[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 28 (Wednesday, March 13, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H838-H846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2341, CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF
2002
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 367 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 367
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. 2341) to amend the procedures that apply to
consideration of interstate class actions to assure fairer
outcomes for class members and defendants, to outlaw certain
practices that provide inadequate settlements for class
members, to assure that attorneys do not receive a
disproportionate amount of settlements at the expense of
class members, to provide for clearer and simpler information
in class action settlement notices, to assure prompt
consideration of interstate class actions, to amend title 28,
United States Code, to allow the application of the
principles of Federal diversity jurisdiction to interstate
class actions, and for other purposes. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. 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. 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 report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. 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.
{time} 1045
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, 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 367 is a structured rule providing for
the consideration of H.R. 2341, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2002.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and
controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. It 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.
The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment
may be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be debatable for 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
shall not be subject to amendment or demand for division of the
question.
[[Page H839]]
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill
and waives all points of order against such amendments.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
I would like to take a moment to clarify for my colleagues that while
this is a structured rule, our committee, the Committee on Rules, did
make in order every amendment submitted to us on this legislation. The
rule simply incorporates some time confines, equally applied to all the
amendments, in order to provide some level of certainty and order
during consideration of this legislation on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, the history of the judicial process has established it
as a system that, in most instances, employs fairness and balance in
the rendering of justice. As one of the many tools of the judicial
system, the class action lawsuit, in its ideal form, shares these
characteristics. The class action suit is meant to give the many who
may have the same claim against the same defendant an efficient way to
have their grievances consolidated into a unified and magnified voice.
Mr. Speaker, as used by public interest organizations and truly
interested groups of individuals, class action lawsuits can be
effective in remedying wrongs, curbing dangerous misconduct, or
encouraging better enforcement of laws. However, the reality of the
class action lawsuit is far, far from the ideal. Today, this procedural
device is often employed in frivolous suits designed to force
businesses into quick and often unwarranted settlements while denying
those truly wronged of any meaningful recourse. This abuse can stunt
economic growth. It can stunt job creation. And, ironically, these
frivolous suits can clog the very courts that they are being heard in,
making it more difficult to bring the valid litigation that the class
action tools are meant to facilitate.
Perhaps worst of all, the abuse of class actions often rewards
attorneys and certain plaintiffs while leaving larger segments of the
class with little real remedy. In one instance, a State court approved
a class action settlement in a case brought by account holders against
a bank in which the plaintiffs' attorneys received over $8 million in
fees while 700,000 class members, the plaintiffs, only received about
$10 each.
Even worse, those 700,000 class members each had up to $100 deducted
from their accounts to pay the legal fees owed by the bank under the
settlement. As a result, most of the class members ended up with a net
loss as a result of litigation designed to protect their interest.
In another class action filed against General Mills, an additive was
added to Cheerios, a very popular cereal. The settlement directed $2
million to the lawyers, while the class members each received coupons
for free boxes of cereal.
Now, while these examples may seem extreme, and they are extreme,
they are sadly and rapidly becoming the normal. This is an aspect of
our civil justice system that is in very sore need of reform. Class
action filings in State courts have increased 1,000 percent over the
past 10 years. That is an incredible jump.
As noted in an editorial in The Washington Post, way last August,
``We must inject the world of class actions with more accountability to
real clients and with some consequence to lawyers who file frivolous
claims.'' This bill does just that by curbing the abuse of class
actions while preserving the right of the truly injured to bring
meritorious class action suits.
Specifically, this legislation would preserve the intent of article
III of our constitution by allowing large, interstate class actions to
be removed to Federal Court when appropriate, thereby creating greater
uniformity in considering these cases and allowing greater
consolidation of claims. Importantly, this would mean those cases that
affect individuals across the Nation could be decided by courts that
represent the Nation as a whole and not just one particular State
picked by a trial lawyer.
At the same time, this legislation protects individuals in class
actions through the Consumer Class Action Bill of Rights. This bill of
rights requires that notices sent to class members be simple and
intelligible. It also ensures that victorious plaintiffs do not suffer
a net loss because of attorneys fees. It prevents geographic
discrimination against certain class members, and it prohibits
disproportionate awards from going to classes' representatives.
Mr. Speaker, our judicial system and the judges and attorneys that
serve within it do noble and important work. I am a past attorney and a
past judge, so I can say that with some assurance. But it is the job of
this Congress to make sure that the procedural tools given to those in
the judicial system are not misused to the point that they frustrate
their very purpose. This bill creates important reforms that will
reduce abuse and protect individuals.
I urge support for this legislation and for this fair and balanced
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, my friends on the other side of the aisle have a very
peculiar sense of timing. Here we have this problem with Enron. We have
thousands of Enron employees who lost their life savings investing in
401(k)s, and we have thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of
Enron's shareholders who lost a lot of money in Enron stock; and yet my
friends on the other side of the aisle take this very moment to make it
more difficult for those thousands of Enron employees and those
thousands of Enron shareholders to bring a class action lawsuit. I have
a difficult time understanding their timing.
I understand their interest in this issue. It has been brought up
before. But now we have this situation where executives of Enron were
telling their employees what a good deal it was to invest in their
company's stock at the same time that those executives were secretly
selling their stock. And so we have a class of people, a class of
employees, thousands of employees who have lost their life savings; and
yet my friends on the other side of the aisle would say, well, this is
the very moment that we are going to make it more difficult for you to
seek class relief. It is a very peculiar sense of timing.
