[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 41 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1974-H2000]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAIRNESS IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION ACT OF 2017
General Leave
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials to H.R. 985.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 180 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 985.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1549
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 985) to
[[Page H1975]]
amend the procedures used in Federal court class actions and
multidistrict litigation proceedings to assure fairer, more efficient
outcomes for claimants and defendants, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Simpson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, recently an independent research firm surveyed
companies in 26 countries and found that 80 percent of those companies
that were subject to class action lawsuits were U.S. companies, putting
those U.S. companies at a distinct economic disadvantage when competing
with companies worldwide.
But the problem of overbroad class action doesn't just affect U.S.
companies. It affects consumers in the United States who are forced
into lawsuits they don't want to be in. How do we know that? We know
that because the median rate at which consumer class action members
take the compensation offered in a settlement is incredibly low. That
would be 0.023 percent. That is two-hundredths of a percent. That is
right, only the tiniest fraction of consumer class action members
bother to claim the compensation awarded them in a settlement. That is
clear proof that vastly large numbers of class members are satisfied
with the products they purchase, don't want compensation, and don't
want to be lumped into a ginormous class action lawsuit.
Federal judges are crying out for Congress to reform the class action
lawsuit system, which currently allows trial lawyers to fill classes
with hundreds and thousands of unmeritorious claims and use those
artificially inflated claims to force defendants to settle the case.
Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has recognized that ``A court's
decision to certify a class . . . places pressure on the defendant to
settle even unmeritorious claims.''
Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, appointed
by President Clinton, has explained that class certification ``is, in
effect, the whole case.'' And as one appeals court judge, nominated by
President Obama, wrote in his dissent in a recent class action case,
``The chief difficulty we confront in this case arises from the fact
that some of the members of the class have not suffered the . . .
injury upon which this entire case is predicated and that could
constitute as many as 24,000 consumers who would have no valid claim
against the defendants under the state laws even if the named
plaintiffs win on the merits.''
He went on to chastise the other judges who allowed the class action
to proceed, writing ``if the district court does not identify a culling
method to ensure that the class, by judgment, includes only members who
were actually injured, this court has no business simply hoping that
one will work.''
The purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of
evaluating similar, meritorious claims, not to provide a way for
lawyers to artificially inflate the size of a class to extort a larger
settlement fee for themselves, siphoning money away from those actually
injured, and increasing prices for everyone.
Just look at an accounting of recent class action settlements. The
SUBWAY food chain was sued in a class action because trial lawyers
complained their foot-long subs weren't a full foot long. As part of
the settlement, small amounts were paid to the 10 class
representatives, but the millions of other class members received
nothing; not a dime, not a sandwich. Meanwhile, the lawyers were
awarded $520,000 in fees. The settlement was appealed, and during oral
arguments Judge Diane Sykes remarked that ``A class action that seeks
only worthless benefits for the class should be dismissed out of hand.
That's what should have happened here. . . . This is a racket.''
The Coca-Cola Company was sued in a class action lawsuit involving
Vitaminwater. Class members received zero dollars in the settlement.
The lawyers were awarded $1.2 million in fees.
In a case involving Facebook, the company agreed to settle the case
by paying class counsel $3 million. Zero dollars were paid to class
members. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the deal, but in a withering
dissent, Judge Kleinfeld observed that ``Facebook users who had
suffered damages . . . got no money, not a nickel, from the defendants.
Class counsel, on the other hand, got millions.''
This bill includes several reforms. It prevents people from being
forced into a class with other uninjured or minimally injured class
members, only to have the compensation of injured parties reduced. It
prevents trial lawyers from using incestuous, litigation-factory
arrangements to gin up lawsuits. It requires courts to use objective
criteria in determining who is injured in a class action and how
compensation will actually reach the victims. It requires that injured
victims get paid first, before the lawyers, and that lawyer fees be
limited to a reasonable percentage of the money received by victims.
It requires judges to itemize exactly who gets what in a class action
settlement and who is paying and controlling the lawyers. It requires
all the rules governing class action be followed, that expensive
pretrial proceedings be put on hold while the court determines if the
case can't meet class certification requirements, and allows appeals of
those class certification orders so justice can be done faster.
It ensures lawyers don't add plaintiffs just for forum shopping
purposes, and it requires the verification of allegations in
multidistrict pretrial proceedings, ensuring defendants receive due
process while plaintiffs, not lawyers, get the benefits of any cost
savings achieved by the multidistrict pretrial process.
H.R. 985 also contains provisions to include much-needed transparency
into the asbestos bankruptcy trust system. On too frequent an occasion,
by the time asbestos victims assert their claims for compensation, the
bankruptcy trust formed for their benefit has been diluted by
fraudulent claims, leaving these victims without their entitled
recovery.
The reason that fraud is allowed to exist within the asbestos trust
system is the excessive lack of transparency created by plaintiffs'
firms. The predictable result of this reduced transparency has been a
growing wave of claims and reports of fraud.
This bill strikes the proper balance of transparency and preserving
the dignity and medical privacy of asbestos victims while also
minimizing the administrative impact on the asbestos trusts. This bill
saves the money in these trusts, which is a limited amount of money, to
make sure future claimants, many of whom are veterans, have the
opportunity to seek and receive compensation for their injuries and
prevent double-dipping and fraud.
Please join me in supporting this bill on behalf of consumers and
injured parties everywhere.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 985, the so-called
Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claims
Transparency Act of 2017.
I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Texas for his
presentation and for also making clear that the overriding purpose here
is really to give the class action mechanism the guillotine. Now, this
doesn't formally abolish the class action mechanism. It is not the
guillotine, but it is a straitjacket. Let's be very clear, the whole
purpose of this legislation is to make it virtually impossible for
class action lawsuits to be brought by groups of citizens who share a
common injury from things such as consumer rip-offs, pharmaceutical
drug mistakes, faulty product design, sex discrimination, sexual
harassment, poisonous breast implants, asbestos poisoning, lead
poisoning, and so on--all of the billions of dollars worth of tort
actions, nothing fraudulent about them, all of them already determined
by courts and by juries to have taken place against our citizens, and
they want to make it virtually impossible for people to proceed in
court under the class action mechanism.
I began with a very important process observation which I noted
before, Mr. Chairman. There has been no hearing on this legislation.
There have been
[[Page H1976]]
no calls for this legislation from people allegedly suffering the
horrors of the reviled class action lawyers. I notice that while my
thoughtful colleague from Texas uses much of his time to deplore the
work of plaintiffs' lawyers, he says nothing about defendants' lawyers,
who have defended guilty parties in all of the cases we have mentioned
before--all of the mass toxic torts, all of the drug injury cases, all
of the environmental crimes and torts, all the asbestos poisoning and
so on--and they have got a right to do that. They are simply doing
their job. But the plaintiffs' lawyers have a right to do their job,
too. That is how our system works.
I find it fundamentally disturbing that anybody would be out
denouncing lawyers for representing people who have been injured in a
tort case. But I oppose this misguided legislation because it sends
another huge Valentine and wet kiss to large corporate polluters and
tortfeasors but gives the finger to millions of American citizens who
suffer injuries from these defendants.
This legislation would shield corporate wrongdoers by making it far
more difficult for them to get together to obtain justice in a class
action lawsuit. So whether it is by making it almost impossible for
Americans to pursue their day in court through the class action vehicle
or threatening the privacy of asbestos victims, it is clear that H.R.
985 wants to give corporate polluters and tortfeasors the power to play
hide-and-go-seek with their victims in Federal court whenever they want
to.
{time} 1600
And it raises the broader question of who rightfully should hold
power in a representative democracy like ours. Should it be large,
private corporations, who are seeking rightfully their own profits? Or
should it be the people, who are supposed to be sovereign?
I say it is the people.
This bill only favors the interests of the already powerful, to the
detriment of the vast majority of the American people.
In cases seeking monetary relief, the bill requires a party seeking
class certification to show that every potential class member suffered
the same type and scope of injury at the certification stage, something
that is virtually impossible to do. This requirement alone would sound
the death knell for class actions, which are the principal means we
have in court for consumers to hold wrongdoers accountable, without
having to engage in multiple duplicative actions all over a State or
all over the country, piling up the expenses for courts.
Most importantly, class actions make it feasible for those who have
smaller but not inconsequential injuries to get justice. These injuries
include diverse matters like products liability, employment
discrimination, sexual harassment, and so on.
It is already very difficult to pursue class actions. Under current
law, the courts strictly limit the grounds by which a large group of
plaintiffs may be certified as a class, including the existing
requirement that their claims raise common and factual legal questions,
and that the class representative's claims must be typical of those of
the other class members.
Finally, title II of H.R. 985 gives asbestos defendants--the very
entities whose products have injured millions of Americans--new weapons
with which to go out and harm their victims. This part of the bill
would require a bankruptcy asbestos trust to report on the court's
public case docket--which is then made immediately available on the
internet--the name and exposure history of each asbestos victim who
gets payment from a trust, as well as the basis of any payment made to
that victim.
As a result, the confidential personal information of asbestos
claimants, including their names and entire exposure histories, would
be irretrievably released into the public domain. Imagine what identity
thieves, reporters, insurers, potential employers, lenders, and data
collectors could do with this sensitive information.
The proper title of this section of H.R. 985 should be the
alternative fact act, not the FACT Act, because it penalizes the
victims while favoring the perpetrators.
The bill requires the trusts to make intrusive disclosures of
victims' personal information, but it makes no comparable demands on
asbestos manufacturers, some of which intentionally concealed the life-
threatening dangers of their products not just for months or years, but
for decades, the result of which millions of unsuspecting workers and
consumers were exposed to this toxic substance.
Essentially, this bill re-victimizes asbestos victims by exposing
their private information to all of the world--information that has
absolutely nothing to do with compensation for asbestos exposure.
Accordingly, I must oppose also this highly flawed provision of the
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleague across the
aisle that over the past several Congresses, we have had multiple
hearings on class action reform and asbestos trust litigation, all of
which are easily and publicly available.
I further would like to go on to say this bill doesn't prevent any
claim from being brought as a class action--zero, zip, none. All it
does is maximize the recovery of the victims.
Under this bill, a class action lawyer's fees are pegged to a
reasonable percentage of the money actually received by the client
under the settlement. What that will do is incentivize lawyers to make
the maximum amount available to their clients, to seek the maximum
recovery for their client.
Under this bill, class action lawyers will no longer be able to agree
to settlements that give them millions of dollars and get their clients
absolutely nothing, or maybe a coupon, if they are lucky.
Under this bill, a class action lawyer will get more in fees as long
as they agree to a settlement that actually means that their clients,
the actual plaintiffs, are getting a reasonable amount of money.
Imagine that: incentivizing lawyers to do the best work for their
clients. That is what this bill does.
I would also like to talk for a second about the asbestos portion of
this. I have to say that this is a little troubling for me. The
disclosure requirements in the FACT Act portion of this bill requires
less than would be required in a State court pleading for damages. It
is the minimum amount of information necessary to make sure somebody
isn't double-dipping. It specifically protects medical records and
social security numbers. It is designed as a fraud prevention tool.
The argument that this is designed to protect companies that
manufactured asbestos is flawed. This is designed for the asbestos
trust--companies that have gone bankrupt and set aside large amounts of
money to be paid to the victims of asbestos. This protects the assets
in those trusts, not the tortfeasor companies. We are making sure there
is enough money in these trusts to pay future victims by stopping
fraudulent claims today.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the eloquence of my opponent might
cloud the issue for some of the people in America. So rather than
having us go back and forth disputing the character of the legislation
before you, I urge everybody to go to it. But let's go to some of the
people who care most about protecting innocent Americans from corporate
wrongdoing and injury in the marketplace and in the workplace, and
let's see what they have got to say about it.
Mr. Chairman, I have a letter to the House from groups who oppose
this legislation as an assault on the rights of consumers and workers,
including the Alliance for Justice, the American Association for
Justice, Americans for Financial Reform, the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization, the California Kids IAQ, the Center for Justice and
Democracy, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Central
Florida Jobs with Justice, Coal River Mountain Watch, the Committee to
Support the Antitrust Laws, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of
America, Consumer Watchdog, Consumers for Auto
[[Page H1977]]
Reliability and Safety, Consumers Union.
I have just gone through the Cs. I am not going to take us all the
way through the Zs, Mr. Chairman. But America's consumer groups are
opposed to this legislation, and America's workers' groups are opposed
to this legislation. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing, Mr. Chairman.
I have also gotten, specifically on the asbestos point, a letter from
groups concerned with occupational health and safety who strongly
oppose the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, saying that this
bill will drain critical resources that have been set aside to secure
justice for victims of asbestos diseases, while simultaneously
publishing those victims' personal information on the internet.
Included in this very long list of opponents are the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization, the Communications Workers of America, the
Maine Labor Group on Health, the National Council for Occupational
Safety and Health, the New Jersey State Industrial Union Council, and
on and on.
So, again, they pushed this legislation through the House of
Representatives at the speed of light, but under the cloak of darkness
with no hearing at all. And then they come out and say: It is really
for you, trust us. We are the Federal Government. We are here to help
you. We are going to move all of the cases into Federal Court, and we
are going to make it a lot easier to nullify class actions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 985, the so-called
Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim
Transparency Act.
This outrageous legislation would severely limit the ability of
injured consumers and workers to obtain relief through class action
lawsuits. If that were not bad enough, the bill also contains a totally
unrelated measure to violate the privacy of asbestos victims, and
subject them to potential discrimination. Together, this legislation is
just one more measure in the Republican parade of bills this week to
further tilt the playing field in favor of wealthy corporations over
ordinary people.
Class action suits are an essential tool to enable victims of
corporate wrongdoing to be compensated for their injuries and to deter
future misconduct. Plaintiffs often seek to band together as a class
when the potential damages they could receive individually are too low
to make it practical to hire a lawyer and bring a lawsuit alone. But,
as members of a class, they have the power to secure relief from a
multimillion-dollar company and put an end to its illegal practices.
That is exactly why the big corporations oppose them. It makes it
harder for those companies to operate with impunity from the law, with
little regard for the injuries they may cause.
It was class action lawsuits that helped uncover years of corrupt
practices in the tobacco industry and began to turn around a public
health disaster, not to mention recover billions of dollars. It was
class action lawsuits that revealed contamination of groundwater that
cause certain forms of cancer. It was class action lawsuits that
revealed fraudulent pricing practices and misleading advertising by
drug companies, widespread employment discrimination, and predatory
payday lending practices. Class action lawsuits also helped expose and
bring down the sham university peddled on winning victims by the
current occupant of the White House.
