[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3100-3109]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2341, CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 
                                  2002

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 367 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 367

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2341) to amend the procedures that apply to 
     consideration of interstate class actions to assure fairer 
     outcomes for class members and defendants, to outlaw certain 
     practices that provide inadequate settlements for class 
     members, to assure that attorneys do not receive a 
     disproportionate amount of settlements at the expense of 
     class members, to provide for clearer and simpler information 
     in class action settlement notices, to assure prompt 
     consideration of interstate class actions, to amend title 28, 
     United States Code, to allow the application of the 
     principles of Federal diversity jurisdiction to interstate 
     class actions, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  1045

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 367 is a structured rule providing for 
the consideration of H.R. 2341, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2002. 
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. It provides that the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary 
now printed in the bill be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment.
  The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment 
may be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be debatable for 20 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
shall not be subject to amendment or demand for division of the 
question. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of 
the bill and waives all points of order against such amendments.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  I would like to take a moment to clarify for my colleagues that while 
this is a structured rule, our committee, the Committee on Rules, did 
make in order every amendment submitted to us on this legislation. The 
rule simply incorporates some time confines, equally applied to all the 
amendments, in order to provide some level of certainty and order 
during consideration of this legislation on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the history of the judicial process has established it 
as a system that, in most instances, employs fairness and balance in 
the rendering of

[[Page 3101]]

justice. As one of the many tools of the judicial system, the class 
action lawsuit, in its ideal form, shares these characteristics. The 
class action suit is meant to give the many who may have the same claim 
against the same defendant an efficient way to have their grievances 
consolidated into a unified and magnified voice.
  Mr. Speaker, as used by public interest organizations and truly 
interested groups of individuals, class action lawsuits can be 
effective in remedying wrongs, curbing dangerous misconduct, or 
encouraging better enforcement of laws. However, the reality of the 
class action lawsuit is far, far from the ideal. Today, this procedural 
device is often employed in frivolous suits designed to force 
businesses into quick and often unwarranted settlements while denying 
those truly wronged of any meaningful recourse. This abuse can stunt 
economic growth. It can stunt job creation. And, ironically, these 
frivolous suits can clog the very courts that they are being heard in, 
making it more difficult to bring the valid litigation that the class 
action tools are meant to facilitate.
  Perhaps worst of all, the abuse of class actions often rewards 
attorneys and certain plaintiffs while leaving larger segments of the 
class with little real remedy. In one instance, a State court approved 
a class action settlement in a case brought by account holders against 
a bank in which the plaintiffs' attorneys received over $8 million in 
fees while 700,000 class members, the plaintiffs, only received about 
$10 each.
  Even worse, those 700,000 class members each had up to $100 deducted 
from their accounts to pay the legal fees owed by the bank under the 
settlement. As a result, most of the class members ended up with a net 
loss as a result of litigation designed to protect their interest.
  In another class action filed against General Mills, an additive was 
added to Cheerios, a very popular cereal. The settlement directed $2 
million to the lawyers, while the class members each received coupons 
for free boxes of cereal.
  Now, while these examples may seem extreme, and they are extreme, 
they are sadly and rapidly becoming the normal. This is an aspect of 
our civil justice system that is in very sore need of reform. Class 
action filings in State courts have increased 1,000 percent over the 
past 10 years. That is an incredible jump.
  As noted in an editorial in The Washington Post, way last August, 
``We must inject the world of class actions with more accountability to 
real clients and with some consequence to lawyers who file frivolous 
claims.'' This bill does just that by curbing the abuse of class 
actions while preserving the right of the truly injured to bring 
meritorious class action suits.
  Specifically, this legislation would preserve the intent of article 
III of our constitution by allowing large, interstate class actions to 
be removed to Federal Court when appropriate, thereby creating greater 
uniformity in considering these cases and allowing greater 
consolidation of claims. Importantly, this would mean those cases that 
affect individuals across the Nation could be decided by courts that 
represent the Nation as a whole and not just one particular State 
picked by a trial lawyer.
  At the same time, this legislation protects individuals in class 
actions through the Consumer Class Action Bill of Rights. This bill of 
rights requires that notices sent to class members be simple and 
intelligible. It also ensures that victorious plaintiffs do not suffer 
a net loss because of attorneys fees. It prevents geographic 
discrimination against certain class members, and it prohibits 
disproportionate awards from going to classes' representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, our judicial system and the judges and attorneys that 
serve within it do noble and important work. I am a past attorney and a 
past judge, so I can say that with some assurance. But it is the job of 
this Congress to make sure that the procedural tools given to those in 
the judicial system are not misused to the point that they frustrate 
their very purpose. This bill creates important reforms that will 
reduce abuse and protect individuals.
  I urge support for this legislation and for this fair and balanced 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle have a very 
peculiar sense of timing. Here we have this problem with Enron. We have 
thousands of Enron employees who lost their life savings investing in 
401(k)s, and we have thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of 
Enron's shareholders who lost a lot of money in Enron stock; and yet my 
friends on the other side of the aisle take this very moment to make it 
more difficult for those thousands of Enron employees and those 
thousands of Enron shareholders to bring a class action lawsuit. I have 
a difficult time understanding their timing.
  I understand their interest in this issue. It has been brought up 
before. But now we have this situation where executives of Enron were 
telling their employees what a good deal it was to invest in their 
company's stock at the same time that those executives were secretly 
selling their stock. And so we have a class of people, a class of 
employees, thousands of employees who have lost their life savings; and 
yet my friends on the other side of the aisle would say, well, this is 
the very moment that we are going to make it more difficult for you to 
seek class relief. It is a very peculiar sense of timing.
  It is an interesting bill. It is important that the American people 
very clearly understand what this bill, H.R. 2341, the so-called Class 
Action Fairness Act, would do. It is not, as some claim, a small 
procedural change. It will not, as some have suggested, curb lawsuit 
abuse. In fact, there is no statistical evidence of a class action 
crisis. Unfortunately, some people, for their own political purposes, 
have made a career out of hyping anecdotal stories of unbelievable 
lawsuits. The truth is these rare abuses have been appropriately 
handled by State legislatures and State supreme courts.
  So what will this bill do? In a nutshell, it will drastically tilt 
the justice system in favor of big corporations and their executives 
and against the individuals they sometimes harm. That may not be the 
intent of its supporters, but that will be its effect. And, Mr. 
Speaker, that is just plain wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, it is really unbelievable to me. I am frankly astounded, 
as I mentioned earlier, that Republicans have made protecting big 
corporate wrongdoers their priority right now. After all, at this very 
moment Congress is still trying to figure out how Enron executives 
managed to devastate the life savings of thousands of its employees and 
shareholders. Mr. Speaker, America has just witnessed the worst 
corporate robbery in history, and now Republican leaders are pushing a 
bill to protect big corporate wrongdoers. Do they really want to make 
it easier for people to do the type of things that executives at Enron 
reportedly did?
  Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of additional reasons to vote against 
this bill. By federalizing class actions, it tramples on the authority 
of State courts, which is pretty peculiar coming from a Republican 
Party that preaches the gospel of States' rights on almost every other 
issue. And it will further clog Federal courts that are already 
overwhelmed by the large number of criminal drug cases. So it is no 
surprise that both Federal and State judiciaries have consistently 
opposed efforts to Federalize class actions.
  But the real losers under this bill are ordinary Americans for whom 
the justice system is the only protection against big corporate 
wrongdoers. It is people like the thousands of Americans who lost their 
life savings at Enron and the 800 people who were injured and the 271 
who were killed on defective Firestone tires. This bill would actually 
make it harder for them to hold those corporate wrongdoers accountable. 
This Congress should be fighting for those Americans, not protecting 
the corporate wrongdoers that harmed them.