It is an interesting bill. It is important that the American people
very clearly understand what this bill, H.R. 2341, the so-called Class
Action Fairness Act, would do. It is not, as some claim, a small
procedural change. It will not, as some have suggested, curb lawsuit
abuse. In fact, there is no statistical evidence of a class action
crisis. Unfortunately, some people, for their own political purposes,
have made a career out of hyping anecdotal stories of unbelievable
lawsuits. The truth is these rare abuses have been appropriately
handled by State legislatures and State supreme courts.
So what will this bill do? In a nutshell, it will drastically tilt
the justice system in favor of big corporations and their executives
and against the individuals they sometimes harm. That may not be the
intent of its supporters, but that will be its effect. And, Mr.
Speaker, that is just plain wrong.
Mr. Speaker, it is really unbelievable to me. I am frankly astounded,
as I mentioned earlier, that Republicans have made protecting big
corporate wrongdoers their priority right now. After all, at this very
moment Congress is still trying to figure out how Enron executives
managed to devastate the life savings of thousands of its employees and
shareholders. Mr. Speaker, America has just witnessed the worst
corporate robbery in history, and now Republican leaders are pushing a
bill to protect big corporate wrongdoers. Do they really want to make
it easier for people to do the type things that executives at Enron
reportedly did?
Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of additional reasons to vote against
this bill. By federalizing class actions, it tramples on the authority
of State courts, which is pretty peculiar coming from a Republican
Party that preaches the gospel of States' rights on almost every other
issue. And it will further clog Federal courts that are already
overwhelmed by the large number of criminal drug cases. So it is no
surprise that both Federal and State judiciaries have consistently
opposed efforts to Federalize class actions.
[[Page H840]]
But the real losers under this bill are ordinary Americans for whom
the justice system is the only protection against big corporate
wrongdoers. It is people like the thousands of Americans who lost their
life savings at Enron and the 800 people who were injured and the 271
who were killed on defective Firestone tires. This bill would actually
make it harder for them to hold those corporate wrongdoers accountable.
This Congress should be fighting for those Americans, not protecting
the corporate wrongdoers that harmed them.
Mr. Speaker, we appreciate that this rule makes in order all of the
amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules. That does
not, in fact, change the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this is a bad bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1100
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I must say that this bill was
discussed at length in the Committee on Rules yesterday, and I am not
sure, maybe my friend from Texas was not present, but I believe he was,
because it is incredible to me that he is making these statements. It
was pointed out at great length that the Enron case is already in
Federal court. This has nothing to do with Enron. Indeed, Mr. Speaker,
securities litigation is carved out entirely by this legislation. It
would not cover Enron.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the author of this
legislation, to further bring some light to this subject.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
time. I want to compliment her and the other members of the Committee
on Rules for fashioning a very fine and very fair rule to debate this
important piece of litigation reform.
I was pleased to hear the gentleman from Texas acknowledge the
fairness of the rule, so I encourage all of my colleagues to support
the rule when it comes up for a vote. But I would like to address the
other issue the gentleman raised, and, that is to somehow try to
associate this with Enron.
Enron's class action lawsuit is already in Federal court. The fact of
the matter is, it is in Federal court because the plaintiffs in that
case chose to bring it there because it involves Federal questions and
because it will be a better place to handle class action lawsuits
because our Federal courts are designed to hear cases from plaintiffs
and defendants from a multitude of jurisdictions.
But the Enron case could have been brought in a State court in, say,
Illinois where there might be a few Enron employees. It would not be
appropriate for it to be heard there, but if it were brought there
under diversity of jurisdiction and there were no means to remove it to
Federal court, all of the gentleman from Texas' constituents in the
State of Texas would be denied having an opportunity to have it heard
in that court; whereas with this legislation, if it were brought in a
State court where it was inappropriate to be brought, it could be
easily removed to Federal court. This is not about Enron.
What this is really about is fairness to American consumers. Let me
give you some examples.
Here is a case. This case shows what the trial lawyers received, $2
million in attorneys' fees, and the plaintiffs that they were
representing, they got a coupon. A coupon for what? A box of Cheerios.
Here is another one. In this case, the plaintiffs' attorneys received
$100,000 in attorneys' fees and the plaintiffs got three golf balls.
It gets better. In this particular case, the plaintiffs' attorneys,
the trial lawyers, received $4 million in attorneys' fees and the
plaintiffs each got a check for 33 cents. In case you cannot see the
amount on this check, we blew it up for you. There it is: 33 cents.
That is what the plaintiffs got while their attorneys got $4 million.
There is a catch to it, though, for those desiring 33 cents because in
order to get the 33 cents, they had to mail back in their acceptance of
the settlement offer, which cost them 34 cents. So actually they came
up a penny short in this particular class action lawsuit abuse.
It goes on. Here is a settlement of a case against an airline that
gave the class members a $25 coupon. That sounds pretty good. It is
$25. It is better than 33 cents, but it is conditioned upon their
purchasing an additional airline ticket for $250 or more. In other
words, it is a coupon for a 10 percent reduction in your next airline
ticket. What did the attorneys get? $16 million.
This one is the best of all. A Bank of Boston settlement over
disputed accounting practices produced $8.5 million in attorneys' fees.
