[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 86 (Thursday, June 12, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5271-H5280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1115, CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF
2003
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 269 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 269
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. 1115) 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. 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. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived. 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 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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
[[Page H5272]]
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of our committee,
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 269 is a structured rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003.
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 the time
specified equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or demand for a
division of the question.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill and
waives all points of order against such amendment.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleagues that while
this is a structured rule, it is a balanced rule. This rule makes in
order four amendments, three Democrat amendments and one bipartisan
amendment. In fact, only eight amendments were originally submitted to
the Committee on Rules, and two of those amendments were withdrawn from
consideration. In a world often frequented with sports analogies, we
would say that four for six is pretty good at the plate.
Mr. Speaker, the history of our judicial process was purposely and
deliberately constructed by our forefathers to be a system that employs
fairness and balance in the rendering of justice. One of the many tools
of this judicial system is the class action lawsuit. In its ideal form,
the class action suit is meant to give many individuals who hold the
same claim of wrongdoing against the same defendant an efficient and
effective way to have their grievances heard as a unified voice.
Essentially, it acts as a pedestal and a megaphone using the collective
nature of the many to increase the profile and the potency of the
group's accusations of injustice.
As used by public interest organizations and truly injured groups of
individuals, class action lawsuits have proven effective in restoring
justice and righting wrongs. By correcting egregious negligence,
curbing dangerous misconduct, or even convincing people in
organizations to merely abide by the law, class action suits are an
integral part of the American system of justice.
However, and very sadly, these suits are also one of the most grossly
abused parts of the American system of justice.
{time} 1030
We have seen a deluge of frivolous lawsuits designed to coerce quick
and often unwarranted settlements only to enrich a few. This abuse of
the system stunts economic growth and job creation, and it clogs the
courtroom and our system, making it more difficult to receive justice
in valid lawsuits. In fact, class action filings in State courts have
increased 1,000 percent in just 10 years; 1,000 percent in just 10
years. Somebody is catching onto something around here.
One wonders how effective local courts and judges can even start to
get through their workload when it is increasing so rapidly. Perhaps
worst of all is the abusive way in which class action suits enrich a
small group of trial attorneys and a very small fraction of plaintiffs
while leaving most of the rest of the entire class with little or next
to nothing.
In one instance, and there are thousands and thousands of these types
of stories, but in one instance a State court approved a class action
settlement in a case brought by account holders against a bank. The
result, the plaintiffs' attorneys received over $8 million in fees and
the 700,000 members of the class only received $10 each. Eight million
dollars to the trial lawyers, $10 to the plaintiffs. In addition, each
class member was stuck holding the remainder of the bank's legal bills,
approximately $100 each. These class members had to pay the bank's
liabilities, a net loss at the end of the day of $90. How thick the
irony, and we want people to respect our system of justice when they
see this type of result? This may seem extreme, but it is becoming the
norm very, very rapidly.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will dispute these
facts. They will allege that the system is fine as it is, and that by
passing this plan and working to restore justice to our system, we are
robbing consumers of their legal rights. Let me be clear, no one is
eliminating or diminishing anybody's rights to sue. No one is taking a
wrecking ball to the court system that our forefathers so carefully
established, and no one is ignoring legitimate claims of negligence or
advocating bad guys being left off the hook. We are not doing that.
This bill simply curbs the abuse of class action suits. It curbs the
abuses while preserving the rights of the truly injured to bring
meritorious claims to court. In addition, this plan would remove large
interstate class action lawsuits to Federal court where appropriate.
This provision would enable more efficient and effective consolidation
of claims. It would also provide greater uniformity in consideration of
these cases by requiring the decisions that affect individuals from all
across the country be decided by courts that represent the Nation as a
whole and not just one State which might have a particular bias for
particular parties.
As this plan cracks down on the abuses of class action suits, it also
protects the legal rights of individuals through a consumer class
action bill of rights. This bill of rights requires that the notices
sent to class members be simple and intelligible, ensures that
victorious plaintiffs do not suffer a net loss because the attorneys
took all of the money, it prevents geographic discrimination against
certain class members, and it prohibits disproportionate awards from
going to some class members at the expense of others.
The bottom line is that this plan provides greater judicial scrutiny
to make our court system more efficient and effective, while restoring
fairness to ensure that truly wronged victims receive their fair share
of settlements.
Mr. Speaker, as a former judge, I have to say, our court system and
the judges and attorneys that serve within it serve nobly by
administering and executing true justice when they can. But it is the
job of this Congress to make sure that our judicial system is not
misused or abused to the point where it cannot perform its very
purpose, or it provides the very opposite of justice.
The Class Action Fairness Act creates important reforms that will
reduce lawsuit abuse and protect individuals. It is as simple as that.
I urge support for this legislation and for the fair and balanced rule
before us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, this can be a complicated legal issue, but at
its core, this bill that Republicans have given such a misleading name,
the Class Action Fairness Act, is very simple. Here is what it does. It
protects big corporate wrongdoers like Enron and WorldCom against
individuals that they harm. It makes it easier for fraudulent and
unethical corporations and their executives to escape accountability
for their actions.