[[Page 3102]]

  Mr. Speaker, we appreciate that this rule makes in order all of the 
amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules. That does 
not, in fact, change the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this is a bad bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I must say that this bill was 
discussed at length in the Committee on Rules yesterday, and I am not 
sure, maybe my friend from Texas was not present, but I believe he was, 
because it is incredible to me that he is making these statements. It 
was pointed out at great length that the Enron case is already in 
Federal court. This has nothing to do with Enron. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, 
securities litigation is carved out entirely by this legislation. It 
would not cover Enron.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the author of this 
legislation, to further bring some light to this subject.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time. I want to compliment her and the other members of the Committee 
on Rules for fashioning a very fine and very fair rule to debate this 
important piece of litigation reform.
  I was pleased to hear the gentleman from Texas acknowledge the 
fairness of the rule, so I encourage all of my colleagues to support 
the rule when it comes up for a vote. But I would like to address the 
other issue the gentleman raised, and, that is to somehow try to 
associate this with Enron.
  Enron's class action lawsuit is already in Federal court. The fact of 
the matter is, it is in Federal court because the plaintiffs in that 
case chose to bring it there because it involves Federal questions and 
because it will be a better place to handle class action lawsuits 
because our Federal courts are designed to hear cases from plaintiffs 
and defendants from a multitude of jurisdictions.
  But the Enron case could have been brought in a State court in, say, 
Illinois where there might be a few Enron employees. It would not be 
appropriate for it to be heard there, but if it were brought there 
under diversity of jurisdiction and there were no means to remove it to 
Federal court, all of the gentleman from Texas' constituents in the 
State of Texas would be denied having an opportunity to have it heard 
in that court; whereas with this legislation, if it were brought in a 
State court where it was inappropriate to be brought, it could be 
easily removed to Federal court. This is not about Enron.
  What this is really about is fairness to American consumers. Let me 
give you some examples.
  Here is a case. This case shows what the trial lawyers received, $2 
million in attorneys' fees, and the plaintiffs that they were 
representing, they got a coupon. A coupon for what? A box of Cheerios.
  Here is another one. In this case, the plaintiffs' attorneys received 
$100,000 in attorneys' fees and the plaintiffs got three golf balls.
  It gets better. In this particular case, the plaintiffs' attorneys, 
the trial lawyers, received $4 million in attorneys' fees and the 
plaintiffs each got a check for 33 cents. In case you cannot see the 
amount on this check, we blew it up for you. There it is: 33 cents. 
That is what the plaintiffs got while their attorneys got $4 million. 
There is a catch to it, though, for those desiring 33 cents because in 
order to get the 33 cents, they had to mail back in their acceptance of 
the settlement offer, which cost them 34 cents. So actually they came 
up a penny short in this particular class action lawsuit abuse.
  It goes on. Here is a settlement of a case against an airline that 
gave the class members a $25 coupon. That sounds pretty good. It is 
$25. It is better than 33 cents, but it is conditioned upon their 
purchasing an additional airline ticket for $250 or more. In other 
words, it is a coupon for a 10 percent reduction in your next airline 
ticket. What did the attorneys get? $16 million.
  This one is the best of all. A Bank of Boston settlement over 
disputed accounting practices produced $8.5 million in attorneys' fees. 
Later, the plaintiffs' attorneys in the case sued their own clients, 
the class members, for an additional $25 million in attorneys' fees, 
and the class members were required to pay $80 each for a settlement 
that netted the attorneys $8.5 million.
  This is not a Republican effort for reform. There are plenty of folks 
on both sides of the aisle here who support this, including those who 
subscribe to this distinguished publication, the Washington Post, where 
they said that the lawyers cash in while the clients get coupons for 
product upgrades.
  ``It's a bad system, one that irrationally taxes companies in a 
fashion all but unrelated to the harm their products do and that 
provides nothing resembling justice to victims of actual corporate 
misconduct.''
  So, as a result of that which appeared on March 9, this past 
Saturday, the Post has endorsed this legislation. The Post went on to 
say, ``That it is controversial at all,'' referring to this 
legislation, ``reflects less on the merits as a proposal than on the 
grip that trial lawyers have on many Democrats.''
  So I urge my colleagues on the other side to join the many who will 
join us in rejecting the idea that somehow we have to have a 
continuation of a simply bad Federal procedural rule that would allow 
these cases to be brought into Federal court when all we are trying to 
do is to correct a very serious problem of abuse.
  How does the abuse occur? The plaintiffs' attorneys, and they are 
good attorneys, they choose the jurisdiction in this country that they 
think best suits their likelihood of success in the case. That happens 
in every lawsuit. But in class action lawsuits involving hundreds of 
thousands or millions of plaintiffs, they can choose from 4,000 
different jurisdictions in the country, and a handful of jurisdictions 
over and over and over again get the cases brought there because those 
judges are known to certify these classes far more readily than anybody 
else. Allowing removal of the case by either the plaintiffs or the 
defendants to Federal court will end this abuse because you will have a 
more uniform, more standard application of what it takes to certify a 
class.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask my good friend, 
who is on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte), who is himself an ex-trial lawyer, what is his 
solution to this horrible problem of trial lawyers making too much 
money?
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), 
a former trial lawyer himself.
  I will repeat the question. What is the Republican solution to this 
horrible practice that has allowed trial lawyers, like you used to be, 
from reaping these incredible profits?
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. For better or for worse, if the gentleman would yield, 
I have to say that I never enjoyed such remuneration for the work that 
I did.
  Mr. CONYERS. You did not like practicing as a trial lawyer. It was 
not fun.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I did not handle class action lawsuits, but I will 
tell you that the measure of a good lawsuit is not how much work the 
attorneys put into it relative to what they receive, but whether they 
accomplish anything for their clients. And when they get a coupon for 
Cheerios, they are accomplishing nothing in exchange for the large fees 
they receive.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for explaining to me what his 
solution is to the problem of trial lawyers making too much money.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  My colleagues on the other side want to say no, no, no, no, this is 
not about Enron. Explain that to the thousands of Enron employees who 
lost their life savings in their 401(k)s and who would like to bring a 
civil fraud action