Later, the plaintiffs' attorneys in the case sued their own clients,
the class members, for an additional $25 million in attorneys' fees,
and the class members were required to pay $80 each for a settlement
that netted the attorneys $8.5 million.
This is not a Republican effort for reform. There are plenty of folks
on both sides of the aisle here who support this, including those who
subscribe to this distinguished publication, the Washington Post, where
they said that the lawyers cash in while the clients get coupons for
product upgrades.
``It's a bad system, one that irrationally taxes companies in a
fashion all but unrelated to the harm their products do and that
provides nothing resembling justice to victims of actual corporate
misconduct.''
So, as a result of that which appeared on March 9, this past
Saturday, the Post has endorsed this legislation. The Post went on to
say, ``That it is controversial at all,'' referring to this
legislation, ``reflects less on the merits as a proposal than on the
grip that trial lawyers have on many Democrats.''
So I urge my colleagues on the other side to join the many who will
join us in rejecting the idea that somehow we have to have a
continuation of a simply bad Federal procedural rule that would allow
these cases to be brought into Federal court when all we are trying to
do is to correct a very serious problem of abuse.
How does the abuse occur? The plaintiffs' attorneys, and they are
good attorneys, they choose the jurisdiction in this country that they
think best suits their likelihood of success in the case. That happens
in every lawsuit. But in class action lawsuits involving hundreds of
thousands or millions of plaintiffs, they can choose from 4,000
different jurisdictions in the country, and a handful of jurisdictions
over and over and over again get the cases brought there because those
judges are known to certify these classes far more readily than anybody
else. Allowing removal of the case by either the plaintiffs or the
defendants to Federal court will end this abuse because you will have a
more uniform, more standard application of what it takes to certify a
class.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the
underlying legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask my good friend,
who is on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte), who is himself an ex-trial lawyer, what is his
solution to this horrible problem of trial lawyers making too much
money?
I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte),
a former trial lawyer himself.
I will repeat the question. What is the Republican solution to this
horrible practice that has allowed trial lawyers, like you used to be,
from reaping these incredible profits?
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. For better or for worse, if the gentleman would yield,
I have to say that I never enjoyed such remuneration for the work that
I did.
Mr. CONYERS. You did not like practicing as a trial lawyer. It was
not fun.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I did not handle class action lawsuits, but I will
tell you that the measure of a good lawsuit is not how much work the
attorneys put into it relative to what they receive, but whether they
accomplish anything for their clients. And when they get a coupon for
Cheerios, they are accomplishing nothing in exchange for the large fees
they receive.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for explaining to me what his
solution is to the problem of trial lawyers making too much money.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
[[Page H841]]
My colleagues on the other side want to say no, no, no, no, this is
not about Enron. Explain that to the thousands of Enron employees who
lost their life savings in their 401(k)s and who would like to bring a
civil fraud action against executives at Enron in State court in Harris
County, Houston, Texas. Explain that to them, please, if this is not
about Enron.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Stark).
(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I understand what is behind this. I am not a
lawyer, I will never be a judge, but this is really the Republicans'
attempt to prevent themselves from being sued as a party under a class
action under RICO by the 42 million beneficiaries of Medicare whose
plan they are plotting to destroy.
As we sit here today, the Committee on the Budget is giving the
Republican budget in the office building, and they are going to tell
you how they are going to give 1 year, $8 billion, to Medicare. They
have depleted the entire Medicare trust fund, and this 1 year, $8
billion, is contingent on privatizing Medicare, taking the President's
reform, which is a voucher system, and destroying Medicare, as the
Republicans are on record as wanting to do time and time again,
starting with Newt Gingrich.
So they have given us $8 billion, or $40 billion over 5 years, if we
privatize the system. That is to cover a drug benefit which ought to
cost $70 billion a year by any standards. That does not allow us to
correct the inequity in physicians' payments which costs $12 billion a
year. This does not take care of hospital inflation, children's
hospitals, teaching hospitals, cancer centers, preventive screening.
This is an obscene hoax on the American people. It is just one more
indication of protecting the corporate interests and the corporate
insurance companies, for instance, who provide Medicare benefits from
any class action. They will not let us have the Patients' Bill of
Rights. The only way we have now to enforce that is class actions in a
few cases. If we could have a Patients' Bill of Rights with the right
to sue, that might not be necessary.
But one more case, protect the rich, trample on the poor, do away
with Medicare and Social Security, this is the Republicans' plan; and
this is one more nail in the coffin of the Medicare beneficiaries.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, who can get us back on course. This is a
bill that is addressing lawsuit reform, not Medicare, not Enron. The
gentleman from Texas can help point that out.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the
Committee on Rules for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 2341, the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2002. The current class action system makes it too easy for
attorneys to bring suit not for the benefit and well-being of class
members, but for the attorneys' own monetary gain.
For instance, when attorneys sued Southwestern Bell, which is a
constituent firm, alleging misrepresentation of service plans, they
made $4 million in fees while the class members received only a $15
credit. A suit brought against Oracle sought no damages, but resulted
in $750,000 in attorneys' fees and nothing for the plaintiffs.
Unfortunately, these examples are not uncommon.
Congress should not stand by while lawyers shop around the country
for a judge who will render a favorable verdict. This bill will give
Federal courts jurisdiction over cases that involve aggregate claims of
at least $2 million and a plaintiff and defendant from different
States. It also creates a class action bill of rights that will require
settlement notices to be written in plain English, prevent
disproportionate attorneys' fees from being awarded, and protect
consumers from actually losing money when there is a verdict in their
favor.
