Members of the Committee, we have seen a chipping-away effect that has now reached the point that I think Members on the other side will begin to be repelled by it. The entire concept of punitive damages are now being reduced by an additional 75 percent when they exceed $250,000 by giving it to the Federal or State treasury rather than to the individual who sued. When is this going to end? What reason does a person have to come into court with a lawyer, to risk his all, under the accentuated costs and risks that he must not attend, and then, if he recovers, it goes not to him, but it goes to the State or to the Federal Government itself? What kind of nationalistic scheme are we talking about? I say to my colleagues, ``You don't have to be a supporter of states rights to take exception to this.'' Where will we draw the line? What are we doing? Has each citizen become an apparatchik for the State even when he or she goes to court and recovers? The New York State court has said ``no,'' the Supreme Court of Colorado has said ``no,'' and now we should say ``no'' to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about punitive damages and their allocation during a committee meeting.
Share
More from John Conyers
My amendment would exempt from H.R. 469 settlement agreements and consent decrees intended to prevent discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, or other protected category. Given the often systemic nature of discriminatory…
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 3, line 11, insert after ``settlement agreement'' the following: ``(except as provided in subsection…
In closing, I note that a broad coalition of public interest organizations, including Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, the National Urban League, among others, strongly oppose H.R. 732. They warn: ``This measure would…