[[Page 3103]]

against executives at Enron in State court in Harris County, Houston, 
Texas. Explain that to them, please, if this is not about Enron.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark).
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I understand what is behind this. I am not a 
lawyer, I will never be a judge, but this is really the Republicans' 
attempt to prevent themselves from being sued as a party under a class 
action under RICO by the 42 million beneficiaries of Medicare whose 
plan they are plotting to destroy.
  As we sit here today, the Committee on the Budget is giving the 
Republican budget in the office building, and they are going to tell 
you how they are going to give 1 year, $8 billion, to Medicare. They 
have depleted the entire Medicare trust fund, and this 1 year, $8 
billion, is contingent on privatizing Medicare, taking the President's 
reform, which is a voucher system, and destroying Medicare, as the 
Republicans are on record as wanting to do time and time again, 
starting with Newt Gingrich.
  So they have given us $8 billion, or $40 billion over 5 years, if we 
privatize the system. That is to cover a drug benefit which ought to 
cost $70 billion a year by any standards. That does not allow us to 
correct the inequity in physicians' payments which costs $12 billion a 
year. This does not take care of hospital inflation, children's 
hospitals, teaching hospitals, cancer centers, preventive screening.
  This is an obscene hoax on the American people. It is just one more 
indication of protecting the corporate interests and the corporate 
insurance companies, for instance, who provide Medicare benefits from 
any class action. They will not let us have the Patients' Bill of 
Rights. The only way we have now to enforce that is class actions in a 
few cases. If we could have a Patients' Bill of Rights with the right 
to sue, that might not be necessary.
  But one more case, protect the rich, trample on the poor, do away 
with Medicare and Social Security, this is the Republicans' plan; and 
this is one more nail in the coffin of the Medicare beneficiaries.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, who can get us back on course. This is a 
bill that is addressing lawsuit reform, not Medicare, not Enron. The 
gentleman from Texas can help point that out.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the 
Committee on Rules for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 2341, the Class Action Fairness 
Act of 2002. The current class action system makes it too easy for 
attorneys to bring suit not for the benefit and well-being of class 
members, but for the attorneys' own monetary gain.
  For instance, when attorneys sued Southwestern Bell, which is a 
constituent firm, alleging misrepresentation of service plans, they 
made $4 million in fees while the class members received only a $15 
credit. A suit brought against Oracle sought no damages, but resulted 
in $750,000 in attorneys' fees and nothing for the plaintiffs. 
Unfortunately, these examples are not uncommon.
  Congress should not stand by while lawyers shop around the country 
for a judge who will render a favorable verdict. This bill will give 
Federal courts jurisdiction over cases that involve aggregate claims of 
at least $2 million and a plaintiff and defendant from different 
States. It also creates a class action bill of rights that will require 
settlement notices to be written in plain English, prevent 
disproportionate attorneys' fees from being awarded, and protect 
consumers from actually losing money when there is a verdict in their 
favor.
  Mr. Speaker, we must not let a few lawyers get rich at the expense of 
working families. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for offering this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me 
this time.
  This bill is opposed by every major environmental organization, every 
major consumer product safety organization, and I wonder why that is?
  Mr. Speaker, it is no doubt trite to proclaim that the road to hell 
is paved with good intentions. This bill is a perfect example of that 
aphorism. No Member of this Chamber needs to lecture me about living in 
a culture of lawsuits and about how the number of lawsuits has spiraled 
out of control. I am all too familiar with that, being a trial lawyer 
and being a trial judge.
  Let me tell you something, this bill will do nothing but make things 
worse for our courts in this land, worse for our judges, and, most 
important, it will make things worse for the people who need redress 
the most in our judicial system.
  This bill does not make our litigious system better. Indeed, it makes 
it far worse. The bill before us would make it significantly more 
difficult for consumers to achieve relief from the most outrageous 
corporate abuses.

