Well, through the Chairman, I accept the comments of the gentleman from Georgia. I assume that his response to my question earlier is still ``yes.'' If that is the case, then all I can say is that I think there are very few people in the Federal legislature or among our citizenry who would say that there should not be an unlimited amount of recovery. The gentleman must have some feeling for the fact that $250,000 for the rest of the person's life, if they lose arms or legs, eyes, it's just unacceptable. I won't say that it's immoral, but it's unfair. It's my hope that most of our colleagues, as we continue this debate tomorrow, will realize that that is the fatal flaw in a bill that may have some justification in other parts of it, but that limitation of damages cannot be rationalized nor justified by the collective body of this legislature. For that reason, sir, I am urging all of our colleagues to consider this one point that I make tonight, as I close, as to be controlling in their decision that they will make as we vote tomorrow on this bill. I thank all of the Members that have joined in this debate this evening. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Share & report
More from John Conyers
It is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), one of the most influential members of the Judiciary Committee.
As usual, we are indebted to the gentleman from Virginia, who, for years, was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations in the Judiciary Committee and still carries with him the…
I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.
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…





