[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3109-3150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367 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. 2341.

                              {time}  1220


                     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. 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, with Mr. Linder in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2341, the Class Action 
Fairness Act of 2002. Last August, The Washington Post Editorial Board 
wrote that ``no portion of the American civil justice system is more of 
a mess than the world of class actions. None is in more desperate need 
of policymakers' attention.''
  Mr. Chairman, the Post almost got it right, except that the world of 
class action litigation is not a mess, it is a joke. The examples speak 
for themselves:
  An airline price-fixing settlement produced $16 million in attorneys' 
fees that only provided a $25 credit for class members, if they 
purchased an additional airline ticket for more than $250.
  The Bank of Boston accounting settlement, which resulted in $8.5 
million in attorneys' fees but actually cost class members around $80 
apiece. And if that was not bad enough, the plaintiffs' attorneys in 
this settlement actually sued the class members for an additional $25 
million.
  In Mississippi, an asbestos settlement rewarded class members from 
Mississippi as much as 18 times more than class members from other 
States. In another case, a class action settlement against Cheerios 
over food additives produced $2 million in attorneys' fees and class 
members only received coupons for more Cheerios.
  While these settlements are a disgrace to the American legal system, 
H.R. 2341 takes important steps to restore its dignity. First, it would 
implement necessary safeguards against these and other unwieldy 
settlements that give lawyers millions of dollars in fees and 
individual class members a small fraction of any settlement or award. 
Secondly, it would expand Federal diversity jurisdiction over 
interstate class actions to help curb the serious abuses that continue 
to take an enormous toll on our society.
  A quick examination of the class action world reveals that the scales 
of justice are unable to balance the interests of class action lawyers 
and their clients. Currently, attorneys lump thousands and sometimes 
millions of speculative claims into one class action and then race to 
any available State courthouse in the hopes of a rubber stamp 
settlement. Too often these settlements result in millions of dollars 
of attorneys' fees and a mere pittance or coupons for class members in 
exchange for an agreement not to sue in the future.
  While these class actions serve no public policy or benefit to class 
members, they are an enormous windfall for their attorneys. In 
addition, because most State and Federal procedural rules require the 
class members affirmatively opt out of the lawsuit, there are many 
instances where people are dragged into class actions and do not know 
how to get out. The only available advice is supposedly contained in 
extremely complicated class action notices. Mr. Chairman, this system 
does not protect the interests of class members.
  While case after case demonstrates how greedy attorneys use abusive 
class action settlements to game the system at the expense of their 
clients, this bill

[[Page 3110]]

provides long-needed protections to prevent this from happening in the 
future. A consumer class action bill of rights would prohibit the 
payment of bounties to class representatives, bar the approval of 
unreasonable net-loss settlements, and establish a plain-English 
requirement for settlement notices which clarify class members' rights. 
Additionally, H.R. 2341 would require greater scrutiny of coupon 
settlements and settlements involving out-of-state class members.
  With the filing of State court class actions having increased a 
thousand percent over the last 10 years, the current system has 
transformed certain State courts into the epicenter for class action 
abuse. It is widely known that there are a handful of State courts 
notorious for processing even the most speculative of class actions. 
These courts end up rendering judgments that make national law and bind 
people from all 50 States. This is exactly what diversity jurisdiction 
in our Federal courts was intended to prevent.
  The bill would rectify this situation by updating antiquated Federal 
jurisdictional rules and providing our Federal courts with jurisdiction 
over large interstate class actions. Currently, the Federal Rules 
provide Federal court jurisdiction for disputes dealing with Federal 
laws and disputes based upon complete diversity. That means that all 
plaintiffs and defendants are residents of different States and that 
every plaintiff's claim is valued at $75,000 or more. As a result, 
Federal courts have jurisdiction over lawsuits between people from two 
different States for just over $75,000 but do not have jurisdiction for 
national class actions worth billions of dollars. Instead, these 
massive lawsuits are being processed in various county courts 
throughout the country.
  The bill establishes a new minimal diversity standard for class 
actions, requiring that any plaintiff and any defendant are residents 
of different States and that the aggregate of all claims is at least $2 
million. While the bill does not require that all interstate class 
actions be filed in Federal court, those that do satisfy this minimal 
diversity requirement may be removed to Federal court. However, the 
bill also excludes class actions dealing with one State, that are 
against a State, or consist of less than 100 class members, and all 
securities and corporate governance litigation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal court is where these cases belong. The 
Federal courts are equipped and practiced in handling complex, 
interstate cases, unlike many of the county courts that have been the 
source of rampant class action abuse. In addition, Federal courts are 
trained to balance various State laws in similar complex legislation. 
This Congress has already endorsed this notion when it designated a 
single Federal district court to resolve all litigation relating to the 
September 11 attacks and possible future litigation under the terrorism 
reinsurance legislation.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the cost of class 
action abuses are not limited to the parties of these settlements. They 
are shared by the American consumer. Because potential liability of a 
class action is so enormous and unpredictable under the current system, 
most defendants are willing to settle regardless of the merit. The cost 
is then passed off to the consumer in the form of higher prices for 
goods and services. This burdens the American economy and creates 
unneeded threats against America's ingenuity.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, these lawsuits pose a threat to the security of 
America's retirement plans. While class action liability can be 
enormous, news of these lawsuits on Wall Street can drive down a 
particular stock by as much as 8 to 10 points in a day. For someone 
depending upon a steady return on their invested retirement plan, this 
drop should be extremely alarming.

                              {time}  1230

  The bottom line is that H.R. 2341 is a common-sense approach to 
promote national litigation efficiency and fairness to all potential 
plaintiffs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), although he is not opposed to the action but 
supports this bill, and we on this side do not.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time.
  Cases that are truly national in scope are being filed as State class 
actions before certain judges who employ an almost ``anything goes'' 
approach that renders virtually any controversy subject to 
certification as a class action. In such an environment, defendants and 
even plaintiff class members are routinely denied their range of normal 
rights as there is a rush to certify classes and then a rush to settle 
the cases.
  Plaintiffs suffer a range of horrors. In order to prevent removal of 
the case to Federal court, the amount sued for is sometimes kept 
artificially below the $75,000 Federal jurisdictional amount even if 
individual plaintiffs would be entitled to recover more.
  In another effort to avoid removal to Federal court, the class action 
complaint will sometimes not assert Federal causes of action that could 
legitimately be raised, denying plaintiffs an opportunity for these 
Federal claims to be heard.
  Sometimes in the settlement of these cases, the plaintiffs get 
coupons while their lawyers receive millions. And in at least one case, 
the plaintiff class members at the end of the settlement had a debit of 
$91 posted to their mortgage escrow account while their lawyers 
received $8.5 million for their services. The plaintiffs had a net loss 
because of the suit. They were worse off after the class action than 
before it was filed.
  Our legislation addresses these problems by permitting cases that are 
truly national in scope to be removed to the Federal courts even if the 
diversity of citizenship requirements of current law are not strictly 
met. Instead, we look to the center of gravity of the case.
  The target of these cases is usually a large out-of-State 
corporation. The plaintiffs are usually consumers who reside in many 
States. These cases are national in character and our bill would permit 
removal to Federal court even if a local defendant has been sued for 
the purpose of destroying complete diversity of citizenship.
  Our reform is truly modest. The procedural remedy it contains 
narrowly addresses a broad procedural abuse. I am pleased this 
afternoon to urge its passage by the House.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend from Virginia has suggested, I thought I heard him say that 
this is a consumer-friendly piece of legislation. In the interest of 
all the Members knowing about the objections to this bill, I bring to 
them communications from the Consumer Federation of America, which 
urges that we oppose the measure, indicating that this bill will create 
numerous barriers to participating in class actions by permitting 
defendants to remove most State class action suits to Federal court and 
will clog the already-crowded Federal court system.
  In addition, we have a letter from Public Citizen sent to myself and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) which writes to 
comment about the importance of class actions and how these so-called 
``procedural changes'' will do great damage to groups of consumers who, 
in trying to bring action against corporate defendants, would be forced 
either to bring individual suits or to remove themselves to a Federal 
docket for reasons that are not quite clear to most of us that are not 
happy about the bill. Some of these notions are not in the public 
interest.
  I hope that, first of all, everybody voting on this bill will not 
think that this is a consumer-supported bill. It is opposed by consumer 
organizations and would clearly be damaging to consumers trying to get 
into the court.

[[Page 3111]]

                                               Public Citizen,

                                    Washington, DC, March 5, 2002.
     Hon. James Sensenbrenner,
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Re H.R. 2341, Class Action Fairness Act.

       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers: We 
     are writing to comment on H.R. 2341 relating to class 
     actions. This bill would give the federal courts jurisdiction 
     over most class action lawsuits, and add a ``Consumer Bill of 
     Rights'' for members of a class.
       Public Citizen has a long history of working to make class 
     actions fairer and more beneficial to plaintiffs. We have 
     participated in nearly forty cases to advocate for more 
     equitable settlement terms for consumers, oppose excessive 
     attorneys fees, and ensure that the class action vehicle is 
     not weakened. For the reasons stated in our testimony on an 
     earlier version of this bill, which is attached, we strongly 
     oppose this bill. We ask that you include these comments and 
     our earlier testimony in the hearing record.

                    The Importance of Class Actions

       Proponents of this bill have expressed concerns that 
     businesses are being unfairly targeted by class action 
     litigation. We recognize that most businesses are working 
     hard to provide good products to American consumers. But the 
     fact is that many of the business enterprises that are being 
     sued are really no different from the old-fashioned flim-flam 
     men, taking the corporate guise for the legitimacy it 
     bestows, and also for its insulation from liability.
       This is illustrated best by the tremendous problem of 
     predatory lending. There are lenders who pay bribes and 
     kickbacks to mortgage brokers, to induce them to sell out 
     their clients and sign them up for higher rather than lower 
     interest rate loans. There are mortgage companies accepting 
     kickbacks from overpriced title insurance companies. There is 
     also nickel-and-dime chiseling, turning $85 recording fees 
     into $100 recording fees, $325 appraisal fees into $500 
     appraisal fees, and the like. There are $10,000 credit life 
     insurance policies being packed on to loans, which have 
     little if any value to the consumer. The defendants in most 
     class actions are not acting like legitimate businesses, but 
     are simply fast-buck artists and con men.
       In other cases, the businesses are legitimate and are 
     trying to provide valuable services, but corner-cutting or 
     overreaching has prevailed. These problems may be caused by 
     ambitious individual managers, a bean-counter mentality, a 
     chainsaw-CEO, groupthink, or just plain greed. As the Enron 
     scandal has demonstrated, in some cases you find that the 
     moral compass has failed.
       In many of these cases, it is only the class action lawsuit 
     that can protect the victim. In some instances, the amount of 
     money stolen is too small on a per-person basis to support an 
     individual lawsuit; in others, there are vulnerable, 
     unsophisticated consumers, who are unable to recognize that 
     they have been fleeced. The class action device permits 
     aggregation of cases and a more efficient disposition of 
     claims.

                      Federalism and Class Actions

       When Congress perceives a problem in an area that is 
     traditionally handled by state and local government, it has 
     five legislative options. You can provide (1) grants or (2) 
     technical assistance to state and local governments to help 
     them solve the problem; (3) you can exercise concurrent 
     jurisdiction; (4) you can mandate state and local compliance 
     with your standards; or (5) you can pre-empt state law with 
     federal law.
       Obviously, as you move down this list, you are usurping 
     local control to increasingly greater degrees. So it seems 
     odd that here, broad federal preemption has been the first 
     impulse, rather than the last resort, of those who suggest 
     that class action changes are needed.
       We believe that this issue calls for the least onerous 
     federal intervention, for a number of reasons.
       First, proponents of the legislation have argued that some 
     rural counties in a few states have become magnets for class 
     actions and invite abuse. If that is the case, the 
     appropriate response is at the state level, not in 
     Washington. Responding to due process and forum shopping 
     concerns expressed by corporate defendants, the Alabama 
     Supreme Court acted to abolish the practice of ex parte 
     certifications of class actions. We are confident that any 
     local problems will be resolved by state governments.
       Second, the basic premise behind the bill, that federal 
     judges are ``better equipped'' to monitor cases (to quote 
     Senator Grassley) and ``likely to give closer scrutiny'' to 
     settlements (in the words of Senator Kohl) is untrue.
       With regard to the ``better equipped'' proposition, it is 
     argued that federal judges have more ``complex litigation 
     experience'' than state judges. In fact, less than 1 percent 
     of the federal courts' caseload is class actions. Moreover, 
     of the 2,393 class actions filed in the entire federal system 
     in 2000, only 321 involved state law claims. The vast 
     majority of the cases involved uniquely federal law 
     questions, such as securities, civil rights, or antitrust. 
     Only 105 of the cases involved consumer fraud-type claims, 
     which are the mainstay of state court class actions. That's 
     about one consumer fraud claim per federal district, not per 
     judge. If a federal judge has experience with this sort of 
     class action, it is probably because he or she was a state 
     court judge before elevation to the federal bench.
       The authors of this bill acknowledge that certain state 
     court judges have expertise in particular areas--the bill 
     makes an exception for corporate governance cases to be heard 
     in Delaware. We believe that expertise among state judges is 
     not limited to Delaware chancery judges. The state court 
     bench in Arizona is perhaps the most innovative in the 
     nation, and has been at the forefront of reforms that have 
     spread to other states and to the federal system. In 
     responding to horror stories from a few rural counties, this 
     bill could take cases away from well-qualified state judges 
     in places like Phoenix or Chicago.
       As to the claim that federal judges would do a better job 
     scrutinizing class action settlements, we believe that is, 
     unfortunately, not true. A number of attorneys have alleged 
     that a federal judge in Chicago recently approved an unfair 
     ``reverse auction'' settlement, whereby defendants settled 
     with plaintiffs' firm that accepted the least benefits for 
     the class members. This case involved competing state and 
     federal class actions over ``refund anticipation loans.'' The 
     attorneys intervening to stop the settlement allege that the 
     plaintiff's attorneys accepted a mere $25 million in return 
     for releasing a nationwide class' claims worth a billion 
     dollars. We have no way of knowing the actual value of the 
     claims, but the incident leaves one important question 
     unanswered: If it is true that federal judges are more likely 
     to give close scrutiny to settlements, why did the defendants 
     choose to settle a federal court case rather than one of six 
     identical state court cases? If the premises underlying this 
     bill are correct, shouldn't they have settled one of the 
     state court cases instead? The fact that the federal judge 
     here had law clerks did not deter this settlement.
       Moreover, we note also that the RAND Institute's report was 
     very clear in finding no empirical evidence to support the 
     argument that federal judges are better able to manage class 
     actions than state judges. Public Citizen's own experience 
     shows that federal judges can err just as often in approving 
     abusive settlements.