But this bill includes a range of provisions that would make such
class action suits practically impossible. For example, it would
require each member of a class to suffer ``the same type and scope of
injury'' as the named class representative. What this means is that if
two people use a defective product, but one suffers first-degree burns
while the other person suffers third-degree burns, they cannot join
together in a class because their injuries are of a different scope. Or
take a company with a pattern of racial discrimination. If some workers
are being paid less than others for doing the same job while other
workers find themselves repeatedly passed over for deserved promotions,
they cannot join in the same class action because they would not be
deemed to have suffered the same type of injury--one having been paid
less, the other having been passed over for promotions--despite being
victims of the same discriminatory policies.
This is just one of a host of unnecessary and onerous requirements
placed on victims by this bill that makes it virtually impossible to
form a class. When added together, it amounts to a giant bailout for
wealthy corporations at the expense of injured consumers and workers.
Mr. Chairman, we do not want the Federal courts to be simply
collection agencies to large corporations. We need justice for the
small, ordinary person.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Nadler for his excellent
comments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R.
985, a monster of a bill, combining the anticonsumer Fairness in Class
Action Litigation Act and the antivictim Furthering Asbestos Claim
Transparency Act.
H.R. 985 has the same goals and objectives as the bill that just
slithered out of this body just a few moments ago, the so-called
Innocent Party Protection Act, which more appropriately should be
called, the Corporate Wrongdoer Protection Act.
H.R. 985 is part of a wave of anticonsumer corporate wrongdoer
protection bills being considered this week by this Republican-
controlled Congress. The purpose of these bills is to protect and
insulate big corporations from being held accountable when they rob,
hurt, and maim everyday Americans struggling to make it here in
America.
As a former and long-term Member of the House Armed Services
Committee, I would like to first remind this body of Susan Vento and
Judy Van Ness, brave widows, who joined us during the Judiciary
Committee markup of the FACT Act and shared with us the heartbreak
asbestos exposure has caused their families.
Susan is the widow of our late colleague, Congressman Bruce Vento.
Judy's husband, Richard, was a Navy veteran, who served this country
with distinction. Both men saw their lives tragically cut short--Bruce
at 60 and Richard at 62--both by mesothelioma.
Georgia is ranked 23rd in the Nation for mesothelioma and asbestos-
caused deaths, in part due to the large number of military operations,
facilities, and military industrial complex projects throughout the
State. Virtually every ship commissioned by the U.S. Navy between World
War II and the Korean war contained several tons of asbestos in the
engine room insulation, fireproof doors, and miles of pipes. While the
military discontinued asbestos products around 1980, hundreds of
military and civilian installations were left with asbestos in the
flooring and ceiling tiles, cement foundations, as well as in thousands
of military vehicles.
{time} 1615
After defending our freedom abroad, many veterans returned to the
civilian workforce where they were further exposed to asbestos, people
such as Richard Van Ness, who suffered asbestos exposure while on a
Navy destroyer and during his career as a union pipefitter.
Unfortunately, veterans like Richard comprise over 30 percent of all
asbestos-caused mesothelioma deaths, despite making up only 8 percent
of the Nation's population.
Eighteen veterans' groups, including the Military Order of the Purple
Heart, AMVETS, and the Vietnam Veterans of America, these organizations
have expressed their strong opposition to this bill. I include a letter
from them in the Record.
[[Page H1978]]
February 14, 2017.
Re Veterans Service Organization oppose the ``Furthering
Asbestos Claims Transparency (FACT) Act''.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington
DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington DC.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny Hoyer,
Minority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Conyers,
Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan, Leader McCarthy, Leader Pelosi, Whip
Hoyer, Chairman Goodlatte, and Ranking Member Conyers: We,
the undersigned Veterans Service Organizations oppose the
``Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency (FACT) Act.'' We
have continuously expressed our united opposition to this
legislation via written testimony to the House Judiciary
Committee, House Leadership, in-person meetings and phone
calls with members of Congress. It is extremely disappointing
that even with our combined opposition, the FACT Act will be
marked up in the House Judiciary Committee later this week.
Veterans across the country disproportionately make up
those who are dying and afflicted with mesothelioma and other
asbestos related illnesses and injuries. Although veterans
represent only 8% of the nation's population, they comprise
30% of all known mesothelioma deaths.
When our veterans and their family members file claims with
the asbestos bankruptcy trusts to receive compensation for
harm caused by asbestos companies, they submit personal,
highly sensitive information such as how and when they were
exposed to the deadly product, sensitive health information,
and more. The FACT Act would require asbestos trusts to
publish their sensitive information on a public database, and
include how much money they received for their claim as well
as other private information. Forcing our veterans to
publicize their work histories, medical conditions, majority
of their social security numbers, and information about their
children and families is an offensive invasion of privacy to
the men and women who have honorably served, and it does
nothing to assure their adequate compensation or to prevent
future asbestos exposures and deaths.
Additionally, the FACT Act helps asbestos companies add
significant time and delay paying trust claims to our
veterans and their families by putting burdensome and costly
reporting requirements on trusts, including those that
already exist. Trusts will instead spend valuable time and
resources complying with these additional and unnecessary
requirements delaying desperately needed compensation for our
veterans and their families to cover medical bills and end of
life care.
The FACT Act is a bill that its supporters claim will help
asbestos victims, but the reality is that this bill only
helps companies and manufacturers who knowingly exposed
asbestos to our honorable men and women who have made
sacrifices for our country.
We urgently ask on behalf of our members across the nation
that you oppose the FACT Act.
Signed:
Air Force Association; Air Force Sergeants Association; Air
ForceWomen Officers Associated; AMVETS; AMSUS, the Society of
Federal Health Professionals; Association of the United
Statse Navy; Commissioned Officers Associatuion of the US
Public Health Service, Inc.; Fleet Reserve Association;
Jewish War Veterans of the USA; Military Officers Association
of America; Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A.;
National Defense Council; Naval Enlisted Reserve Association;
Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of
America; The Retired Enlisted Association, USCG; Chief Petty
Officers Association; US Army Warrant Officers Association;
Vietnam Veterans of America.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman, and I would ask my
colleagues to join me and the distinguished members of those 18
veterans' organizations and oppose this bill.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Clearly there are two groups of individuals who we are not fearful
will commit fraud. It is our Nation's veterans and servicemembers. At
the same time, there is no reason to distinguish between the disclosure
obligation of veteran servicemembers and the disclosure obligations of
ordinary citizens.
This FACT Act provision is designed to protect veterans from fraud
and make sure our future veterans who are exposed and other people who
are exposed in their jobs to asbestos have the resources available
because the company that actually made the asbestos is most likely
bankrupt and out of business now.
There are finite resources in these trusts, and we owe it to our
servicemembers and to future victims of asbestosis or mesothelioma to
make sure there is money there to take care of their medical bills and
compensate them for the injuries. That is the purpose of the FACT Act
portion of this bill.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 985, the
Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim
Transparency Act of 2017.
Mr. Chairman, there can be no doubt that this legislation is an
assault on the civil justice system. By effectively banning class
actions, H.R. 985 would give wrongdoers a permission slip to avoid
public scrutiny or liability for their unlawful conduct. Worse still,
this legislation also contains the text of the so-called FACT Act,
which is designed to delay justice for asbestos victims and deny
accountability for corporate defendants.
As the ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee that
exercises jurisdiction over this bill, I am strongly opposed to this
dangerous and offensive measure.
For decades, medical experts have closely linked asbestos exposure
with mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer, and other forms of lung
disease. Asbestos manufacturers have also known about the deadly
effects of asbestos exposure; but, as a Federal judge noted in 1991,
there is compelling evidence that these companies sought to conceal
this information from workers and the general public. Instead of
sharing this critical information, which could have saved countless
lives through exposure prevention, asbestos companies ``continued to
manufacture one of the most widely used asbestos products without
informing workers or the public,'' as the nonprofit Environmental
Working Group has reported.
Real examples of this widespread corporate deception are legion, but
one in particular stands out. In 1966, the senior executive of a
corporation that currently operates as a subsidiary of Honeywell wrote
that, if asbestos victims ``enjoyed a good life while working with
asbestos products, why not die from it.''
In the wake of numerous lawsuits related to asbestos-related deaths,
Congress amended the bankruptcy code in 1994 to authorize the use of
trusts for the settlement of asbestos liability.
In 2001, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office conducted
an exhaustive study of these trusts but did not find a single example
of fraudulent conduct. Despite this finding, proponents of H.R. 985 now
make the outrageous and totally unsupported claim that victims of
asbestos exposure have committed fraud--more alternative facts.
In the name of what they describe as transparency, the bill would
force trusts to publicly disclose asbestos victims' sensitive personal
information, including their names, partial Social Security numbers,
and the like. Beyond the obvious consequences these requirements would
have in the form of hacking and identity theft, this information is
already available to relevant parties on a confidential basis through
the discovery process, as both the GAO and the RAND Corporation have
reported.
I agree with the majority that asbestos trusts must be accountable
and transparent to both present and future claimants, but there is no
evidence to suggest any wrongdoing or any fraud. This legislation would
only make it easier for wrongdoers to get away with harming others and
to make it harder for Americans to be compensated for these injuries.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 985.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am going to have to beg to differ with my colleague from across the
aisle.
Fraud has been documented in news reports, State court cases, and in
testimony before the Judiciary Committee.
[[Page H1979]]
The Wall Street Journal conducted an investigation that found
thousands of dispiritedly filed claims. Court documents in many States,
including Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, and
Virginia, attest to widespread fraud. Most recently, a bankruptcy case
in North Carolina uncovered a startling number of dispiritedly filed
claims.
Additionally, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony over the course
of four hearings about the FACT Act, during which witnesses repeatedly
testified that fraud existed within the asbestos trust bankruptcy
situation. Keep in mind that the fraud reported today has been in spite
of the lack of disclosure that exists.
Consistent with other multimillion-dollar compensation programs,
there is fraud occurring in the asbestos trust system, and the FACT Act
will go a long way to uncovering that fraud. The FACT Act is designed
to provide the minimum amount of transparency necessary to prevent this
fraud while protecting the personal information of those victims of
asbestos.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, asbestos is a deadly poison. It can cause
lung cancer and mesothelioma. Once detected, these patients survive
only, on average, 8 to 14 months. It was true for Congressman Bruce
Vento, who proudly served the families of Minnesota's Fourth District
for more than 23 years in this House.
Bruce was a friend, and he died from mesothelioma 8\1/2\ months after
he was diagnosed. Congress has a responsibility to find real solutions
to support mesothelioma victims and their families, but H.R. 985 would
not support the families. In fact, it exposes families at a time of
great vulnerableness.
It exposes them by putting their identity, their name, their address,
and the last four digits of their Social Security number on a public
website--a public website--when this information has already been given
in a confidential manner.
It is especially outrageous to me that once again this legislation is
on the floor and it fails to protect children who are victims of
asbestos exposure from having their information shared publicly.
Parents should have the peace of mind knowing that their child's
privacy is secure and not on the internet where who knows who would be
out possibly preying on them.
I ask my colleagues to stand with me, stand with the mesothelioma
victims, stand with their families, stand with their children, and
oppose this bill, as they have asked me to do.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott.)
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 985. In addition to the legislation's
many problems that have already been mentioned by my colleagues, I am
particularly concerned about what the bill does in the so-called FACT
Act, which will have a devastating impact on workers exposed to
asbestos.
I am acutely aware of the devastating impact that asbestos exposure
has on working men and women in this country because I represent an
area with several shipyards. In the last few decades, in my district
alone, several thousand local shipyard workers have developed
asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma from asbestos exposure that
occurred between the 1940s and 1970s. Hundreds of these workers have
already died, and asbestos deaths and disabilities are continuing due
to the long latency period associated with this illness.
I believe that we cannot consider the legislation affecting the
victims of asbestos exposure without remembering exactly who caused the
problem. Court findings show that the companies made willful and
malicious decisions to expose their employees to asbestos. Here are a
couple of examples.
One case, in 1986, after hearing both sides, the New Jersey Supreme
Court declared:
It is indeed appalling to us that the company had so much
information of the hazards of asbestos workers as early as
the mid-1930s and that it not only failed to use that
information to protect the workers, but, more egregiously, it
also attempted to withhold this information from the public.
A few years earlier, the Superior Court, Appellate Division, in New
Jersey said that: ``The jury here was justified in concluding that both
defendants, fully appreciating the nature, extent, and gravity of the
risk, nevertheless made a conscious and coldblooded business decision,
in utter and flagrant disregard of the rights of others, to take no
protective or remedial action.''
In a separate case in Florida, after hearing both sides, the court
declared that:
The clear and convincing evidence in this case revealed
that, for more than 30 years, the company concealed what it
knew about the dangers of asbestos. In fact, the company's
conduct was even worse than concealment. It also included
intentional and knowing misrepresentations concerning the
danger of its asbestos-containing product.
That is who we are talking about. These are the types of companies
who will benefit from this legislation. Any suggestion that people are
getting paid more than once is absurd. The fact of the matter is,
because of bankruptcies, most of them aren't getting anywhere close to
what they actually should be receiving, but the bill before us does not
help those victims. It actually hurts them.
The bill is nothing more than a scheme to delay the proceedings and
allow the victims to get even less than they are getting now. Because
of the delay, many of the victims will die before they get to court.
This helps the guilty corporations that have inflicted this harm on
innocent victims because, if the plaintiffs die before they get to
court, their pain and suffering damages are extinguished. If they can
delay the cases enough so that the plaintiffs die before they get to
trial, the corporations will not only get to delay their payments, but
when they finally pay, they will pay much less.
These are the people who made those conscious and coldblooded
business decisions. Those are the ones who will actually benefit from
this legislation at the expense of hardworking, innocent victims. The
victims of this corporate wrongdoing oppose this bill.
Regrettably, many of those victims are our veterans because they were
working aboard Navy ships.
Mr. Chair, we should reject this legislation.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We obviously have a different vantage point on what is taking place
in the civil courtrooms of America today. On our side, we look out over
America and in the courts and we see millions of our neighbors, our
fellow citizens who are suffering the effects of asbestos poisoning,
which is real, not imaginary; lead poisoning, which is real, not
imaginary; and manufacturing defects by large automobile manufacturers
and others.
They look at it and all they see is fraud, and they want to put the
class action mechanism in a straightjacket to make it extremely
difficult, if not impossible, for people to pursue class actions. They
want to put the names of asbestos victims up online for the whole world
to see.