That may not be what some of its supporters intend, but that is
exactly what this bill would do, and it is exactly the type of thing
the Republican House has been doing for the past 8\1/2\ years, turning
the American people's government over to a small, elite group of the
wealthiest and most powerful. We have seen it for the past week as
House Republicans have tried to block tax relief for working and
military families who need it the most. They gave millionaires tax
breaks totaling $93,000, but they called it welfare when
[[Page H5273]]
Democrats tried to give $150 in tax relief to the military families who
need it most to feed and clothe their children.
We are seeing it again here today on this class action bill. Believe
it or not, the latest version of the Republican bill is even worse for
consumers than the versions they have offered in the past two
Congresses. That is because this one does not just protect future
corporate wrongdoers, it acts retroactively to pull the rug out from
under the victims of some of the worst corporate scandals in recent
memory. If Members do not think that was intentional, just take a look
at the rule the Republican leadership has written for this bill.
In the past two Congresses, the House has been allowed to vote on
every amendment offered by a Member. In fact, let me read from the
Congressional Record from a year ago when my friend the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) who is handling the rule today was handling the
rule at that time.
``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
of the amendments in order to provide some level of certainty and order
during consideration of the legislation in the House.''
In other words, last year and, in fact, the year before, the
Republican majority made in order every amendment that was submitted to
the committee. Now, this year they have neglected to make in order two
amendments. Which two did they not make in order? The one dealing with
retroactivity; that is, one cannot sue somebody for what they did a
couple of years ago and suits are already on file, those suits will
suddenly go away. Who are we talking about? We are talking about
wrongdoers at Enron and WorldCom and other places. But they will not
make that amendment in order. That, of course, is the amendment offered
by the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt).
What is the other amendment that they will not make in order this
time? That deals with unnecessarily delaying lawsuits by interlocutory
appeals and freezing everything in place. What is wrong with that?
Well, because as it is written, this class action bill would give Enron
the power to unilaterally freeze the case that defrauded retirees in
Texas have filed against it. Many of these people have lost their life
savings in a massive corporate fraud. Their case has already been
delayed more than a year and a half, a delay that allowed Arthur
Andersen to shred important documents; and now this bill would give
Enron the power to unilaterally delay the case for many more years.
Just to be clear, last year, and 2 years ago, Republicans let all of
the amendments be made in order. This year, they cannot do that; no
amendment on the question of retroactivity and no amendment on the
question of freezing lawsuits pending appeals.
That is not just wrong, it is indefensible, because it is simply
welfare for some of the worst corporate wrongdoers, companies like
WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, and Enron. But the Republican leadership has
used this power to protect corporate criminals, killing the Conyers-
Delahunt amendment on retroactivity last night in the Committee on
Rules so they would not have to debate it in the light of day on the
House floor.
Mr. Speaker, there are other major problems with the Republican bill.
Its operating principle is: Justice delayed is justice denied. State
and Federal judiciaries, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, William Rehnquist, oppose it. And because the Federal courts are
already overburdened, consumers will have to wait for years for their
claims to be heard. In the meantime, big corporate wrongdoers like
WorldCom and Enron will have new procedural tactics to run up the bills
and run out the clock on the consumers they have injured.
At the same time, the so-called consumer protection provisions of the
bill are a cynical sham. They do not provide any new protections for
consumers, they just codify the ones that already exist, and they do
not come close to making up for the fundamental lack on consumer rights
that the entire bill represents.
I am sure the Republicans will come to the floor to complain about
the so-called coupon settlements which are no more common in State
courts than they are in Federal courts that Republicans favor. No
matter how many times Republicans talk about this problem, their bill
does not do anything about it. Only the Democratic alternative
increases consumer protections against coupon settlements.
The truth is the Democratic alternative offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) is
the only sensible and workable class action reform on the House floor
today. It will help consumers hold corporations accountable for their
actions, and it will help courts manage large class action litigation.
It tightens the rules on lawyers' fees and coupon settlements. It
protects consumers against unfair settlements and enacts other
consumer-friendly revisions that have been recommended by the Judicial
Conference of the United States. And to protect the rights of out-of-
State defendants, it establishes a State level multidistrict litigation
panel, like those operating on the Federal level, to manage large class
action suits filed in multiple jurisdictions.
So I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative. But
first I urge my Republican friends to stand up to the Republican
leadership and oppose the previous question. If we defeat the previous
question, then the House can consider the Conyers-Delahunt amendment to
strike the retroactive provisions of this bill, and it also can
consider another very important amendment on the provisions that permit
lawsuits to be frozen in place. This is the only way we can block
welfare for corporate wrongdoers like Enron and WorldCom.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. Many of the
objections that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) just iterated
about the Committee on Rules being unfair about are contained in the
Democratic substitute which was allowed by our committee. Retroactivity
is specifically addressed there, so there is a chance to debate and
vote on that. And it will be a lively debate, I am sure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Columbus, Ohio
(Ms. Pryce), my good friend and able colleague, and I thank her for her
fine leadership on this and other issues.
Obviously our goal here is very simple. We want to empower
individuals rather than the lawyers. That is what this comes down to.
There is bipartisan interest in doing that, based on a number of
amendments which have been proposed. And I would argue, Mr. Speaker,
that we have a very fair and balanced process around which we are going
to be debating this issue.
We have heard this juxtaposition between the consideration of this
measure in the 107th Congress and what we are doing today. In the 107th
Congress, we had a rule just like this one. It was a structured rule.