                           Procedural Changes

       H.R. 2341 also contains several ``Consumer Bill of Rights'' 
     provisions. Some of these ideas have merit and some plainly 
     do not. However, we believe Congress should refrain from 
     making adjustments to Rule 23 and leave such changes to the 
     federal judiciary's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The 
     Rules Advisory Committee consists of judges, academics, and 
     practicing lawyers who are among the nation's top experts on 
     civil procedure. Pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, the 
     Advisory Committee is empowered to review the current rules, 
     study problems, and propose amendments. The Advisory 
     Committee solicits and carefully considers input from the bar 
     and from interest groups in formulating changes.
       Class actions have been the subject of their attention in 
     recent months, and they are currently considering extensive 
     changes to Rule 23. We respect the expertise that the 
     Congress and its Judiciary Committees have on civil procedure 
     matters. Nonetheless, we feel that these contentious issues 
     are best resolved outside the heated political process.

                           Finding a Solution

       Sound congressional policymaking must take account of the 
     advantages and disadvantages of our federal system. Achieving 
     good federalism means understanding the competing values of 
     local control and national uniformity, and striking the 
     appropriate balance between these values in individual policy 
     areas.
       Unfortunately, the dispersion of authority among 50 states 
     can sometimes create perverse incentives. The reverse-auction 
     phenomenon in overlapping class actions is an example of 
     this. Narrowly tailored federal legislation could fix this 
     problem without upsetting the delicate state/national balance 
     by bringing most state class actions into federal court. But 
     that in no way resembles the legislation that the sponsors of 
     H.R. 2341 have proposed.
       Another avenue to explore is RAND's suggestion that one way 
     to improve judicial scrutiny would be to allow judges to seek 
     assistance from neutral experts and auditors to assess the 
     value of settlements. Congress could use its spending power 
     to assist judges, both state and federal, by increasing the 
     resources available to them to manage class actions. A grant 
     program through which individual courts could secure funding 
     for neutral experts and special masters would exemplify 
     cooperative, rather than coercive federalism. Such a program 
     could be administered by the Justice Department, the National 
     Center for State Courts, or the Administrative Office of the 
     U.S. Courts.
       As an organization that vigorously opposes abusive class 
     action settlements, we can only conclude from H.R. 2341 that 
     the business community wants this legislation not

[[Page 3112]]

     to end such practices, but because they perceive an advantage 
     to defending class actions in federal court. We urge you not 
     to move forward with this bill.
           Sincerely,
     Joan Claybrook,
       President, Public Citizen.
     Frank Clemente,
       Director, Public Citizen's Congress Watch.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who is the author of the bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time and for his leadership in bringing this 
legislation forward.
  I was pleased to introduce this legislation along with the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). This much-needed bipartisan legislation 
corrects a serious flaw in our Federal jurisdiction statutes. At 
present, those statutes forbid our Federal courts from hearing most 
interstate class actions, the lawsuits that involve more money and 
touch more Americans than virtually any other litigation pending in our 
legal system.
  Class actions of national importance should be heard in Federal court 
by a Federal judge, not by a State or county court judge in one region 
of the country. Why? Because the plaintiffs' attorneys choose from a 
very select number of courts around the country where the judges are 
known to be very favorable to class action lawsuits.
  Let me cite an example of a class action horror story. After being 
named in 23 class action lawsuits, Blockbuster agreed to provide class 
members with only $1-off coupons, buy-one-get-one-free coupons and free 
Blockbuster Favorites video rentals. Attorneys are reported to receive 
around $9.2 million in attorneys' fees.
  Cheerios, the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned this recently, 
without any allegation of any harm to any of the plaintiffs in the case 
related to the ingredients of a box of Cheerios, the case was settled. 
For what? The opportunity for the customers to go out and get another 
box of Cheerios while their attorneys got $2 million.
  This is one of my favorites. In this case against Chase Manhattan 
Bank, the trial lawyers took $4 million in attorneys' fees and the 
plaintiffs in the case got, you can read it here, 33 cents. If you 
cannot read it, we will blow it up for you, 33 cents, while the 
plaintiffs' attorneys got $4 million in attorneys' fees. What does that 
amount to?
  There is a catch actually for getting your 33 cents. Because it took 
a 34-cent postage stamp to mail in the acceptance of the settlement. So 
actually you came up a penny short. But the trial lawyers did not. 4 
million bucks.
  The Washington Post has it exactly right: ``Having invented a client, 
the lawyers also get to choose a court. Under the current absurd rules, 
national class actions can be filed in just about any court in the 
country. The lawyers cash in while the clients get coupons for product 
upgrades. It is 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.''
  The Rocky Mountain News put it even more to the point:
  ``Your lawyers have one more surprise for you after they bring these 
suits. You aren't eligible for the full settlement unless you also 
agree to spend some of your own money on those stores' products.'' That 
is exactly what happened in the Blockbuster case. That is exactly what 
happened in the airline case where the plaintiffs got a $25 coupon 
against a more-than-$250 airline ticket.
  In other words, you must reward the company that supposedly swindled 
you in order for it to be punished. It makes absolutely no sense except 
to the trial lawyer taking a very large attorney's fee.
  The Washington Post sums it all up with this statement:
  ``That it is controversial at all reflects less on its merit,'' 
referring to this legislation, ``as a proposal than on the grip that 
the trial lawyers have on many Democrats.''
  I am pleased that many Democrats are going to vote for this 
legislation. I would invite the rest of them to come over and join us 
to make sure that we resolve this inequity where trial lawyers receive 
millions of dollars and American families receive pennies. That is what 
this legislation is all about. It is designed to make sure that the 
most complex litigation in the country is brought in the court where it 
belongs.
  Vote for this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding me this time.
  I would offer to say to my good friend and colleague from Virginia, 
if we wanted to address the question of attorneys' fees, then why do we 
not legislate an attorney's fee bill on the floor of the House? That is 
not what this legislation is all about. We might have some common 
agreement that there needs to be some equity in how we assess a formula 
in those instances.
  This is clearly a knock against corporate responsibility. Coming from 
Houston, Texas, I can assure you, ex-Enron employees, existing Enron 
employees, those who are trying to reconstruct Enron know one thing: 
Corporate responsibility is a key element to moving this country 
forward and reinvesting, if you will, reestablishing our faith in the 
corporate structure here in America. We do not have that now.
  What is so insulting by this legislation is that this legislation 
will move a class action lawsuit from the State courts on the basis of 
partial diversity. That means that we could have 400 Texans in the 
local State court, familiarity, the ability to access the court, and 
one person from Chicago, Illinois, and we have to go into the Federal 
court.
  Everyone knows that the Federal courts are far more burdensome with 
their rules, far more complex and far more difficult for those 
plaintiffs who have less resources to be able to access justice. And so 
I am a little shocked and surprised when this Congress has had any 
number of hearings on corporate irresponsibility, and now we bring to 
the floor of the House, on a fast track, legislation that will not 
help.
  When we who oppose this bill simply asked for information, data, to 
show us that we are log-jamming the courts, no one could provide that. 
I can assure you our overburdened Federal courts with empty seats all 
across the country, drug cases beyond their ability to handle, cannot 
handle any more legislation.
  This does not make any sense. That means those plaintiffs who are in 
desperate need of accessing the justice system will be standing on a 
bus line waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting to get into 
Federal courts.
  I would simply argue that we understand what these courts and class 
actions are supposed to do. We also realize that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have been large and strong proponents that the 
State should be given the opportunity to decide for their own citizens 
what is best for them, keep the Federal Government out of their 
business as much as possible.
  But H.R. 2341 goes against Republican philosophy and broadens Federal 
jurisdiction over State class action lawsuits. In fact, it is clear 
that in light of events such as asbestos, the Love Canal and tobacco 
disasters, and now Enron, this bill benefits not consumers but large 
corporate interests.
  I would ask my colleagues and I would ask this House, let us pause 
for a moment and understand the message that we are sending to America. 
America now wants corporate responsibility, and we are not doing that.
  Class actions were initially created in State courts, based on equity 
and common law. They permit one or more parties to file a complaint on 
behalf of themselves and all other people who

[[Page 3113]]

are similarly situated suffering from the same problem. Love Canal was 
basically neighbors who lived in New York. If you had some far-reaching 
opportunity for some person by chance to either have moved to another 
State and then you put it in Federal court, you are, therefore, denying 
equity, if you will, and the use of common law.
  This is a bad legislative initiative. I would ask my colleagues to 
defeat this, but I would ask them to likewise consider our amendments 
that we will offer.
  Mr. Chairman, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers. I 
oppose this legislation, H.R. 2341, for several policy reasons.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have always held that 
States should be given the opportunity to decide for their own citizens 
what is best for them--keep the Federal government out of their 
business as much as possible. But H.R. 2341 goes against Republican 
philosophy and broadens Federal jurisdiction over state class action 
lawsuits. In fact, it is clear that in light of events such as 
asbestos, the Love Canal, and tobacco disasters, and now, Enron, this 
bill benefits, not consumers, but large corporate interests.
  Class actions were initially created in state courts based on equity 
and common law. They permit one or more parties to file a complaint on 
behalf of themselves and all other people who are ``similarly 
situated'' (suffering from the same problem). A class action is often 
used when a large number of people have comparable claims. They are an 
efficient means of seeking justice for a large group of people.
  Class actions to help bring justice for many people--the innocent 
victims. Historically, class actions were brought against huge 
corporate giants who impact a large percentage of the population.
  Take asbestos. They used it on ceilings of gyms and classrooms where 
our children played and learned. It is of no fault of our children that 
they unknowingly contracted cancer. Someone should be held accountable 
for causing irreparable damage, and death, to these innocent victims.
  The paradoxical similarity in all of these class actions is that the 
corporate giant was unaware that their actions could cause cancer. 
Evidence during litigation showed that the tobacco giants were aware 
that nicotine was addictive and caused cancer.
  It is no different with Enron. The loyal employees of Enron that were 
terminated lost their life savings, their retirement, their child's 
college tuition, their second honeymoon, their first home. Top 
executives were aware allegedly of their spiraling financial situation 
and yet misrepresented themselves, or had their accounting firm do so, 
to their stockholders--their employees.
  The allegedly barred these employees from selling their shares, while 
at the same time, allowing only top executives to sell any shares they 
wanted to. Enron gave out tens of thousands of retention bonuses, while 
also terminating the ``rank and file''.
  I know this because these victims are my constituents and I have 
heard their stories and accounts. If these accounts are true, these 
people have been robbed of savings that they were entitled to.
  A favorable vote on H.R. 2341 would take away the means by which 
innocent victims of corporate giants can find justice.
  As a threshold matter, I believe that before even considering 
legislation, Congress should insist on receiving objective and 
comprehensive data justifying such a dramatic intrusion into state 
court prerogatives. This legislation potentially damages federal and 
state court systems. Expanding federal class action jurisdiction to 
include most state class actions, as H.R. 2341 does, will certainly 
result in a significant increase in the already overtaxed workload of 
our federal courts. For example, it is no surprise that the 68 judicial 
vacancies that existed as of February 2, 2002 contributed to the 
average federal district court judge docket backlog of 416 pending 
civil cases. It is because of these and other workload problems that 
Chief Justice Rehnquist took the important step of criticizing Congress 
for taking actions which have exacerbated the courts' workload problem.
  H.R. 2341 also has the ability to significantly impact state courts. 
This is because in cases where the federal court chooses not to certify 
the state class action, the bill prohibits the states from using class 
actions to resolve the underlying state causes of action.
  It is important to recall the context in which this legislation 
arises--a class action has been filed in state court involving numerous 
state law claims, each of which if filed separately would not be 
subject to federal jurisdiction (either because the parties are not 
considered to be diverse or the amount in controversy for each claim 
does not exceed $75,000).
  H.R. 2341 also has the potential to raise serious constitutional 
issues. For one, it unilaterally strips the state courts of their 
ability to use the class action procedural device to resolve state law 
disputes. The courts have previously indicated that efforts by Congress 
to dictate such state court procedures implicate important Tenth 
Amendment federalism issues and should be avoided. The Supreme Court 
has already made clear that state courts are constitutionally required 
to provide due process and other fairness protections to the parties in 
class action cases.
  It is also important to note that as fears of local court prejudice 
have subsided and concerns about diverting federal courts from their 
core responsibilities increased, the policy trend in recent years has 
been towards limiting federal diversity jurisdiction.
  Thirdly, as the legislation is currently written, it assumes a 
defendant will be automatically subject to prejudice in any state where 
the corporation is not formally incorporated (typically Delaware) or 
maintains its principal place of business. In so doing, it can be said 
the bill ignores the fact that many large businesses have a substantial 
commercial presence in more than one state through factories, business 
facilities or employees.
  H.R. 2341 adversely impacts the ability of consumers and other 
victims to acquire compensation in cases concerning extensive damages. 
The bill possess the potential to force state class actions into 
federal courts resulting in expensive litigation and allowing 
defendants to potentially compel plaintiffs to travel distances to 
participate in court proceedings.
  Essentially, the extensive pleading requirements of the federal court 
will virtually make it impossible for individuals to bring a class 
actions case. For example, under the bill, individuals are required to 
plead with particularity the nature of the injuries suffered by class 
members in their initial complaints. The plaintiff must even prove the 
defendant's ``state of mind,'' such as fraud or deception, to be 
included in the initial complaint.
  To meet this criteria is virtually impossible in most instances that 
the plaintiff is able to provide this information prior to discovery. 
If the pleading requirements are not met, the judge is required to 
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.
  Additionally, consumers under H.R. 2341 can be expected to have a far 
more complicated and time consuming problem in trying to certify class 
actions in the federal court system. Fourteen states, representing some 
29% of the nation's population, have adopted different criteria for 
class action rules than Rule 23 of the federal rules of civil 
procedure.
  Consumers may also be disadvantaged by the vague terms used in the 
legislation, such as ``substantial majority'' of plaintiffs, ``primary 
defendants,'' and claims ``primarily'' governed by a state's laws, as 
they are entirely new and undefined phrases with no precedent in the 
United States Code or the case law.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is plagued with problems that cheat consumers 
of their rights under law and under the Constitution. I oppose it, and 
I urge my colleagues to join me.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Unfortunately, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), has missed the boat on a lot of the points. First of all, I 
wonder how her Texas constituents would feel if the Enron class action 
lawsuit was filed in the Mississippi court that acted like the hometown 
umpire in one class action suit and gave residents of Mississippi who 
are members of the class 18 times more recompense than residents of 
other States? I think she would be the first one to come into this 
Congress and say that that is an outrage and that we ought to provide 
the protection of the Federal court for people who live outside of 
Mississippi. This bill does that.
  Secondly, the plaintiffs in the Enron class action lawsuit chose 
Federal Court to file their class action lawsuits. What is the beef?
  Thirdly, because Enron has filed for bankruptcy, all claims against 
Enron are heard in the Federal Bankruptcy Court under the 
constitutional provision that the Congress adopts a bankruptcy law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of disinfor-
mation is being spread about