Obviously, we have got a division of opinion within the legislative
branch. What about the judiciary itself?
Well, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking
arm of the Federal judiciary, and the American Bar Association both
strongly oppose H.R. 985. The conference report that has been studying
class actions for 5 years has considered many of the issues addressed
in H.R. 985. It strongly urges Congress not to amend the class action
procedures found in rule 23 outside the Rules Enabling Act process.
{time} 1630
Likewise, the ABA observes the many problems of advancing
comprehensive class action reform without a hearing to examine all the
complicated issues involved with so many rule changes.
Mr. Chairman, the other side invoked some hearings. I was astonished
to hear it because I have been here for several months. I just joined
Congress. I didn't have any hearings. It turns out I understand they
were referring to
[[Page H1980]]
hearings that took place last year, perhaps the year before, where I
understand--but all of it is hearsay to me because I wasn't here--that
actual victims of asbestos poisoning were not permitted themselves to
testify. It was a completely one-sided, lopsided process, and I will
try to get to the bottom of that in order to determine it.
This is what happens when they are moving legislation through this
body at lightening speed, but really in the thick of darkness because
we don't have any meaningful, transparent communication about what the
underlying issues are.
Well, I restate my opposition to this. The class action mechanism has
been a central vehicle for justice for Americans for many decades. And
now without so much as a hearing, without the mobilization of any proof
that this should be done over the objections of the Judicial Conference
of the United States, over the objections of the American Bar
Association, and over the objections of every consumer group and worker
group that has written in that I have seen, they are purporting to be
acting in the name of the American people. In fact, what they are doing
is they are pulling the rug out from underneath the class action
vehicle.
Class actions have been so central to vindicating the rights of
people who have been victimized by corporate polluters and toxic
contaminators and automobile manufacturers who knowingly put defective
instruments into cars, leading to people's deaths and injuries, and
they want to make it more difficult for people to pursue justice in the
courts.
I urge all of my colleagues to study this legislation the best they
can and to reject it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to address the fact that there have been numerous hearings on
the FACT Act and the problems associated with it. There was one hearing
before the Judiciary Committee on the Constitution on September 9,
2011. There were three legislative hearings before the Subcommittee on
Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law, one during the 112th
Congress, one during the 113th Congress, and one during the 114th
Congress. I am sure the gentleman's staff could have gotten him copies
of those.
I also point out that the minority used these opportunities to call
witnesses that were representatives of the plaintiffs' asbestos trial
bar. They called the attorneys to voice their concern about the bill,
not the victims. In fact, the minority called the same witness for
three out of the four hearings. Now they claim that asbestos victims
were never provided an opportunity to testify.
The Judiciary Committee has provided ample opportunity to include
asbestos victims' views on the legislation in the record, and there are
many letters and statements from victims in the record.
In closing, I do want to say--going back to the class action part of
this bill for a second only--that only the tiniest fraction of
consumers in class actions bother to claim the compensation awarded
them in the settlement. That is clear proof that the vastly large
number of class members are satisfied with the products they have
purchased, don't want compensation, and don't want to be lumped into a
gigantic class action lawsuit.
Federal judges are crying out for Congress to reform the class action
system, which currently allows trial lawyers to fill classes with
hundreds and thousands of meritorious claims and use those artificially
inflated classes to force defendants to settle the case.
As I recounted, class action settlements have left lawyers with
millions of dollars while victims receive absolutely nothing or a
coupon, at best. The bill prevents people from being forced into class
actions with other uninjured or minimally injured members only to have
the compensation of injured parties reduced. It requires that lawyer
fees be limited to a reasonable percentage of the money injured victims
actually receive. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
I also want to talk a second about the FACT Act. We hear these
stories about these corporations that did all of this wrong. Many of
them are bankrupt, and the only money available to the victims are the
money that has been set aside in these asbestos trust funds. When an
unscrupulous attorney makes a claim against multiple trusts or files
claims in Federal court and State court, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to find out if that claim has already been made. The FACT
Act makes that easily available while providing privacy necessary to
protect the victims.
The FACT Act is designed to protect the future victims and make sure
there is money there for the children, for the veterans, for the
hardworking Americans who are injured by asbestos but whose symptoms
have not yet manifested. Sometimes these asbestos-related diseases take
decades to show up, and there needs to be money there to take care of
those folks. That is what this legislation is intending to do, not to
protect corporations.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill that provides much-needed
reform to the class action system and to the asbestos trust system.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to Rules
Committee Print 115-5 of H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action
Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017,
which is a radical measure that would overturn centuries of American
law.
This committee print buries the ``Furthering Asbestos Claim
Transparency Act of 2017,'' crammed through committee on a party-line
vote, within the overarching legislation intended to effectively
obliterate class actions in America, H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class
Action Litigation Act of 2017.
I oppose this two-for-one bill combination because it will, in sum,
undermine the enforcement of this Nation's civil rights laws and upend
decades of settled class action law.
The fact that the House would even consider such sweeping, reckless
legislation without holding a single hearing is an outrage.
This poorly drafted legislation will create needless chaos in the
courts without actually solving any demonstrated problem.
Class action lawsuits are among the most important tools to enable
injured, cheated, and or victimized individuals and small businesses to
hold large corporations and institutions accountable and deter future
misconduct.
H.R. 985 would eviscerate that tool.
Let me remind my colleagues that class actions are critical for the
enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing,
education, and access to public areas and services.
As the Supreme Court has recognized in Amchem Products, Inc. v.
Windsor, class actions provide ``vindication of the rights of groups of
people who individually would be without effective strength to bring
their opponents into court at all.''
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997). Courts
have interpreted Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
federal class action rule, over decades and the Advisory Committee on
Civil Rules has, through its deliberative process, reviewed and amended
the rule to ensure its fair and efficient operation.
No further revisions are needed at this time.
Civil rights injuries are never identical and are already subject to
rigorous judicial review.
H.R. 985 imposes a new and impossible hurdle for class certification.
This alone would sound the death knell for most class actions.
It requires that the proponents of the class demonstrate that each
class member has suffered the same type and scope of injury.
At this early stage of a civil rights class action, it is frequently
impossible to identify all of the victims or the precise nature of each
of their injuries.
Classes inherently include a range of affected individuals, and in no
case does every member of the class suffer the same scope of injury
from the same wrongful act.
But even if this information were knowable, class members' injuries
would not be the same.
As a simple example, those overcharged for rent will have different
injuries.
In an employment discrimination class action, the extent of a class
member's injuries will depend on a range of factors, including their
job position, tenure, employment status, salary, and length of exposure
to the discriminatory conditions.
For this reason, nearly forty years ago, the Supreme Court developed
a two-stage process for such cases in International Brotherhood of
Teamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 371-72 (1977).
In the first stage, the court determines whether the employer engaged
in a pattern or practice of discrimination.
[[Page H1981]]
If the employer is found liable, the court holds individual hearings
to determine the relief (if any) for each victim.
The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the use of the Teamsters model
for discrimination class actions in part because of the individualized
nature of injuries.
In the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 366
(2011).
Thus, this bill would overturn the approach established four decades
ago to permit a class of victims of discrimination to seek effective
relief.
Certainly, many civil rights, discrimination and employment class
actions, including cases involving refusals by companies to properly
pay workers, would not satisfy these criteria.
Some provisions would make it even more difficult to bring race and
gender discrimination class actions.
Other provisions would have a dramatic impact on cases against toxic
polluters.
For example, arbitrary and unworkable standards for attorneys' fees
undermine civil rights enforcement.
If a case is successful, the judge awards a reasonable fee based upon
the time that the advocates have spent working on the case.
This method of determining attorneys' fees provides for consistent
and predictable outcomes, which is a benefit to all parties in a
lawsuit.
H.R. 985 would entirely displace this well-settled law with a
standard long ago rejected as arbitrary and unworkable.
Under the bill, attorneys' fees would be calculated as a percentage
of the value of the equitable relief. Sec. 1718(b)(3).
But how is a judge to determine the cash value of an integrated
school, a well-operating foster care system, the deinstitutionalization
of individuals with disabilities, or myriad other forms of equitable
relief secured by civil rights class actions?
Asking judges to assign a price tag in such cases is an impossible
task and would lead to uncertainty and inconsistency.
Non-profit organizations cannot bear the risk of these long and
expensive cases if, at the end, their fees are calculated under this
incoherent and capricious standard.
Indeed, the bill creates an incentive for defendants to prolong the
litigation so as to make it economically impossible for plaintiffs'
attorneys to continue to prosecute the litigation.
In addition, by considering this bill now, Congress is circumventing
the process that Congress itself established for promulgation of
federal court rules under the Rules Enabling Act, bypassing both the
Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Civil rights class actions are often about systemic reforms that
benefit the most vulnerable.
Interference with the proper federal court rules process is reckless
and irresponsible, particularly when this proposal is so damaging to
victims.
Mr. Chair, the only beneficiaries of the so-called FACT Act, are the
very entities that knowingly produced a toxic substance that killed or
seriously injured thousands of unsuspecting American consumers and
workers.
The FACT Act would force asbestos patients seeking any compensation
from a private asbestos trust fund to reveal on a public web site
private information including the last four digits of their Social
Security numbers, and personal information about their families and
children.
In fact, not a single asbestos victim has come forward in support of
this legislation.
Worse, this bill would allow victims of asbestos exposure to be
further victimized by requiring this information about their illness to
be made publicly available to virtually anyone who has access to the
Internet.
For example, the bill requires all payment demands, as well as, the
names and exposure histories of each claimant--together with the basis
for any payment the trust made to such claimants--to be publicly
disclosed.
This sensitive information must be posted on the court's public
docket, which is easily accessible through the Internet with the
payment of a nominal fee.
Once irretrievably released into the public domain, this information
would be a virtual treasure trove for data collectors and other
entities for purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with
compensation for asbestos exposure.
Insurance companies, prospective employers, lenders, and predatory
scam artists as well as the victim's neighbors would have access to
this information.
Many of the people who would be hurt by the FACT Act are veterans,
who are disproportionately affected by asbestos disease.
To address this serious failing of the bill, I offered an amendment
which would ensure that the quarterly reports required under the FACT
Act, contain only aggregate payment information.
My amendment also deletes the bill's burdensome discovery
requirement.
As noted by the widow of our former colleague Congressman Bruce Vento
who passed away from asbestos-induced mesothelioma, the bill's public
disclosure of victims' private information: ``could be used to deny
employment, credit, and health, life, and disability insurance.''
Mrs. Vento also warned that asbestos victims ``would be more
vulnerable to identity thieves, con men, and other types of
predators.''
Supporters of this legislation say that Bankruptcy Code section 107
will prevent such results.
But, they are wrong; this provision only permits--it does not
require--the bankruptcy court to issue a protective order.
In fact, such relief may only be granted for cause if the court finds
that ``disclosure of such information would create undue risk of
identity theft or other unlawful injury to the individual.''
What this means is that an asbestos victim would have to retain
counsel and go to court in order to prove cause to obtain relief.
And, even though Bankruptcy Rule 9037 does require certain types of
personal information to be redacted from a document filed in a
bankruptcy case, said Rule would be overridden by this legislation, as
written.
Accordingly, for these reasons and more, I oppose this harmful
legislation.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Joyce of Ohio). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-5. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 985
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness
in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim
Transparency Act of 2017''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--FAIRNESS IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION
Sec. 101. Short title; reference; table of contents.
Sec. 102. Purposes.
Sec. 103. Class action procedures.
Sec. 104. Misjoinder of plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful
death actions.
Sec. 105. Multidistrict litigation proceedings procedures.
Sec. 106. Rulemaking authority of Supreme Court and Judicial
Conference.
Sec. 107. Effective date.
TITLE II--FURTHERING ASBESTOS CLAIM TRANSPARENCY
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Amendments.
Sec. 203. Effective date; application of amendments.
TITLE I--FAIRNESS IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Fairness
in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017''.
(b) Reference.--Whenever, in this title, reference is made
to an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of title 28, United States Code.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this title
is as follows:
Sec. 101. Short title; reference; table of contents.
Sec. 102. Purposes.
Sec. 103. Class action procedures.
Sec. 104. Misjoinder of plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful
death actions.
Sec. 105. Multidistrict litigation proceedings procedures.
Sec. 106. Rulemaking authority of Supreme Court and Judicial
Conference.
Sec. 107. Effective date.
SEC. 102. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are to--
(1) assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members and
multidistrict litigation plaintiffs with legitimate claims;
(2) diminish abuses in class action and mass tort
litigation that are undermining the integrity of the U.S.
legal system; and
(3) restore the intent of the framers of the United States
Constitution by ensuring Federal court consideration of
interstate controversies of national importance consistent
with diversity jurisdiction principles.
SEC. 103. CLASS ACTION PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 114 is amended by inserting after
section 1715 the following:
``Sec. 1716. Class action injury allegations
``(a) In General.--A Federal court shall not issue an order
granting certification of a class
[[Page H1982]]
action seeking monetary relief for personal injury or
economic loss unless the party seeking to maintain such a
class action affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed
class member suffered the same type and scope of injury as
the named class representative or representatives.
``(b) Certification Order.--An order issued under Rule
23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that
certifies a class seeking monetary relief for personal injury
or economic loss shall include a determination, based on a
rigorous analysis of the evidence presented, that the
requirement in subsection (a) of this section is satisfied.
``Sec. 1717. Conflicts of interest
``(a) Required Disclosures.--In a class action complaint,
class counsel shall state whether any proposed class
representative or named plaintiff in the complaint is a
relative of, is a present or former employee of, is a present
or former client of (other than with respect to the class
action), or has any contractual relationship with (other than
with respect to the class action) class counsel. In addition,
the complaint shall describe the circumstances under which
each class representative or named plaintiff agreed to be
included in the complaint and shall identify any other class
action in which any proposed class representative or named
plaintiff has a similar role.
``(b) Prohibition of Conflicts.--A Federal court shall not
issue an order granting certification of any class action in
which any proposed class representative or named plaintiff is
a relative of, is a present or former employee of, is a
present or former client of (other than with respect to the
class action), or has any contractual relationship with
(other than with respect to the class action) class counsel.
``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, `relative'
shall be defined by reference to section 3110(a)(3) of title
5, United States Code.