Mr. Speaker, we must not let a few lawyers get rich at the expense of
working families. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for offering this bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me
this time.
This bill is opposed by every major environmental organization, every
major consumer product safety organization, and I wonder why that is?
Mr. Speaker, it is no doubt trite to proclaim that the road to hell
is paved with good intentions. This bill is a perfect example of that
aphorism. No Member of this Chamber needs to lecture me about living in
a culture of lawsuits and about how the number of lawsuits has spiraled
out of control. I am all too familiar with that, being a trial lawyer
and being a trial judge.
Let me tell you something, this bill will do nothing but make things
worse for our courts in this land, worse for our judges, and, most
important, it will make things worse for the people who need redress
the most in our judicial system.
This bill does not make our litigious system better. Indeed, it makes
it far worse. The bill before us would make it significantly more
difficult for consumers to achieve relief from the most outrageous
corporate abuses.
{time} 1115
Frankly, this bill is a bailout for corporate wrongdoers, and that
makes me sick.
Mr. Speaker, if passed, this bill will make it easier for a
significant number of corporations, not just Enron, where no real class
action has been filed yet, but Arthur Andersen, for example, might not
have as much to fear. We may never have even heard about the problems
with Firestone if this bill were law today. Monsanto, W.R. Grace, all
these corporations had to face the public and face the music because of
our Nation's easy access to the courthouse. This bill would have made
it significantly easier for these corporations if this bill were law.
This bill would federalize class action lawsuits, plain and simple.
You can take my word for it, or you can take Chief Justice Rehnquist's
word for it, the Federal courts are already overworked and
understaffed. This bill would only exacerbate this problem.
State courts are the much preferred venue for these types of actions.
We have heard about problems in a couple of States. The fact is, there
really is no crisis. Florida, California, Texas, and New York all are
able to handle their caseload without Federal intervention. Certainly,
if the four largest States in the United States are not having these
problems, the other 46 can manage as well.
Let me tell you some things. I heard the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) a moment ago talk about a coupon. I cannot deny there are
cases where lawyers have made fees and clients have not received all of
the recompense that my brothers and sisters on the other side would
have them. But what about tobacco and all of the money that all of the
States have received? What about asbestos and black lung? Where would
we be if this were law today? Would we have seat belts in our
automobiles, air bags, infant car seats, child proof medicine bottles,
disability access? All of those were class actions.
I am heartened that the Committee on Rules did make in order the
Lofgren amendment and several others, including the amendment of my
good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
I want to make it very clear that I recognize that we do not have all
the time this morning to talk about this matter, but understand this:
there was absolutely no consultation with Federal judges. And we talk
all the time in this body about unfunded mandates. Well, this bill was
not scored by CBO, according to my Republican colleagues; but CBO did
say that there would be increased administrative costs. Let me tell you
what some of those increased administrative costs will be: more court
reporters, more translators, more clerks. And the impact on the Federal
judiciary, it is all but outrageous for us to believe that courts will
not bog down. If we impact
[[Page H842]]
the civil litigation system in this country, then the linchpin of this
country's economy will come undone.
It is a terrible mistake for us to proceed in this manner, and I urge
my colleagues to defeat this bill.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time
as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the preceding speaker for pointing out how
urgent it is for the Democrats in control of the other body to approve
the some 100 judges that President Bush has nominated that are being
held hostage to politics. That is the reason that we have some backlog
in some of our courts.
The fairness bill which is on the floor today is addressed to
something much more discrete, and that is what is the proper role of
the Federal courts and what is the proper role of the State courts.
This bill is needed to restore to the Federal courts the jurisdiction
that the Framers of our Constitution gave to the Federal courts. It was
the Framers that decided that when the parties to a case live in
different States, multiple States, when what is at issue in the case
are the laws of multiple States, that that kind of jurisdiction,
diversity jurisdiction, so-called, is properly vested in the Federal
courts.
What we are hearing in opposition to putting nationwide class actions
in Federal Court is a sort of reverse Federalism; that somehow if
multiple States are involved and parties from multiple States are
involved, that a hamlet in some county in America should make law for
the whole country.
The Framers gave us this jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, to
guard against local prejudice to make sure that American citizens would
not be dragged to some unfamiliar venue nowhere near where they lived
and forced to appear between a rock and a hard place, as it were,
unable to argue their rights that they would have back home or in a
Federal jurisdiction, and knowing the outcome in advance, that they
were going to be home-towned by local judges and juries. The Framers
wanted to ensure that citizens would have confidence in their judicial
system by eliminating this kind of local bias.
The Framers reasoned that local prejudice could result in
discrimination against interstate commerce. As you recall, in article I
of the Constitution interstate commerce is a Federal responsibility,
not a State responsibility. Of course, prejudice against people from
other States, prejudice against interstate commerce, they recognized
would be highly detrimental to the country.
We are here today precisely because the Framers intended to prevent
what is happening in our court system today in the form of nationwide
class action lawsuits filed in local courts. A class action is
typically a big lawsuit, a large lawsuit, often with hundreds or even
thousands of class members. In fact, most of the Members in this
Chamber and most of the people watching what is going on on this floor
are probably plaintiffs in lawsuits that they do not even know about,
because it is so easy to claim, if you are a lawyer, to represent a
whole class of people similarly situated to your cousin.