[[Page 3114]]

this bill. We heard a bit of it just a minute ago when the opponents 
talked about Federal caseload and how that would be increased too much. 
Well, let us look at the numbers, and we find a different story.
  According to the administrative office of the U.S. Courts and the 
1998 Court Statistics Project, last year only 2,393 class actions were 
filed in Federal district courts. Since 1997, there has been an 8 
percent decrease in the number of cases pending in Federal district 
courts nationwide.
  Meanwhile, civil filings in State trial courts have increased 28 
percent since 1984. In most jurisdictions, each new State court judge 
is assigned an average of between 1,000 and 2,000 new cases every year. 
In contrast, Federal court judges are assigned an average of fewer than 
500 cases every year.
  I would submit that the opponents of this bill and those who argue 
about Federal caseloads ought to get busy and help those approve 
Federal judges who are waiting. There are over 100 waiting at the 
moment. That represents about 10 percent of the caseloads that could be 
handled in Federal Court.
  So on one side, the caseload is too heavy; on the other side, we are 
not approving, we are holding up, Federal judges who could help with 
that caseload.
  What this has become, as has been mentioned before, is a racket 
involving invent a client, choose a court, browbeat a company into 
compliance and settlement, and then watch the money roll in. We need to 
stop this.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin 
that the question that he raises does not give credence to the fact 
that the plaintiffs chose where they wanted to file their cases. This 
legislation bars individuals from making the choice as to whether or 
not they are in State court, because if there is partial diversity, 
they are forced to go into Federal courts, which undermines those 
individuals' access to justice.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of my distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who referred to the 
infamous airline cases where the plaintiffs were given airline coupons, 
and he illustrates this as really something that is not good, that we 
should not do it, that occurred in a Federal Court. That was a Federal 
district court case that the gentleman I think is trying to use as an 
argument against keeping the law the same way that it is.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan knows that there are 
several features of the bill. One involves jurisdiction on where cases 
can be filed and removal of cases filed in State court. But there are 
other provisions that require increased judicial scrutiny of coupon 
settlements. That would call into play when you get a coupon to buy 
more of the product or service that is sold by the corporation that did 
it to you.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is always great to come to the floor and engage in a 
debate with members of the Committee on the Judiciary, because all of 
them were good lawyers before they came to Congress, so you know that 
they will try to build their case in the way that they would litigate a 
case if they were in court, and they will sometimes fudge the facts and 
obfuscate and do whatever is necessary to prove a point. We have had a 
lot of that happening already.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), of course, knows that 
one of the purposes for class action suits is that sometimes the amount 
that an individual member of the class would gain from that suit is so 
small that he or she cannot afford to litigate it without the benefit 
of putting that claim with other claims of other people who are 
similarly situated, so the gentleman has done a great job of making it 
appear that the lawyers in the cases got disproportionate amounts of 
money to the members of the class.
  What the gentleman did not tell you in each of these cases was the 
total amount that was going to the class members in each one of those 
cases, whether they were litigated in State court or Federal court, and 
that is the primary reason that you have class actions.
  I want to point out a couple of things. I want to acknowledge that 
there are abuses in the class action system, and anybody who gets up 
here and tells you that there are not abuses in the class action system 
probably does not know anything about litigating cases. The real 
question, though, is will this bill eliminate those abuses, or will 
this bill make it possible for other abuses to take place that are 
worse than the abuses that are taking place now? I would submit that 
this bill will not eliminate abuses, and that the bill will, in fact, 
add to the number of abuses in the system.
  The one abuse that I think is first and foremost I talked about in 
1999 when we first had this bill on the floor. This is not the first 
time this bill has been here. This is the way I described it back then.
  I practiced law for a number of years before I ever got to Congress, 
and I raised this basic fairness argument. If a plaintiff is injured, 
he goes and hires a lawyer. That lawyer cultivates, researches, puts 
together the case, decides where the appropriate place to litigate that 
case is, spends months and months preparing for the case; and then, 2 
days before he is getting ready to go in and start the real processing 
of the case, somebody from the outside, a member of the class, comes 
and hijacks that case and moves it to a Federal court.
  There is something to me that is basically unfair about that. That is 
what this bill will allow to happen, one of those abuses that I am 
talking about.
  The second point I want to make is that the proponents of this bill 
are the same people who in 1994, 1995, I guess, when they came riding 
into Congress and took the majority, came in talking about that they 
supported the notion of removing things from the Federal level and 
returning them to the local level. Decentralized government, they said 
they believed in. The whole system of federalism was in jeopardy, they 
said, and we needed to return power to the States.
  So, now, why are we on the floor today with a group of people saying 
to me, well, this is inefficient and this is too time consuming?
  Well, democracy is inefficient and time consuming. Federalism is 
inefficient and time consuming. But we have decided in our Constitution 
that some things should be done at the State level and some things 
should be done at the Federal level, and just because we find it 
convenient to bring something into Federal court should not be the 
rationale on which we do that.
  I think the same people who are out there giving lip service to 
States' rights should not be in here talking about let us take the 
whole field of tort law and federalize it and put it in the Federal 
courts.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the most intriguing documents, legal documents, 
that has arisen in the American continent was the Constitution of the 
Confederacy, which was basically based on the whole notion of States' 
rights. It allowed States through their legislative bodies to nullify 
decisions made by the Federal courts and their effect within their 
boundaries, and even to remove Federal officials like Federal judges 
and postmasters and the like.
  Listening to the gentleman from North Carolina, I think he would have 
done quite well in their Congress.

[[Page 3115]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me time and bringing this bill to the floor, because I was the 
original sponsor of this bill; and I am very appreciative of our 
colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who have gotten this out of committee to 
the floor, because it is a good bill; and it should be passed, and it 
should be passed in a bipartisan fashion.
  The class action device is an important part of our legal system that 
allows wrongdoers to be held accountable for harm they have inflicted 
upon a large number of people. Unfortunately, there are too many 
lawyers who have abused this tool for their own monetary profit.
  Our current system allows cases of national importance to be heard in 
local courts and allows abuses to take place unchecked because of 
something called diversity jurisdiction. The Framers of the 
Constitution created diversity jurisdiction to allow large multi-state 
lawsuits to be heard in Federal court. However, when they drafted 
statutes in the 1790s to implement it, no one foresaw class action 
lawsuits. No one ever could have guessed that large multi-state suits 
would have been heard in local courts and it was certainly not their 
intention to create such a situation so vulnerable to abuse.
  H.R. 2341, this bill, simply corrects this problem and rationalizes 
the system by updating the law. Class actions of national importance, 
affecting people all over the country, should be heard in Federal court 
by a Federal judge, not by a State or county court judge in one region 
of the country. No one can rationally say that a large national class 
action belongs in local courts.
  The Washington Post, not the Washington Times, the Washington Post 
said it best in this weekend's editorial. It said: ``Nowhere is the 
need for civil justice reform greater than in the high stakes arena of 
class actions where irrational rules have allowed trial lawyers to 
enrich themselves . . . without benefit to the lawyers' supposed 
clients.''
  Clearly there is a serious crisis in our court system. Some counties 
have seen an increase of over 1,000 percent, because once a local court 
shows a willingness to ignore its own State's rules and constitutional 
due process, that court and judge becomes a magnet for many national 
class actions.
  Cases heard in State courts have skyrocketed, where Federal cases 
have only gone up by about 8 percent. So that addresses the argument 
that there is not enough time or docket space in Federal courts. 
Federal court is where these cases belong, because the trial lawyers 
can have these cases heard in a hand-picked court the way it works now.
  There is gaming of the diversity rules to keep these cases in State 
court just by finding one retail outlet or point of sale and one 
customer in one State. That does not make sense. With over 9,000 State 
and county courts and 50 States to choose from, there is inevitably at 
least one court that will certify a class, even in the most egregious 
class action suits.
  Actually, it occurs in courts where judges are invariably elected; 
and, frankly, they are elected with a substantial amount of trial 
lawyers' financial and political support. That is one of the biggest 
problems we are facing. These abusive suits brought in hand- picked 
courts do not compensate victims; they do not encourage more 
responsible corporate behavior. And they are paid for by consumers with 
higher costs of goods and services.

                              {time}  1300

  Simply put, our current system which governs class actions too often 
works for no one except the lawyers. Most plaintiffs only get coupons 
to assist them in buying more of the product which caused the injury in 
the first place, and that is if they are lucky.
  When the Bank of Boston was sued in a southern state for their delay 
in posting mortgage escrow accounts, the attorneys were awarded $8 
million, while all their clients got was $9; and then their clients got 
a bill for $91 for the lawyers' fees, and many of the clients were not 
even notified that they were plaintiffs in the case. Unbelievable.
  This abuse has to be stopped and this is the best vehicle for 
stopping it. That is why I urge that it be passed, and it ought to be 
passed in a bipartisan fashion. This is moderate, needed reform. It 
should not be a partisan issue.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), himself a judge, a former judge, 
and a former lawyer as well.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from the great 
State of Michigan for yielding me this time.
  Having been a State district court judge, I think I can appreciate 
some of the facts and some of the arguments that are being advanced 
today. The importance of it is that hopefully I will be able to 
distinguish fact from fiction.
  I do want to address some comments made earlier about the rising 
numbers of civil actions, class actions, and otherwise in the State 
courts. That is historical, that is tradition. The truth is that the 
Federal courts on the civil side handle a mere fraction of the 
litigation that is going on out there in the civil courts throughout 
the United States. They do not handle as many cases as the traffic 
court in San Antonio handles throughout the whole United States, all 
the Federal system. We have to look at those numbers as to what they 
are really doing out there.
  They are overburdened. They have to give precedence and priority to 
criminal cases. Do we see a Federal court that is designated civil in 
nature and only handles a civil docket? But we see that at the State 
level, day in and day out, because they are specialized, recognizing 
the efficiency that it lends to a civil court system.
  Judicial appointments. Of course we should fill all vacancies in a 
most deliberate and efficient manner, but not with just any judge.
  We complain of abuses. How we stop the abuses is to make sure that we 
have qualified and fair individuals to fill those judicial roles.
  I will tell my colleagues, as an opponent, this is what I will give 
the proponents. I will give them everything they are asking for. I will 
give the proponents everything that they ask for in this bill, save and 
except for one thing, and that is moving it to the Federal system. I 
will not have a taker. I will not have a taker, because what this is 
all about is not giving individual litigants choice. What this is all 
about is getting it into the Federal court system.
  This is not a class action bill, this is a class inaction bill. It is 
designed, its true motive is to stall, is to obstruct and to delay all 
class actions, regardless of merit, regardless of merit.
  Do we have abuses? Of course we do. But the alternative, the 
alternative that they seek here today in this House is not a step 
forward, it is not a positive improvement. It sets us back.
  Are our State courts more efficient than Federal courts? I am here to 
say yes. What I hear from my Federal judges is, Charlie, please do not 
federalize everything out there. You are doing it on the criminal side, 
and you want to do it on the civil side. You cannot do it.
  The certification process in most State courts, the majority of the 
State courts, and I know that my colleagues cite the aberrations and 
the abuses; but where do I find them citing those cases in the State 
court where we have State district court judges that are responsible, 
mature, and deliberative in classifying? I myself had the great 
privilege of having class action lawsuits filed in my district court, 
and I know how we handled them in Texas.
  What happened to States' rights? What I say is, let us work together. 
Let us come up with something where maybe it can be adopted on a State 
level addressing the abuses that we all agree exist in today's system. 
But what my colleagues propose is basically doing away with the class 
action lawsuit. That is the end result of the proposed legislation.