                              {time}  1115

  Frankly, this bill is a bailout for corporate wrongdoers, and that 
makes me sick.
  Mr. Speaker, if passed, this bill will make it easier for a 
significant number of corporations, not just Enron, where no real class 
action has been filed yet, but Arthur Andersen, for example, might not 
have as much to fear. We may never have even heard about the problems 
with Firestone if this bill were law today. Monsanto, W.R. Grace, all 
these corporations had to face the public and face the music because of 
our Nation's easy access to the courthouse. This bill would have made 
it significantly easier for these corporations if this bill were law.
  This bill would federalize class action lawsuits, plain and simple. 
You can take my word for it, or you can take Chief Justice Rehnquist's 
word for it, the Federal courts are already overworked and 
understaffed. This bill would only exacerbate this problem.
  State courts are the much preferred venue for these types of actions. 
We have heard about problems in a couple of States. The fact is, there 
really is no crisis. Florida, California, Texas, and New York all are 
able to handle their caseload without Federal intervention. Certainly, 
if the four largest States in the United States are not having these 
problems, the other 46 can manage as well.
  Let me tell you some things. I heard the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) a moment ago talk about a coupon. I cannot deny there are 
cases where lawyers have made fees and clients have not received all of 
the recompense that my brothers and sisters on the other side would 
have them. But what about tobacco and all of the money that all of the 
States have received? What about asbestos and black lung? Where would 
we be if this were law today? Would we have seat belts in our 
automobiles, air bags, infant car seats, child proof medicine bottles, 
disability access? All of those were class actions.
  I am heartened that the Committee on Rules did make in order the 
Lofgren amendment and several others, including the amendment of my 
good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  I want to make it very clear that I recognize that we do not have all 
the time this morning to talk about this matter, but understand this: 
there was absolutely no consultation with Federal judges. And we talk 
all the time in this body about unfunded mandates. Well, this bill was 
not scored by CBO, according to my Republican colleagues; but CBO did 
say that there would be increased administrative costs. Let me tell you 
what some of those increased administrative costs will be: more court 
reporters, more translators, more clerks. And the impact on the Federal 
judiciary, it is all but outrageous for us to believe that courts will 
not bog down. If we impact

[[Page 3104]]