In these large class actions involving people from all over America,
there are often at issue the laws of many different States. It is
because of this that a class action involving citizens of multiple
States necessarily has significant interstate commerce implications,
and as a result it is the quintessential Federal case.
No matter how many citizens from other States are involved, no matter
how many States' laws are involved, the law as it exists today places
such strict limits on the right of a party to have his or her case
removed to Federal Court that it is virtually impossible for an out-of-
state party to do so.
This has given rise to what is called in the lawyers parlance ``forum
shopping.'' If you were a clever lawyer, you get to pick the one place
in America where you know you are going to win, whether you are right
or whether you are wrong. Forum shopping has resulted in a very small
handful of local courts in such places as Madison County, Illinois;
Jefferson County, Texas; and Palm Beach County, Florida, making law for
an entire Nation.
But this is not the only negative impact of what I have called
reverse Federalism. It is now openly recognized that these local courts
can and do harbor actual prejudice against out-of-state defendants.
This was acknowledged by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a
recent opinion in which the court apologized to the out-of-state
defendant for the current state of Federal law. They recognized that
while they could not permit this action under the current
circumstances, which we just described, the current Federal law which
makes removal so difficult, they could not permit this action to be
heard in Federal Court, it ought to be in Federal Court. So they
apologized to the defendant in the case for their anomalous ruling,
returning a large interstate class action lawsuit to Alabama State
court.
The Eleventh Circuit recognized that it was sending these defendants
back to a State court system that was going to treat them, or at least
had treated people similarly situated in the past, unfairly; that
has produced in their words ``gigantic awards against out-of-state
defendants.''
The court quoted a newspaper article noting that Alabama was ``a
State whose courts are among the most widely feared by corporate
defendants.'' Nonetheless, the Eleventh Circuit concluded there was
nothing under current Federal law that could be done about it.
The Eleventh Circuit laid bare the harsh reality that out-of-state
defendants can now face in class action lawsuits, where the thumb is
put on the scale of justice in advance. You, as an individual citizen
in America, as a party to one of these actions, can be dragged into a
remote jurisdiction that often has little or no connection with you, or
indeed with any of the parties. Appearing in local courts, facing local
judges and judges unlikely to treat you fairly, you know the outcome in
advance. Almost certainly you will wind up being forced to pay a large
settlement just to get out of this nightmare, because you would not
want to see it through trial to the unfair result.
This is precisely the kind of injustice and local prejudice the
Framers intended to eliminate by explicitly granting to the Federal
courts diversity jurisdiction over cases involving people, parties in
multiple States, and laws of multiple States. This legislation will
restore the balance between State and Federal courts and return to the
Federal courts the jurisdiction over diversity indications that the
Framers intended.
Now, I must say in closing that our State court system is a good
system. It is a wonderful system for resolving a variety of cases. The
problem is not with the entire system of State courts; but rather that
some lawyers, a small number of amoral and unethical lawyers on many
occasions, get to pick not just State courts in general, not just the
system, but the precise place where they know they have control and
where they can win.
The argument that has been made against this bill bears a heavy
burden. People have stood up here and said that this would be bad for
the Enron plaintiffs, even though, as we all know, the Enron plaintiffs
chose a Federal forum and this bill gives anyone the right to file in a
State court or remove to a Federal court.
People are saying that this tramples on the rights of State courts. I
think I have dealt fairly with that argument.
I have heard it is going to protect the rich or that it is going to
hurt environmental cases. The burden that you bear in making that
argument is that you have to say that there is inherent prejudice
against environmental issues in the Federal courts. You have to say
that there is inherent prejudice according to class in the Federal
courts. I do not think any of you really believes that. All that this
bill does is state that if multiple States are involved, you can be in
the Federal system.
This bill is an affirmation of Federalism and of the Founders'
intent. It is the reason that the Washington Post so strongly supports
this bill. In their editorial what they have said is that the lawyers
cash in while the clients get coupons for product upgrades. That is the
kind of misrepresentation that has occurred, as described by the
speakers that got up before me, in this bad system that they describe,
that irrationally taxes companies in a fashion
[[Page H843]]
all but unrelated to the harm their products do, and that provides
nothing resembling justice to victims of actual corporate misconduct.
The Federal system is a good system for resolving cases. It is the
ideal system and the one that the Framers intended for resolving
complex cases involving citizens and parties of multiple States and the
laws of multiple States.
I strongly urge my colleagues to approve not only this rule, but the
legislation when it next comes to a vote, and I predict it will pass
with a big bipartisan majority.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is one of the
best lawyers in the House. I do not know if he was a trial lawyer or
not. But I just wanted to point out to him a couple of cases.
This discussion is not new in the Federal judiciary. We have been
trying to figure out when you get to State Court and when you get to
Federal Court for quite a while. So I want to refer the gentleman, the
gentleman has probably seen this case before, Strawbridge v. Curtis,
that was decided way back in 1806, dealing with how one has to have
complete diversity to bring a State law case into a Federal law case.
Indeed, they brought it up to date in another case of which I hope the
gentleman is aware, Schneider v. Harris, in 1969, where the court held
that the court should only consider the citizenship of named plaintiffs
for diversity purposes.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sandlin).
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Our friends on the other side know that this issue is not about
attorneys. It takes away rights of consumers, it gives corporate
wrongdoers additional protections that they are not currently entitled
to, and it strips the States of the States' own laws and procedures.
