[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 125 (Thursday, September 23, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8563-H8567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1875, INTERSTATE CLASS ACTION 
                        JURISDICTION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 295 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 295

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1875) to amend title 28, United States Code, 
     to allow the application of the principles of Federal 
     diversity jurisdiction to interstate class actions. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma 
     amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so 
     printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be 
     printed or his designee and shall be considered as read. The 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone 
     until a time during further consideration in the Committee of 
     the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and 
     (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic 
     voting on any postponed question that follows another 
     electronic vote without intervening business, provided that 
     the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 295 a modified, open rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction 
Act of 1999.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 295 provides one hour of general debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule provides that the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
Judiciary now printed in the bill be considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment.
  House Resolution 295 also provides that the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute shall be open to amendment by section. The resolution 
provides for the consideration of pro forma amendments and those 
amendments printed in the Congressional Record which may be offered 
only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, and 
shall be considered as read.
  The rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone recorded votes and to reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on 
any postponed question, provided voting time on the first in the series 
of questions is not less than 15 minutes.

[[Page H8564]]

  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions, as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to eliminate the abuse of the 
current class action rules. Today, an attorney can devise a theoretical 
case, write it as a class action, and argue that he is pursuing the 
claim on behalf of millions of people, none of which solicited that 
attorney's assistance. Using this practice, hundreds of frivolous 
lawsuits are filed in favorable State courts and used as high-stakes, 
court-endorsed blackmail devices against companies which usually settle 
rather than face a long and arduous court battle.
  The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Federal Judicial 
Conference has reported that class actions have increased 300 to 1,000 
percent per company in the last 3 years. This explosion of class 
actions, done in the name of the consumer, has cost businesses and 
consumers billions of dollars in legal fees and higher prices. Even 
worse, legitimate legal claims have been collusively resolved by 
lawyers in back rooms while the real victims have gotten, at best, a 
handful of coupons for their favorite laundry detergent.

  One of the rules that allows the attorneys to abuse the class action 
process is the ``diversity'' requirement. Foreseeing the possibility 
that attorneys that would seek the most favorable State court to hear 
their case, the Founding Fathers included a provision in article III of 
the Constitution that cites numerous situations in which Federal courts 
would have jurisdiction when a case included different parties from 
different States.
  Since that time, however, the threshold for removal of a Federal case 
to Federal court has been significantly raised to require that the 
claim by each member of the class exceed $75,000 and members of the 
class are of different States. These new standards have promoted 
``venue shopping'' by attorneys, who go looking for States that would 
be particularly favorable to their claim.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1875 would end this abuse. Under new rules included 
in the bill, interstate class actions could be returned to the proper 
venue, the Federal courts, where both plaintiff and defendant have an 
equal standing. Either a plaintiff or a defendant could have the right 
to remove the case to the Federal level. Further, attorneys would have 
less of an incentive to file frivolous claims when the venue could be 
changed from their favorable State courtroom to a more balanced Federal 
bench.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1875 also protects the jurisdictions of State 
courts by ensuring that class actions involving less than $1 million in 
claims or fewer than 100 people could still be heard at the State 
level. Cases in which State officials or agencies are the primary 
defendants would also be left to State courts.
  Unfortunately, some will argue today that this bill will prevent 
Americans from getting justice. Do not be fooled. What they really mean 
is that trial lawyers will not be able to fill their coffers in State 
courts at the expense of both the businesses they sue and the citizens 
that they supposedly represent. Under current rules, if two lawyers 
have entered competing class actions in court, the first to be decided 
gets all of the relief and the other action is moot, which leaves the 
members of the other action without any recourse in court. H.R. 1875 
would allow plaintiffs to remove their case to Federal court, where 
these similar actions would be coordinated into a single action, 
benefiting the people seeking redress and not the trial lawyers.
  H.R. 1875 also includes provisions to ensure that these new rules 
will not place unreasonable burdens on the Federal judiciary. While CBO 
estimates that H.R. 1875 would have only a minimal impact on the 
Federal bench, the bill requires the GAO to complete a study on the 
effect that the changes in diversity rules would have on the Federal 
judiciary and report to Congress no later than 1 year after the bill's 
enactment.
  I applaud my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, for their good work on this action, which returns our class 
action system to the fundamental principles intended by our founders 
when they created the Federal judiciary. This bill is fair to all 
parties and restores the impartial venue of the Federal courts to class 
actions. I encourage every Member to support this fair rule and the 
underlying rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. H.R. 1875 has 
an innocuous title, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act, but 
its content is destructive.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill makes it harder for the little guy to have his 
day in court. It seriously limits the ability of Americans to seek 
redress for injuries caused by large corporations. This legislation 
also represents an unwarranted incursion into State court prerogatives 
and by doing so will further clog the already backlogged and overloaded 
Federal court system. This legislation does nothing to curb abuses of 
the class action system, but it will ensure that legitimate claims will 
be harder to pursue, will be more expensive to pursue, and will take 
far longer in the courts than they already are.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a very bad bill, and it deserves to be 
defeated.
  H.R. 1875 flies directly in the face of the notion of States' rights 
that my Republican colleagues are so often heard to extol. The bill 
removes every class action from State court, unless all of the primary 
defendants are incorporated, or have their principal place of business 
in the State where the case is filed, or unless virtually all of the 
plaintiffs are citizens of that State.