``Sec. 1718. Class member benefits
``(a) Distribution of Benefits to Class Members.--A Federal
court shall not issue an order granting certification of a
class action seeking monetary relief unless the class is
defined with reference to objective criteria and the party
seeking to maintain such a class action affirmatively
demonstrates that there is a reliable and administratively
feasible mechanism (a) for the court to determine whether
putative class members fall within the class definition and
(b) for distributing directly to a substantial majority of
class members any monetary relief secured for the class.
``(b) Attorneys' Fees in Class Actions.--
``(1) Fee distribution timing.--In a class action seeking
monetary relief, no attorneys' fees may be determined or paid
pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or otherwise until the distribution of any monetary
recovery to class members has been completed.
``(2) Fee determinations based on monetary awards.--Unless
otherwise specified by Federal statute, if a judgment or
proposed settlement in a class action provides for a monetary
recovery, the portion of any attorneys' fee award to class
counsel that is attributed to the monetary recovery shall be
limited to a reasonable percentage of any payments directly
distributed to and received by class members. In no event
shall the attorneys' fee award exceed the total amount of
money directly distributed to and received by all class
members.
``(3) Fee determinations based on equitable relief.--Unless
otherwise specified by Federal statute, if a judgment or
proposed settlement in a class action provides for equitable
relief, the portion of any attorneys' fee award to class
counsel that is attributed to the equitable relief shall be
limited to a reasonable percentage of the value of the
equitable relief, including any injunctive relief.
``Sec. 1719. Money distribution data
``(a) Settlement Accountings.--In any settlement of a class
action that provides for monetary benefits, the court shall
order class counsel to submit to the Director of the Federal
Judicial Center and the Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts an accounting of the disbursement
of all funds paid by the defendant pursuant to the settlement
agreement. The accounting shall state the total amount paid
directly to all class members, the actual or estimated total
number of class members, the number of class members who
received payments, the average amount (both mean and median)
paid directly to all class members, the largest amount paid
to any class member, the smallest amount paid to any class
member and, separately, each amount paid to any other person
(including class counsel) and the purpose of the payment. In
stating the amounts paid to class members, no individual
class member shall be identified. No attorneys' fees may be
paid to class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure until the accounting has been
submitted.
``(b) Annual Settlement Distribution Reports.--Commencing
not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this
section, the Judicial Conference of the United States, with
the assistance of the Director of the Federal Judicial Center
and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, shall annually prepare and transmit to the
Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of
Representatives for public dissemination a report summarizing
how funds paid by defendants in class actions have been
distributed, based on the settlement accountings submitted
pursuant to subsection (a).
``Sec. 1720. Issues classes
``(a) In General.--A Federal court shall not issue an order
granting certification of a class action with respect to
particular issues pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure unless the entirety of the cause of
action from which the particular issues arise satisfies all
the class certification prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(1), Rule 23(b)(2), or Rule 23(b)(3).
``(b) Certification Order.--An order issued under Rule
23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that
certifies a class with respect to particular issues shall
include a determination, based on a rigorous analysis of the
evidence presented, that the requirement in subsection (a) of
this section is satisfied.
``Sec. 1721. Stay of discovery
``In any class action, all discovery and other proceedings
shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to
transfer, motion to dismiss, motion to strike class
allegations, or other motion to dispose of the class
allegations, unless the court finds upon the motion of any
party that particularized discovery is necessary to preserve
evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party.
``Sec. 1722. Third-party litigation funding disclosure
``In any class action, class counsel shall promptly
disclose in writing to the court and all other parties the
identity of any person or entity, other than a class member
or class counsel of record, who has a contingent right to
receive compensation from any settlement, judgment, or other
relief obtained in the action.
``Sec. 1723. Appeals
``A court of appeals shall permit an appeal from an order
granting or denying class-action certification under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter is amended by inserting after the item pertaining to
section 1715 the following:
`` ``Sec. 1716. Class action injury allegations.
`` ``Sec. 1717. Conflicts of interest.
`` ``Sec. 1718. Class member benefits.
`` ``Sec. 1719. Money distribution data.
`` ``Sec. 1720. Issues classes.
`` ``Sec. 1721. Stay of discovery.
`` ``Sec. 1722. Third-party litigation funding disclosure.
`` ``Sec. 1723. Appeals.''.
SEC. 104. MISJOINDER OF PLAINTIFFS IN PERSONAL INJURY AND
WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS.
Section 1447 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e);
(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Misjoinder of Plaintiffs in Personal Injury and
Wrongful Death Actions.--
``(1) This subsection shall apply to any civil action in
which--
``(A) two or more plaintiffs assert personal injury or
wrongful death claims;
``(B) the action is removed on the basis of the
jurisdiction conferred by section 1332(a); and
``(C) a motion to remand is made on the ground that one or
more defendants are citizens of the same State as one or more
plaintiffs.
``(2) In deciding the remand motion in any such case, the
court shall apply the jurisdictional requirements of section
1332(a) to the claims of each plaintiff individually, as
though that plaintiff were the sole plaintiff in the action.
``(3) The court shall sever the claims that do not satisfy
the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332(a) and shall
remand those claims to the State court from which the action
was removed. The court shall retain jurisdiction over the
claims that satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of
section 1332(a).''.
SEC. 105. MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS PROCEDURES.
Section 1407 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Allegations Verification.--In any coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings conducted pursuant to
subsection (b), counsel for a plaintiff asserting a claim
seeking redress for personal injury whose civil action is
assigned to or directly filed in the proceedings shall make a
submission sufficient to demonstrate that there is
evidentiary support (including but not limited to medical
records) for the factual contentions in plaintiff's complaint
regarding the alleged injury, the exposure to the risk that
allegedly caused the injury, and the alleged cause of the
injury. The submission must be made within the first 45 days
after the civil action is transferred to or directly filed in
the proceedings. That deadline shall not be extended. Within
30 days after the submission deadline, the judge or judges to
whom the action is assigned shall enter an order determining
whether the submission is sufficient and shall dismiss the
action without prejudice if the submission is found to be
insufficient. If a plaintiff in an action dismissed without
prejudice fails to tender a sufficient submission within the
following 30 days, the action shall be dismissed with
prejudice.
``(j) Trial Prohibition.--In any coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings conducted pursuant to
subsection (b), the judge or judges to whom actions are
assigned by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
may not conduct any trial in any civil action transferred to
or directly filed in the proceedings unless all parties to
the civil action consent to trial of the specific case sought
to be tried.
``(k) Review of Orders.--
``(1) In general.--The Court of Appeals having jurisdiction
over the transferee district shall permit an appeal to be
taken from any order issued in the conduct of coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings conducted pursuant to
subsection (b), provided that an immediate appeal from the
order may materially advance the ultimate termination of one
or more civil actions in the proceedings.
[[Page H1983]]
``(2) Remand orders.--Notwithstanding section 1447(e), a
court of appeals may accept an appeal from an order issued in
any coordinated or consolidated proceedings conducted
pursuant to subsection (b) granting or denying a motion to
remand a civil action to the State court from which it was
removed if application is made to the court of appeals within
14 days after the order is entered.
``(l) Ensuring Proper Recovery for Plaintiffs.--The
claimants in any civil action asserting a claim for personal
injury transferred to or directly filed in coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings conducted pursuant to
subsection (b) shall receive not less than 80 percent of any
monetary recovery obtained in that action by settlement,
judgment or otherwise. The judge or judges to whom the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings have been
assigned shall have jurisdiction over any disputes regarding
compliance with this requirement.''.
SEC. 106. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY OF SUPREME COURT AND JUDICIAL
CONFERENCE.
Nothing in this title shall restrict in any way the
authority of the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court to
propose and prescribe general rules of practice and procedure
under chapter 131 of title 28, United States Code.
SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by the title shall apply to any civil
action pending on the date of enactment of this title or
commenced thereafter.
TITLE II--FURTHERING ASBESTOS CLAIM TRANSPARENCY
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Furthering Asbestos Claim
Transparency (FACT) Act of 2017''.
SEC. 202. AMENDMENTS.
Section 524(g) of title 11, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(8) A trust described in paragraph (2) shall, subject to
section 107--
``(A) file with the bankruptcy court, not later than 60
days after the end of every quarter, a report that shall be
made available on the court's public docket and with respect
to such quarter--
``(i) describes each demand the trust received from,
including the name and exposure history of, a claimant and
the basis for any payment from the trust made to such
claimant; and
``(ii) does not include any confidential medical record or
the claimant's full social security number; and
``(B) upon written request, and subject to payment
(demanded at the option of the trust) for any reasonable cost
incurred by the trust to comply with such request, provide in
a timely manner any information related to payment from, and
demands for payment from, such trust, subject to appropriate
protective orders, to any party to any action in law or
equity if the subject of such action concerns liability for
asbestos exposure.''.
SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.
(a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
this title and the amendments made by this title shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this title.
(b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this
title shall apply with respect to cases commenced under title
11 of the United States Code before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of this title.
The ACTING Chair. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House
Report 115-29. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered 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.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, line 12, strike ``of,'' and all that follows
through line 15, and insert ``or employee of''.
Page 4, insert after line 19 the following:
``(d) Exception.--This section shall not apply to a private
action brought as a class action that is subject to section
27(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77z-1(a)) or
section 21D(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78u-4(a)).''.
Page 8, line 14, add at the end the following: ``This
section shall not apply to a private action brought as a
class action that is subject to section 27(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77z-1(a)) or section 21D(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u-
4(a)).''.
Page 9, line 6, strike ``amended--'' and all that follows
through line 12 and inserting the following: ``amended by
inserting after subsection (e) the following:''.
Page 9, line 13, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 9, line 16, insert ``commenced in a State court''
before ``in which''.
Page 10, line 2, strike ``defendants'' and insert
``plaintiffs''.
Page 10, line 3, strike ``plaintiffs'' and insert
``defendants''.
Page 10, line 9, strike ``The court'' and insert ``Except
as provided in paragraph (4), the court''.
Page 10, line 14, insert after ``section 1332(a).'' the
following:
``(4) The court shall retain jurisdiction over a claim that
does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of section
1332(a) if--
``(A) the claim is so related to the claims that satisfy
the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332(a) that they
form part of the same case or controversy under Article III
of the United States Constitution; and
``(B) the plaintiff consents to the removal of the
claim.''.
Page 11, line 7, strike ``30 days'' and insert ``90 days''.
Page 11, line 19, strike ``any trial in any civil action''
and insert ``a trial in a civil action''.
Page 11, line 21, strike ``to the civil action'' and insert
``to that civil action''.
Page 11, line 21, strike ``to trial of'' and all that
follows through ``to be tried'' on line 22.
Page 12, line 4, insert after ``provided that'' the
following: ``the order is applicable to one or more civil
actions seeking redress for personal injury and that''.
Page 12, line 8, strike ``1447(e)'' and insert ``1447(d)''.
Page 12, strike line 15, and all that follows through
``requirement.'' on line 25, and insert the following:
``(l) Ensuring Proper Recovery for Plaintiffs.--A plaintiff
who asserts personal injury claims in any civil action
transferred to or directly filed in coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings conducted pursuant to
subsection (b) shall receive not less than 80 percent of any
monetary recovery obtained for those claims by settlement,
judgment, or otherwise, subject to the satisfaction of any
liens for medical services provided to the plaintiff related
to those claims. The judge or judges to whom the coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings have been assigned shall
have jurisdiction over any disputes regarding compliance with
this requirement.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes several
technical changes to the bill, none of which alter its basic policy,
but all of which add clarity to the bill where necessary.
First, in the section of the bill governing conflicts of interest,
this amendment strikes the prohibition on the use of the same class
counsel if the named plaintiff is a present or former client or has a
contractual relationship with the class counsel. In some instances,
those restrictions may unduly limit the availability of class counsel
or class representatives, so this amendment would remove them. It also
clarifies that nothing in the conflicts of interest section of the bill
applies to securities class actions, which have their own provisions
for selection of class representatives and counsel elsewhere in the
U.S. Code. The same exemption for securities class actions is made to
the stay of discovery section of the bill because, again, securities
class actions have their own discovery stay provisions elsewhere in the
U.S. Code.
Second, the amendment makes technical changes to the misjoinder
section of the bill, making clear it applies only to civil actions
commenced in State court and subsequently removed to Federal court, and
that a Federal court can retain jurisdiction over claims that are so
related to each other that they form part of the same case and
controversy under Article III of the Constitution, and the plaintiff
consents to the removal of the claim.
Third, the amendment extends from 30 days to 90 days the amount of
time for Federal courts to review the sufficiency of the allegations
verification submissions made in the section on multidistrict
litigation. The amendment also makes clear that a particular case may
not be tried in a multidistrict proceeding unless all parties in that
particular case consent--not all parties in the entire multidistrict
proceeding. And it also makes clear in the section providing that the
claimant shall not receive less than 80 percent of any monetary
recovery, that such section does not alter the claimant's obligations
to satisfy liens on the recovery--that is, debts owed to the Federal
Government or to private insurers--for medical services received by the
claimant for the treatment of the injuries alleged in the litigation.
So, for example, if a person took a medicine and alleges he suffered
injury as a result, a Federal program may
[[Page H1984]]
have paid for the treatment of the injury. If the person gets a
settlement of his claim, it would include money for those medical
services that should be paid back to the Federal Government. The
revision makes clear that the satisfaction of such liens should come
out of the 80 percent received by the claimant. The amendment also
makes clear that the authorization for appeals from orders in MDL
proceedings is limited to cases seeking redress for personal injury.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these
clarifying and improving amendments, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's
amendment to H.R. 985 with all due deference to the chair of our
committee.
Although the amendment makes a number of mostly technical amendments
to the bill, it still fails to address the numerous fundamental flaws
that we have identified in the underlying legislation, which is a
dagger pointing at the heart of class action lawsuits in America.
The major substantive change that I noted under the manager's
amendment was that class certification would still be prohibited when a
named plaintiff or class representative is a relative or employee of
the class counsel, but made some other changes narrowing the scope of
the conflict of interest provision slightly. The amendment still fails
to address the fundamental problem with that provision, which is that
there is no justification for concluding that the specified
relationships are, per se, problematic or that class certification
should be denied just because such a relationship exists.
The general problem pervading the legislation remains. The first is a
procedural problem, which we have identified.
I was delighted that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold)
responded to our complaint that we had had no hearings on the bill. In
response to that, he directed my attention to a hearing that took place
in 2011, 6 years ago.
There are nine members of the Judiciary Committee who just joined
this year and many dozens of Members who have joined the House since
2011. It is true that we could go back and read it within the 24 hours
we had to do that before the markup took place. We could also go back
and just read at that point the Constitution of the United States,
which guarantees to everybody a jury trial which attempts to establish
civil justice in America.