[[Page 3116]]

  My colleagues are assuming, and wrongly, that the quantity and 
quality of the Federal judiciary is superior to the State courts; and 
if my colleagues want to go out there and talk in a confidential manner 
with all of the trial attorneys, they will tell us what is going on out 
there in the system.
  All I will say is, this is ill-advised, it is ill-proposed, and it is 
not a workable alternative.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I would say to the gentleman from Texas that he has mischaracterized 
this legislation. This legislation creates the kind of choice that he 
is talking about, because right now if a plaintiff or a defendant wants 
to have these cases heard in Federal court, they cannot be heard in 
Federal court simply because of a Federal rule, even though these are 
the most complex cases in the country.
  As to the case load, more than 12 percent of our Federal judges are 
awaiting appointment in the other body right now. Help us get our 
colleagues in the Senate to appoint President Bush's nominees, and we 
will easily have the ability to handle these cases in the jurisdiction 
that was actually created in our Constitution in article 3 for the very 
purpose of handling diversity cases, disputes among folks from many 
different States.
  It is wrong to allow the current system to persist where the 
plaintiffs' attorney can choose from more than 4,000 jurisdictions in 
the country, and whatever judge they know is the most favored judge 
gets the case; and then nobody has the option to have it heard in a 
fair and neutral court. That is what this legislation is all about.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute before yielding to 
the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, sometimes we have to look to see where the interest is 
in these bills. Are the consumer organizations supporting this 
legislation? Answer: No.
  Is the Firestone Corporation supporting this legislation? Answer: 
Yes.
  Is Monsanto supporting this legislation? Answer: Yes.
  Is W.R. Grace Corporation supporting this legislation? Answer: Yes.
  Are the tobacco companies supporting this legislation, all of them? 
Answer: Yes.
  Are the asbestos people, Johns Manville formerly, supporting this 
legislation? Answer: Yes.
  Are the mining companies, the results of the black lung class action 
cases, supporting this legislation? Answer: Yes.
  Are the Pintos, the airbag cases? Answer: Yes.
  All the corporations are supporting this. But I am being told by my 
friends on the other side that this is a consumer-friendly bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, it takes real chutzpah to bring this bill 
at this time. It takes real chutzpah, after we have thousands of Enron 
employees having lost their life savings, to bring a bill to diminish 
the rights of Americans to be compensated for their losses. It takes 
chutzpah to bring a bill to the floor of the House at this time to the 
benefit of the Ken Lays and the Mr. Skillings of the world.
  Now, think about the timing of this. Think about the timing of this.
  The very first bill that comes to the floor of the House after Enron 
takes the life savings away from Americans is to make it easier for 
people to do that and harder for people to get compensation when it 
happens to them.
  Now, before we go home for spring break, when we go home and talk to 
our constituents and they ask us, Joe, Mr. Congressman, What did you do 
about the Enron situation, I do not think the first thing we should say 
is, We made it hard for Americans to get compensation for their losses.
  In fact, that is what this is about, because when we strip away the 
verbiage and the philosophical language that we have all sincerely 
engaged in here today, this is about one thing. Some people who have 
been burned because they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar 
in class action litigation want to make it harder for Americans to 
bring class action litigation. That is what this is about because they 
know a simple thing. The Federal courts do not have room for any more 
class action litigation. They will go to the end of the line. This 
simply will result in making it more difficult for people to have their 
cases get a day in court.
  If my colleagues do not believe me, listen to Chief Justice Rehnquist 
who said, and this is in 1998: ``I also criticize Congress and the 
President for their propensity to enact more and more legislation which 
brings more and more cases into the Federal court system. This 
criticism received virtually no public attention. If Congress enacts 
and the President signs new laws allowing more cases to be brought into 
the Federal courts, just filling the vacancies will not be enough. We 
will need additional judgeships.''
  The fact of the matter is, as the proponents of the bill and those 
who advocate this bill know very well, there is a pipeline that is this 
big in our Federal court system. Now we want to take cases out of State 
courts and try to jam it through a pipeline with that pipeline getting 
no bigger, they will not go. They will not go. That is why this bill 
has sought the support of those like Jack-in-the-Box Corporation who 
served E. coli with their hamburgers, the result of which was a young 
girl and many hundreds in the State of Washington ending up with kidney 
damage. They used the State courts class action for compensation.
  Now, I do not think I should go home and tell them that we are 
reducing our ability to have a fair day in court in our State courts. 
For that reason, we should reject this.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I deeply regret my friend from Washington has not read the bill. This 
bill has nothing to do with Enron, and it specifically states that 
claims like the Enron claim are not covered by the differing 
jurisdictional provisions of this. The Enron claim involves tax law, 
Federal tax law where the jurisdiction is in the Federal courts. It 
involves securities law, Federal securities law where the jurisdiction 
is in the Federal courts.
  On page 14 of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, this 
bill's jurisdictional aspect is exempt from the internal affairs or 
governance of a corporation that arises under or by virtue of the laws 
of a State in which such corporation or business enterprise is 
incorporated or organized. So everything that the gentleman from 
Washington has said relating to Enron is simply not true under the 
terms of the bill.
  Now, finally, that would be the case if Enron were not in bankruptcy. 
Because they are in bankruptcy, all claims are presented to the Federal 
bankruptcy court.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Washington, please 
read the bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side have had 
some pretty charts, but they have had some very misleading stories.
  Let us talk about the effects of class actions and how it helps 
normal Americans. A class action in Texas forced Turn of the Century 
Adventure, Inc., and Travelbridge International, Inc, to stop 
defrauding consumers. If we want to talk about coupons, let us talk 
about the coupons that they gave folks, giving thousands of dollars in 
coupons in return for false discount promises. It took a class action 
suit to cure that.
  My friend from Washington brought up the suit against Foodmaker, Inc. 
Three children died and 500 people were injured as a result of eating 
E. coli. It took a class action suit to take care of that.
  Are we going to complain about attorneys' fees all day? Is that what 
we are going to talk about in class action?
  Why do we not complain about Beech-Nut? Do we know what those

[[Page 3117]]

folks did? They sold sugar water labeled as pure apple juice for 
infants. They gave it to parents and parents all across America fed it 
to their children as nutrition. It took a class action to make that 
corporation back down and say, We are going to sell you apple juice if 
we charge you for apple juice.

                              {time}  1315

  Native Americans in San Juan County, Utah, 52 percent of the 
residents there were Native Americans. None served on juries from 1932 
to 1960. It took a class action to make people stand up for the 
Constitution of the United States and get them access to the courts.
  How about promoting accountability? A group of homeless students and 
their parents brought a class action suit against the Chicago Board of 
Education and the Illinois State Board of Education because the 
defendants turned away homeless children from the Chicago public school 
system because they could not show proof of permanent residency. Twelve 
thousand homeless students in Chicago were denied schooling. It took a 
class action to cure that, and we are going to complain about pennies?
  It took a class action when UDC Homes filed for bankruptcy in 1995 
and 15,000 shareholders were left holding worthless stock certificates. 
They had been artificially inflating profits. Does that sound familiar? 
Does that sound like Enron? I can tell the Members this, when they say 
it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. When they 
say it is not about Enron, it is not about Enron, it is not about 
Enron, it is about Enron.
  They want to put all of America, everyone watching us today and 
everyone on this floor, in the same position that they have put Enron. 
They want to tie our hands, not give us access to the court, not let us 
go to State court, not use the State law, not use the State procedure. 
They say everyone in America has to be in the position that the Enron 
pensioners and employees and stockholders are in. That is what they 
want to do.
  Support States' rights, use State law, use State procedure. Let us 
remember that, and protect consumers against wrongdoing corporations.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill does not take away a cause of action that any 
member of a class has. All of the class action suits that the gentleman 
from Texas has talked about could still be filed and litigated, but 
litigated fairly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate is difficult to understand for me because 
on the one hand people are talking about putting multistate claims with 
plaintiffs all over the country into the form that the Founding Fathers 
described in article III of the Constitution, a Federal form; and on 
the other hand, people are saying that class actions help normal 
Americans, class actions are good, and class actions can bring about 
good results. Those two things are hardly incompatible.
  What we are talking about is making sure that class actions, which 
involve the whole country and not just local issues, are resolved in 
the jurisdiction that the Framers had in mind, Federal jurisdiction in 
a Federal court.
  We do not have a problem in this Congress, I do not believe, in 
appreciating the work that our State courts do. Indeed, one prolific 
source of the people who serve on the Federal bench is the State courts 
themselves.
  The problem is not with State courts; the problem is with lawyers 
trying to manipulate the system who pick not the State court system but 
a particular place, a particular forum, where they shop for where they 
know, because of their connections with that particular forum, that 
they can put their thumb on the scale of justice and they can skew the 
result so the facts and the evidence and the law do not matter.
  The leading treatise on Federal civil procedure has declared that the 
current rules for deciding when admittedly nationwide class actions are 
heard in Federal court make no sense: ``The traditional principles in 
this area have evolved haphazardly and with little reasoning. They 
serve no apparent policy.''
  An 11th circuit case recently had the judge apologizing to litigants 
because they could not have a Federal forum because the rules as 
presently written for diversity are so easily defeated by lawyers 
trying to manipulate the system.
  Judge John Nangel, who was for many years the Chair of the Federal 
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, said this: ``Plaintiffs' 
attorneys are increasingly filing nationwide class actions in various 
State courts, carefully crafting language . . . to avoid . . . the 
Federal courts. Existing Federal precedent . . . [permits] this 
practice . . . although most of these cases . . . will be disposed of 
through `coupon' or paper settlements,'' that is, through extortion, at 
settlements at which the lawyers are paid to go away and the plaintiffs 
in the case, in most cases who have never even met the lawyers, get 
sent pennies on the dollar.
  In an opinion by Judge Anthony Scirica, the chairman of the Federal 
Judicial Conference's Standing Committee on Rules and Procedure, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit observed that ``national 
(interstate) class actions are the paradigm for Federal diversity 
jurisdiction. . . .'' That is what the Federal courts are telling us; 
that is what the Federal judiciary is telling us.
  Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, someone who most 
Democrats, I would think, would be happy to learn from, testified 
before the Committee on the Judiciary: ``If Congress were to start over 
and write a new Federal diversity statute, interstate class actions 
would be the first kind of cases'' that we would put within that 
diversity jurisdiction.
  This is good for litigants, good for defendants, good for plaintiffs, 
good for fairness, good for America, and good for the American 
consumers, which is why The Washington Post has supported it: ``That it 
is controversial reflects less on its merit as a proposal than on the 
grip that trial lawyers have on many Democrats.'' I do not believe that 
would be true, and I think many Democrats will support this 
legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my 
time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I know Enron is not a nice word to bring 
up on the floor with our conservative friends. I raise the name Enron 
reluctantly, because it is offensive to some of our colleagues.
  But several of the employees in the Enron case, if they were suing 
Mr. Lay, affectionately known as ``Kenny boy'' in some parts of the 
government, for breach of an employment contract, they would be 
brought, under this bill, into Federal court. We need that, do we not? 
I do not think so, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner). This has everything to do with Enron.
  As a matter of fact, I think the American public must know and 
understand the difference between this side of the aisle and that side 
of the aisle. We are about the business of protecting consumers, and we 
are about the business of allowing the average person to have their day 
in court.
  This bill would make it more difficult. It would put obstacles in the 
way. It would send class action lawsuits to the Federal court, which 
are overjammed. We do not have enough judges there. We have the big 
drug cases there. These cases would be backlogged, and they know it. 
They are creating obstacles to people getting their fair day in court.
  Members heard some of the cases referred to, where class action 
lawsuits