We also have a structured rule in this measure. We had 8 amendments
that were filed, 6 Democratic amendments, a bipartisan amendment and a
Republican amendment. Two amendments were subsequently withdrawn. We
made 4 amendments in order. Three of those 4 amendments have been
offered by Democrats, including something they did not offer in the
107th Congress, and that is a Democratic substitute. We make a
Democratic substitute in order.
In the last Congress, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) talked
about the number of amendments made in order. Well, of the amendments
made in order, 55 percent of them in the last Congress were Democratic
amendments, and in this Congress, it is 75
[[Page H5274]]
percent. Three of the 4 amendments made in order have been offered by
Democrats. That is why when we hear this issue of fairness continually
raised, I argue that this is a very fair, a very balanced rule, that
will allow us to take on one of the very, very important issues of the
rights of individuals under this system of justice that we have.
{time} 1045
I congratulate the members of the Committee on the Judiciary who have
worked long and hard on this. We continue to try and bring this back,
and we hope very much we will be able to bring about a resolution in
behalf of the American people.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Of course, I just heard the comments by my friend, the chairman of
the Committee on Rules; and my only point was in the last Congress,
both times this came up, the last Congress and the Congress preceding,
all amendments that were filed we permitted to be made in order. This
time the majority has cherry-picked and said, well, we will have these
couple of amendments made in order, but the ones that are really
important, we are not going to let those be made in order.
Also, I would like to read from the hometown newspaper of my good
friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio, who is managing the bill. This is an
editorial that appeared in the Columbus Dispatch May 8, 2003: ``Courts
have the power to police such abuses, and proponents of the bill have
not shown that abuses are widespread or that the courts have failed
such that the Congress needs to step in. If there are problems that
require a legislative solution, the solution should be one that is
carefully tailored, not the blunt instrument of this bill.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules works in mysterious ways. As the
newest member of the committee, I continue to be fascinated by the
twists and contortions in the process. I have seen some crazy things:
entire bills rewritten behind closed doors; Members of this House shut
out of the process, and debate stifled. But last night takes the cake.
Last night the Republicans in charge of the committee denied two of the
six amendments that were filed. My good friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), sponsored both of the
denied amendments. He took time out of his busy schedule to testify
before the Committee on Rules in support of his amendments, but the
chairman and the other committee Republicans decided that the Delahunt
amendments would not be considered by the House.
Now, I am sure that they had their reasons. After all, one of the
Delahunt amendments would repeal the retroactive provision of the bill.
In other words, the lawsuits filed by the former workers at Enron
against Ken Lay after he destroyed their life savings would be delayed
for years without the Delahunt amendments. And just in case all of the
tax cuts for Ken Lay and his rich friends were not enough, now the
Republicans are protecting him from facing his former employees in
court.
Now, when we saw the rule in committee and I saw that the Delahunt
amendments were not made in order, I assumed the chairman had a good
reason, so I asked him why he denied these two amendments; and the
chairman of the Committee on Rules, whom I have great respect for,
replied that he denied these amendments ``because that is what they
decided.'' I was even more surprised to hear another Republican on the
committee declare that ``these amendments were denied because he wanted
them denied.''
Now, the irony is almost overwhelming. Every day we hear the
Republican leadership whine and complain about the other body, about
how a single Senator can shut down the whole process, about how so-
called ``holds'' and filibusters are threatening the very foundation of
our democracy. I want my colleagues and the American people to know
that there are holds right here in the House of Representatives.
Apparently, a single member of the Committee on Rules, on a thoughtless
whim, has the power to shut down debate on a critical issue.
Mr. Speaker, these amendments were thoughtfully and carefully
drafted. They addressed real problems with the legislation. But
shockingly, we were not even given the courtesy of a genuine response
to our questions. Real questions about real public policy issues were
simply waved away like nuisances. We were essentially told that what
happens in the Committee on Rules and in this House really is none of
our business.
Now, we have debated, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has
said, the issue of class action reform twice before, both times under
an open process with relevant amendments made in order by the Committee
on Rules, but not anymore. The Republicans are setting a very dangerous
precedent, Mr. Speaker; and people deserve to know what is happening
behind closed doors in the people's House.
The leadership of this House has become so arrogant, they believe
they can stifle debate without any accountability. This body, the
greatest deliberative body in the world, and the constituents we
represent deserve much, much better.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes
to my good friend and very distinguished colleague, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague of the
Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding
me this time.
I rise in support of House Resolution 269 and urge the House to
approve this rule so that we can move on to consideration of the
underlying legislation, H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act of
2003.
This structured rules makes in order a total of four amendments. In
fact, three of those amendments are sponsored by Democrats. The other
amendment has bipartisan sponsorship. Thus this rule will allow the
House to work its will on the key issues that these amendments raise,
and H. Res. 269 should receive bipartisan support for doing so.
The editorial staff for The Washington Post once wrote that ``no
portion of the American civil justice system is more of a mess than the
world of class actions. None is in more desperate need of policymakers'
attention.'' I agree.
Class action litigation is one of America's most embarrassing
judicial practices, pitting settlement-hungry lawyers against
unsuspecting consumers seeking redress for their grievances. I know
that all of the Members of this House are very familiar with some of
the outrageous class action settlements that have become depressingly
common in States all across the Nation.