I think it is important to note that neither the Federal judiciary
nor the State judiciary has requested any of these changes.
{time} 1130
No judge in America has written in and asked for these questions. No
organization has asked for these changes, no organization of judges at
the State or Federal level. This is not a problem. This is an effort by
our friends on the other side of the aisle to create a solution to an
imagined problem, and it is a poor solution at that.
Also, this legislation strips powers from our State courts.
I would like to say, what happened to States' rights? What happened
to the issue of local control? What happened to what we hear time and
time again about local people know best what to do in local
communities? This strips the authority of the State court to apply the
State court's own procedural rules and the State court's own procedural
laws.
This is a very, very serious 10th amendment question. It is
unconstitutional. It is an effort by our friends on the other side of
the aisle to federalize State actions, and it is just wrong.
Our Federal courts are already overloaded. Right now, there are 68
judicial vacancies in the judiciary, 416 civil cases pending, on
average, as of 2001. The criminal trials, of course, get preference;
and every commentator has said, this will move practically every single
class action in America into the Federal court. Our friends on the
other side of the aisle want to federalize every action.
Now, let me tell my colleagues something about this ridiculous
argument about forum shopping and trying to get preference. Let me give
an example. In my hometown of Marshall, Texas, if one wants to file a
class action in State court, it is filed in the State district court.
If one would like to file it in the Federal court, you move one block
down the street and you file it in the Federal court in Marshall,
Texas.
Trying to act like there is some big Federal procedure and big
Federal law that covers everything is absolutely not true. Remember, no
matter what Federal court one files this in, the Federal court is
applying State law. The Federal court is applying State law. I take
offense to objections to State courts and State law and State judges.
Let me read something that one of our friends in Congress said not
long ago about judges. He said, ``I simply say, the State judge went to
the same law school, studied the same law, and passed the same bar exam
that the Federal judge did. The only difference is, the Federal judge
was better politically connected and became a Federal judge. But I
would suggest when the judge raises his hand, State court or Federal
court, they swear to defend the U.S. Constitution; and it is wrong, it
is unfair to assume ipso facto that a State judge is going to be less
sensitive to the law, less scholarly in his or her decision, than a
Federal judge.''
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) made those statements.
It is important that we make sure that consumers have access to the
courts. It is important that they choose, and it is important that we
stick up for the United States Constitution for once, and we do not
move everything into the Federal system.
Let me mention one other thing. Oftentimes suits effect changes that
are good. There has been a lot of talk about coupons here. Sometimes
those coupons are good. Sometimes they change products. There are
products on the market today that have increased warnings as a result
of suits that have been brought by consumers all across America, where
they have been harmed by corporate America, but they cannot afford to
have their own suits.
Do the words in litigation, Ford Pinto, fire-safe pajamas, asbestos,
do those raise an issue? Those are not class actions, but those are
lawsuits that have caused change, and class actions do the same.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill because of its
substance, which I oppose, but also because of the very fact that it is
being brought up at a time when we should be bringing up a bill that
the Democrats are asking to be discharged to provide unemployment
benefits and health benefits to those people affected by the September
11 attacks.
We lost no time in bailing out the airline industries after the
tragedy of September 11, and that was something we probably should have
done. At the same time, in tandem with that, we should have had
legislation on this floor in order to help those workers who were left
unemployed after that tragedy, but we did not. Here we are 6 months
later.
Last week we passed legislation, which was the very least we could
do, to extend unemployment benefits for workers. But many, many people
cannot avail themselves of that benefit, and the bill did nothing last
week to address the issue of loss of health benefits by America's
workers.
So, instead, I am asking our colleagues today to defeat the previous
question; and then that will allow Democrats to bring a comprehensive
unemployment insurance bill to the floor, including health care for
unemployed workers. Instead of passing anticonsumer class action
legislation, we should be bringing legislation to the floor to help
unemployed workers.
It is not a question of Democrats and Republicans deciding on how to
help unemployed workers; it is a question of whether we are going to
fully help unemployed workers. The Democrats say yes, the Republicans
say no. The Republicans say we want to use our time on the floor to
pass legislation, and in this time of Enron, I mean it is so brazen.
I am surprised that I am surprised, quite frankly, because usually I
am not surprised at anything in politics. But it is surprising that
with all of the headlines on Enron and Arthur Andersen and the rest,
that instead of helping workers put out of work, we are making it
harder for consumers to file class action suits.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous
question.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the
gentlewoman from California that this House has passed health benefits
twice. We have passed unemployment benefits,
[[Page H844]]
and it was signed into law actually last weekend; I was at the signing
ceremony. This has been done.
I do not know where she is coming from. This House has acted
responsibly and we will continue to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time and for her masterful handling of this rule and the underlying
debate.
I do rise as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary in strong
support of the rule and of the underlying legislation, the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2002.
I believe as a new Member of this institution that whatever laws that
we pass, they ought to ever and always be judged by how they impact not
the most prosperous or the most affluent in our country, but by how
they impact the least of these; how the laws in this place impact the
average, working, struggling American family. And in that, I agree with
the sentiment expressed by the gentlewoman from California that this
institution should be focused on the least of these and on struggling
Americans.
I just simply would offer that, today, the least of these ought not
to include doctors, lawyers, and corporate executives, but rather it
ought to include aggrieved families and hurting Americans like the
employees of Enron or other litigants and plaintiffs in class action
lawsuits who have been made the subject of a system that the Washington
Post called bad and called corrupt in a recent March 9 editorial.