the civil litigation system in this country, then the linchpin of this 
country's economy will come undone.
  It is a terrible mistake for us to proceed in this manner, and I urge 
my colleagues to defeat this bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time 
as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the preceding speaker for pointing out how 
urgent it is for the Democrats in control of the other body to approve 
the some 100 judges that President Bush has nominated that are being 
held hostage to politics. That is the reason that we have some backlog 
in some of our courts.
  The fairness bill which is on the floor today is addressed to 
something much more discrete, and that is what is the proper role of 
the Federal courts and what is the proper role of the State courts.
  This bill is needed to restore to the Federal courts the jurisdiction 
that the Framers of our Constitution gave to the Federal courts. It was 
the Framers that decided that when the parties to a case live in 
different States, multiple States, when what is at issue in the case 
are the laws of multiple States, that that kind of jurisdiction, 
diversity jurisdiction, so-called, is properly vested in the Federal 
courts.
  What we are hearing in opposition to putting nationwide class actions 
in Federal Court is a sort of reverse Federalism; that somehow if 
multiple States are involved and parties from multiple States are 
involved, that a hamlet in some county in America should make law for 
the whole country.
  The Framers gave us this jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, to 
guard against local prejudice to make sure that American citizens would 
not be dragged to some unfamiliar venue nowhere near where they lived 
and forced to appear between a rock and a hard place, as it were, 
unable to argue their rights that they would have back home or in a 
Federal jurisdiction, and knowing the outcome in advance, that they 
were going to be home-towned by local judges and juries. The Framers 
wanted to ensure that citizens would have confidence in their judicial 
system by eliminating this kind of local bias.
  The Framers reasoned that local prejudice could result in 
discrimination against interstate commerce. As you recall, in article I 
of the Constitution interstate commerce is a Federal responsibility, 
not a State responsibility. Of course, prejudice against people from 
other States, prejudice against interstate commerce, they recognized 
would be highly detrimental to the country.
  We are here today precisely because the Framers intended to prevent 
what is happening in our court system today in the form of nationwide 
class action lawsuits filed in local courts. A class action is 
typically a big lawsuit, a large lawsuit, often with hundreds or even 
thousands of class members. In fact, most of the Members in this 
Chamber and most of the people watching what is going on on this floor 
are probably plaintiffs in lawsuits that they do not even know about, 
because it is so easy to claim, if you are a lawyer, to represent a 
whole class of people similarly situated to your cousin.
  In these large class actions involving people from all over America, 
there are often at issue the laws of many different States. It is 
because of this that a class action involving citizens of multiple 
States necessarily has significant interstate commerce implications, 
and as a result it is the quintessential Federal case.
  No matter how many citizens from other States are involved, no matter 
how many States' laws are involved, the law as it exists today places 
such strict limits on the right of a party to have his or her case 
removed to Federal Court that it is virtually impossible for an out-of-
state party to do so.
  This has given rise to what is called in the lawyers parlance ``forum 
shopping.'' If you were a clever lawyer, you get to pick the one place 
in America where you know you are going to win, whether you are right 
or whether you are wrong. Forum shopping has resulted in a very small 
handful of local courts in such places as Madison County, Illinois; 
Jefferson County, Texas; and Palm Beach County, Florida, making law for 
an entire Nation.
  But this is not the only negative impact of what I have called 
reverse Federalism. It is now openly recognized that these local courts 
can and do harbor actual prejudice against out-of-state defendants. 
This was acknowledged by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a 
recent opinion in which the court apologized to the out-of-state 
defendant for the current state of Federal law. They recognized that 
while they could not permit this action under the current 
circumstances, which we just described, the current Federal law which 
makes removal so difficult, they could not permit this action to be 
heard in Federal Court, it ought to be in Federal Court. So they 
apologized to the defendant in the case for their anomalous ruling, 
returning a large interstate class action lawsuit to Alabama State 
court.
  The Eleventh Circuit recognized that it was sending these defendants 
back to a State court system that was going to treat them, or at least 
had treated people similarly situated in the past, unfairly; that has 
produced in their words ``gigantic awards against out-of-state 
defendants.''
  The court quoted a newspaper article noting that Alabama was ``a 
State whose courts are among the most widely feared by corporate 
defendants.'' Nonetheless, the Eleventh Circuit concluded there was 
nothing under current Federal law that could be done about it.
  The Eleventh Circuit laid bare the harsh reality that out-of-state 
defendants can now face in class action lawsuits, where the thumb is 
put on the scale of justice in advance. You, as an individual citizen 
in America, as a party to one of these actions, can be dragged into a 
remote jurisdiction that often has little or no connection with you, or 
indeed with any of the parties. Appearing in local courts, facing local 
judges and judges unlikely to treat you fairly, you know the outcome in 
advance. Almost certainly you will wind up being forced to pay a large 
settlement just to get out of this nightmare, because you would not 
want to see it through trial to the unfair result.
  This is precisely the kind of injustice and local prejudice the 
Framers intended to eliminate by explicitly granting to the Federal 
courts diversity jurisdiction over cases involving people, parties in 
multiple States, and laws of multiple States. This legislation will 
restore the balance between State and Federal courts and return to the 
Federal courts the jurisdiction over diversity indications that the 
Framers intended.
  Now, I must say in closing that our State court system is a good 
system. It is a wonderful system for resolving a variety of cases. The 
problem is not with the entire system of State courts; but rather that 
some lawyers, a small number of amoral and unethical lawyers on many 
occasions, get to pick not just State courts in general, not just the 
system, but the precise place where they know they have control and 
where they can win.
  The argument that has been made against this bill bears a heavy 
burden. People have stood up here and said that this would be bad for 
the Enron plaintiffs, even though, as we all know, the Enron plaintiffs 
chose a Federal forum and this bill gives anyone the right to file in a 
State court or remove to a Federal court.
  People are saying that this tramples on the rights of State courts. I 
think I have dealt fairly with that argument.
  I have heard it is going to protect the rich or that it is going to 
hurt environmental cases. The burden that you bear in making that 
argument is that you have to say that there is inherent prejudice 
against environmental issues in the Federal courts. You have to say 
that there is inherent prejudice according to class in the Federal 
courts. I do not think any of you really believes that. All that this 
bill does is state that if multiple States are involved, you can be in 
the Federal system.
  This bill is an affirmation of Federalism and of the Founders' 
intent. It

[[Page 3105]]

is the reason that the Washington Post so strongly supports this bill. 
In their editorial what they have said is that the lawyers cash in 
while the clients get coupons for product upgrades. That is the kind of 
misrepresentation that has occurred, as described by the speakers that 
got up before me, in this bad system that they describe, that 
irrationally taxes companies in a fashion all but unrelated to the harm 
their products do, and that provides nothing resembling justice to 
victims of actual corporate misconduct.
  The Federal system is a good system for resolving cases. It is the 
ideal system and the one that the Framers intended for resolving 
complex cases involving citizens and parties of multiple States and the 
laws of multiple States.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to approve not only this rule, but the 
legislation when it next comes to a vote, and I predict it will pass 
with a big bipartisan majority.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is one of the 
best lawyers in the House. I do not know if he was a trial lawyer or 
not. But I just wanted to point out to him a couple of cases.
  This discussion is not new in the Federal judiciary. We have been 
trying to figure out when you get to State Court and when you get to 
Federal Court for quite a while. So I want to refer the gentleman, the 
gentleman has probably seen this case before, Strawbridge v. Curtis, 
that was decided way back in 1806, dealing with how one has to have 
complete diversity to bring a State law case into a Federal law case. 
Indeed, they brought it up to date in another case of which I hope the 
gentleman is aware, Schneider v. Harris, in 1969, where the court held 
that the court should only consider the citizenship of named plaintiffs 
for diversity purposes.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sandlin).
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Our friends on the other side know that this issue is not about 
attorneys. It takes away rights of consumers, it gives corporate 
wrongdoers additional protections that they are not currently entitled 
to, and it strips the States of the States' own laws and procedures.
  I think it is important to note that neither the Federal judiciary 
nor the State judiciary has requested any of these changes.