                              {time}  1045

  The Attorneys General of New York and Oklahoma have written to the 
Speaker raising objections to this bill based on the very notion of 
States' rights. They write, ``Such a radical transfer of jurisdiction 
in cases that most commonly raise questions of State law would undercut 
State courts' ability to manage their own court systems and 
consistently interpret State laws.''
  The President of the Conference of Chief Justices wrote to the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to say, and again I quote, 
``We believe that H.R. 1875 in its present form is an unwarranted 
incursion on the principles of Federalism underlying our system of 
government.''
  Mr. Speaker, some proponents of this legislation say that it is a 
simple procedural fix. Others contend that it was designed to fix 
abuses of the class action system. But Mr. Speaker, there are those of 
us who ask, how could an unwarranted incursion on the principles of 
judicial Federalism represent a simple procedural fix?
  There are others of us who ask why, if the intent is to address 
abuse, are there no specific remedies for specific problems embodied in 
this bill?
  Mr. Speaker, this bill faces a certain veto. It is opposed by the 
Justice Department, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the 
Conference of Chief Justices, the Attorneys General of New York, 
Oklahoma, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Tennessee, and 
West Virginia. It is opposed by a wide range of consumer groups, health 
groups, social justice groups, and the trial lawyers.
  They are all rightly concerned that H.R. 1875 will remove class 
actions from forums which are most convenient for victims of 
wrongdoing. They are all rightly concerned that passage of this 
legislation would deny class action relief which could remedy 
fraudulent behavior, discriminatory practices, or negligence.
  I share these concerns, Mr. Speaker, and urge the defeat of this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, for the great tobacco companies; the health maintenance 
organizations, for which so many people are asking that this Congress 
pass a Patients' Bill of Rights, as this Congress sits on its hands in 
inactivity, about abuses of patients in managed care; for the gun 
manufacturers and their role in gun violence; for the great insurance 
companies; for all of those

[[Page H8565]]