What we are getting instead is an attempt to put class action
lawsuits and civil liability into a straitjacket. It is an attempt to
make it far harder for people to see their rights vindicated when they
have been violated by an auto manufacturer, someone who is putting
asbestos into materials that are being used near servicemembers, those
who are selling poisonous breast implants, and so on.
I am rising in opposition to the amendment simply because it does
nothing to answer the many massive objections leveled against this
legislation by consumer groups like the Consumer Federation of America,
by groups defending civil justice, like the Alliance for Justice, and
indeed by the Judicial Conference of the United States and the American
Bar Association, both of which strongly oppose this legislation because
they do not think it is warranted. They don't think that it responds to
any problems that are really out there.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1645
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Deutch
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, strike line 22, and insert the following: ``In a
class action''.
Page 4, strike line 9, and all that follows through line
19.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Deutch) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, the right to choose one's own counsel is a
basic right in our democracy. This is a right that is a foundation of a
fair and impartial judicial system.
Having the right to choose one's own attorney ensures that a person
can hire an attorney who will best represent their interests and
protect their rights in the judicial process.
H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, undermines
this basic right by requiring a court to deny any class action
certification based solely on a proposed class representative or named
plaintiff being represented by a family member. The bill provides no
discretion to the court and no exceptions.
The bill uses an expansive definition that includes not only
immediate family members, but extended parts of a family tree by blood
and marriage. Such a broad definition is an unfair restriction on the
right to an attorney of one's own choosing.
Previously, the manager's amendment modified this provision but did
not relieve these concerns. Such broad, blanket assumptions about
family relationships fail to recognize the importance of trust and
expertise into the attorney-client relationship.
In many instances, a family member will best represent their
interests in court or could have specialized training and experience
relevant to the case, yet the language in this bill does not provide
for any discretion or any exceptions.
The fact that a lawyer representing a potential class is a family
member of a named class member does not, in itself, create a conflict
of interest; and under current law, there is a process for courts to
address real conflicts of interest when they arise.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(g), courts have an
extensive list that must be satisfied when appointing counsel to
represent a class. There also already is a strong disincentive against
conflicts through fairness hearings after settlement is reached. Any
potential conflict of interest risks spoiling the agreement and wasting
the efforts of counsel and the class.
Removing the discretion of the courts is overly broad and will remove
access to appropriate counsel where no conflict exists. I urge strong
support for my amendment and the removal of this provision from this
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated.
Abraham Lincoln left behind pages of notes on a lecture he was to give
to lawyers. They say: ``Never stir up litigation. A worse man can
scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a
fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search
of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife and put money in his
pocket?''
That was Lincoln in the 1850s. Here is Forbes Magazine just a couple
of years ago:
The lead plaintiff in the 5-Hour case . . . worked in
marketing for a cosmetic surgery center in California. But in
a grueling 5-hour deposition, she admitted she had been
recruited to serve as a plaintiff by her cousin, who worked
for a Texas lawyer; had purchased two bottles of 5-Hour
ENERGY specifically to sue the manufacturer; had never
complained to the company or sought a refund; and had signed
a backdated retainer agreement with the trial lawyer,
Rubinstein, the fellow seen here at his own deposition. . . .
Another one of Rubinstein's clients . . . admitted she had
served as a plaintiff for Rubinstein in at least four class
actions over products like Swanson pot pies and lipstick. . .
. Emails and other communications 5-Hour's lawyers uncovered
in their suit showed that Rubinstein belonged to a loose
affiliation of lawyers who ran an assembly-line process of
identifying companies to sue and then helping each other find
plaintiffs.
[[Page H1985]]
Lawsuits are supposed to be initiated by truly injured plaintiffs
seeking redress, not invented by lawyers who hunt for a plaintiff to
assert a supposed injury made up by the lawyer.
Few class members bother to collect the payments available in class
action settlements, in large part because they don't feel injured by
the supposedly wrongful conduct in the first place.
In too many cases, trial lawyers come up with an idea for a lawsuit
and then search for a person who has bought the product, or they send a
relative or employee to buy the product so they will have someone who
can sue on behalf of a proposed class of all other buyers. No product
purchaser has actually complained or feels cheated; it is just lawyers
in pursuit of money. That is a major reason why so few class members
bother to collect the payments available in class action settlements.
They don't feel injured by the supposedly wrongful conduct in the first
place.
This abuse of the class action lawyer-driven lawsuits must end. The
base bill, therefore, requires lawyers to disclose how proposed class
representatives became involved in the class action. Further, it
prohibits class actions in which any proposed class representative,
that is, a named plaintiff that will be representing everyone else in
the class action, is a relative of or an employee of the class action
lawyer.
Further clarifications making clear that this provision will not
apply to present or former clients of, or those who have had any
contractual relationship with, class counsel have already been made to
the bill in the manager's amendment. The only prohibition that remains
in the bill is the bar on class counsel using a relative or employee as
a class representative. Clearly, that shouldn't be permitted.
The class representative is supposed to be representing the class
interests, to independently ``be the client'' for the class, and tell
counsel what to do. That independence will be gone if the class
representative is a relative or employee of the class counsel. This
amendment should be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this
important amendment to ensure that they have an opportunity to be heard
when they are injured by an attorney of their choice.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Deutch
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 8.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Deutch) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the
right to vote, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment,
and other rights enumerated in the Constitution have an intrinsic value
that cannot be adequately expressed in dollars and cents. When a
person's constitutional rights are violated, they cannot be made whole
entirely with money, and yet the bill that we have before us today
would require our judicial system to hang a price tag on our most
cherished constitutional rights.
Under H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, if a
``judgment or proposed settlement in a class action provides for
equitable relief, the portion of any attorney's fee award to class
counsel that is attributed to the equitable relief shall be limited to
a reasonable percentage of the value of the equitable relief, including
any injunctive relief.''
Mr. Chairman, when a court grants such relief, it is not awarding
money to a plaintiff. In these cases, the courts are stepping in to say
this is a violation of constitutional rights and it must stop.
My amendment would strike the provision in this bill that would
devalue our fundamental rights by requiring a highly subjective and
wasteful, costly, and demeaning process of putting a price tag on these
rights. Worse, it would deter attorneys from bringing critical civil
lawsuits that reform systemic and widespread violations of individual
rights.
When we think of class actions, we usually imagine a group of people
seeking money to compensate them for an injury or a harm--a toxic
spill, a horrific accident, an Erin Brockovich-type story. But the
reality is that there are many class actions that do not seek monetary
damages but are fighting to right a systemic wrong in our society.
These class actions have made lasting changes to our legal system and
society that have moved our country closer to equality and justice,
landmark class actions such as: Brown v. Board of Education, ending
separate but equal as a basis for racial segregation in our schools;
Allen v. State Board of Elections, finding that section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act requires preclearance of any changes in voting practices;
and Alexander v. Holmes County School District, requiring immediate
integration of the schools. In these cases, plaintiffs asked the courts
to protect and preserve their constitutional rights for themselves and
others in similar situations in the future.
Under the system set forward by H.R. 985, a court would have to also
set a dollar value to the judgment. How do you place a price tag on
desegregating our Nation's public schools? How do you place a price tag
on protecting the right to vote? How do you put a price tag on
preserving the Constitution's Sixth Amendment right to counsel? How do
you put a price tag on the fundamental right of marriage? It is not
possible. These are fundamental, constitutional rights, and these
rights are priceless.
If this bill were to become law, courts and civil cases would become
bogged down in ancillary litigation aimed at establishing the value of
rights, rights that are protected through equitable and injunctive
relief. It would be a mess, and we don't have to make this unforced
error.
I oppose the underlying bill, but it is my sincere hope that, if the
House is going to pass it, the least that we can do is remove this
provision from the bill and end this insulting pretense that the courts
or anyone else can put a dollar value on our constitutional freedoms.
I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated.
Insofar as a class action seeks equitable relief, that is, the
nonmonetary relief, including any injunctive relief that seeks to stop
the defendant from doing something wrong, the portion of any class
action lawyer's fee should be limited to a reasonable percentage of the
value of that relief as determined by the court.
This provision won't affect fee awards in civil rights cases because
both the monetary and equitable relief attorney's fees provision in
this bill are qualified with the initial phrase, ``unless otherwise
specified by Federal statute.''
The Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Award Act of 1976 allows a court, in
its discretion, to award reasonable attorney's fees as part of the
costs to a prevailing party in Federal civil rights lawsuits, including
cases brought under 28 U.S.C. section 1983, the statute most commonly
used to assert civil rights claims. Consequently, this bill won't
affect attorney's fees in civil rights class actions at all.
Regarding other equitable relief cases that don't involve civil
rights claims, Federal courts routinely determine the value of
intangible relief such
[[Page H1986]]
as equitable or injunctive relief for purposes of determining whether
the amount in controversy requirement--currently, $75,000 to get into
court--is met.
A majority of courts consider only the value of the injunctive relief
from the plaintiff's perspective or viewpoint. Some courts determine
the jurisdictional amount by evaluating the claim from the perspective
of the party seeking Federal court jurisdiction. Others have adopted
the ``either viewpoint'' rule, which allows the court to look to either
the plaintiff's or the defendant's viewpoint in establishing the amount
in controversy in cases seeking some form of injunctive relief.
The bottom line is that, under this bill, Federal courts will be able
to use either approach in deciding the value of the injunctive relief
provided to class members; and generally speaking, counsel should be
paid on the basis of what lawyers actually deliver to their clients.
This base bill, of course, does not alter in any way the relief that
would be granted to equitable relief class action members. It only
limits the fees attorneys would receive to a reasonable percentage of
the value of what the class members actually received. So all this
amendment would do would be to put more money in the hands of lawyers
and less in the hands of victims.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, section 1983 that my friend, the chairman,
refers to as to providing attorney's fees, requires a determination of
attorney's fees by the number of hours reasonably expended on
litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly fee.
{time} 1700
This bill is very different from that. Instead of referring to hours
and an hourly rate reasonably spent by an attorney, this bill requires
the court to establish the value of the actual, equitable, or
injunctive relief.
As I have suggested already, I cannot think of anyone who would
believe that we should leave it up to a court to put a value on our
constitutional rights that are, without question, priceless in our
democracy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this good amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, constitutional rights are priceless, but
attorney's fees have to be set by the court. Who else is going to set
them in those cases?
I want to correct the gentleman, again, on this point about section
1983 cases because this bill says very clearly: unless otherwise
specified by Federal statute.
So this bill is not affected by the very example that he cites
because that is something that is otherwise specified by Federal
statute.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this needless and
harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Soto
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, strike line 7 and all that follows through line 14
(and amend the amendment to the table of contents on page 9
after line 3 accordingly).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Soto) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 1721 of
this Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017. The irony of
section 1721 is it unfairly subjects class action plaintiffs to an
inevitable deluge of prolonged delay.
A stay of discovery means no depositions. It means injured people
will not get essential documents. It means victims will not be entitled
to the names of necessary witnesses and more as long as a motion that
may dispose of the case is pending. There is nothing to prevent a
corporation from filing motion after motion to obstruct a victim's path
to justice.
Numerous consumer, civil rights, environmental, labor, and other
public interest groups oppose this bill because it builds in an
automatic stay of discovery in the district court whenever an alleged
wrongdoer files any one of a list of motions, including common motions
like a motion to strike, a motion to dismiss, and a motion to dispose
of class action allegations. There will be no end to the filing of
these motions. This is an invitation for gamesmanship and delay and
will deprive judges of the ability to properly manage their cases.
The framers of the bill want you to believe that plaintiffs are
greedy, undeserving people who want to hinder small business. This
could not be further from the truth. If there are big settlements, it
is because the damage to the victims was heinous.
Is there any doubt that huge corporations would file motion after
motion to obstruct these victims from getting the facts they need?
Class actions are critical for enforcement of laws prohibiting
discrimination in employment, housing, education, and access to public
areas and services.
At the end of the day, if we are trying to reduce litigation, why
have this glaring loophole where someone continues to file motions to
stop ordinary discovery from going forward?
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support my amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Byrne). The gentleman from Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be rejected. The discovery
process--the pretrial process in a lawsuit in which trial lawyers
demand documents and other things from the people they are suing--
imposes huge costs on defendants, particularly because of the
astronomical costs associated with the discovery of electronic
information, such as emails.
Law Technology News has reported that the total cost of electronic
discovery rose from $2 billion in 2006 to $2.8 billion in 2009 and
estimated that the total cost would rise 10 to 15 percent annually over
the next few years. In a more recent case study of Fortune 500
companies, the RAND Institute found that the median total cost for
electronic discovery among participants totaled $1.8 million per case.
These costs are asymmetric. While defendants typically are subject to
gigantic discovery costs, because they are large organizations
possessing large amounts of data, plaintiffs have little information in
their possession, and, therefore, are subject to a very small financial
burden during the discovery process.
Moreover, discovery conducted before a motion to dismiss is decided
is unfair. Why should defendants bear the burden of paying for
discovery before a complaint is held legally sufficient, especially
when the threat of huge costs may coerce an unjustified settlement?
The reality for most civil litigation is that the defendants'
obligation to bear these exorbitant discovery costs incentivizes
plaintiffs to serve burdensome discovery requests on defendants with
zero downside risk to themselves. As professor Martin Redish has
explained: ``The fact that a party's opponents will have to bear the
financial burden of preparing the discovery response actually gives
litigants an incentive to make discovery requests, and the bigger
expense to be borne by the opponent, the bigger incentive to make the
request.''
Because defendants seek to avoid these exorbitant costs, discovery is
all too often used as a weapon to coerce settlement of claims
regardless of their
[[Page H1987]]
merit. Even the Supreme Court has recognized this problem, lamenting
that the threat of discovery expense will push cost-conscious
defendants to settle even anemic cases before reaching trial.
For example, assume that a defendant moves to dismiss a class action
because it doesn't assert any valid claims. Under current law, the
named plaintiff can serve massive discovery requests that force
defendants to spend $10 million to collect the requested documents. A
rational decision for that defendant is to settle the case for
millions, even if 4 months later the court grants the motion to
dismiss, finding the class claims to be totally without merit. That is
because, without a stay in discovery, the defendants will, in the
meantime, have been required to spend all or part of the $10 million
costs complying with the discovery requests for, it turns out, no
legitimate reason. Trial lawyers pursue discovery in this circumstance
primarily in an effort to pressure the defendant to settle invalid
claims.