[[Page 3118]]

are the only way people can get any justice. Let me remind Members of 
just a few of them.
  As a matter of fact, the average person would not be able to go into 
court and get any justice against Enron. It would only be through class 
action lawsuits.
  Remember Firestone? They knowingly sold defective tires, where tread 
separation caused more than 800 injuries and 271 deaths. They failed to 
recall and replace defective tires in a timely manner.
  What about Monsanto? They hid 40 years' worth of dumping of toxic 
PCBs, mercury, lead, and mustard gas in Anniston, Alabama. They 
continued dumping toxic chemicals even after dangers were known.
  It goes on and on and on. Without class action lawsuits brought in 
State courts, we would never be able to get at this kind of injustice.
  People on the other side said do not charge them with wanting to 
protect big corporations when they have done something bad, but they 
speak for themselves. They speak for themselves with this bill. What 
they are saying is, Poor consumers, working class people, we know you 
cannot afford to hire a lawyer. We know the only way you can get some 
justice is through class action, but we are going to make it tougher 
for you. We are going to make it more difficult for you. We are going 
to send you to the Federal courts, because you will never get there.
  As a matter of fact, people may go in the State courts under this 
bill and find out in the middle of the trial that it is going to be 
sent to the Federal court, another big obstruction.
  Well, it is very difficult for my friends on the other side of the 
aisle to claim to be for working people, for consumers, with this kind 
of action. This really tells who they really are and who they care 
about.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his 
great work, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for 
a great bill. I think it finally brings justice back to the American 
people. We are hearing a lot about judges, lawyers, technicalities, 
which is exactly why I think we have the problem of litigation in 
America as it stands now.
  As simply as I can put it, something we all experience when Americans 
get to the end of the roll of toilet paper, they find aggravation. When 
our friends, the trial lawyers, get to the end of the roll of toilet 
paper, they find a pot of gold.
  What am I talking about, Mr. Chairman? There is a class action suit 
in California that is suing because there is a roll of premium toilet 
paper that only has 340 sheets as opposed to the regular that has 400. 
That is not justice. Justice is fairness. Justice is logic. Justice is 
a case heard by a jury of one's peers.
  Do not let what happens in California cost my constituents in 
Michigan more money for everyday living expenses. Because what happens 
here, Mr. Chairman, is that Cheerios go up and milk goes up and toilet 
paper goes up.
  Enron will get its day in court, and the people who are abused by 
Enron will get their day in court. Let us stand united about this. Let 
us stand for that fairness and that justice. Let us stand for a court 
system that will represent all Americans, when it comes to asking me 
and my family and my neighbor's family and the working families of 
Michigan to pay more for the goods they need to survive.
  The people who make out in this, Mr. Chairman, are the trial lawyers. 
Let us stand up for justice. Let us stand up for families. Let us pass 
this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been an awful lot of hyperbole that is 
floating around this Chamber from those who are opposed to this 
legislation.
  First of all, the legislation does not diminish any cause of action 
that anybody may have, either as an individual or member of a class. So 
if they have a cause of action and the right to sue now, if this bill 
becomes law, they will still have that cause of action and that right 
to sue. So what is the beef?
  What this bill does do is it provides fairness. I think the biggest 
example of how unfair the State court system can be involves the 
Mississippi case that has been referred to several times previously, 
where the hometown judge in Mississippi approved a class action 
settlement that gave Mississippi residents as much as 18 times more 
than residents of other States. That is what the Federal court 
diversity citizenship jurisdiction that was put into the Constitution 
was designed to prevent.
  This bill changes the way diversity is defined so that the abuses 
that the Framers were concerned about in 1787 can be prevented in class 
action lawsuits that they never thought would ever arise in this 
country. So that is what we are dealing with here.
  What we are dealing with here also is a better way of having the 
courts review the fairness of noncash settlements. We have heard an 
awful lot about the coupons, where people end up having to buy the same 
product of the company that injured them, or the same service of the 
company that injured them.
  It seems to me that if somebody injured me enough to go to court and 
file a lawsuit and try it, if I won my lawsuit, I ought not to be 
forced to go back to the same company that caused the problem to begin 
with. This bill provides for increased scrutiny to protect consumers 
against that.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the hyperbole we are hearing from the 
people who are opposed to this bill really is designed to try to get 
the attention of this body and the American public away from what is in 
the bill.

                              {time}  1330

  All I would ask while we continue debating this bill and the 
amendments is for the opponents to read the bill, because most of the 
complaints that they have are really not present in this legislation.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
2341, the ``Class Action Fairness Act.'' The Republican sponsors of 
this legislation falsely claim that it will rein in ``frivolous 
lawsuits.'' This bill is not about lawyers and lawyers' fees; it is 
about whether consumers will have legal rights when corporate 
wrongdoing, dangerous practices or faulty products injure them. This 
bill would take away legal rights that consumers need. Class action 
lawsuits are one of the few protections consumers have against 
corporate fraud and abuse.
  In fact, anyone who wants to lower the cost of health care for 
consumers should oppose this bill. Class action suits are an important 
tool for health care consumers who have been forced to pay exorbitant 
prices for prescription drugs and medical bills. For example, in Iowa, 
Blue Cross/Blue Shield negotiated ``secret discounts'' with hospitals 
and providers but charged the full amount to consumers, pocketing the 
difference. Many policyholders ended up paying 10 to 20 percent more 
than they should have.
  In response, three state court class action lawsuits were filed 
against Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Eventually Blue Cross/Blue Shield 
agreed to pay $14.6 million to settle the claims. The tens of thousands 
of consumers affected by the lawsuit received reimbursements for all 
claims over $50. Since the settlement agreement, Blue Cross has changed 
its billing practices to lower the cost for consumers. The money lost 
was not enough for any one policyholder to bring suit on his or her 
own. But through a class action lawsuit, all policyholders were able to 
be protected against this practice.
  This case would have never seen the light of day if the bill before 
us today were the law of land. This legislation will take money out of 
people's pockets and will make consumers even more vulnerable to abuses 
by HMOs. For the sake of everyone who relies on health care insurance 
please join me in opposing this ill-conceived piece of legislation.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2431, 
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2002.
  I do so because this bill represents common sense reforms that will 
make our civil justice system simpler and fairer while curtailing the 
abusive and frivolous lawsuits that cost us so much.
  Lawsuit abuse is a serious problem. I should know--back when I was 
running my insurance company, lawsuit abuse was one of the principal 
reasons that insurance premiums

[[Page 3119]]

kept rising each year. And that rise has not stopped.
  And we do not just pay for lawsuit abuse through higher insurance 
premiums. We pay for it through higher health care costs, higher prices 
for consumer items, higher taxes, and fewer jobs. In fact, according to 
a study by the Public Policy Institute in New York, people in my home 
state of Michigan pay a hidden lawsuit tax of $574 per year. I know 
many families who could put that money to good use, but cannot.
  Not all lawsuits are abusive, but I believe there are reforms that 
can be made that will protect the rights of businesses and consumers 
alike. Today's bill strikes that balance.
  When the federal government acts, it too often does so to detriment 
of our economy. The Class Action Fairness Act is an excellent chance 
for us to remove some of the drag on our economy by curtailing costly, 
abusive lawsuits.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation and return the 
legal system to the individuals who it is supposed to benefit--the 
average American.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
final passage of H.R. 2341, laughingly called the Class Action Fairness 
Act. I say ``laughingly'' because there is nothing fair about this 
bill, unless your idea of fair means changing the tort system to 
benefit corporate polluters, monopolistic enterprises, and 
irresponsible groups at the expense of everyday Americans. If enacted, 
this bill will change the rules to make it easier than ever for 
corporations to move important class action lawsuits from state 
courts--the courts that are most in touch with and responsible to our 
constitutents--to federal courts. While this change may not sound like 
a very big change at first, the impact will actually be enormous.
  Every corporate defender in this country knows that federal courts 
are the most desirable venue in which to try class action cases because 
federal court rules disadvantage plaintiffs and ordinary citizens. As 
they attempt to defend their wealthy clients, corporate lawyers try 
every trick in the book to have important cases moved from local courts 
to federal courts, and this bill will only make their job easier! I 
cannot imagine why we would want to make the enormous challenges faced 
by the plaintiffs in class actions cases even harder, but the 
leadership of this body had made it a priority!
  At a time when our armed forces are defending this country across the 
ocean, when millions of Americans are out of work, and when we face 
serious threats to Social Security and Medicare, it is amazing to me 
that this body would decide to address the issue of class action 
``fairness'' instead of addressing the most serious issues facing this 
country. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and ask 
that this body move forward in addressing real problems.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 2341, the 
Class Action Fairness Act of 2002. This legislation will streamline our 
judicial system, making it more consistent, fair and efficient.
  First, H.R. 2341 will cut down on and discourage so-called forum 
shopping, where trial attorneys file lawsuits based on which state's 
law is most favorable to their claim. This practice results in a small 
handful of state courts, whose laws are most favorable to plaintiffs, 
exerting their jurisdiction over other states and creating precedent 
for entire national industries across the Nation.
  Second, there's the issues of fairness. We all have heard stories of 
lawsuit abuse. There are the so-called ``coupon settlements,'' where 
class action members receive coupons from a sued business while the 
attorneys reel in millions. You get a coupon, and they get a fortune! 
In fact, many business are coerced into settling meritless claims, 
believing their defense is too costly to litigate.
  This system cannot be allowed to go on. There are too many small 
business out there, surviving on thin margins as it is. And there are 
too many class action members, people who have been wronged, who 
deserve compensation, but watch their attorneys take the lion's share 
of the award.
  Finally, Congress needs to pass real class action reform because it 
will make our federal courts more efficient. Class action lawsuit 
filings have increased by 1,000 percent over the past decade. 
Businesses and consumers need protection from these runaway lawsuits 
and frivolous cases that clutter the courts. This backlog of excessive 
suits hurts the economy by closing down businesses and costing people 
their jobs.
  Remember, it is the consumer who has to ultimately pay for these 
transferred liability costs to businesses. It comes out of the pockets 
of hard working men and women when someone decides that they want to 
take the local business for a ride.
  Mr. Chairman, let's restore the true intent of the Constitution and 
allow federal courts to hear large interstate class action lawsuits. It 
is the right thing to do so that we can protect class action members 
and businesses from unscrupulous trial lawyers. We owe it to our 
citizens, our country and our economy.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2341, ``The Class 
Action Fairness Act of 2002.'' I thank Congressman Bob Goodlatte, 
author of this bill, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James 
Sensenbrenner and the Judiciary Committee staff for their leadership on 
this bill.
  Class action lawsuits serve a very important role, but the legal 
system is being compromised because attorneys have been the benefactors 
of class action lawsuit settlements, not the plaintiffs. These lawsuits 
should be weighed on their own merits. The decision to file in a 
certain state or region should not be based on the possibility of the 
courts having favorable attitudes toward certifying class action suits 
against out-of-state corporations. Many times, attorneys find a topic 
or angle for a class action lawsuit and then begin to seek plaintiffs, 
sometimes in a different region than where the problem occurred. When 
they register a large number of plaintiffs, the lawyers file a class 
action suit in a favorable state forum and modify the case so that it 
will be exempt from federal jurisdiction. These attorneys then are not 
beholden to any one individual, allowing them to broker a settlement 
that provides minimal benefits to the class members, but may reward the 
attorneys handsomely. Additionally, lawyers in other states can bring 
forward an identical ``copy cat'' lawsuit, forcing companies to defend 
the same case in another court, with potentially different results. 
Ultimately, the cost is passed on to consumers in the form of higher 
prices for their products.
  H.R. 2341 brings fairness to the class action arena by providing a 
federal forum for out-of-state defendants and out-of-state plaintiff 
class members. Instead of having plaintiffs in multiple states bring 
forward the same lawsuit. This bill will only allow one lawsuit and it 
must be handled at the federal level. It emphasizes efficiency by 
ensuring only one bite at the apple. The current system has judges from 
one state deciding the fate of plaintiffs from other states, and 
binding them to whatever decision the judge brings down or the lawyers 
reach in a settlement. This legislation will provide the plaintiff an 
opportunity for settlements that benefit them.
  H.R. 2341 protects the rights of the plaintiffs or class members with 
inclusion of a Consumer Class Action Bill of Rights. It will begin to 
address reform on an issue and at a time where numbers of class action 
suits have skyrocketed.
  I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill and I urge all 
my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2341

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Class 
     Action Fairness Act of 2002''.
       (b) Reference.--Whenever in this Act 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 for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; reference; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Consumer class action bill of rights and improved procedures 
              for interstate class actions.
Sec. 4. Federal district court jurisdiction of interstate class 
              actions.
Sec. 5. Removal of interstate class actions to Federal district court.
Sec. 6. Appeals of class action certification orders.
Sec. 7. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Class action lawsuits are an important and valuable 
     part of our legal system when they permit the fair and 
     efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties 
     by allowing the

[[Page 3120]]

     claims to be aggregated into a single action against a 
     defendant that has allegedly caused harm.
       (2) Over the past decade, there have been abuses of the 
     class action device that have harmed class members with 
     legitimate claims and defendants that have acted responsibly, 
     and that have thereby undermined public respect for our 
     judicial system.
       (3) Class members have been harmed by a number of actions 
     taken by plaintiffs' lawyers, which provide little or no 
     benefit to class members as a whole, including--
       (A) plaintiffs' lawyers receiving large fees, while class 
     members are left with coupons or other awards of little or no 
     value;
       (B) unjustified rewards being made to certain plaintiffs at 
     the expense of other class members; and
       (C) the publication of confusing notices that prevent class 
     members from being able to fully understand and effectively 
     exercise their rights.
       (4) Through the use of artful pleading, plaintiffs are able 
     to avoid litigating class actions in Federal court, forcing 
     businesses and other organizations to defend interstate class 
     action lawsuits in county and State courts where--
       (A) the lawyers, rather than the claimants, are likely to 
     receive the maximum benefit;
       (B) less scrutiny may be given to the merits of the case; 
     and
       (C) defendants are effectively forced into settlements, in 
     order to avoid the possibility of huge judgments that could 
     destabilize their companies.
       (5) These abuses undermine our Federal system and the 
     intent of the framers of the Constitution in creating 
     diversity jurisdiction, in that county and State courts are--
       (A) handling interstate class actions that affect parties 
     from many States;
       (B) sometimes acting in ways that demonstrate bias against 
     out-of-State defendants; and
       (C) making judgments that impose their view of the law on 
     other States and bind the rights of the residents of those 
     States.
       (6) Abusive interstate class actions have harmed society as 
     a whole by forcing innocent parties to settle cases rather 
     than risk a huge judgment by a local jury, thereby costing 
     consumers billions of dollars in increased costs to pay for 
     forced settlements and excessive judgments.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members 
     with legitimate claims;
       (2) to protect responsible companies and other institutions 
     against interstate class actions in State courts;
       (3) to restore the intent of the framers of the 
     Constitution by providing for Federal court consideration of 
     interstate class actions; and
       (4) to benefit society by encouraging innovation and 
     lowering consumer prices.