who believe that personal responsibility is a wonderful, basic, moral 
concept for everyone except for themselves, this is a great piece of 
legislation.
  It is based on the concept that personal responsibility is for 
someone else, but for some who engage in wrongdoing, Congress must step 
in and insulate and protect them from the consequences of that 
wrongdoing. This bill is based on the concept that if you are big 
enough and bold enough, and if you lubricate the system of government 
at campaign time enough, and if you just steal a little bit from 
everyone, that you are entitled to not be held accountable for the 
consequences of your wrongdoing.
  That is why over 70 public health and consumer organizations, groups 
like the American Lung Association, the American Women's Medical 
Association, the National Council of Senior Citizens, have said, well, 
if personal responsibility is such a basic American concept, how about 
applying it to these entities in this country that are content to just 
take a little bit from everyone?
  I join them in opposing this misguided legislation. For some reason, 
our Republican colleagues are always eager to protect State wrongs. If 
a State neglects its citizens, if it is not meeting their needs, 
Republicans object to the Federal Government playing any role. That is 
the position that Republicans took, for example, with reference to the 
creation of Social Security and Medicare, and with reference to Federal 
support for education. But if a State has true States' rights, the 
Republicans are not a bit reluctant to interfere and take away those 
rights.
  This bill would take all class actions filed in State courts and rip 
them out of the hands of the State judiciary and take them into Federal 
courts. Of course, these are Federal courts that are already 
overburdened and clogged and unable to meet the responsibilities they 
already have.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) just pointed 
out, that is why many within the Federal judiciary oppose this 
legislation. The same is true of our State judges, an independent State 
judiciary being very fundamental to the organization of our country. 
Since most of these class action suits are based upon the law of an 
individual State, Mr. Speaker, it is that State judiciary that is most 
familiar with the substantive law involved in these various class 
action suits.
  If a health maintenance organization in Texas abuses a Texas citizen, 
I have confidence in the Texas judiciary within our State to examine 
State law and determine whether our State deceptive practices act or 
other provision of our Insurance Code has been violated, not just with 
regard to one Texan, but with regard to many Texans, rather than 
shifting that into the Federal judiciary.
  I believe that Texas ought to have the right to establish its own law 
to protect its consumers in health maintenance organizations, as it 
took the lead in doing, and have those actions disposed of by our Texas 
judiciary.
  This legislation would destroy that right and shift into a crowded 
and overwhelmed Federal judiciary the job of policing the wrongdoing of 
the few against the many. It is the taking away of States' rights that, 
as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, has rightfully noted, has 
caused the attorneys general of these States, has caused State judges, 
to say, do not interfere with what we are doing.
  There has been no case made that our State courts are abusing their 
responsibilities, are not fulfilling their responsibilities, to justify 
this amazing assumption of power by the Federal courts, a right they do 
not want in the Federal judiciary, and which, at the same time, will 
cut out the heart of the right of the States to decide cases 
interpreting State law as it affects the citizens of their State.
  The only justification for this legislation is for those who have 
committed some of the greatest wrongs in this country, the tobacco 
companies that continue to addict 3,000 children a day to nicotine 
addiction, the insurance companies and the health maintenance 
organizations that continue to have a stranglehold on this Congress, to 
not pass a Patients' Bill of Rights.
  Other wrongdoers in our society are now influencing this Congress to 
take away one of the only effective remedies that our citizens have. 
That is to come together in an efficient way in the court system, when 
the Congress will not act, to turn to the courts and seek a remedy 
there in front of a jury of their peers. If someone has taken a little 
from the many, not to bar the courthouse door, the way citizens have 
been blocked out of this Congress, but permitting Americans to join 
together before a local State judge and proceed in the State judiciary 
and seek some remedy for wrongdoing that has occurred, which this 
Congress would not address.
  Now that same crowd of special interests, which has encouraged this 
as an inactive do-nothing Congress, is saying, close off the one remedy 
the people have to join together in their individual States. It is 
wrong. This bill should be rejected.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my colleague on the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for consideration of 
the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999. The underlying 
legislation will streamline the ability of courts to deal with class 
action lawsuits. This is very important for Americans, and as my 
colleague from Texas has argued, it is important for people who live in 
States and local jurisdictions.
  However, we believe that it is important for us to make sure that 
people who do need remedy in class action lawsuits are handled 
properly. Today we offer this change in the law to ensure that multiple 
litigants who reside outside of a particular State who wish to become a 
party to a class action lawsuit must file that action within Federal 
court.
  Our Founding Fathers did not intend for one State to judge class 
action lawsuits involving many other States. The Federal courts are 
better equipped with not only resources but also the staff to handle 
class action lawsuits involving citizens of diverse States.
  This rule makes in order any germane amendments to exempt industries 
from class action reform. These amendments, however, should be 
rejected. Such amendments go against the underlying principles of this 
bill, that Federal courts are the appropriate venues to try large class 
action lawsuits involving citizens of diverse States, and that applies 
no less to tobacco, guns, or HMO litigation.
  Since there are no specific reasons to carve out a specific industry, 
any amendment to do so can only be intended to derail the bill or apply 
a political correctness test to what should be neutral rules of civil 
procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, these are contentious issues. They are important issues 
to our entire Nation, and as such, should be treated properly at the 
Federal level. This is a proper way to handle contentious national 
problems. It is important to recognize that this rule has been crafted 
to accommodate amendments that are objectionable to many Members of 
this body, including myself.
  But what we are trying to do is to make sure that we craft a rule 
that allows open debate, to allow other people who disagree with us to 
be able to bring these amendments, such as they are, to try and carve 
out these three areas. I simply disagree with them.
  Therefore, this rule sponsored by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) I believe is fair, it deserves the support of this body, and it 
is, I believe, important for our colleagues to recognize that we should 
not carve out three areas that are contentious political debates in 
this country to put them to specific State district courts within a 
State and expect a State to not only have the burden of that cost, but 
also to where we take it outside of where a Federal remedy is 
necessary.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation ignores a fundamental fact about the 
way the judiciary is organized in the United States.
  In the Federal court system, the same Federal judges hear both civil 
and criminal cases. In the State court system, as in my State of Texas, 
there is a complete separate set of judges