                              {time}  1130

  No judge in America has written in and asked for these questions. No 
organization has asked for these changes, no organization of judges at 
the State or Federal level. This is not a problem. This is an effort by 
our friends on the other side of the aisle to create a solution to an 
imagined problem, and it is a poor solution at that.
  Also, this legislation strips powers from our State courts.
  I would like to say, what happened to States' rights? What happened 
to the issue of local control? What happened to what we hear time and 
time again about local people know best what to do in local 
communities? This strips the authority of the State court to apply the 
State court's own procedural rules and the State court's own procedural 
laws.
  This is a very, very serious 10th amendment question. It is 
unconstitutional. It is an effort by our friends on the other side of 
the aisle to federalize State actions, and it is just wrong.
  Our Federal courts are already overloaded. Right now, there are 68 
judicial vacancies in the judiciary, 416 civil cases pending, on 
average, as of 2001. The criminal trials, of course, get preference; 
and every commentator has said, this will move practically every single 
class action in America into the Federal court. Our friends on the 
other side of the aisle want to federalize every action.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues something about this ridiculous 
argument about forum shopping and trying to get preference. Let me give 
an example. In my hometown of Marshall, Texas, if one wants to file a 
class action in State court, it is filed in the State district court. 
If one would like to file it in the Federal court, you move one block 
down the street and you file it in the Federal court in Marshall, 
Texas.
  Trying to act like there is some big Federal procedure and big 
Federal law that covers everything is absolutely not true. Remember, no 
matter what Federal court one files this in, the Federal court is 
applying State law. The Federal court is applying State law. I take 
offense to objections to State courts and State law and State judges.
  Let me read something that one of our friends in Congress said not 
long ago about judges. He said, ``I simply say, the State judge went to 
the same law school, studied the same law, and passed the same bar exam 
that the Federal judge did. The only difference is, the Federal judge 
was better politically connected and became a Federal judge. But I 
would suggest when the judge raises his hand, State court or Federal 
court, they swear to defend the U.S. Constitution; and it is wrong, it 
is unfair to assume ipso facto that a State judge is going to be less 
sensitive to the law, less scholarly in his or her decision, than a 
Federal judge.''
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) made those statements.
  It is important that we make sure that consumers have access to the 
courts. It is important that they choose, and it is important that we 
stick up for the United States Constitution for once, and we do not 
move everything into the Federal system.
  Let me mention one other thing. Oftentimes suits effect changes that 
are good. There has been a lot of talk about coupons here. Sometimes 
those coupons are good. Sometimes they change products. There are 
products on the market today that have increased warnings as a result 
of suits that have been brought by consumers all across America, where 
they have been harmed by corporate America, but they cannot afford to 
have their own suits.
  Do the words in litigation, Ford Pinto, fire-safe pajamas, asbestos, 
do those raise an issue? Those are not class actions, but those are 
lawsuits that have caused change, and class actions do the same.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill because of its 
substance, which I oppose, but also because of the very fact that it is 
being brought up at a time when we should be bringing up a bill that 
the Democrats are asking to be discharged to provide unemployment 
benefits and health benefits to those people affected by the September 
11 attacks.
  We lost no time in bailing out the airline industries after the 
tragedy of September 11, and that was something we probably should have 
done. At the same time, in tandem with that, we should have had 
legislation on this floor in order to help those workers who were left 
unemployed after that tragedy, but we did not. Here we are 6 months 
later.
  Last week we passed legislation, which was the very least we could 
do, to extend unemployment benefits for workers. But many, many people 
cannot avail themselves of that benefit, and the bill did nothing last 
week to address the issue of loss of health benefits by America's 
workers.
  So, instead, I am asking our colleagues today to defeat the previous 
question; and then that will allow Democrats to bring a comprehensive 
unemployment insurance bill to the floor, including health care for 
unemployed workers. Instead of passing anticonsumer class action 
legislation, we should be bringing legislation to the floor to help 
unemployed workers.
  It is not a question of Democrats and Republicans deciding on how to 
help unemployed workers; it is a question of whether we are going to 
fully help unemployed workers. The Democrats say yes, the Republicans 
say no. The Republicans say we want to use our time

[[Page 3106]]