In these instances, skillful trial lawyers earn million-dollar fees
for filing meritless class action lawsuits which are frequently settled
rather than litigated in court. When this happens, trial lawyers are
the primary beneficiaries, and the individuals with the class action
lawsuits receive very modest financial payments or even, in some cases,
just coupons toward future purchases. Surely we can do better than that
for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1115 contains a number of commonsense reforms all
designed to curb these abusive lawsuits, while still ensuring that
legitimate lawsuits can move through the court system.
The fact that this class action reform was crafted in a bipartisan
fashion is a credit to its authors, the gentlemen from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) and (Mr. Boucher). I support their responsible collection of
legal reforms, and I hope legislation of this nature can be enacted
during this Congress.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas
for yielding me this time.
I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill, H.R. 1115, the so-
called Class Action Fairness Act. This is an unfair bill that does
nothing to resolve disputes. Moreover, the bill has a number of
significant problems.
[[Page H5275]]
First, the bill will disrupt ongoing litigation because it applies to
pending class actions. Some of those class actions that would be
affected would be those cases against Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur
Andersen for financial fraud; other major cases involving environmental
damage or employment discrimination; and several drug companies
involving problems with their pharmaceuticals. It is fundamentally
unfair for Congress to change the rules for consumers midstream by
including these pending cases and, therefore, making it more difficult
to resolve disputes in a timely manner.
This bill is overly broad. It defines class actions not only to
include class actions, but also State actions brought on behalf of the
general public by State attorneys general. These cases are important
consumer protection tools in some States, particularly California; and
all of these cases would be considered class actions and subject to the
provisions of the bill, even though they were not filed as class
actions and even though they were brought by the State attorney general
under State law.
Mr. Speaker, by shifting class actions to Federal court, H.R. 1115
will overload the Federal judiciary and increase delays. Criminal cases
are always given priority in Federal courts; and because the courts are
already overloaded with criminal cases, including many traditionally
State cases that have been transferred to Federal jurisdiction over the
past few years, State actions that are referred to Federal courts by
this bill will be delayed. They also may get caught up in some judicial
districts that have been dealing with terrorism cases or the temporary
onslaught of other criminal cases. Adding in complex class action
litigation to an already overloaded docket will only add to additional
delays.
These delays will be exacerbated by the provision in the bill that
grants an automatic, pretrial appeal and a stay of discovery during
that appeal. Guilty corporations who use their appeals under the bill
will be able to delay their inevitable judgment day by several years. A
rule that was offered in committee by the gentleman from Massachusetts
and myself would have specifically dealt with this problem, but that
amendment was rejected by the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, many of the cases, in fact, should remain in State
court. H.R. 1115 would often require Federal judges to apply State law
when State judges have more familiarity with the law in their own
States. This may result in mistakes being made in the application of
State law, affecting both plaintiffs and defendants.
H.R. 1115 violates uniform rules of Federal procedure. For example,
Federal courts will be required to apply one set of rules on diversity
jurisdictions for everybody except class actions. There will be a
separate rule for class actions. There will also be rules on removal,
dismissal, remand, appellate review, and discovery where there will be
rules for everybody, except class actions, another set of rules for
class actions.
Now, there has been a whole lot of hoopla about so-called coupon
settlements, about how legislation is necessary to address that problem
when plaintiffs get a negligible recovery. Now, as the gentleman from
Texas has pointed out, there are as many examples of Federal court
abuses regarding coupon settlements as there are State court abuses.
But there is nothing inherently wrong with coupon settlements. If a
business has been stealing only 50 cents at a time, the recovery for
each individual class member will be minuscule. But a class action,
even with a coupon settlement, will be effective in stopping the
ongoing theft. One recent case involved a business which fraudulently
calibrated its cash registers to steal small amounts of money from each
customer. Now, how much will each customer be entitled to if they are
cheated out of 3 cents? If you cannot have a favorable verdict when the
individual damages are de minimis, you give an unscrupulous corporation
a free pass, so long as they do not steal too much from each person.
Federal and State judges oppose this bill. The Federal Judicial
Conference headed by the Chief Justice of the United States, the
Conference of the Chief Justices which represents chief justices around
the country, both oppose H.R. 1115. It is also opposed by the American
Bar Association and consumer advocacy groups.
We have the responsibility to our citizens to ensure timely access to
the courts for damages sustained. This bill will do nothing to help
that issue. It will only give unscrupulous defendants new procedural
schemes to delay justice, and justice delayed is justice denied.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that we reject the rule and reject the bill as
unnecessary, unwise, and creating more problems than it solves. I urge
my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), my very distinguished
colleague and the whip of the Republican majority.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am here in favor of the rule and, of course, the
underlying bill, and looking forward to the debate today.
This is an issue that we have brought to the floor now for the last
several Congresses. And every time we do it, I see our Members on both
sides of the aisle, many of whom will vote for it on both sides of the
aisle, begin to understand that this is a great opportunity to talk
about how badly the current system works. A debate that we used to
dread, a debate that we used to fear, a debate that we used to be
concerned about, now our Members are eager to talk about because of the
incredible abuses out there in the system. We will see the gentleman
from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and others stand up here during the
day today with chart after chart after chart that shows what happens
when consumers are unfairly treated in this system.