The subsection of the bill entitled ``Stay of discovery'' would stop
the use of discovery to coerce unjustified settlements by requiring
Federal courts to stay discovery pending resolution of rule 12
motions--that is, motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim--
motions to strike class allegations, motions to transfer, and other
motions that would dispose of class allegations unless the court finds
that particularized discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to
prevent undue prejudice to a party.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, even if we included motions to dismiss in the
stay, which are at the beginning of the case because they are
dispositive motions, there are still motions to strike that are left in
this bill.
After surviving a motion to dismiss, motions to strike are regularly
filed. Anybody who has had any time in the courtroom know they can be
filed over and over and over again. There is no limit of them under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So simply by filing motion to strike
after motion to strike, a defendant can continue to delay justice; and
justice delayed is justice denied.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will be pleased to know
that tomorrow we will consider on the floor of this House legislation
that, under rule XI, would impose mandatory sanctions on attorneys who
engage in the type of activity he just described. That is an abuse as
well. It will be covered by that legislation. But this legislation is
appropriate to make sure that justice is done in class action
litigation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, line 21, insert after ``Civil Procedure.'' the
following (and amend the amendment to the table of contents
on page 9 after line 3 accordingly):
``Sec. 1724. Applicability
``Sections 1716 through 1723 shall not apply in the case of
any civil action alleging fraud.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment ensures the draconian class action rules
created by H.R. 985 do not apply to cases alleging fraud.
Corporate malfeasance and fraudulent practices are an ongoing problem
facing American consumers. We saw this firsthand with the recent Wells
Fargo case. In response to the company creating over 2 million phony
bank and credit card accounts, thousands of account holders certified
as a class to hold Wells Fargo accountable in court. However, under
H.R. 985's new requirements, this class action would have been stopped
dead in its tracks at the certification phase. This is because the bill
does not clearly define exactly how similar the scope and how similar
the type of injury a class member must suffer. Since each individual
Wells Fargo account holder endured varying degrees of financial harm
from the company's unauthorized actions, it is unclear if the victims
would be considered a class under these new rules.
The Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal is another example of a fraud case
that would be at risk under these new rules. The German company
defrauded thousands of consumers by selling cars that did not meet EPA
emissions standards. The cars were, instead, fitted with illegal defeat
software, which allowed them to pass routine emissions tests while
still producing up to 35 times the legal limits of nitrogen oxides. A
new MIT study found that the excess emissions generated by these cars
between 2008 and 2015 will cause 1,200 premature deaths in Europe and
60 in the United States. This is in addition to the thousands of
consumers who faced financial loss because they owned these defective
vehicles that they could not trade in or sell.
As part of the class action settlement, consumers were able to recoup
their losses through a buyback program. As currently drafted, H.R. 985
would have made such a settlement unlikely because of the restrictions
on cases involving financial injuries.
Finally, we have the notorious and infamous Trump University class
action. Class certification was granted for the thousands of students
who were hurt by the President's allegedly fraudulent for-profit
scheme. Over 7,000 students were eligible for the class action because
they were cheated into thinking they would become the next big real
estate mogul. Instead, students lost thousands of dollars and wasted
valuable time at this joke of a school.
To avoid any admission of wrongdoing or face an embarrassing trial,
the President and the now-defunct Trump University opted for a $25
million settlement. Because of the impossible certification
requirements in H.R. 985, it is safe to assume that Trump University's
lawyers would have had a field day dismantling this class action from
the very beginning of the litigation.
Earlier this week, it was reported in The New York Times that one of
the students is opting out of the settlement, and if this bill passes,
the risk will be that the class action could fall apart to the benefit
of President Trump.
{time} 1715
Knowing how litigious our President is, this outcome is highly
likely, as H.R. 985 applies not just to future cases but, suspiciously,
pending ones as well--an almost unheard of clause to include in
legislation.
We cannot allow corporations, whether foreign or domestic, whether
controlled by an unnamed board or by the President of the United
States, to defraud consumers without facing accountability. My
amendment looks to protect Americans in such cases and allows them to
move forward in the courts as part of a class action.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would subject certain
class members to unfair treatment and should be rejected.
The purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of
evaluating like
[[Page H1988]]
claims, not to provide a means of artificially inflating the size of a
class to extort a larger settlement value. Exempting a subset of cases
from the bill, as this amendment would do, would serve only to
incentivize the creation of artificially large classes to extort larger
and unfair settlements from innocent parties for the purpose of
disproportionately awarding uninjured parties.
Why should only the claimants covered by the amendment be subject to
particularly unfair treatment by being allowed to be forced into a
class action with other uninjured or minimally injured members, only to
see their own compensation reduced? This does a disservice to those
claimants. Yet, that is exactly what this amendment would do.
Regardless of the subject matter, class action plaintiffs are
increasingly inclined to include fraud claims in their complaints. If
they are suing about an allegedly defective product, they will add
fraud claims, alleging that the manufacturer committed fraud by not
disclosing the defect. If they are suing for a breach of contract, they
will add fraud allegations, saying that the defendant didn't disclose
the alleged breach, and so on and so forth.
Thus, this amendment would effectively gut the entire bill, since, to
avoid its important reforms, class action lawyers would simply add
fraud claims to their complaints, as they are increasingly prone to do
in any event.
Regarding the Volkswagen case, some opponents have urged that, if
enacted, the base bill would have prevented the filing of the class
actions related to the Volkswagen diesel emission controversy. Those
assertions are false.
This bill's injury provision would be readily satisfied in the VW
cases, as class members presumably would argue that they have been
injured by their purchase of vehicles with noncompliant emission
systems.
Further, if the scope or type of injury differed among class members,
separate class actions could be filed for each group, as actually
occurred with respect to differing models in the Volkswagen MDL
proceeding.
The bill's requirement about class representative disclosures would
be easily satisfied. Many class members are interested in the
litigation and presumably ready to serve as conflict-free class
representatives who would not run afoul of these provisions.
The bill's ascertainability provisions would pose no obstacles
because vehicle registration records would provide reliable class
member lists and counsel could easily demonstrate a method to get any
relief to class members.
Requiring that payment of counsel fees await distribution of class
benefits and that fees reflect a reasonable percentage of benefits
actually received by class members would not impede bringing such
cases.
The cases would be litigated without resort to issues classes.
Disclosure of any third-party litigation funding of the class actions
wouldn't preclude such cases. The provision doesn't prohibit such
funding. Only disclosure is required. Staying discovery while motions
to dismiss are pending also poses no roadblock.
Mr. Chairman, again, I urge my colleagues to defeat this gutting
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, protecting big, multinational
corporations from fraud claims is not only unfair, it is odious. If you
can't hold a big, multinational corporation accountable for fraud, then
your money is at risk, your health is at risk, and the lives of
innocent people are at risk.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that all of my colleagues support this amendment,
which protects the American people from fraud.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman that
there is nothing in this bill that would restrict access to class
actions based upon fraud claims. And in fact, this bill is designed to
maximize the recovery for those fraud victims, rather than lining the
pockets of attorneys.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Conyers
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, line 25, insert after ``Civil Procedure.'' the
following (and amend the amendment to the table of contents
on page 9 after line 3 accordingly):
``Sec. 1724. Applicability
``Sections 1716 through 1723 shall not apply in the case of
any civil action alleging a violation of a civil right.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which
would exempt H.R. 985's unnecessary and burdensome class action
provisions all class actions asserting civil rights claims.
Class actions are an important litigation tool that consumers,
workers, and anyone else who has suffered injury can use to vindicate
their rights. They are also a critical mechanism for enforcing public
policy and are especially key in the enforcement of Federal civil
rights laws.
For instance, plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases who seek
backpay because of an adverse employment decision often pursue class
actions because such cases tend to be the kind that are well-suited for
class treatment. These cases typically concern multiple victims who
were subjected to the same discriminatory employment practice or
policy.
While damages awarded pursuant to a single plaintiff may not be large
enough to deter the employer's alleged wrongdoing, aggregate damages
awarded to plaintiffs as a result of class action would have a
deterrent effect.
Unfortunately, this bill, H.R. 985, requires class action plaintiffs
to prove at the certification stage that every potential class member
suffered the same type and same scope of injury, a requirement that is
obviously virtually impossible and cost prohibitive to meet.
This onerous requirement would effectively deter employment
discrimination and other civil rights plaintiffs from proceeding with
any class action.
As if this provision were not onerous enough, H.R. 985 would also
harm civil rights plaintiffs by making it virtually impossible to
pursue class actions pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
All Federal appeals courts interpret that provision as allowing
courts to certify a class limited to one issue in a case, such as
liability, without having to certify a putative class for the entire
cause of action.
Allowing courts to decide common questions within a case, while
permitting other issues to be determined on an individual basis, would
promote judicial efficiency, which is also one of the principal
benefits of class actions.
H.R. 985, however, would prohibit certification of such ``issue''
class actions unless the putative class for the entire cause of action
is certified, which would only further delay and possibly deny justice
for plaintiffs.
This provision would have a particularly devastating impact on civil
rights class actions that often can only be maintained as to particular
issues, such as liability.
Indeed, for these, and many other reasons, including the bill's
mandatory appeals provision, its automatic stay of discovery, and its
draconian and unworkable standards for setting attorneys' fees, 123
civil rights groups and organizations have written a letter to the
Judiciary Committee in strong opposition to H.R. 985, which I include
in the Record.
[[Page H1989]]
March 7, 2017.
Re Strong Opposition to H.R. 985--Section 2.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: We understand that the
House will soon consider H.R. 985, the ``Fairness in Class
Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency
Act of 2015.'' The 123 signatory civil rights organizations
and advocates write to strongly oppose Section 2 of H.R. 985.
The bill will undermine the enforcement of this nation's
civil rights laws and upend decades of settled class action
law. This sweeping and poorly drafted legislation will create
needless chaos in the courts without actually solving any
demonstrated problem. In this letter, we highlight the most
egregious of its many harms.
As advocates for the marginalized and often invisible
members of our society, we write to remind House members that
class actions are critical for the enforcement of laws
prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, education,
and access to public areas and services. As the Supreme Court
has recognized, class actions provide ``vindication of the
rights of groups of people who individually would be without
effective strength to bring their opponents into court at
all.'' Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617
(1997). Courts have interpreted Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the federal class action rule, over
decades and the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules has,
through its deliberative process, reviewed and amended the
rule to ensure its fair and efficient operation. No further
revisions are needed at this time.
H.R. 985 Adds Years of Additional Delay, Expense, and Disruption
One of the stated purposes of the bill is to ``assure . . .
prompt recoveries,'' yet it includes provisions that will
extend the duration of cases by years and add exponentially
to the expense on both sides.
The bill allows for an automatic appeal--in the middle of
every case--of the class certification order. Such appeals
are extraordinarily disruptive and typically add one to three
years to the life of the case. While the case sits in an
appellate court, expenses and fees rise, memories fade, and
injured victims remain without justice. Automatic appeals of
all class certification orders will clog our already-taxed
Courts of Appeals. Appeals of class certification rulings are
already permitted at the discretion of the Courts of Appeals.
An appeal of every class certification ruling is unnecessary.
The bill similarly builds in an automatic stay of discovery
in the district court whenever an alleged wrongdoer files any
one of a list of motions. This is an invitation for
gamesmanship and delay, and will deprive judges of the
ability to properly manage their cases.
The bill, by its terms, applies to all cases pending upon
the date of enactment. This means that hundreds of cases that
have been litigated and certified under existing law would
start from scratch with new standards, new class
certification motions, and new automatic interlocutory
appeals. The resulting waste of judicial resources would be
enormous.
Civil Rights Injuries Are Never Identical and Are Already Subject to
Rigorous Judicial Review
H.R. 985 imposes a new and impossible hurdle for class
certification. It requires that the proponents of the class
demonstrate that ``each class member has suffered the same
type and scope of injury.'' At this early stage of a civil
rights class action, it is frequently impossible to identify
all of the victims or the precise nature of each of their
injuries.
But even if this information were knowable, class members'
injuries would not be ``the same.'' As a simple example,
those overcharged for rent will have different injuries. In
an employment discrimination class action, the extent of a
class member's injuries will depend on a range of factors,
including their job position, tenure, employment status,
salary, and length of exposure to the discriminatory
conditions. For this reason, nearly forty years ago, the
Supreme Court developed a two-stage process for such cases in
International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324,
371-72 (1977). In the first stage, the court determines
whether the employer engaged in a pattern or practice of
discrimination. If the employer is found liable, the court
holds individual hearings to determine the relief (if any)
for each victim. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the
use of the Teamsters model for discrimination class actions
in part because of the individualized nature of injuries.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 366 (2011).
Thus, this bill would overturn the approach established four
decades ago to permit a class of victims of discrimination to
seek effective relief.
For the same reason, the bill's limitation on ``issue
classes'' will impede the enforcement of civil rights laws.
Under current practice, the district court will decide in
some cases that the best approach is to resolve the
illegality of a discriminatory practice in an initial
proceeding, and then allow class members to pursue individual
remedies on their own. In such cases, class certification for
the core question of liability (often a complex proceeding)
will be tried and resolved just once for the benefit of the
many affected individuals. These issue classes can promote
both efficiency and fairness. Section 1720, however, would
deprive courts of this ability that they currently have to
manage class actions to ensure justice.
Requiring the Early Identification of Class Members Is Unnecessary
Section 1718 seeks to impose a heightened standard for
identifying class members, an approach that has been rejected
by the majority of circuits to have considered the question.
This stringent standard would not further any interest that
is not already adequately protected by Rule 23, which
requires that the court consider whether the case is
manageable and the class action device is the ``superior''
method for fairly and efficiently resolving the case.
Moreover, Sec. 1718 would impose a nearly insurmountable
hurdle in situations where a class action is the only viable
way to pursue valid but low-value claims. In such cases,
records of who has been affected may have been destroyed by
the wrongdoer, may be incomplete, or may have never existed
at all. In those cases, individual notice to all class
members may be impossible. But, without class certification
in these situations, class members who have valid claims and
who can be identified would not be allowed to recover. The
bill also ignores the important objective of deterring and
punishing wrongdoing, and encourages defendants not to
maintain relevant records.
Arbitrary and Unworkable Standards for Attorneys' Fees Undermine Civil
Rights Enforcement
Civil rights class actions are often about systemic reforms
that benefit the most vulnerable. In many cases, the sole
remedy is an injunction to change illegal laws or practices.
