I rise to suggest to you that the President of the United States was correct to veto the bill before us, the product liability bill, as being harmful to working Americans and particularly discriminating against women, so I urge a ``no'' vote to sustain the veto. This proposal to override is a continuation of the majority Republicans' war on public safety, on workers, on women, and on seniors. They continue their war for the special interests who have spent over $26 million in campaign contributions in an effort to tilt the legal system further in their favor. So let us not kid ourselves, no matter what is said here today, about where the special interests concern lies. I always enjoy that part, where the lawyers are singled out as special interest people, when the hugest special interests in our political system are in there solid working on the other side. That is the simple truth of the matter, and that is what this is all about. I was pleased that the President would veto this measure.
John Conyers: “I rise to suggest to you that the President of the United States was correct to veto the bill before us, the product…”
Editor's note · Context
Arguing against the product liability bill and supporting the President's veto.
Share
More from John Conyers
How much time remains on each side? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from Georgia has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
How much time remains on both sides? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Georgia has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Although H.R. 469 has many flaws, I am particularly concerned that the bill's broad and ill-defined requirements would effectively delay and possibly deter civil enforcement agencies from providing general relief in discrimination cases…
I support the idea of making prescription drugs affordable and accessible for all Americans, for everybody.