The changes we advocate today create an environment where the people
that are impacted have a better chance to get money rather than the
lawyers who put these class action suits together. It creates an
opportunity to go to a court that will look carefully at the issues. We
are going to see example after example of the millions of dollars that
go to the lawyers involved and the $1 coupons and the smallest box of
Cheerios and the 33-cent check that goes to the people in the class.
Obviously, the lawyers thought the class had very little impact, as
demonstrated by the settlement that they were willing to agree to.
{time} 1100
If people were affected by this terrible thing that the lawyers
contend happened, how is 33 cents a proper settlement? How is $1 a
proper settlement? How is a coupon with money off, to go back to the
same company that apparently had been so dastardly in launching suit,
how could that possibly be a proper settlement?
How could any attorney spend time and go to the court and say to them
at the end of this case, I want you to give my client a $1 coupon? I
want you to give my client the smallest possible box of cereal? I want
you to give my client a check for 33 cents?
This system is terribly abused. It needs to be changed. Vote for this
rule. Seeing Democrats and Republicans on the floor today vote for the
bill sends a message that will change this system in a way that
benefits consumers and benefits justice.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, the proponents, they do not want to reform class
actions; they really want to destroy them.
Not only have they for all intents and purposes barred States from
considering these cases by means of a massive expansion of Federal
jurisdiction, against the advice, by the way, of the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Judicial Conference of
the United States, and the Conference of State Chief Justices, but they
have cleverly changed the rules in the Federal courts to further thwart
class action suits. I want to acknowledge that it is a brilliant
strategy.
Do Members realize that even Washington cannot dictate the rules by
[[Page H5276]]
which State courts handle their cases? So they simply remove most of
these cases to the Federal court. Then once they are in the Federal
court, they design an obstacle course to make sure that most of these
cases will just linger and linger and linger and never see the light of
day. They did this by adding a section which creates an automatic right
of appeal. If a Federal district court simply certifies, simply
certifies a class, that appeal comes before the case is even heard on
the merits.
Now, that is not all. The bill, as others have indicated, would halt
all discovery proceedings in the case until the appeal, until the
appeal is completed. This unprecedented new right for defendants is
unheard of in the American civil justice system.
What does it mean in practical terms? There is already an enormous
backlog in the Federal courts, as others have suggested. This bill in
and of itself will seriously exacerbate that problem and it will delay
the resolution of these cases by years. As the gentleman from Virginia
has said: Justice delayed is justice denied.
What I find particularly unconscionable is that the sponsors claim
that the first purpose of this act is to ensure fair and prompt, and
prompt, recoveries for class members with legitimate claims. Well, as
that great philosopher, Rodney Dangerfield, said, Give me a break. It
is important to understand that class actions do not exist solely,
solely, to provide relief for private wrongs. No, they exist to correct
and punish and deter; most importantly, deter corporate misconduct that
harms large numbers of ordinary people and can put all Americans at
risk.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, the Firestone case, the tobacco cases, where
it was class action suits that revealed the ugly truth that lives had
been sacrificed because of corporate greed? Because of this bill, we
will create fertile ground for future Firestone and tobacco cases. That
is a tragedy.
We should also understand that the existing practice which was
adopted by rule in 1998 gives the judge discretion to permit an appeal
of a class certification order and to stay proceedings. But as Judge
Scirica, writing on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United
States, said in a recent letter to the committee, and now I am quoting,
``Providing an appeal as a right might tempt a party to appeal solely
for tactical reasons.''
He pointed out that many appeals are unnecessary, wasteful, and
expensive. He said that he was unaware of any dissatisfaction, not a
single complaint from the bench or bar, with the current rule; and that
since the rule had only been promulgated recently, any consideration of
it being amended should be deferred.
Well, as my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) said,
we agreed with Judge Scirica and filed an amendment to undo their
damage. Of course, it was not made in order. I guess I should not be
surprised.
Members should know that these concerns would not only affect future
class action suits in the Federal court. No, the sponsors were not
satisfied with that. They wanted the whole enchilada. Unbelievably,
they made that provision retroactive, so it will alter the course of
hundreds of cases that have already been filed in Federal court and
cause further delay, further delay; cases like the ImClone case, in
which that CEO was just sentenced to 7 years in prison for fraud and
perjury and obstruction of justice; and like the Enron case, brought by
thousands of investors who claim more than $20 billion in damages as a
result of the series of fraudulent transactions that destroyed the
company and rendered its stock worthless.
Are there abuses of the system? Of course. That is undeniable. The
Democratic substitute would address them; but the underlying bill does
not. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is to shield corporate
wrongdoers from civil liability and leave the public unprotected.
This is not about protecting plaintiffs, and, as I said, ensuring
prompt recoveries; it is about protecting large corporations whose
conduct has been egregious. It is about protecting the powerful at the
expense of the powerless, and to prevent people from banding together
as a class to challenge power in the only way they can.
Defeat the rule and defeat the bill.
Mr. Speaker, there's a lot that's wrong with this bill. But nothing
is as wrong as the provision that was added to it during our committee
debate to give it retroactive effect with respect to cases already
pending in court.