To ensure that non-profit legal organizations and other
advocates are able to undertake these important, complex, and
often risky cases, dozens of our civil rights laws
incorporate fee-shifting provisions. If a case is successful,
the judge awards a reasonable fee based upon the time that
the advocates have spent working on the case. This method of
determining attorneys' fees provides for consistent and
predictable outcomes, which is a benefit to all parties in a
lawsuit.
H.R. 985 would entirely displace this well-settled law with
a standard long ago rejected as arbitrary and unworkable.
Under the bill, attorneys' fees would be calculated as a
``percentage of the value of the equitable relief.''
Sec. 1718(b)(3). But how is a judge to determine the cash
value of an integrated school, a well-operating foster care
system, the deinstitutionalization of individuals with
disabilities, or myriad other forms of equitable relief
secured by civil rights class actions? Asking judges to
assign a price tag in such cases is an impossible task and
would lead to uncertainty and inconsistency.
Non-profit organizations cannot bear the risk of these long
and expensive cases if, at the end, their fees are calculated
under this incoherent and capricious standard. Indeed, the
bill creates an incentive for defendants to prolong the
litigation so as to make it economically impossible for
plaintiffs' attorneys to continue to prosecute the
litigation.
These serious issues warrant, at a minimum, careful
consideration and public hearings. A rush to pass such far-
reaching and flawed legislation will deny access to justice
for many and undermine the rule of law.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jocelyn D. Larkin,
Executive Director, Impact Fund.
Signatories
1. 9to5, National Association of Working Women
2. A Better Balance
3. Advancement Project
4. American Association of University Women
5. American Civil Liberties Union
6. Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
7. Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Asian Law Caucus
8. Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Los Angeles
9. Association of Late Deafened Adults
10. Atlanta Women for Equality
11. Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc
12. Business and Professional Women/St. Petersburg-Pinellas
13. California Employment Lawyers Association
14. California Women's Law Center
15. Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College,
Columbia University
16. Center for Children's Advocacy
17. Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York
18. Center for Justice and Accountability
19. Center for Popular Democracy
20. Center for Public Representation
21. Center for Responsible Lending
22. Central Alabama Fair Housing Center
23. Centro Legal de la Raza
24. Chet Levitt Fund for Employment Law
25. Child Care Law Center
26. Children's Law Center, Inc.
27. Children's Rights
28. Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center
29. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition
30. Columbia Legal Services
31. Communities for a Better Environment
32. Community Development Project of the Urban Justice
Center
33. Community Justice Project
34. Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
[[Page H1990]]
35. Dade County Bar Association Legal Aid Society
36. Disability Law Center
37. Disability Rights Advocates
38. Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
39. Disability Rights Maryland
40. Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project
41. Earthjustice
42. EarthRights International
43. Empire Justice Center
44. Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
45. Equal Justice Center
46. Equal Justice Society
47. Equal Rights Advocates
48. Farmworker Justice
49. Florida Justice Institute, Inc.
50. Florida Legal Services, Inc.
51. Florida's Children First
52. Freedom Network USA
53. Heart of Florida Legal Aid Society Inc
54. Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings
55. Human Rights Defense Center
56. Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center
57. Impact Fund
58. Institute for Science and Human Values
59. Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc.
60. Justice in Motion
61. Lambda Legal
62. LatinoJustice PRLDEF
63. Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
64. Lawyers Civil Rights Coalition
65. Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San
Francisco Bay Area
66. Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
67. Legal Aid at Work (formerly Legal Aid Society--
Employment Law Center)
68. Legal Aid Justice Center
69. Legal Aid of Manasota
70. Legal Aid of Marin
71. Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Inc.
72. Legal Aid Society of NYC
73. Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, Inc.
74. Los Angeles Center for Community Law and Action
75. Make the Road New York
76. MALDEF
77. Maurice & Jane Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social
Justice
78. Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association
79. Mississippi Center for Justice
80. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
81. National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good
Shepherd
82. National Center for Lesbian Rights
83. National Center for Transgender Equality
84. National Center for Youth Law
85. National Disability Rights Network
86. National Employment Law Project
87. National Employment Lawyers' Association
88. National Employment Lawyers' Association--New York
89. National Housing Law Project
90. National Immigration Law Center
91. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
92. National Partnership for Women & Families
93. National Women's Law Center
94. New Mexico Environmental Law Center
95. North Carolina Justice Center
96. North Florida Center for Equal Justice, Inc.
97. Northwest Health Law Advocates
98. Oregon Communication Access Project
99. Prisoners' Legal Services of Massachusetts
100. Prison Law Office
101. Public Advocates
102. Public Counsel
103. Public Interest Law Project
104. Public Justice
105. Public Justice Center
106. Public Utility Law Project of New York
107. Rhode Island Center for Justice
108. San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc.
109. Southern Center for Human Rights
110. Southern Legal Counsel, Inc.
111. Southern Poverty Law Center
112. Southwest Pennsylvania Chapter, National Organization
for Women
113. Southwest Women's Law Center
114. Tenants Together
115. Texas Fair Defense Project
116. Transgender Law Center
117. Uptown People's Law Center
118. Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and
Urban Affairs
119. Washington State Communication Access Project
120. Western Center on Law & Poverty
121. Women's Employment Rights Clinic, Golden Gate
University
122. Women's Law Project
123. Workplace Fairness
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, with great deference and respect to my
friend and colleague, the ranking member, this amendment would subject
certain class members to unfair treatment and, thus, should be
rejected.
First, the bill's provisions on type and scope of injury only apply
to proposed classes ``seeking monetary relief for personal injury or
economic loss.'' Insofar as civil rights cases do not seek money
damages, they are completely unaffected by the bill and would proceed
just as they do today.
However, if money damages are sought by a proposed class, then, of
course, they should be subject to the procedures in the bill. The
purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of evaluating like
claims, not to provide a means of artificially inflating the size of a
class to extort a larger settlement value.
Exempting a subset of money damage cases from the bill, as this
amendment would do, would serve only to incentivize the creation of
artificially large classes to extort larger and unfair settlements from
innocent parties for the purpose of disproportionately awarding
uninjured parties.
Any claims seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic
loss should be grouped in classes in which those who are the most
injured receive the most compensation. Why should civil rights
claimants seeking money damages be subject to particularly unfair
treatment by being allowed to be forced into a class action with other
uninjured or minimally injured members, only to see their own
compensation reduced? That does a disservice to those claimants. Yes,
that is exactly what this amendment would do.
Further, the bill's provision on attorneys' fees won't affect fee
awards in civil rights cases at all because both the monetary and
equitable relief attorneys' fees provision in the bill are qualified
with the initial phrase ``unless otherwise specified by Federal
statute.''
The Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Award Act of 1976 allows a court, in
its discretion, to award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the
costs to a prevailing party in Federal civil rights lawsuits, including
cases brought under 28 U.S.C. section 1983, the statute most commonly
used to assert civil rights claims.
Consequently, this bill will not affect attorneys' fees in civil
rights class actions at all, including, of course, cases brought under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, which has its own attorneys' fees
provision.
The conflicts of interest provision reflects a valid concern in all
class actions. The courts need to know how the named plaintiffs came to
be involved in class actions in all types of cases to ensure there
aren't conflicts and that the due process rights of all class members
are protected.
The issues class provision won't disrupt the manner in which civil
rights cases are normally litigated. Discovery stays while dispositive
motions are pending won't disrupt civil rights cases. Like any other
case, the plaintiffs need to show they have a facially valid complaint
before discovery should commence.
Disclosure of third-party funding is no less important in civil
rights cases than in other class actions. The appeals provision
benefits both plaintiffs and defendants, giving either side the right
to appeal if class certification is granted or denied.
I urge all my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which would set
back the just causes of civil rights claimants.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1730
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H1991]]
Beginning on page 13, strike line 19 and all that follows
through line 15 on page 14, and insert the following:
``(8) A trust described in paragraph (2) shall file with
the bankruptcy court, not later than 60 days after the end of
every quarter, a report that shall be made available on the
court's public docket and with respect to each such reporting
period contains an aggregate list of demands received and an
aggregate list of payments made.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I think the question is: Is there any
collegiality and respect for the Federal judicial system?
Let me read a letter in reference to the underlying bill:
We strongly urge Congress not to amend the class action
procedures found in rule 23 outside of the Rules Enabling Act
process.
It goes on to talk about an advisory committee, but I don't know any
sentence more clear than that. I know that as a parent raising a child,
``do not'' and ``no'' are very clear, yet we maintain this debate on
the floor of the House.
Let me also mention a debate that is tomorrow, but I think it is
relevant to my amendment, LARA. This is a rule that was in in 1983. In
1993, it was thrown out because it had a deleterious effect on
meritorious civil rights cases, employment cases, and others. The
Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, that is tomorrow. The courts also don't
want you to do that, and most of the courts say it is a waste of
resources.
My amendment is going to help us solve the problem for this bill,
H.R. 985. It would improve the rules of the committee print by
replacing the substantive text of the bill with a requirement that the
bankruptcy asbestos trust report quarterly an aggregate list of demands
received and payments made. Specifically, the Jackson Lee amendment
protects the privacy of asbestos victims from overly broad and invasive
disclosure requirements by striking from the bill's text personal
information disclosure mandates.
Mr. Chairman, the only beneficiaries of the so-called FACT Act are
the very entities that knowingly produced a toxic substance that killed
or seriously injured thousands of unsuspecting American consumers and
workers--it is the defendants. And, no, it does not provide for a
safety for the trust.
Worse, this bill would allow victims of asbestos exposure to be
further victimized by requiring information about their illness to be
made publicly available to virtually anyone who has access to the
internet. Once irretrievably released into the public domain, this
information would be a virtual treasure trove for data collectors and
other entities for purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with the
compensation for asbestos exposure.
Why do these people have to be doubly, triply penalized? They are
already dying, many of them.
Insurance companies, prospective employers, lenders, predatory scam
artists all have access to these unsuspecting and devastated families
or victims. I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense Jackson Lee
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules
Committee for making the Jackson Lee Amendment in order.
Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee
Amendment to Rules Committee Print 115-5 of H.R. 985, the ``Fairness in
Class Action Litigation And Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act
of 2017.''
My amendment would improve the Rules Committee Print 115-5 to H.R.
985 by replacing the substantive text of the bill with a requirement
that the bankruptcy asbestos trust report quarterly an aggregate list
of demands received and payments made.
Specifically, the Jackson Lee Amendment protects the privacy of
asbestos victim plaintiffs from overly broad and invasive disclosure
requirements, by striking from the bill's text personal information
disclosure mandates.
Mr. Chair, the only beneficiaries of the so-called ``FACT Act,'' are
the very entities that knowingly produced a toxic substance that killed
or seriously injured thousands of unsuspecting American consumers and
workers.
In fact, I am unaware of any asbestos victim who supports this
legislation.
Worse yet, this bill would allow victims of asbestos exposure to be
further victimized by requiring information about their illness to be
made publicly available to virtually anyone who has access to the
Internet.
For example, the bill requires all payment demands, as well as, the
names and exposure histories of each claimant together with the basis
for any payment the trust made to such claimants to be publicly
disclosed.
This sensitive information must be posted on the court's public
docket, which is easily accessible through the Internet with the
payment of a nominal file.
Once irretrievably released into the public domain, this information
would be a virtual treasure trove for data collectors and other
entities for purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with
compensation for asbestos exposure.
Insurance companies, prospective employers, lenders, and predatory
scam artists as well as the victim's neighbors would have access to
this information.
To address this serious failing of the bill, my amendment would
ensure that the quarterly reports required under the ``FACT Act,''
contain only aggregate payment information.
My amendment also deletes the bill's burdensome discovery
requirement.
As noted by the widow of our former colleague Representative Bruce
Vento who passed away from asbestos-induced mesothelioma, the bill's
public disclosure of victims' private information: ``could be used to
deny employment, credit, and health, life, and disability insurance.''
Mrs. Vento also warned that asbestos victims ``would be more
vulnerable to identity thieves, con men, and other types of
predators.''
I am sure that the supporters of this legislation will say that
Bankruptcy Code section 107 will prevent such results.
But this provision only permits--it does not require--the bankruptcy
court to issue a protective order.
In fact, such relief may only be granted ``for cause'' if the court
finds that ``disclosure of such information would create undue risk of
identity theft or other unlawful injury to the individual.''
What this means is that an asbestos victim would have to retain
counsel and go to court in order to prove ``cause'' to obtain relief.
And, even though Bankruptcy Rule 9037 does require certain types of
personal information to be redacted from a document filed in a
bankruptcy case, said Rule would be overridden by this legislation, as
written.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee
amendment to ensure that the privacy of asbestos victims is protected.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, the FACT Act is designed to require
increased transparency to combat fraud committed against asbestos
trusts. This amendment strikes the requirement that asbestos trusts
publish the very data that is necessary to detect fraud between the
trusts and State tort proceedings. In its place, this amendment calls
for only a quarterly report with an aggregate list of demands received
by the trusts.
The simple aggregation of information is worthless in allowing
parties to make a meaningful inquiry into whether or not they are being
defrauded. This amendment guts the bill, and I urge opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on my side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me say whose side I want to stand
on, and that is the side of Mrs. Vento, the widow of our former
colleague, Representative Bruce Vento, who passed away from asbestos-
induced cancer.
The bill's public disclosure of victims' private information could be
used to deny employment, credit, and health, life, and disability
insurance. Mrs. Vento also warned that asbestos victims would be more
vulnerable to identity thieves, con men, and other types of predators.
There is no reason for this bill. Not only is the Judicial Conference
of Federal Judges against it, but victims are crying out: Stop it, and
stop it now.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a StarTribune
article.
[[Page H1992]]
[From the StarTribune]
Stand With Families Affected by Asbestos, and Help Kill FACT Act
My husband was the late U.S. Rep. Bruce F. Vento, who
served for almost 24 years in the House of Representatives
representing Minnesota's Fourth Congressional District. He
died from mesothelioma in 2000 within eight and a half months
of being diagnosed.
Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer caused by asbestos
exposure. Bruce was exposed while working his way through
college as a laborer, years before he became involved in
public life.
With his death, our country lost a hardworking and humble
public servant years before his time. Bruce's parents,
siblings, children, grandchildren and I lost so much more.
Since his death, I have worked with asbestos patients and
family members from across the country to fight for a ban on
asbestos and to protect the rights of people whose lives have
been forever affected by this terrible poison.
I have recently been involved in the effort to stop the so-
called ``Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act,'' or
FACT Act, which would obstruct justice for victims dying from
asbestos-related diseases while giving a handout to the very
corporations that knowingly poisoned and killed them.