     SEC. 3. CONSUMER CLASS ACTION BILL OF RIGHTS AND IMPROVED 
                   PROCEDURES FOR INTERSTATE CLASS ACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Part V is amended by inserting after 
     chapter 113 the following:

                      ``CHAPTER 114--CLASS ACTIONS

``Sec.
``1711. Judicial scrutiny of coupon and other noncash settlements.
``1712. Protection against loss by class members.
``1713. Protection against discrimination based on geographic location.
``1714. Prohibition on the payment of bounties.
``1715. Clearer and simpler settlement information.
``1716. Definitions.

     ``Sec. 1711. Judicial scrutiny of coupon and other noncash 
       settlements

       ``The court may approve a proposed settlement under which 
     the class members would receive noncash benefits or would 
     otherwise be required to expend funds in order to obtain part 
     or all of the proposed benefits only after a hearing to 
     determine whether, and making a written finding that, the 
     settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for class 
     members.

     ``Sec. 1712. Protection against loss by class members

       ``The court may approve a proposed settlement under which 
     any class member is obligated to pay sums to class counsel 
     that would result in a net loss to the class member only if 
     the court makes a written finding that nonmonetary benefits 
     to the class member outweigh the monetary loss.

     ``Sec. 1713. Protection against discrimination based on 
       geographic location

       ``The court may not approve a proposed settlement that 
     provides for the payment of greater sums to some class 
     members than to others solely on the basis that the class 
     members to whom the greater sums are to be paid are located 
     in closer geographic proximity to the court.

     ``Sec. 1714. Prohibition on the payment of bounties

       ``(a) In General.--The court may not approve a proposed 
     settlement that provides for the payment of a greater share 
     of the award to a class representative serving on behalf of a 
     class, on the basis of the formula for distribution to all 
     other class members, than that awarded to the other class 
     members.
       ``(b) Rule of Construction.--The limitation in subsection 
     (a) shall not be construed to prohibit any payment approved 
     by the court for reasonable time or costs that a person was 
     required to expend in fulfilling his or her obligations as a 
     class representative.

     ``Sec. 1715. Clearer and simpler settlement information

       ``(a) Plain English Requirements.--Any court with 
     jurisdiction over a plaintiff class action shall require that 
     any written notice concerning a proposed settlement of the 
     class action provided to the class through the mail or 
     publication in printed media contain--
       ``(1) at the beginning of such notice, a statement in 18-
     point Times New Roman type or other functionally similar 
     type, stating `LEGAL NOTICE: YOU ARE A PLAINTIFF IN A CLASS 
     ACTION LAWSUIT AND YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE 
     SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE.'; and
       ``(2) a short summary written in plain, easily understood 
     language, describing--
       ``(A) the subject matter of the class action;
       ``(B) the members of the class;
       ``(C) the legal consequences of being a member of the 
     class;
       ``(D) if the notice is informing class members of a 
     proposed settlement agreement--
       ``(i) the benefits that will accrue to the class due to the 
     settlement;
       ``(ii) the rights that class members will lose or waive 
     through the settlement;
       ``(iii) obligations that will be imposed on the defendants 
     by the settlement;
       ``(iv) the dollar amount of any attorney's fee class 
     counsel will be seeking, or if not possible, a good faith 
     estimate of the dollar amount of any attorney's fee class 
     counsel will be seeking; and
       ``(v) an explanation of how any attorney's fee will be 
     calculated and funded; and
       ``(E) any other material matter.
       ``(b) Tabular Format.--Any court with jurisdiction over a 
     plaintiff class action shall require that the information 
     described in subsection (a)--
       ``(1) be placed in a conspicuous and prominent location on 
     the notice;
       ``(2) contain clear and concise headings for each item of 
     information; and
       ``(3) provide a clear and concise form for stating each 
     item of information required to be disclosed under each 
     heading.
       ``(c) Television or Radio Notice.--Any notice provided 
     through television or radio (including transmissions by cable 
     or satellite) to inform the class members in a class action 
     of the right of each member to be excluded from the class 
     action or a proposed settlement of the class action, if such 
     right exists, shall, in plain, easily understood language--
       ``(1) describe the persons who may potentially become class 
     members in the class action; and
       ``(2) explain that the failure of a class member to 
     exercise his or her right to be excluded from a class action 
     will result in the person's inclusion in the class action or 
     settlement.

     ``Sec. 1716. Definitions

       ``In this chapter--
       ``(1) Class action.--The term `class action' means any 
     civil action filed in a district court of the United States 
     pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
     or any civil action that is removed to a district court of 
     the United States that was originally filed pursuant to a 
     State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an 
     action to be brought by one or more representatives on behalf 
     of a class.
       ``(2) Class counsel.--The term `class counsel' means the 
     persons who serve as the attorneys for the class members in a 
     proposed or certified class action.
       ``(3) Class members.--The term `class members' means the 
     persons who fall within the definition of the proposed or 
     certified class in a class action.
       ``(4) Plaintiff class action.--The term `plaintiff class 
     action' means a class action in which class members are 
     plaintiffs.
       ``(5) Proposed settlement.--The term `proposed settlement' 
     means an agreement that resolves claims in a class action, 
     that is subject to court approval and that, if approved, 
     would be binding on the class members.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     chapters for part V is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to chapter 113 the following:

``114. Class Actions............................................1711''.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION OF INTERSTATE 
                   CLASS ACTIONS.

       (a) Application of Federal Diversity Jurisdiction.--Section 
     1332 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d)(1) In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `class' means all of the class members in a 
     class action;
       ``(B) the term `class action' means any civil action filed 
     pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
     or similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure 
     authorizing an action to be brought by one or more 
     representative persons on behalf of a class;
       ``(C) the term `class certification order' means an order 
     issued by a court approving the treatment of a civil action 
     as a class action; and
       ``(D) the term `class members' means the persons who fall 
     within the definition of the proposed or certified class in a 
     class action.
       ``(2) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction 
     of any civil action in which the matter in controversy 
     exceeds the sum or value of $2,000,000, exclusive of interest 
     and costs, and is a class action in which--
       ``(A) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a 
     State different from any defendant;
       ``(B) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign 
     state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any 
     defendant is a citizen of a State; or
       ``(C) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a 
     State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or 
     subject of a foreign state.

[[Page 3121]]

       ``(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to any civil action in 
     which--
       ``(A)(i) the substantial majority of the members of the 
     proposed plaintiff class and the primary defendants are 
     citizens of the State in which the action was originally 
     filed; and
       ``(ii) the claims asserted therein will be governed 
     primarily by the laws of the State in which the action was 
     originally filed;
       ``(B) the primary defendants are States, State officials, 
     or other governmental entities against whom the district 
     court may be foreclosed from ordering relief; or
       ``(C) the number of proposed plaintiff class members is 
     less than 100.
       ``(4) In any class action, the claims of the individual 
     class members shall be aggregated to determine whether the 
     matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $2,000,000, 
     exclusive of interest and costs.
       ``(5) This subsection shall apply to any class action 
     before or after the entry of a class certification order by 
     the court with respect to that action.
       ``(6)(A) A district court shall dismiss any civil action 
     that is subject to the jurisdiction of the court solely under 
     this subsection if the court determines the action may not 
     proceed as a class action based on a failure to satisfy the 
     requirements of rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
     Procedure.
       ``(B) Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall prohibit plaintiffs 
     from filing an amended class action in Federal court or 
     filing an action in State court, except that any such action 
     filed in State court may be removed to the appropriate 
     district court if it is an action of which the district 
     courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.
       ``(C) In any action that is dismissed under this paragraph 
     and is filed by any of the original named plaintiffs therein 
     in the same State court venue in which the dismissed action 
     was originally filed, the limitations periods on all 
     reasserted claims shall be deemed tolled for the period 
     during which the dismissed class action was pending. The 
     limitations periods on any claims that were asserted in a 
     class action dismissed under this paragraph that are 
     subsequently asserted in an individual action shall be deemed 
     tolled for the period during which the dismissed action was 
     pending.
       ``(7) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to any class action 
     brought by shareholders that solely involves a claim that 
     relates to--
       ``(A) a claim concerning a covered security as defined 
     under section 16(f)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and 
     section 28(f)(5)(E) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
       ``(B) the internal affairs or governance of a corporation 
     or other form of business enterprise and arises under or by 
     virtue of the laws of the State in which such corporation or 
     business enterprise is incorporated or organized; or
       ``(C) the rights, duties (including fiduciary duties), and 
     obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to any 
     security (as defined under section 2(a)(1) of the Securities 
     Act of 1933 and the regulations issued thereunder).
       ``(8) For purposes of this subsection and section 1453 of 
     this title, an unincorporated association shall be deemed to 
     be a citizen of the State where it has its principal place of 
     business and the State under whose laws it is organized.
       ``(9) For purposes of this section and section 1453 of this 
     title, a civil action that is not otherwise a class action as 
     defined in paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection shall 
     nevertheless be deemed a class action if--
       ``(A) the named plaintiff purports to act for the interests 
     of its members (who are not named parties to the action) or 
     for the interests of the general public, seeks a remedy of 
     damages, restitution, disgorgement, or any other form of 
     monetary relief, and is not a State attorney general; or
       ``(B) monetary relief claims in the action are proposed to 
     be tried jointly in any respect with the claims of 100 or 
     more other persons on the ground that the claims involve 
     common questions of law or fact.

     In any such case, the persons who allegedly were injured 
     shall be treated as members of a proposed plaintiff class and 
     the monetary relief that is sought shall be treated as the 
     claims of individual class members. The provisions of 
     paragraphs (3) and (6) of this subsection and subsections 
     (b)(2) and (d) of section 1453 shall not apply to civil 
     actions described under subparagraph (A). The provisions of 
     paragraph (6) of this subsection, and subsections (b)(2) and 
     (d) of section 1453 shall not apply to civil actions 
     described under subparagraph (B).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1335(a)(1) is amended by inserting ``(a) or 
     (d)'' after ``1332''.
       (2) Section 1603(b)(3) is amended by striking ``(d)'' and 
     inserting ``(e)''.

     SEC. 5. REMOVAL OF INTERSTATE CLASS ACTIONS TO FEDERAL 
                   DISTRICT COURT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 89 is amended by adding after 
     section 1452 the following:

     ``Sec. 1453. Removal of class actions

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `class', 
     `class action', `class certification order', and `class 
     member' have the meanings given these terms in section 
     1332(d)(1).
       ``(b) In General.--A class action may be removed to a 
     district court of the United States in accordance with this 
     chapter, without regard to whether any defendant is a citizen 
     of the State in which the action is brought, except that such 
     action may be removed--
       ``(1) by any defendant without the consent of all 
     defendants; or
       ``(2) by any plaintiff class member who is not a named or 
     representative class member without the consent of all 
     members of such class.
       ``(c) When Removable.--This section shall apply to any 
     class action before or after the entry of a class 
     certification order in the action, except that a plaintiff 
     class member who is not a named or representative class 
     member of the action may not seek removal of the action 
     before an order certifying a class of which the plaintiff is 
     a class member has been entered.
       ``(d) Procedure for Removal.--The provisions of section 
     1446 relating to a defendant removing a case shall apply to a 
     plaintiff removing a case under this section, except that in 
     the application of subsection (b) of such section the 
     requirement relating to the 30-day filing period shall be met 
     if a plaintiff class member files notice of removal within 30 
     days after receipt by such class member, through service or 
     otherwise, of the initial written notice of the class action.
       ``(e) Review of Orders Remanding Class Actions to State 
     Courts.--The provisions of section 1447 shall apply to any 
     removal of a case under this section, except that, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of section 1447(d), an order 
     remanding a class action to the State court from which it was 
     removed shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.
       ``(f) Exception.--This section shall not apply to any class 
     action brought by shareholders that solely involves--
       ``(1) a claim concerning a covered security as defined 
     under section 16(f)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and 
     section 28(f)(5)(E) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
       ``(2) a claim that relates to the internal affairs or 
     governance of a corporation or other form of business 
     enterprise and arises under or by virtue of the laws of the 
     State in which such corporation or business enterprise is 
     incorporated or organized; or
       ``(3) a claim that relates to the rights, duties (including 
     fiduciary duties), and obligations relating to or created by 
     or pursuant to any security (as defined under section 2(a)(1) 
     of the Securities Act of 1933 and the regulations issued 
     thereunder).''.
       (b) Removal Limitation.--Section 1446(b) is amended in the 
     second sentence by inserting ``(a)'' after ``section 1332''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 89 is amended by adding after the item 
     relating to section 1452 the following:

``1453. Removal of class actions.''.

