I'd like to thank all of the Members on both sides of the aisle that have participated in this important debate. There has been a lot of clarity, even though there has been a great difference in opinion. I return the balance of my time with this thought in mind, that even though the author of this bill is a well-regarded medical practitioner and a distinguished Member of the body, he is a doctor, but he is not a lawyer. I commend him on the fact that he agreed with the statement that to me determines a lot of people's point of view about this very controversial bill that is now before the floor, H.R. 5. That is, he agreed and answered in the affirmative that H.R. 5 eliminates joint and several liability for economic, noneconomic, and punitive damages. To me, with all the cases that have been of human suffering, of injury to women and children, of how wrong it would be to limit all of these kinds of damages to $250,000 in this 21st century is an insult to common sense and fair play.
Share & report
More from John Conyers
I want to thank Mr. Clay for his discussion here. I think it is courageous and necessary. To begin with, the painting's removal by the Architect of the Capitol was an infringement on the free speech rights of the artist and on the…
I have no further requests for time, and I am pleased to make my closing remarks. Mr. Speaker, the Child Protection Improvements Act is a reasonable, bipartisan piece of legislation intended to protect our children and vulnerable adults…
It is my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the bill or the amendment. The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes. There was no objection.