The FACT Act would require that the personal information of
sick and dying asbestos patients and their families be posted
on a public website, including names, addresses, medical
diagnoses, financial compensation received and the last four
digits of our Social Security numbers.
This is precisely the kind of information that law
enforcement officials tell the public we should not share on
the Internet because it leaves us vulnerable to identity
thieves and con artists.
The House could be considering a vote on this bad
legislation in the coming weeks, making it all the more
urgent that we act now to protect the privacy of asbestos
victims and their families.
Supporters of the FACT Act are the corporations that
exposed innocent workers, consumers and their family members
to asbestos, while concealing what they knew about this
dangerous poison. They claim that this gross violation of our
privacy is necessary in order to protect asbestos patients
from fraud against the asbestos trust funds that were set up
to compensate asbestos victims and their families. Yet, not a
single instance of fraud against the trust funds has been
identified.
What is worse, while the bill's supporters claim that they
are doing it for asbestos victims, not one victim of asbestos
exposure or an affected family member has been allowed to be
heard on this legislation. The only people who would be
directly affected by the bill have been completely shut out
of the process.
The FACT Act would also bog down the asbestos trust funds
in endless paperwork to respond to information requests from
asbestos companies. This would drain the funds of money that
is desperately needed to compensate sick and dying victims.
As the victims get more and more desperate, they will be
willing to settle cases for pennies on the dollar, taking
needed compensation away from families and leaving it in the
pockets of the responsible companies.
I recently traveled to Washington, D.C., and met with Sens.
Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Betty McCollum, all of
whom committed to work with asbestos patients and family
members to stop the FACT Act from becoming law. I hope that
we can count on the rest of Minnesota's congressional
delegation to stand with asbestos patients and families and
against the FACT Act.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, without having the ability to hear my
colleague's opposition, I know that the supporters of this legislation
will say that Bankruptcy Code section 107 will prevent these
devastating results, but it is not true. This provision only permits
it. It does not require the bankruptcy court to issue a protective
order.
My amendment protects these vulnerable victims against the release of
their data, making them, in addition to the devastating disease that
they got from asbestos--and our good friend Bruce Vento, many of us
knew Congressman Vento, we knew his wife, and we knew that his death
was both untimely and devastating, and now you are saying to victims
like him: Release all the data. Open yourself up to more. Open your
families up to more.
The Jackson Lee amendment is a commonsense amendment that will
provide for an asbestos trust report quarterly, an aggregate list of
demands received and payments made. As well, it would protect the
privacy of asbestos victim plaintiffs from overly broad and invasive
disclosure requirements by striking down the bill's text about personal
information disclosure mandates. No matter what my good friend from
Texas says, he does not have an answer to protecting the privacy of
these victims.
I ask our colleagues to support a commonsense response. Stop it now.
The courts don't want it, and it is horrible for the victims. It is
doubling down on people who have lost loved ones and victims who are
suffering from asbestos-induced cancer. I ask my colleagues to support
the Jackson Lee amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, the FACT Act requires that a very basic
amount of information be released to protect against fraud against the
asbestos trust system. I am standing with future victims of asbestos.
The diseases associated with asbestos typically don't manifest
themselves for decades, in some cases, beyond or after exposure. These
trusts are being drained by fraudulent and duplicative claims. These
requirements of disclosure prevent that fraud by requiring the minimal
amount of information being required. In fact, a judge with 29 years of
bench experience testified before the Committee on the Judiciary that
the FACT Act provides more protection in terms of confidentiality of
records than the legal system is able to do.
This is commonsense legislation, does not invade people's privacy,
and preserves these trust funds to make sure all victims are
compensated. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Jackson
Lee amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Espaillat
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 13, line 21, insert ``subject to subparagraph (C),''
after ``(A)''.
Page 14, line 6, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 14, line 7, insert ``subject to subparagraph (C),''
after ``(B)''.
Page 14, line 15, strike the close quotation marks and the
period at the end, and insert ``; and''.
Page 14, after line 15, insert the following:
``(C) not comply with subparagraphs (A) and (B) with
respect to such claimant who is or has been living in public
housing (as such term is defined in section 3(b) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b))) or
any dwelling unit for which rental assistance is provided
under section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f).''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Espaillat) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to
H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering
Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017.
My amendment would exempt a claimant who is or has been living in
public housing or any dwelling unit for which rental assistance was
provided under the Section 8 housing program. While I firmly believe
that every individual should be exempt from this outrageous provision,
my amendment recognizes that we, the Federal Government, are the
landlords, the owners, if you may, of public housing.
Speaker Ryan is a landlord of public housing. Our leader, the
gentlewoman from California, is a landlord of public housing. The
President is a tenant of public housing. The White House is public
housing. While the White House has hot water, a nice roof, and likely
no asbestos, it is still public housing. We, the taxpayers, pay the
rent. We, as the Federal Government on both sides of the aisle, are the
owners and the landlords of public housing.
As the owners of public housing, we have a unique obligation to the
people living in these units. We are responsible for the dilapidated
conditions of
[[Page H1993]]
our public housing units, and we are responsible for the health and
well-being of low-income tenants living in them.
Much of our public housing was built in the 1950s and 1960s,
coinciding with what was perhaps the peak time for the use of asbestos-
containing products in building and construction materials. This has
left thousands of our most vulnerable citizens at risk of exposure to
asbestos, which has killed as many as 15,000 Americans each year.
People who have a legitimate claim and have been exposed to asbestos
while living in either public housing or Section 8 housing should be
afforded the due process they deserve and given the opportunity to
bring their claims in a timely manner. I think this entire bill is a
misnomer and should be renamed the unfairness in class action
litigation act.
No one--no one--should have their due process rights delayed or
denied. There is no doubt that the consequences of this legislation
will be especially and uniquely detrimental to low-income individuals.
This legislation will completely upend privacy and bankruptcy laws.
As it stands today, our laws guarantee that a claimant's information
is protected. This bill, however, will require that an individual
claimant's personal information and the amount they have received from
the trust be made available on a public website. Not only is this a
complete and total disregard for the individual's privacy, but it makes
the most vulnerable in our society prey for financial predators.
My amendment will guarantee that tenants living in public housing and
Section 8 housing are not subjected to such an outrageous shift in
privacy rights. The bill sends trusts on a wild goose chase for
information that may not even be there, while they should be spending
their time working through the pending claims.
These companies hid the dangers of asbestos for decades, for far too
long, and there is absolutely no reason why we should be helping them
now. Rather than wasting time and taxpayer dollars obstructing the
judicial system, we should be focusing on initiatives that will update
our crumbling infrastructure. And, yes, public housing is undoubtedly
infrastructure.
Finally, the CBO has indicated that, financially, this amendment will
cost nothing. This amendment will cost absolutely nothing. But I can
promise you that not adopting it will come at a great cost to our
system of justice. I ask my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent asbestos
trusts from disclosing claims information submitted by individuals
living in public housing in its quarterly reports and in response to
information requests.
There is no reason to distinguish between the disclosure obligations
of individuals living in public housing and the disclosure obligations
of ordinary citizens. To the extent that claimants do not affirmatively
identify themselves as living in public housing, this amendment would
require asbestos trusts to determine whether claimants qualify in these
categories, further draining them of funds needed to compensate future
victims.
The FACT Act balances the need for transparency and protecting
claimants' privacy. The FACT Act excludes any confidential medical
records and the claimants' Social Security numbers. We should ensure
that bankruptcy asbestos claims are processed in an open, fair, and
transparent method in order to protect the limited amount of money
reserved for compensating future asbestos victims.
{time} 1745
The FACT Act should apply uniformly to all claimants, and it should
not impose disparate burdens relating to individuals living in public
housing.
Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
115-29 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Deutch of Florida.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Deutch of Florida.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Soto of Florida.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Conyers of Michigan.
Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Espaillat of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Deutch
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Deutch) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 227, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 140]
AYES--182
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOES--227
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
[[Page H1994]]
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--20
Barletta
Brady (TX)
Carson (IN)
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
DeGette
Espaillat
Jayapal
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (IL)
Langevin
Matsui
McCaul
Moore
Richmond
Rush
Sinema
Speier
Titus
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.
{time} 1807
Messrs. POSEY, STIVERS, and TURNER changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. KRISHNAMOORTHI, SOTO, CORREA, and CLEAVER changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 140.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 140.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Deutch
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Deutch) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 228, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 141]
AYES--189
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--228
Abraham
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--12
Aderholt
Barletta
Cleaver
Davis (CA)
Ellison
Kaptur
Katko
Matsui
Richmond
Rush
Sinema
Titus
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1811
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Soto
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
[[Page H1995]]
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 230, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 142]
AYES--192
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--230
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--7
Barletta
Davis (CA)
Matsui
Richmond
Rush
Sinema
Titus
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1815
Mr. GAETZ changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 230, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 143]
AYES--190
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Faso
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--230
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
[[Page H1996]]
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--9
Barletta
Davis (CA)
Larson (CT)
Matsui
Richmond
Rush
Sinema
Titus
Yoho
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1818
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay''
on rollcall No. 143, the Hank Johnson Amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Conyers
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 230, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 144]
AYES--191
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--230
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--8
Barletta
Clay
Davis (CA)
Matsui
Richmond
Rush
Sinema
Titus
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1821
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
[[Page H1997]]
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 229, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 145]
AYES--193
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--229
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--7
Barletta
Davis (CA)
Matsui
Richmond
Rush
Sinema
Titus
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1825
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Espaillat
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Espaillat) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 228, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 146]
AYES--193
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Faso
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--228
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
[[Page H1998]]
Emmer
Farenthold
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--8
Barletta
Davis (CA)
Joyce (OH)
Matsui
Richmond
Rush
Sinema
Titus
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1828
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Byrne, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 985) to
amend the procedures used in Federal court class actions and
multidistrict litigation proceedings to assure fairer, more efficient
outcomes for claimants and defendants, and for other purposes, and,
pursuant to House Resolution 180, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. KILDEE. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Kildee moves to recommit the bill H.R. 985 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 13, insert after line 10 the following (and conform
the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 108. PROTECTING SAFE DRINKING WATER.
Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title
shall apply to any civil action brought to protect public
drinking water supplies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
My motion to recommit is quite simple. It exempts class action
lawsuits that are brought to protect public water supplies.
I know some of you have heard me speak of this. I am from Flint,
Michigan, and we know, in my community, what happens when we fail to
protect drinking water.
In the course of the day, most Americans take for granted that water
that comes from the tap is safe. But for my community of 100,000
people, that is not true. It hasn't been true for years. Since the
State government switched to a corrosive water source, the Flint River,
they have not been able to drink water out of the tap.
This terrible decision poisoned the city's water supply with
corrosive water, resulting in high levels of lead leaching into their
water system, going into their pipes, into their homes, into their
bodies, 100,000 people, 7,000 children under the age of 6. Nearly 3
years later, those same families are still reeling from this crisis. It
is unacceptable. It is an injustice.
Lead is a potent neurotoxin. There is no safe level of lead. Lead
exposure can lead to serious health effects felt for years.
But the impacts are not limited just to health. Those high levels of
lead also damaged Flint's infrastructure, and we now have to remove
thousands of pipes in order to provide safe water.
Thankfully, this Congress, Democrats and Republicans, came together
to provide necessary help for my hometown to fix those pipes. But Flint
residents will continue to suffer. That was important, but not enough.
There are lots of health effects.
Just recently we learned that many cases, in fact, many deaths that
we thought were attributable to pneumonia, were, in fact, Legionnaires'
disease, traceable to the bacteria caused by this terrible crisis. A
dozen people have already died as a result of Legionnaires' disease,
and others, whose deaths may be reclassified, could bring that number
much higher.
The corrosiveness of that water not only had health impacts, but it
literally destroyed people's homes from the inside out. So, in addition
to those service lines, people's plumbing in their homes, their water
heaters, their washing machines destroyed, ruined, and their lives
potentially ruined as well.
So where does the support, where does the funding come for those
losses experienced by residents of my hometown?
It comes from the justice system. This bill would create more
barriers for people in my hometown to access that justice system, to
seek justice for what happened to them. They have suffered a terrible
crisis, and they should be able to seek justice and restitution.
Unfortunately, this bill could prevent people from Flint, and other
Americans, from seeking justice, and that is what my motion intends to
correct.
In order to receive justice from the harm that they have experienced
from this public water source, residents have filed class action suits.
This bill severely curtails their access to the courts to seek redress,
to seek that restitution. This bill would weaken their access to
justice.
My motion is simple. It would allow lawsuits that are brought to
protect our precious public water supplies to be exempt from the
additional hurdles, from the additional barriers that this underlying
bill sets out.
Having safe drinking water is a human right, and the access to that
and the access to justice related to that basic human right ought to be
completely unfettered. My motion to recommit would assure that, and I
ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
[[Page H1999]]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the base bill contains provisions that
allow all claims to go forward as class actions and also maximize
awards to deserving victims.
Why would anyone want to single out safe drinking water victims for
adverse treatment and deny them the benefits of the base bill that
would maximize any recovery they might receive in a class action?
This motion to recommit would do that, and it should be defeated.
In closing, let me say that we know that only the tiniest fraction of
consumer class action members ever bother to claim the compensation
awarded them in a settlement. That is clear proof that the vast
majority--the vast large numbers of class members are satisfied with
the product they purchased. They don't want compensation. They don't
want to be lumped into gigantic class action lawsuits.
Federal judges are crying out for the Congress to reform the class
action system, which currently allows trial lawyers to file classes
with hundreds and thousands of unmeritorious claims and use those
artificially inflated classes to force defendants to settle the case.
As I have recounted, some class action settlements have left lawyers
with millions in fees while the alleged victims receive absolutely
nothing.
This bill prevents people from being forced into class actions with
other uninjured or minimally injured members, only to have the
compensation of injured parties reduced. It requires that lawyer fees
be limited to a reasonable percentage of the money injured victims
actually receive.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this motion to recommit
and supporting this bill on behalf of the consumers and injured parties
everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 234, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 147]
AYES--188
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--234
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--7
Barletta
Davis (CA)
Matsui
Richmond
Rush
Sinema
Titus
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1846
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CONYERS. 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 220,
noes 201, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 148]
AYES--220
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
[[Page H2000]]
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--201
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Faso
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Massie
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Griffith
-
NOT VOTING--7
Barletta
Davis (CA)
Matsui
Richmond
Rush
Sinema
Titus
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1852
Mr. SUOZZI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. POSEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________