It's one thing to make new policy for future cases. It's quite
another to rewrite the rules once the whistle has sounded.
Why in the world would the sponsors of the bill insist on making it
retroactive?
During our markup, one of the supporters of the amendment making the
bill retroactive said, and I quote, ``If this bill is enacted but
pending cases that have not been certified for class treatment are
excluded, it would discriminate against those who may be joined to a
class in a pending case after the date of enactment.''
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we must transfer all pending cases to
federal court and make every class certification subject to automatic
appeal to ensure that no individual is forced to be a member of a class
against his or her will. That's like saying that we have to quarantine
the entire U.S. population to contain a single outbreak of West Nile
virus. The truth is that individuals can already opt out of the class
at the time they receive notice of the suit. And under rules that go
into effect in December, judges will be able to extend the opt-out even
after certification.
Such an argument does not deserve to be taken seriously. But the
supporters also make a second argument. Unless we apply the new rules
to pending cases, they say, there will be a rush to the courthouse by
new plaintiffs seeking to file ``frivolous'' lawsuits under the old
rules.
Here again, they propose to disrupt the hundreds of cases now
awaiting class certification, some of which have already been in court
proceedings for many months, in order to prevent certain other people,
as yet unknown, from racing to file other cases.
This argument is almost so absurd that one is embarrassed to respond
to it. If a suit is frivolous, it will survive a motion to dismiss,
where it is filed in state or federal court. That is the customary
remedy for frivolous lawsuits, and the courts are quite capable of
using it.
No, I'm afraid that ``this dog won't hunt,'' as my good friend, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), is so fond of saying.
The real reason they're so desperate to make the bill retroactive is
obvious. It's the only way to throw a monkey wrench into the class
actions that are now proceeding against the former executives at
companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossing, who are facing
both civil and criminal liability for the systematic looting of their
companies. For the brazen misconduct and self-dealing that defrauded
creditors and investors of billions of dollars, and stripped employees
and retirees of their livelihood and life savings.
If this bill passes, those executives will be able to breathe a sign
of relief. In fact, they'll get another year or two in which to spend
down their ill-gotten gains before they need to worry about going to
trial.
It's no surprise that the House leadership was unwilling to make in
order an amendment that would have stripped the retroactivity language
from the bill. They don't want the public to know what they're doing.
They're embarrassed by it. And they ought to be.
Oppose the rule and vote ``no'' on the bill.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 8 minutes to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte),
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture; but more importantly, today,
the author of this important reform legislation and a very valued
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, our excellent
conference chairman, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good and fair rule. I would urge my colleagues
to adopt it. It makes in order important amendments that should be
considered and debated carefully. It makes in order an amendment
offered by the gentleman from the other side of the aisle, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), along with the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and myself, which will take into account some of the
provisions that were considered in the Senate. We are pleased to do
that because we are certainly interested in making the bill better.
I would urge my colleagues to defeat the other amendments that are
going to be offered because they do not make this legislation better;
they would gut it, they would harm it. I would urge Members' opposition
to it.
In response to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), this is not tort reform; this is court reform. As a result, we
are not harming the ability of any of those cases that
[[Page H5277]]
the gentleman cited to be considered carefully and fairly.
In fact, because this legislation improves the court process, it is
court reform, and it will make those cases heard better in courts more
capable of hearing them. We will address some of those specific cases
as the debate proceeds.
With regard to his comments about coupon settlement reform, let me
point out that while the gentleman may laud coupon settlements, most of
us think they are a considerable abuse. The reason is very simple: The
plaintiffs' attorney sues a company and then settles the case for
millions of dollars, not for the plaintiffs but in attorneys' fees. The
plaintiffs, the people he is supposed to be protecting, supposed to be
representing, get a coupon to buy more of the product that he alleged
was defective in the first place.
Coupon settlements are a gross abuse, and what this bill does to
correct the problem is to require greater scrutiny of those cases. It
also cuts out the abuse of that plaintiffs' attorney going to his or
her secretary or friend or neighbor and saying, hey, help me bring this
case because you fit into this class, and I will give you $100,000 for
doing that when we settle the case; but the rest of the plaintiffs will
get a coupon. That is an abuse. It ought to be ended.
To the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), I would point out that while
he may cite the newspaper of the gentlewoman from Ohio criticizing this
legislation, that newspaper is by far in the minority in this country
on this issue.
America's newspapers know that this is a class act when they see it,
and that is what this legislation is. The Washington Post called it
``Making Justice Work.'' They said, ``This'', the current system, ``is
not justice. It's an extortion racket that only Congress can fix.''
Newsday, not a newspaper that ordinarily endorses legislation from
this side of the aisle, they said, ``Congress should stem abuses of
class-action lawsuits. Class-action lawsuits are ripe for reform.''
The Christian Science Monitor: ``Reforming Class-Action Suits.''
``Class-action suits have also become an ATM for unscrupulous lawyers .
. . ''
USA Today: ``Class-action Plaintiffs Deserve More Than Coupons.'' ``
. . . lawyers, who put their own welfare ahead of their client's
needs,'' under the current system.
The Hartford Current: The Class-Action Racket.'' They described the
current system. `` . . . the Class Action Fairness Act would help
eliminate some of the worst abuses.''