on the floor to pass legislation, and in this time of Enron, I mean it 
is so brazen.
  I am surprised that I am surprised, quite frankly, because usually I 
am not surprised at anything in politics. But it is surprising that 
with all of the headlines on Enron and Arthur Andersen and the rest, 
that instead of helping workers put out of work, we are making it 
harder for consumers to file class action suits.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous 
question.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the 
gentlewoman from California that this House has passed health benefits 
twice. We have passed unemployment benefits, and it was signed into law 
actually last weekend; I was at the signing ceremony. This has been 
done.
  I do not know where she is coming from. This House has acted 
responsibly and we will continue to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time and for her masterful handling of this rule and the underlying 
debate.
  I do rise as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary in strong 
support of the rule and of the underlying legislation, the Class Action 
Fairness Act of 2002.
  I believe as a new Member of this institution that whatever laws that 
we pass, they ought to ever and always be judged by how they impact not 
the most prosperous or the most affluent in our country, but by how 
they impact the least of these; how the laws in this place impact the 
average, working, struggling American family. And in that, I agree with 
the sentiment expressed by the gentlewoman from California that this 
institution should be focused on the least of these and on struggling 
Americans.
  I just simply would offer that, today, the least of these ought not 
to include doctors, lawyers, and corporate executives, but rather it 
ought to include aggrieved families and hurting Americans like the 
employees of Enron or other litigants and plaintiffs in class action 
lawsuits who have been made the subject of a system that the Washington 
Post called bad and called corrupt in a recent March 9 editorial.
  Mr. Speaker, the father of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) 
says the definition of a contingency fee is, if you lose, your lawyer 
does not get paid, but if you win, you do not get paid. And 
regrettably, as we learned in recent examples debated on this House 
Floor, $2.5 million in a class action lawsuit goes to the attorneys and 
the litigants get a coupon for a box of Cheerios. Another example: $4 
million in legal fees and 33-cent checks distributed to hurting 
families, not even covering the postage for turning in their 
application to be members of the class.
  The benefits of the legislation on the floor today are truly targeted 
to benefiting working and aggrieved Americans. Requiring that all class 
notices and settlement notices be in plain English is one of the 
requirements of this bill, and ensuring that attorneys' fees in class 
actions are based on a reasonable percentage and provide protection 
against loss by class members.
  I rise today as a strong conservative Member of this institution, and 
I must say to my colleagues that it is a rare day that I ever thought 
that I would be quoting the Washington Post on the floor of this 
chamber, but I will do so today. The Washington Post wrote in 
supporting the work of the Committee on the Judiciary, that is on the 
floor today, that under the current system, ``At settlement time, the 
lawyers cash in while the clients get coupons for product upgrades. It 
is a bad system.''
  They went on to write, ``This corrupt system is made possible to some 
degree because of how difficult it is to yank cases from State court 
and move them into the Federal system where judges tend to examine them 
more skeptically.'' They point out the positives in the provisions of 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule, to 
support the Class Action Fairness Act, and say ``yes'' to hurting 
American families and litigants taking their stand in our best courts 
against the most powerful.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise to respond to the question: ``I do not know where she is 
coming from; we have passed health benefits for these workers over and 
over again.''
  Where I am coming from is a meeting with James Dodrill, an unemployed 
worker whose health benefits expired last week at a time when his wife 
has been diagnosed with serious illness, James and his family, he and 
his wife and their three children.
  James's benefits ran out last week. Under the current law, James 
would have to spend over $7,000 a year to pay for his COBRA benefits. 
The legislation in our discharge petition would help pay for 75 percent 
of that and fund the States to pick up the other 25 percent, so that 
unemployed workers can continue their health benefits with real health 
care benefits and would expand the number of people who fall into that 
category and include some workers who were never eligible for COBRA to 
be included in Medicaid.
  It is a good discharge. I urge my colleagues to sign it. That is 
where I was coming from.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield to answer 
the question of whether she voted for extending those health benefits?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was just curious as to whether the 
gentlewoman was in favor of her constituents and voted as such when she 
had the opportunity.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer on the 
gentlewoman's time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I am really becoming more confused as I listen to this debate. When I 
first arrived in Congress some 5 years ago, I recollect very passionate 
rhetoric coming from the other side about States' rights and a new era 
in federalism. So it is really ironic that this particular week we are 
considering two bills that would send us off in an entirely different 
direction.
  This bill, the so-called, and let me suggest it is truly mislabeled, 
Class Action Fairness Act, would remove thousands of class action suits 
from State courts to Federal courts; and a consequence of that would be 
that ordinary citizens and hurting American families and consumers 
would be severely disadvantaged against large corporations. And that is 
why every consumer group in America is opposed to this bill. Every 
legitimate major consumer group is opposed to the bill.
  Now, the other bill that is scheduled for tomorrow, the so-called 
``Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act,'' continues that 
relentless federalization of crime that has been roundly criticized by 
such conservative icons as former Attorney General Ed Meese and the 
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Rehnquist.
  I remember the Contract for America and, boy, suddenly it seems, oh, 
so long ago, the Contract For America. Well, according to the Judicial 
Conference, the class action bill would overwhelm Federal courts that 
are already staggering under their current caseload. Of course, for the 
innocent victims of corporate misconduct, this would mean years of 
delay before they would get their day in court.
  How many times have we heard on the floor of this House, ``Justice 
delayed is justice denied''?

                              {time}  1145

  Well, one might suppose that this proposal was written by people who 
favor a larger role for the Federal Government, but that is not the 
case. The authors are the same individuals, and let me quote the 
Washington Post, that

[[Page 3107]]