[[Page H8566]]

that hear civil cases and a separate set of judges that hear criminal 
cases.
  What the Republican majority has done during the last 5 years is 
vastly increase the number of crimes that are now heard in Federal 
court, so that they have overburdened the Federal court system by 
adding additional cases that must be heard by Federal judges, and now 
they want to further overburden the Federal court system by bucking 
almost all class actions to the Federal court level.
  They ignore the fact that our State courts are structured with two 
separate types of courts, one for civil jurisdiction and one for 
criminal jurisdiction, and our Federal judiciary must hear both civil 
and criminal cases before the exact same judges. They are putting an 
inexcusably difficult burden on the Federal judiciary.
  I had the opportunity as a very young man right out of law school to 
clerk for a Federal judge. I do have some understanding of the way the 
Federal judiciary in this country operates. We are now piling so many 
cases on the backs of Federal judges that we are going to make it 
impossible for real justice to be achieved through the Federal system.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
familiar with the record of this Congress on appointments and vacancies 
in the Federal judiciary in Texas and across the country as to whether 
or not, over the last several years, there have been literally dozens 
of vacancies left in our Federal trial courts and in our Federal 
appellate courts, which are the very ones that will now have shifted to 
them significant and expansive new litigation?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond. In fact, I very much 
am. There is an article in today's Washington Post describing that 
exact situation about how slow the current Congress, the members of the 
other body have been to fill Federal vacancies during the last several 
years.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, so will not the effect of this legislation 
be to shift the rights of those who have been wronged to Federal 
courthouses where the bench and the office is empty because the same 
Republican Congress that is proposing this legislation will not approve 
judges to sit in the seats to deal with the business that those courts 
have that they are overburdened with today?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the case. As I indicated, 
this same Congress has been adding jurisdiction to the Federal courts 
on the criminal side so that more and more time is taken up with 
hearing criminal cases. Now they want to increase the civil 
jurisdiction of the Federal court system and, as the gentleman has 
pointed out, not fill those judgeships so that all those matters can be 
handled in a prompt way.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back in just a moment. I would 
urge that the rule be defeated. I would urge that the bill be defeated. 
This is a bad piece of legislation that is going to substantially harm 
the Federal judiciary and substantially harm the rights of litigants in 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules, for the closing arguments on a very fair rule.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia 
(Mr. Linder), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules 
and Organization of the House, for his fine leadership on the Committee 
on Rules and his management of this and his moving it so expeditiously.
  I am not going to take a long period of time other than to say I 
cannot believe that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) would advocate 
opposing an open rule which simply had a prefiling requirement for the 
Congressional Record. I mean, it is a modified open rule. Seven 
amendments have been filed.
  We are going to see what obviously will be a free-flowing debate, I 
suspect not unlike the exchange we saw between the two gentlemen from 
Texas, Mr. Doggett and Mr. Frost, just now.
  This bill is not about attorney bashing. I mean, the trial lawyers 
are often criticized around here. But that is really not the issue. The 
fact of the matter is, in my State of California, we have often seen 
judge shopping take place. That is what is going on right now all 
around the country.
  What has that done? It has unfortunately increased cost to consumers, 
and it has created an amazing burden. That is the reason that the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and others are going to be 
moving forward with what I believe to be a very fair and balanced 
measure which will have a free and open debate. It is the right thing 
for us to do. We want to make sure that people do, in fact, have their 
day in court.
  I will tell both of the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Doggett and Mr. 
Frost, that I am looking forward to superb judicial appointments coming 
from the next administration. I am looking forward to a United States 
Senate which will, at the speed of light, confirm those spectacular 
appointments.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 181, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 437]

                               YEAS--241

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune

[[Page H8567]]


     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Coble
     Diaz-Balart
     Engel
     Hall (OH)
     Holden
     Jefferson
     Rangel
     Royce
     Scarborough
     Sweeney
     Waters

                              {time}  1127

  Messrs. DELAHUNT, SPRATT, TAYLOR of Mississippi and RODRIQUEZ changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________