It does not stop there. The Buffalo News, the Indianapolis Star, the
Des Moines Register, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Omaha World
Herald, the Wall Street Journal, the Providence Journal, the Financial
Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Oregonian, Cedar Rapids Gazette, the
Akron Beacon Journal, the Albany Times Union, the list goes on and on
of newspapers endorsing what we are trying to do. Why? Because of the
abuses.
Here is a great case: A settlement with Cheerios over food additives
produced a $2 million settlement in attorneys' fees, while class
members only received coupons for more Cheerios.
Here is another one: After being named in 23 class action lawsuits,
Blockbuster agreed to provide class members with only $1-off coupons;
buy one, get one free coupons; and free Blockbuster Favorites video
rentals. And those are the old videos you come back and hope they will
rent more of, not the latest ones. Attorneys for the plaintiff received
$9.2 million in fees.
It gets better. A settlement of a suit against an airline gave class
members $25 coupons off to use when they purchased an additional
airline ticket of $250 or more from the same airline from which, I
presume, there was some complaint regarding the service they were
providing. You get a 10 percent discount if you buy another ticket for
$250 or more. What did the plaintiff's attorneys get? Sixteen million
dollars.
The Bank of Boston, a settlement over disputed accounting practices
produced an $8.5 million attorneys' fee and actually cost the class
members they were representing. Why? Because they had to pay an
additional $80. Later, the plaintiffs' attorney came into the case and
sued the class members, the people they were representing, for an
additional $25 million. You did not pay them enough. Even though you
had to pay $80 in the settlement of the case and you did not get a
coupon, they had to get more.
Here is my favorite. This is the case where consumers were awarded a
33-cent check in a class action against Chase Manhattan Bank, 33 cents.
Great. There was a catch, though. At that time, in order to accept your
33-cent check, you had to use a 34-cent stamp to send in the
acceptance.
{time} 1115
Sounds like a 1-cent net loss. The attorneys in the case, well, they
came out all right, $4 million in attorney fees. Here is one of the
checks: 33 cents.
Now, some have said that there is an issue of federalism here, that
somehow we are taking away rights from the States. But under current
law, a simple slip-and-fall lawsuit involving a Virginia defendant and
a Maryland plaintiff can be brought in Federal district court today.
Yet, a nationwide class action lawsuit worth $100 million, $1 billion,
with plaintiffs in the hundreds of thousands from all 50 States, with
multiple defendants from more than one State, that winds up in a State
court in Illinois. It cannot be removed to Federal court because of the
antiquated class action laws.
Now, do people understand this? You bet they do. Here is a USA Today
poll. Opinions on class action lawsuits. Who benefits most from class
action lawsuits? Is it the plaintiffs? Is it consumers? No, they know.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs, 47 percent of the public says that. Who is
second? Lawyers for the defendants. They come out all right, too. They
are going to get paid.
How about the plaintiffs themselves? Nine percent. Sixty-seven
percent say the lawyers benefit. Nine percent say the plaintiffs
themselves are benefiting.
And, again, I remind you, there is broad bipartisan support for this
legislation. The clients get token payments while the lawyers get
enormous fees.
This is not justice. This is an extortion racket that only Congress
can fix. Who said it? The Washington Post.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the
underlying legislation. This has great prospect for success this year.
We are very close in the Senate to passage of this legislation as well.
The President anxiously awaits it on his desk.
Let us support this bipartisan simple tort reform that will make it
possible for class actions to be heard and dealt with fairly throughout
this country.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), my very distinguished colleague.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for those very informative charts. I believe
we need to stop the lawsuit lottery in this country.
Today I rise in support of H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2002. H.R. 1115 is a critical piece of legislation that can reform
tort law and give reprieve to our beleaguered State and local courts
that are suffering under the weight of frivolous lawsuits.
Statistics have shown that upwards of 93 percent of Americans believe
tort reforms are needed. These statistics also show that 50 percent of
all tort awards go towards lawyers' fees and their administrative
costs. From these figures it is easy to discern that the American
people demand tort reform and protection from lawyers who are looking
out for their own interests rather than those of the plaintiffs they
represent.
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 seeks a balanced and sensible
approach to address the worst class action abuses. It provides
protections for consumers and assures fair and prompt recoveries for
class members with legitimate claims. The bill specifically discourages
lawyers from forum shopping for courts most likely to approve a
prospective class of plaintiffs and award large monetary decisions.
By curbing these abuses of the class action system, consumer costs
will be driven down and these lawsuits will benefit plaintiffs they are
intended to compensate. This sensible legislation will restore balance,
fairness, and uniformity to our civil justice system. It
[[Page H5278]]
is a good step in the right direction in reforming tort law and will
protect plaintiffs and consumers alike.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1115 to set a precedent
of judicial fairness.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker. Does
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) have anyone further?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have one speaker, and
then will she close after that?
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King), my distinguished colleague and a member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remark on the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Goodlatte) comments.
There is nothing I can add to the emphasis he has put here today. I
simply add my voice and I wish to associate myself with the very
dramatic and emphatic presentation that the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) has made.
I would point out that our tort system consumes up to 3 percent of
our gross domestic product. If we need 3\1/2\ growth just to sustain
our economy, and our freedom, I might add, then our economy has to grow
at 6\1/2\ percent in order to make up for the 3 percent that is
consumed in our tort system.