referred to the proponents as ``self-proclaimed champions of State 
power.''
  One could also speculate that this proposal was generated by people 
who advocate a larger role for the Federal judiciary; but again, that 
is not the case. Some of the sponsors of this bill regularly come to 
the well and rail against judicial activism by ``unelected Federal 
judges.''
  Now, a while back, these same Members were on the floor attempting to 
pass a bill, and I am sure some of the Members here remember it, called 
the Judicial Reform Act, which would have prohibited Federal judges 
from ordering a State or local government to obey Federal environmental 
protection, civil rights, or other laws if doing so would cost the 
States any money. Oh, if hypocrisy were a virtue.
  What that bill attempted to do was to strip the Federal courts of 
jurisdiction over violations of Federal law that were indisputably 
within their power and their sphere of authority. What this bill 
ironically attempts to do is to transfer to those same Federal courts 
jurisdiction over violations of State and local laws that have never 
been within the scope of the Federal courts and their jurisdiction.
  This is truly Alice in Wonderland: Up is down, and down is up. So 
much for federalism. So much for local control.
  Maybe it is too cynical to suggest that the reason for this about-
face has more to do with the financial interests of powerful American 
corporations than concern for the appropriate division of authority 
between Federal and State courts. Maybe that is too cynical. Because it 
certainly has nothing to do with hurting American families, nothing 
whatsoever.
  In any event, Mr. Speaker, we come here today not to praise 
federalism but to bury it. So its demise has been slow and agonizing, 
and I guess this bill gives it the proper burial it does not deserve.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the author of this 
legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has 
turned federalism and States' rights on their heads. This bill is about 
protecting the rights of States. It is absolutely wrong in a nationwide 
class action lawsuit for one party to be able to pick one State court 
judge in one State and have them come in and have them decide the law 
of the other 49 States; plus, this bill gives complete discretion to 
the trial judge to remand to the State courts those cases that the 
judge feels are truly State court matters, and State court matters that 
are exclusively in one jurisdiction cannot be removed. This is not 
about States' rights unless Members look at it from our standpoint.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Now I am really confused, Mr. Speaker, maybe the 
gentleman from Texas can explain to me why the National Council of 
State Legislatures have registered their opposition to this bill. Maybe 
they have given up on the 10th amendment, also.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, again, as I mentioned earlier, I find this all somewhat 
puzzling. My friends on the other side rail against these State judges. 
They think these State judges are out of control.
  In my State of Texas, we elect our State judges. In our largest 
county, Harris County, they are all Republicans. In our second largest 
county, Dallas County, they are all Republicans. In Tarrant County, 
where Fort Worth is located, they are all Republicans. Every member of 
our State supreme court, who is also elected, is a Republican.
  I do not understand what the Members on the other side have to fear 
from State judges, these out-of-control State judges. I guess they are 
distrustful of some members of their own party.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sandlin).
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the Cheerios cases. Let us 
look at the facts. Basically, the consumers had to throw away a box of 
Cheerios. They got back their Cheerios and were made whole.
  That is not what that litigation was about; it was about tainted 
food. The pesticide applicator is now serving a 5-year prison sentence 
for, among other felonies, intentionally altering food under the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; knowing misuse of pesticides 
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and 
other matters.
  The litigation is really between insurance companies and big fees by 
insurance company lawyers. The policy-holders of the insurance company, 
its general liability insurance company, denied a claim. They both 
asserted that the loss was not covered; but if it was covered, it was 
covered by the other insurance company.
  As a result, the pleadings have been placed in the court's vault. The 
name of the parties, the insurance companies and the parties, have been 
removed from the pleadings, and even from the docket.
  More amazing, both parties in that litigation were given pseudo 
names. The name of that suit has been renamed ABC v. DEF. That is not 
litigation among class members; that is not fees by class attorneys. 
That is litigation between insurance companies and big fees by 
insurance defense attorneys.
  If Members want to have true limits, limit that. Limit the fees 
charged by the insurance defense attorneys. Limit litigation among 
corporations. Do not take away rights from consumers in America. Do not 
give additional protections to corporate wrongdoers.
  The problem is right there in the Cheerios case, but they did not 
identify the right problem.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after 
the House passes the class action bill, it will take up the Putting 
Americans First Act, which will provide meaningful health care relief 
for unemployed workers.
  My amendment provides that the bill will be considered under an open 
amendment process so that all Members will be able to fully debate and 
offer amendments to this critical bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this week marked the 6th-month anniversary of the tragic 
events of September 11. Our economy was already in decline before the 
event, and became even more troubled following that date. Millions of 
Americans have lost their jobs, and many more are expected to join the 
ranks of the unemployed in the future.
  Job loss is not only the loss of a paycheck. It usually means the 
loss of health insurance, as well. These people need relief 
immediately, and they will get it from this bill. It is time for the 
House to do its work and pass legislation to help these people.
  Let me make clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will 
not stop consideration of the class action bill. A ``no'' vote will 
allow the House to get on with this much-needed legislation to provide 
health care assistance for those Americans who have lost their jobs and 
their health insurance.
  However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the 
House from taking up this worker-relief bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the 
Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The amendment referred to is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision in this 
     resolution, immediately after disposition of the bill H.R. 
     2341, the Speaker shall declare the House resolved into the 
     Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 3341) to provide a short-term 
     enhanced safety net for Americans losing their jobs

[[Page 3108]]

     and to provide our Nation's economy with a necessary boost. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec.   . If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill H.R. 2341 or 
     H.R. 3341, then on the next legislative day the House shall, 
     immediately after the third daily order of business under 
     clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole 
     for further consideration of that bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I have to say that I agree with some of the points made today.
  I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), that we 
should be providing health care for unemployed workers. That is why 
most people on this side of the aisle voted to do that at least twice 
over the last few weeks.
  I also agree that there is a huge vacancy rate on our Federal bench. 
I urge my friends to urge their friends in the other body to get their 
work done and act on these nominees.
  I agree that there was greed at Enron. This makes our point, Mr. 
Speaker. Together, three top company executives are accused of bilking 
shareholders of $198 million.
  Yet, for all the alleged greed, the wrongdoing of these three 
executives is far outweighed by what the lawyers stand to reap. 
According to news reports, Arthur Andersen made a preemptive settlement 
offer to Enron shareholders in the amount of $750 million. At the 
standard 32 percent contingency fee, this would work out to a $225 
million share of that sum going to the lawyers. That truly is bilking 
the shareholders.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for all his hard work and dedication to 
reforming our civil justice system to work for the parties and not for 
the lawyers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 198, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 55]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barrett
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Blagojevich
     Burton
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Eshoo
     Graham
     Hinojosa
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Radanovich
     Traficant
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1219

  Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Messrs. FORD, PASCRELL, NEAL of Massachusetts, 
RUSH, and Mr. DAVIS of Florida changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page 3109]]



                          ____________________