Mr. Speaker, the father of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts)
says the definition of a contingency fee is, if you lose, your lawyer
does not get paid, but if you win, you do not get paid. And
regrettably, as we learned in recent examples debated on this House
Floor, $2.5 million in a class action lawsuit goes to the attorneys and
the litigants get a coupon for a box of Cheerios. Another example: $4
million in legal fees and 33-cent checks distributed to hurting
families, not even covering the postage for turning in their
application to be members of the class.
The benefits of the legislation on the floor today are truly targeted
to benefiting working and aggrieved Americans. Requiring that all class
notices and settlement notices be in plain English is one of the
requirements of this bill, and ensuring that attorneys' fees in class
actions are based on a reasonable percentage and provide protection
against loss by class members.
I rise today as a strong conservative Member of this institution, and
I must say to my colleagues that it is a rare day that I ever thought
that I would be quoting the Washington Post on the floor of this
chamber, but I will do so today. The Washington Post wrote in
supporting the work of the Committee on the Judiciary, that is on the
floor today, that under the current system, ``At settlement time, the
lawyers cash in while the clients get coupons for product upgrades. It
is a bad system.''
They went on to write, ``This corrupt system is made possible to some
degree because of how difficult it is to yank cases from State court
and move them into the Federal system where judges tend to examine them
more skeptically.'' They point out the positives in the provisions of
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule, to
support the Class Action Fairness Act, and say ``yes'' to hurting
American families and litigants taking their stand in our best courts
against the most powerful.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise to respond to the question: ``I do not know where she is
coming from; we have passed health benefits for these workers over and
over again.''
Where I am coming from is a meeting with James Dodrill, an unemployed
worker whose health benefits expired last week at a time when his wife
has been diagnosed with serious illness, James and his family, he and
his wife and their three children.
James's benefits ran out last week. Under the current law, James
would have to spend over $7,000 a year to pay for his COBRA benefits.
The legislation in our discharge petition would help pay for 75 percent
of that and fund the States to pick up the other 25 percent, so that
unemployed workers can continue their health benefits with real health
care benefits and would expand the number of people who fall into that
category and include some workers who were never eligible for COBRA to
be included in Medicaid.
It is a good discharge. I urge my colleagues to sign it. That is
where I was coming from.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield to answer
the question of whether she voted for extending those health benefits?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was just curious as to whether the
gentlewoman was in favor of her constituents and voted as such when she
had the opportunity.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer on the
gentlewoman's time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I am really becoming more confused as I listen to this debate. When I
first arrived in Congress some 5 years ago, I recollect very passionate
rhetoric coming from the other side about States' rights and a new era
in federalism. So it is really ironic that this particular week we are
considering two bills that would send us off in an entirely different
direction.
This bill, the so-called, and let me suggest it is truly mislabeled,
Class Action Fairness Act, would remove thousands of class action suits
from State courts to Federal courts; and a consequence of that would be
that ordinary citizens and hurting American families and consumers
would be severely disadvantaged against large corporations. And that is
why every consumer group in America is opposed to this bill. Every
legitimate major consumer group is opposed to the bill.
Now, the other bill that is scheduled for tomorrow, the so-called
``Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act,'' continues that
relentless federalization of crime that has been roundly criticized by
such conservative icons as former Attorney General Ed Meese and the
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Rehnquist.
I remember the Contract for America and, boy, suddenly it seems, oh,
so long ago, the Contract For America. Well, according to the Judicial
Conference, the class action bill would overwhelm Federal courts that
are already staggering under their current caseload. Of course, for the
innocent victims of corporate misconduct, this would mean years of
delay before they would get their day in court.
How many times have we heard on the floor of this House, ``Justice
delayed is justice denied''?
{time} 1145
Well, one might suppose that this proposal was written by people who
favor a larger role for the Federal Government, but that is not the
case. The authors are the same individuals, and let me quote the
Washington Post, that referred to the proponents as ``self-proclaimed
champions of State power.''
One could also speculate that this proposal was generated by people
who advocate a larger role for the Federal judiciary; but again, that
is not the case. Some of the sponsors of this bill regularly come to
the well and rail against judicial activism by ``unelected Federal
judges.''
Now, a while back, these same Members were on the floor attempting to
pass a bill, and I am sure some of the Members here remember it, called
the Judicial Reform Act, which would have prohibited Federal judges
from ordering a State or local government to obey Federal environmental
protection, civil rights, or other laws if doing so would cost the
States any money. Oh, if hypocrisy were a virtue.
What that bill attempted to do was to strip the Federal courts of
jurisdiction over violations of Federal law that were indisputably
within their power
[[Page H845]]
and their sphere of authority. What this bill ironically attempts to do
is to transfer to those same Federal courts jurisdiction over
violations of State and local laws that have never been within the
scope of the Federal courts and their jurisdiction.
This is truly Alice in Wonderland: Up is down, and down is up. So
much for federalism. So much for local control.