     SEC. 6. APPEALS OF CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION ORDERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1292(a) is amended by inserting 
     after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Orders of the district courts of the United States 
     granting or denying class certification under rule 23 of the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if notice of appeal is 
     filed within 10 days after entry of the order.''.
       (b) Discovery Stay.--All discovery and other proceedings 
     shall be stayed during the pendency of any appeal taken 
     pursuant to the amendment made by subsection (a), unless the 
     court finds upon the motion of any party that specific 
     discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent 
     undue prejudice to that party.

     SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any civil 
     action commenced on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to that amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 107-375. Each 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.
  The Chair has been informed that Amendment No. 1 will not be offered.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed in House 
Report 107-375.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Nadler:
       Page 9, insert the following after line 20 and redesignate 
     the succeeding section accordingly:

     ``Sec. 1716. Sunshine in court records

       ``No order, opinion, or record of the court in the 
     adjudication of a class action, including a record obtained 
     through discovery, whether or not formally filed with the 
     court, may be sealed or subjected to a protective order 
     unless the court makes a finding of fact--
       ``(1) that the sealing or protective order is narrowly 
     tailored, consistent with the protection of public health and 
     safety, and is in the public interest; and
       ``(2) if the action by the court would prevent the 
     disclosure of information, that disclosing the information is 
     clearly outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in 
     maintaining the confidentiality of such information.

[[Page 3122]]

       Page 6, in the matter preceding line 1, strike the item 
     relating to section 1716 and insert the following:

``1716. Sunshine in court records.
``1717. Definitions.''.


         Modification to Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment and further request that such modification be considered as 
read.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Page 10, insert the following after line 4 and redesignate 
     the succeeding section accordingly:

     ``Sec. 1716. Sunshine in court records

       ``No order, opinion, or record of the court in the 
     adjudication of a class action, including a record obtained 
     through discovery, whether or not formally filed with the 
     court, may be sealed or subjected to a protective order 
     unless the court makes a finding of fact--
       ``(1) that the sealing or protective order is narrowly 
     tailored, consistent with the protection of public health and 
     safety, and is in the public interest; and
       ``(2) if the action by the court would prevent the 
     disclosure of information, that disclosing the information is 
     clearly outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in 
     maintaining the confidentiality of such information.
       Page 6, in the matter preceding line 7, strike the item 
     relating to section 1716 and insert the following:

``1716. Sunshine in court records.
``1717. Definitions.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased to offer this amendment along with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very constructive 
amendment, and we are pleased to support it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, in that case, let me never take yes for an 
answer. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman, and I urge everyone 
to vote for it and I suppose, aside from saying that this deals with 
the question of shielding records in settlements.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt and gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Johnson.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to prevent the sealing of 
information regarding settlements of class action lawsuits--information 
that would protect the health and safety of others.
  I have been concerned for a number of years about agreements to seal 
the information about settlements of lawsuits that affect public health 
and safety.
  More often than not, a class action suit is filed because a number of 
people have been harmed by the actions of a large corporation. They 
come together to seek to recover damages by providing that a company 
behaved in a way that resulted in foreseeable harm to public health and 
safety. Often, the company settles the lawsuit, pays the people it 
harmed who sued, and then tells them to be quite. But the company may 
never change its dangerous practices. They simply regard the lawsuits 
as the cost of doing business, and ignore the underlying problem. Since 
the companies force the plaintiffs never to discuss the problems with 
anyone else, more people end up getting hurt by the companies. This is 
reprehensible.
  The Firestone Tire situation is a case in point. One of the main 
reasons why there was not timely public disclosure of the dangers of 
Firestone tires is because Firestone insisted on a series of gag orders 
when settling product liability lawsuits.
  An article in the September 25, 2000, edition of the Legal Times 
points out that:

       One of the principal roadblocks to timely public disclosure 
     of the danger of Firestone tires has been a series of gag 
     orders the company insisted on as a condition of settling 
     product liability lawsuits in the early 1990s.
       Simply put, Firestone made a calculated determination that 
     they would compensate victims so long as the plaintiffs 
     agreed not to share their stories with other victims or the 
     public. Congress was given the opportunity to address this 
     very problem in 1995 when an amendment was offered that would 
     prevent such gag orders if the public safety need outweighed 
     the privacy interests of the litigants. Unfortunately, the 
     amendment was defeated, with opponents arguing that the 
     information was proprietary information that does not belong 
     in the public domain.

  The reality is that the release of such information in the Firestone 
case 7 or 8 years ago potentially could have saved scores of human 
lives. We can't blame the people who settled their case for recovering 
damages and agreeing to the gag orders as a condition of getting the 
money. But as a result, the public is kept in the dark, and many more 
people are injured. This should not happen again.
  It is important for the people to be aware of the health and safety 
hazards that may exist so that other people can make informed choices 
about their lives, and, I might add, so that public agencies, perhaps, 
can crack down on such dangers. To often critical information is sealed 
from the public and other people may be harmed as a result.
  Let me add that this amendment is very reasonably drafted. The 
amendment is written in such a way that the judge must make a finding 
of fact where a gag order is requested. If the judge finds that the 
privacy interest is broader than the public interest, then the judge 
must issue the gag order. If the judge finds that the public interest 
in the health and safety outweighs the primary interests asserted, the 
judge may not issue the gag order. The judge also has to make sure the 
gag order is drafted as tightly as possible. This will prevent the 
unnecessary disclosure of confidential information, but will not allow 
the sealing of information that may harm the public.
  When it comes to health and safety, public access to class action 
lawsuit materials is absolutely essential. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Nadler/Delahunt/Johnson Amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, today Congress is considering a bill to 
make it easier for corporations to avoid compensating victims for 
injuries corporations and their products cause. But current law is 
already heavily skewed toward their interests, and the public health 
suffers as a result.
  Case in point is the gag order on victims who receive a settlement. 
Under current law, victims receiving compensation under a settlement of 
a class action suit can be required not to disclose the dangers, 
evidence and admissions made by the corporate criminal as a condition 
of settlement. As a result, dangerous products remain on the market and 
able to do harm to an unknowing public.
  In a society dedicated to safety and security, there is no place for 
these gag orders. Safety and security cannot be realized with secrecy 
agreements. The Nadler/Delahunt/Johnson amendment is narrowly drafted 
to clear the way for disclosure of information unearthed in settled 
class action cases that would benefit the public health.
  It is a fact that enforcing the Nation's product liability laws rests 
in part on citizen-suits brought as class actions. But prevention is 
worth a pound of cure. If we repeal the gag rule on evidence of 
dangerous products, we will make society a safer, more secure place for 
the Nation's citizens. Vote ``yes'' on Nadler.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  It is simple and straightforward. And it's been well-presented and 
fully explained by previous speakers. It outlaws a practice that has 
cost the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans--the sealing 
of court records in class action settlements where the health and 
safety of the public are at risk.
  And if you have any doubts about the consequences of this practice, 
just ask the families of those who lost loved ones who were driving 
Ford Explorers outfitted with Firestone tires. At last count, 271 
people had died.
  The company knew about the problem. But insisted on secrecy as a 
condition of settlement. And just kept on selling those tires to an 
unsuspecting public who were unaware of the danger.
  In committee, the lead sponsor of the bill stated that publicizing 
the details of settlement agreements would deter people from entering 
into them. Let's be clear. There is absolutely no evidence to support 
that claim.
  And he further suggested that the amendment would eliminate an 
effective negotiating tool for plaintiffs. His concern for plaintiffs 
and hard-working American families is noble. But I can't quite believe 
that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of 
Manufacturers, who support this bill, share that same concern. I 
believe that would be a real stretch, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 3123]]

  But even if it were true, I submit that the price of secrecy is too 
high if it costs a single human life.
  Consumers are entitled to know when there are dangerous and defective 
products on the market. They are entitled to the information that will 
protect them and their families from the unconscionable conduct that we 
witnessed in the Firestone case.
  Well, let's exercise our collective conscience and do the right 
thing. Let's remember those families, who were the victims of corporate 
secrecy and greed. It's time to let the sunshine in, before more 
innocent people are hurt.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I urge members of 
this body who care about the health and safety of the public to support 
the Amendment I offer today with my colleagues Mr. Delahunt and Mr. 
Nadler.
  This amendment will require a judge to look at the facts and 
determine whether the plaintiff's interest in privacy outweigh the 
public's need and right to know. Often plaintiffs who find themselves 
in difficult circumstances will agree to seal documents in order to 
obtain a settlement. These plaintiffs and their attorneys are looking 
out for their own interests. This is understandable. When faced with 
the prospect of not obtaining a settlement or going along with the 
defendant's demands to seal the documents and forever keep them secret, 
few people will jeopardize their own recovery. And that is why the 
interests of justice demand that a judge review these agreements. The 
parties involved in the suit are consumed with pursuing their own 
interests. Only a judge is required to keep the public interests in 
mind and to look down the road and determine what effect secrecy will 
have on future litigants. Florida, Texas and Washington all have rules 
prohibiting secrecy in cases involving defective products. And several 
states, including California and Illinois, through their court rules 
require that a judge review any secrecy deal. Mr. Speaker, the public 
needs this protection and this body should not refuse to provide 
ordinary people with the means to pursue justice in the courts of this 
land.
  Let me just outline a few instances in which these secret agreements 
have endangered the public health and safety:
  My colleagues have discussed the Firestone Tire case in which 
plaintiffs in over 50 cases all over the country were required to agree 
to secret settlements before the problems with these tires finally came 
to light. We have all heard of the injuries that resulted from people 
unwittingly continuing to drive on these defective tires.
  In 1999 alone, about 300 asbestos lawsuits were settled for $200 
million in Cook County Illinois. That deal kept secret not only the 
dangers uncovered but also the exact number of plaintiffs, their 
injuries and the amount received by each.
  In 2000, BP Amoco reached an out of court deal with one former 
employee and the estates of four others, settling lawsuits that claimed 
the five developed brain tumors as a result of working at Amoco's 
Naperville research center. The company insisted that the amount it 
paid be kept secret. But two of the settlements were revealed when a 
Judge insisted that wrongful death benefits be made public.
  Mr. Chairman, we must follow the lead of Texas and several other 
states. We must assure that the secrecy which has become so fashionable 
lately not overtake our judicial system and deny justice to ordinary 
people who have been harmed by the negligence of others or defectively 
made products. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed in House 
Report 107-375.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) a designee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters)?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin will state it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the rule that was 
adopted, House Resolution 367, requires that amendments may be offered 
only by the Member designated in the report and not by a designee. Am I 
correct?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is not correct. A designee may offer 
the amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an 
amendment and present it on behalf of the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That unanimous consent request is not in 
order in the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent that we move 
to the next amendment and reserve the opportunity to bring it up later?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That request is also not in order in the 
Committee of the Whole.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, under the rule, which amendment may 
be offered now?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Right now, Amendment No. 3 by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is in order.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Can the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) offer her amendment at a later time?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Only by unanimous consent granted by the 
House. That unanimous consent request is not in order in the Committee 
in the Whole. Under the rule, amendments only may be offered printed in 
the report.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I call for regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) a designee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters)?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) is a designee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), 
the gentleman from Michigan is recognized to offer Amendment No. 3.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 3.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Conyers:
       Page 9, insert the following after line 20 and redesignate 
     the succeeding section accordingly:

     ``Sec. 1716. Withholding or destruction of material

       ``If the court in a class action issues a discovery order 
     and a party to which the order is directed withholds or 
     destroys material subject to the order or makes a 
     misrepresentation with respect to the existence of such 
     material, such action by that party shall be deemed an 
     admission of any fact with respect to which the order was 
     issued.''
       Page 6, in the matter preceding line 1, strike the item 
     relating to section 1716 and insert the following:

``1716. Withholding or destruction of material.
``1717. Definitions.''.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have the text of House Resolution 
367 before me, and the relevant part says 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 and shall be divided and controlled 
by the proponent and opponent. The words ``or a designee'' is not in 
the rule. It is not in the text of the summary provisions of the 
resolution in House Report 107-375, but is in a head note.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. House Resolution 367 says ``a Member 
designated in the report'' and House Report 107-375 designate ``the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters),

[[Page 3124]]

or designee.'' Under those circumstances, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) is recognized as a designee.
  Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) wish to withdraw his 
offering of the amendment as the designee of the gentlewoman from 
California?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 3.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Waters:
       Page 9, insert the following after line 20 and redesignate 
     the succeeding section accordingly:

     ``Sec. 1716. Withholding or destruction of material

       ``If the court in a class action issues a discovery order 
     and a party to which the order is directed withholds or 
     destroys material subject to the order or makes a 
     misrepresentation with respect to the existence of such 
     material, such action by that party shall be deemed an 
     admission of any fact with respect to which the order was 
     issued.''
       Page 6, in the matter preceding line 1, strike the item 
     relating to section 1716 and insert the following:

``1716. Withholding or destruction of material.
``1717. Definitions.''.

