closed rule, let me tell my colleagues. Reinventing Government, do Members know how many amendments Republicans were permitted on that? Zero. How about campaign reform? Do my colleagues know how many amendments we were permitted? Zero. That is one of my objections to term limits. People will forget the way we were treated. And they have the, shall I say, ``chutzpah'' to say we put a gag rule on you when we give you eight amendments. I am sorry. I resist that.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am consoled that the class struggle has not expired with the demise of the former Soviet Union. We still put class against class here. The inability to understand that the nonavailability of medical help, and vaccines and drugs because of the unpredictability of product liability has not permeated our opponents, and I guess there is no way that it ever will. But this amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] guts the bill because the purpose of the bill is to have common standards wherever possible on those important items that affect our economy and predictability. A 5-year sunset means that in 5 years nobody knows what is going to happen. Insurance companies would not be able to set rates with any confidence or predictability, and who is going to make the determination? The Secretary of Commerce. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope and pray that this amendment is defeated handily, but in closing, and this will be the last vote on this very important bill, I would like to bring to the Members' attention a letter that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and I got dated March 6 from the National Governors Association, and I will just read a couple of little paragraphs: We're writing to convey the support of the Nation's Governors for legislation to establish a uniform product liability code. Since 1986 the association has been on record in support of a uniform, consistent, and predictable approach to product liability. While Governors do not usually support one-size-fits-all legislation, we believe in this case uniform product liability standards can only be achieved by Federal action. We urge you to act swiftly to enact this legislation. with which he has conducted these four sessions, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 yield myself the balance of my time. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill H.R. 956 the Clerk have authority to make such technical and conforming amendments in the text of H.R. 956 as may be required because of the amendments to such bill agreed to by the House.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 956, the bill just passed.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Of course, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.