It is a deep problem that we must address. It is a loophole in our
current system that allows class action lawsuits involving plaintiffs
from nearly every State to file suits in those few States that are
known to be plaintiff-friendly and hostile to out-of-State defendants.
These few State courts are making the decisions that set the policy
for other States and the entire country. Out-of-State companies and
residents are being sued in class action lawsuits in other States where
their rights are being determined under those State laws. H.R. 1115
appropriately addresses this forum shopping problem by allowing Federal
courts to hear class action lawsuits involving plaintiffs or defendants
from multiple States or foreign countries.
The biggest winners in the current class action scheme are trial
lawyers, not consumers. The public knows that, as was pointed out. The
large fees awarded class action lawyers through settlements all too
often do not constitute legitimate harm, because many companies agree
to these settlements in order to lower the costs of nuisance lawsuits.
Unfortunately, settling cases with little or no merit results in higher
prices for consumers. Frivolous class action cases are, in effect, a
litigation tax imposed on consumers because the economic damage to a
company results in higher prices for its products.
The explosion of class actions lawsuits has reached crisis
proportions. I encourage you to vote for H.R. 1115 and help address the
growing class action problem in America.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the great crocodile tears shed
on the other side on the issue of coupon settlement proposition. Of
course, if they want to change that, they should support the Democratic
substitute which is stronger on the issue of coupon settlements than
their underlying bill.
Also, it is fascinating to listen to the advocates of States rights
on the other side suddenly shift gears and become advocates of a very
strong Federal system. I guess there is just a fundamental distrust of
our State court system on the part of Republicans, and I find that very
curious and very interesting. Also, particularly in light of the fact
that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is
opposed to dumping these additional lawsuits into the already
overburdened Federal system.
So we just have a peculiar situation in which people on the other
side of the aisle are disregarding the Chief Justice of the United
States, a member of their own party, and are also suddenly, in this
particular instance, advocating for stronger action by the Federal
system which would override the State system that they normally
support.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. Last
night the Committee on Rules broke with its past precedents and refused
to make in order two important amendments Democratic Members brought to
the committee.
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to
the rule that will restore fairness in the debate on class action
reform that the House has adopted in the previous two Congresses. Under
my proposal, the House will be allowed to debate one amendment by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) that will delete the bill's retroactive
provisions; and, two, the Delahunt-Scott amendment to prevent
corporations from using interlocutory appeals to run out the clock on
class action lawsuits.
No matter what their position is on this bill or on these particular
amendments, all Members should support bringing fairness back to the
process and vote no on the previous question.
I am merely asking that all Members with serious amendments be
allowed to bring them to the House floor just as they have been able to
on the earlier occasions when we have debated class action reform.
Let me make it very clear. A no vote would not stop the House from
taking up the Class Action Fairness Act and would not prevent any of
the amendments made in order by the rule from being offered. However, a
yes vote will preclude the House from considering these two very
important amendments that are critical to the debate on class action
lawsuits.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendments immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, again, vote no on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, in closing let me just remind my colleagues that the
critics had it backwards. This bill restores, rather than undermines,
the principled balance of Federalism. It is the other 49 States' rights
that are being protected when one State's judge is precluded from
making law and determining the law and the outcome for the other 49.
This is truly an example of a principle of federalism.
This legislation provides important and needed reform. It will help
plaintiffs that are part of a class receive more than just a coupon for
a box of cereal, a coupon that goes back to the very company that was
sued in the first place.
It is laughable, Mr. Speaker. It will give needed accountability
while preserving the rights of the truly injured. But more importantly
for me as a former member of the bench, it will bring back the public's
faith in our justice system, because really it has become a joke. As
you listen to the debate this afternoon, it is so sad that it is almost
funny. This country is only as strong as the faith our citizens have in
its laws and how they are applied to them. When it becomes a joke, it
weakens us.
H.R. 1115 has the strong support of the administration. It is an
important step forward in commonsense reform. I urge my colleagues to
put the plaintiffs first. Let us get justice back in our system.
Support this fair and balanced rule and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 269--Rule on H.R. 1115, Class Action
Fairness Act of 2003
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendments printed in section 3 shall be in
order as
[[Page H5279]]
though printed after the amendment numbered 3 in the report
of the Committee on Rules if offered by the Member
designated. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
specified in section 3 and shall be debatable for 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.
``Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in section 2 are as
follows:''
(1) Amendment by Representative Conyers of Michigan or a
designee:
Strike section 8 and insert the following:
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any civil
action commenced on or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(2) Amendment by Representative Delahunt of Massachusetts
or a designee:
Strike section 6 and redesignate the succeeding sections
accordingly.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. 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.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and 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 and, thereafter, on approving
the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 193, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 265]
YEAS--229
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--193
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--12
Ackerman
Conyers
Cubin
Eshoo
Gephardt
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Marshall
Nunes
Rothman
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1148
Messrs. CAPUANO, BOYD, BAIRD and RODRIGUEZ 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 question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 188, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 266]
AYES--235
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
[[Page H5280]]
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--188
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--11
Ackerman
Cubin
Eshoo
Gephardt
Johnson (CT)
Nunes
Rothman
Rush
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Sullivan
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1157
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.
____________________