Maybe it is too cynical to suggest that the reason for this about-
face has more to do with the financial interests of powerful American
corporations than concern for the appropriate division of authority
between Federal and State courts. Maybe that is too cynical. Because it
certainly has nothing to do with hurting American families, nothing
whatsoever.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, we come here today not to praise
federalism but to bury it. So its demise has been slow and agonizing,
and I guess this bill gives it the proper burial it does not deserve.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the author of this
legislation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has
turned federalism and States' rights on their heads. This bill is about
protecting the rights of States. It is absolutely wrong in a nationwide
class action lawsuit for one party to be able to pick one State court
judge in one State and have them come in and have them decide the law
of the other 49 States; plus, this bill gives complete discretion to
the trial judge to remand to the State courts those cases that the
judge feels are truly State court matters, and State court matters that
are exclusively in one jurisdiction cannot be removed. This is not
about States' rights unless Members look at it from our standpoint.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Now I am really confused, Mr. Speaker, maybe the
gentleman from Texas can explain to me why the National Council of
State Legislatures have registered their opposition to this bill. Maybe
they have given up on the 10th amendment, also.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, again, as I mentioned earlier, I find this all somewhat
puzzling. My friends on the other side rail against these State judges.
They think these State judges are out of control.
In my State of Texas, we elect our State judges. In our largest
county, Harris County, they are all Republicans. In our second largest
county, Dallas County, they are all Republicans. In Tarrant County,
where Fort Worth is located, they are all Republicans. Every member of
our State supreme court, who is also elected, is a Republican.
I do not understand what the Members on the other side have to fear
from State judges, these out-of-control State judges. I guess they are
distrustful of some members of their own party.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sandlin).
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the Cheerios cases. Let us
look at the facts. Basically, the consumers had to throw away a box of
Cheerios. They got back their Cheerios and were made whole.
That is not what that litigation was about; it was about tainted
food. The pesticide applicator is now serving a 5-year prison sentence
for, among other felonies, intentionally altering food under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; knowing misuse of pesticides
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and
other matters.
The litigation is really between insurance companies and big fees by
insurance company lawyers. The policy-holders of the insurance company,
its general liability insurance company, denied a claim. They both
asserted that the loss was not covered; but if it was covered, it was
covered by the other insurance company.
As a result, the pleadings have been placed in the court's vault. The
name of the parties, the insurance companies and the parties, have been
removed from the pleadings, and even from the docket.
More amazing, both parties in that litigation were given pseudo
names. The name of that suit has been renamed ABC v. DEF. That is not
litigation among class members; that is not fees by class attorneys.
That is litigation between insurance companies and big fees by
insurance defense attorneys.
If Members want to have true limits, limit that. Limit the fees
charged by the insurance defense attorneys. Limit litigation among
corporations. Do not take away rights from consumers in America. Do not
give additional protections to corporate wrongdoers.
The problem is right there in the Cheerios case, but they did not
identify the right problem.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after
the House passes the class action bill, it will take up the Putting
Americans First Act, which will provide meaningful health care relief
for unemployed workers.
My amendment provides that the bill will be considered under an open
amendment process so that all Members will be able to fully debate and
offer amendments to this critical bill.
Mr. Speaker, this week marked the 6th-month anniversary of the tragic
events of September 11. Our economy was already in decline before the
event, and became even more troubled following that date. Millions of
Americans have lost their jobs, and many more are expected to join the
ranks of the unemployed in the future.
Job loss is not only the loss of a paycheck. It usually means the
loss of health insurance, as well. These people need relief
immediately, and they will get it from this bill. It is time for the
House to do its work and pass legislation to help these people.
Let me make clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will
not stop consideration of the class action bill. A ``no'' vote will
allow the House to get on with this much-needed legislation to provide
health care assistance for those Americans who have lost their jobs and
their health insurance.
However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the
House from taking up this worker-relief bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I ask
unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the
Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The amendment referred to is as follows:
At the end of the resolution add the following new
sections:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision in this
resolution, immediately after disposition of the bill H.R.
2341, the Speaker shall declare the House resolved into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3341) to provide a short-term
enhanced safety net for Americans losing their jobs and to
provide our Nation's economy with a necessary boost. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
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 Ways
and Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be
considered as read. 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. 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.
Sec. . If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill H.R. 2341 or
H.R. 3341, then on the next legislative day the House shall,
immediately after the third daily order of business under
clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole
for further consideration of that bill.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I have to say that I agree with some of the points made today.
I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), that we
should be providing health care for unemployed workers. That is why
most people on this side of the aisle voted to do that at least twice
over the last few weeks.
[[Page H846]]
I also agree that there is a huge vacancy rate on our Federal bench.
I urge my friends to urge their friends in the other body to get their
work done and act on these nominees.
I agree that there was greed at Enron. This makes our point, Mr.
Speaker. Together, three top company executives are accused of bilking
shareholders of $198 million.
Yet, for all the alleged greed, the wrongdoing of these three
executives is far outweighed by what the lawyers stand to reap.
According to news reports, Arthur Andersen made a preemptive settlement
offer to Enron shareholders in the amount of $750 million. At the
standard 32 percent contingency fee, this would work out to a $225
million share of that sum going to the lawyers. That truly is bilking
the shareholders.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for all his hard work and dedication to
reforming our civil justice system to work for the parties and not for
the lawyers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
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.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 198, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 55]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NAYS--198
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--15
Barrett
Barton
Bentsen
Blagojevich
Burton
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Eshoo
Graham
Hinojosa
Norwood
Ortiz
Radanovich
Traficant
Young (FL)
{time} 1219
Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Messrs. FORD, PASCRELL, NEAL of Massachusetts,
RUSH, and Mr. DAVIS of Florida changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________