         Modification to Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment and further request that such modification be considered as 
read.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The text of Amendment No. 3, as modified, is as follows:

       Page 10, insert the following after line 4 and redesignate 
     the succeeding section accordingly:

     ``Sec. 1716. Withholding or destruction of material

       ``If the court in a class action issues a discovery order 
     and a party to which the order is directed withholds or 
     destroys material subject to the order or makes a 
     misrepresentation with respect to the existence of such 
     material, such action by that party shall be deemed an 
     admission of any fact with respect to which the order was 
     issued.''
       Page 6, in the matter preceding line 7, strike the item 
     relating to section 1716 and insert the following:

``1716. Withholding or destruction of material.
``1717. Definitions.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment seeks to prevent a disgraceful action taken by some 
defendants. Specifically, it addresses the problems of withheld or 
shredded documents. We have recently heard allegations that Enron and 
Arthur Andersen have engaged in document shredding. Those documents 
were being sought by lawyers for the company's former employees, by 
Members of Congress and by government investigators.
  In any lawsuit involving shredded documents, the information those 
documents contain may be lost forever. So while a court may sanction a 
party that shreds documents, other parties will never be able to use 
the documents to prove their case.
  Under my amendment, any party that withholds or destroys material 
related to a court discovery order would be deemed to have admitted to 
any fact relating to the discovery order. Before that can happen, it 
would have to be proven that the party did, in fact, destroy or 
withhold those documents or that the party made a misrepresentation as 
to their existence; but once that has been proven, the party that 
engaged in illegal activity would have essentially admitted to the 
facts relating to the discovery order. That party would no longer have 
the option of arguing that it did not do the facts alleged under that 
order.
  Keep in mind that this amendment would not impact on the facts of the 
case. It only addresses the facts directly related to the discovery 
order that was violated.
  All this amendment does is to ask that parties comply with court 
orders. It says if they have broken the law by destroying or 
withholding evidence, then they cannot deny the allegations under the 
discovery request; we are going to rule that they are guilty with 
regard to the information destroyed or withheld.
  This amendment provides a common-sense approach to a very serious 
problem. We should provide a strong disincentive to companies that 
think destroying documents is a way to save their case.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that there are a lot of people who are tired of 
hearing about Enron, but Enron is not going to go away. The collapse of 
Enron represents the largest corporate failure in American history. At 
its height, Enron's total market capitalization was over $90 billion 
while today it trades at less than 25 cents a share. Enron's collapse 
resulted in tens of billions of losses for individual investors and 
pension funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely surprised that even with all of us 
knowing and understanding what took place at Enron, and each day we 
continue to learn more, I am surprised that we still have efforts 
anywhere to try and protect our corporations that not only are involved 
in wrongdoing, such as Enron, but Enron has gone beyond wrongdoing. It 
has tried to cover its tracks by shredding documents, and they did not 
just shred, get caught and stop. After it was discovered that they were 
shredding documents, they shredded more documents. It is absolutely 
unbelievable what we are learning about Enron.
  We not only wish to protect our consumers against the Enrons and the 
Global Crossings of the world and others that we are going to find out 
about, we want to create statutes that will to help to shine the light 
on these corporations in every conceivable way. It goes beyond the need 
for transparency.
  We still have those who would argue, and just a moment ago I was in 
our Committee on Financial Services where I had someone from American 
Enterprise arguing that we should not interfere, we should not try and 
create too many laws, we should allow the marketplace to work their 
will, correct itself.
  I am sorry, we cannot watch people be harmed. We cannot watch 
investors harmed. We cannot watch pensioners harmed and say, Well, 
Enron is going to go down and that is the price they will pay.
  How many times do we have to watch consumers hurt? How many times do 
we have to unveil the manipulations of the greedy corporations of 
America that will take advantage of anybody that it has the opportunity 
to take advantage of?
  This business of shredding documents should have us all outraged, but 
we do not hear a chorus of voices coming from those who are trying to 
protect Enron and the other corporations of America who are 
manipulating their consumers. What we hear is, Let us make a few new 
rules, not too many, let us do something to let the American public 
know we hear them, but let us not do too much.

                              {time}  1345

  Well, I want to make sure that we pass laws in this Congress that 
will not only deal with the tricks of Enron and the way that they 
created all of these phony and funny companies, but I also want to deal 
with the accounting firms. I want to make sure they are never able 
again to receive consulting fees from the same company that it is 
supposed to be auditing; never able again to turn a blind eye to the 
practices of the corporation.
  We cannot do all of that in this legislation. This is about something 
else. But we have an opportunity here to do something about the 
shredding of documents. The shredding of documents

[[Page 3125]]

shows intent, intent to hide something, intent to make sure there is 
not a certain kind of discovery. It is really criminal on its face. The 
shredding of documents by a major corporation in the middle of a 
scandal, where they have declared this huge bankruptcy, cannot be left 
untouched.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentlewoman, is it not 
true that in the Enron case that the shredding was flagrant and 
outrageous in the sense that even after they were discovered shredding, 
they continued to shred?
  Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely 
correct; and that is what is so outrageous about it all. They started 
shredding early, they continued shredding, and even after it was 
discovered, they shredded some more.
  So what they have done is to flaunt their criminal activity in all of 
our faces; and literally, in the way they are acting, they are daring 
us to do something about it.
  Mr. CONYERS. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I would ask 
her if her amendment, then, would hold them accountable and reinforce 
any existing remedies against shredding, sanctions of the court, 
criminal prosecution, and emphasizes this, in the face of the arrogance 
that has been displayed in this case, and perhaps other cases that have 
not even come to light?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. 
Everybody knows about the shredding that took place in Enron. We have 
all the employees who said, yes, we did it; they told us to do it. And 
so what we have here is such an admission and knowledge by so many 
people that with my amendment here they would not be able to get out 
from under the fact that they absolutely committed the shredding of the 
documents.
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman on 
behalf of many of us on the committee for a very timely, appropriate, 
and very sensible provision in the light of what has come to become 
common knowledge to everyone in the country now.
  Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, the 
gentleman is certainly welcome, and let me just say this to him. I 
believe that as we legislate in this Congress, we must take every 
opportunity to close every loophole, shut every door, shut down every 
opportunity for any corporation in America to ever do again what Enron 
and what appears Global Crossing is doing and has done.
  I hate to repeat it because I know people do not want to keep hearing 
it, but I know the stories of Enron employees who had paid into their 
401(k)s. They only had $400,000 for their retirement to last them for 
the rest of their lives. It is gone. It is gone. There is nothing that 
anybody can say about us being too involved, overlegislating, 
attempting to micromanage. There is nothing that anybody can say that 
should keep us from using every opportunity.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it 
confuses discovery orders with factual evidence and appears to give the 
court discretion to admit unproven facts into evidence. This not only 
undermines the bill but it undermines the very notion of a fair trial 
that our judicial system is based upon.
  There are rules for a fair trial: the right to confront your accuser, 
a right to a jury in some instances, and a rule that allows both sides 
to discover information. But there is no precedent in the American 
legal system for a court to have the authority to simply decide facts 
without proof. The amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) proposes to do that.
  The gentlewoman's amendment strikes at the heart of so many 
constitutional protections intended to protect the rights of all 
Americans when they are brought before the court, and it sticks the 
thumb on the scale of justice against those rights that have been 
protected both by court rules and statutes, as well as the Constitution 
of the United States.
  For that reason, and for that reason alone, it ought to be rejected. 
But I would like to talk about two things. The other side keeps on 
talking about Enron, and we will confront that directly. Enron is 
broke. No matter what comes out of the bankruptcy court, the people 
that have lost money in their 401(k)s and had employment contracts 
ripped up and all of that are not going to get very much money out of 
it. I think that is a given. And that is a shame, and it is something 
that we are going to have to get into in another forum. But the law is 
quite clear that the destruction of subpoenaed documents is a criminal 
obstruction of justice, and this bill does not change that criminal 
statute. This bill does not deal with the criminal law in any respect 
whatsoever.
  If people did do that destroying of documents, as we have read that 
they did, they should be indicted and prosecuted. And if the jury finds 
them guilty, they should go to jail and they should go to jail for a 
long time. But I think they deserve a fair trial just like everybody 
else who is accused of a crime. Because they happen to be associated 
with Enron or Arthur Andersen really should not make any difference. 
Because if we erode the right of a fair trial to those defendants, we 
have set a precedent that is going to bite the people of this country 
and this Congress for years and years to come. The way to keep the lid 
on Pandora's box is to reject the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Now, the second thing I would like to bring up is let us run the 
wheel back about 3\1/2\ or 4 years. There were certain e-mails in the 
Clinton White House that were destroyed after having been subpoenaed by 
the Committee on Government Reform. Now, under the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from California, whatever the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, thought he 
was looking for would have been admitted as evidence and as fact and 
could not be impeached, even though the destroyed e-mails might have 
had nothing to do with what he put in his subpoena. That is the type of 
Pandora's box that this misdrafted amendment is opening up.
  And I think my friends on the other side of the aisle, including the 
gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from Michigan, who were 
most eloquent in their defense of the former President, regardless of 
what the facts were, would have really talked about how unfair a Waters 
provision would have been relating to those destroyed e-mails. So I 
think that if it would have been bad as it applied to former President 
Clinton, it is bad if it applies to Enron or anybody else. We should 
not open up the Pandora's box.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. It is frivolous. Its 
premise is that courts cannot or do not have the power to sanction 
wrongdoing by parties in discovery or that the system itself does not 
prosecute crimes when they occur in our court system.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the Democrats have talked today about Enron. They 
have talked about prescription drug benefits, they have talked about 
apple juice, tires and the environment. Our friend from Texas even 
raised my constituents in San Juan County, Utah. Yes, each of these 
cases presents terrible tragedies committed by one party against a 
group of others. But this debate is not about whether the plaintiffs in 
each of these cases is entitled to sue or even entitled to seek class 
action status. I have heard no one in this Chamber calling for doing 
away with class action lawsuits. This debate is about where the cases 
are heard, Federal or State court, and that is it.

[[Page 3126]]

  When our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about Enron, 
prescription drugs, truck tires, the environment, or my constituents in 
San Juan County, what they are doing is to change the subject. Make no 
mistake, they do not want to talk about multimillion dollar awards for 
trial lawyers while Americans get coupons in the mail.
  It is not often I agree with The Washington Post editorial page, but 
today I do. The current system is obscene. Trial lawyers take 
advantage, the little guys get taken to the cleaners, and consumers 
ultimately pay the price in the form of higher prices.
  This legislation deserves everyone's support. I encourage a vote 
against this amendment and for H.R. 2341.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  There are two major problems with this amendment, which I strongly 
oppose and which is not well thought out. First, it betrays a serious 
misunderstanding about how discovery works in civil litigation.
  The amendment says if documents subject to a discovery order are 
destroyed or withheld such action shall be deemed an admission of any 
fact with respect to which the order was issued. The problem is that 
discovery orders normally are not issued with respect to facts. The 
orders normally say that certain categories of documents should be 
retained or produced.
  For example, the order may say produce all letters sent between 
person A and person B; or the order may say preserve all documents 
regarding subject X. Thus, the punch line to this amendment does not 
make any sense. If a party withheld a letter sent between person A and 
person B, what fact would be admitted? And if a party destroyed a 
document regarding subject X, what facts would be admitted?
  In sum, the amendment is fatally flawed because it bears no 
relationship to how civil discovery really works. Second, and perhaps 
more importantly, the amendment would actually disrupt and water down 
existing rules that apply to the destruction or withholding of 
documents in the discovery process.
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 already provides for an array of 
sanctions if a party destroys or withholds documents. The court may 
order that certain facts be admitted. The court may order that a party 
may not introduce certain defensive evidence at trial. The court may 
order that monetary sanctions be paid. And most importantly, the court 
may order a default judgment. The court may issue an order that the 
party that disobeyed a discovery order loses the entire case and must 
pay the plaintiffs what they requested.
  There is a considerable risk that courts would view this amendment as 
replacing this very tough rule 37 in the context of class actions. The 
amendment only requires admissions. Rule 37 authorizes a court to 
impose much more serious penalties. Thus, this amendment likely would 
substantially weaken existing law in addressing and correcting 
discovery abuses in the context of class actions.
  Rule 37 is a preferable approach to discovery abuse issues because it 
awards various levels of sanctions that may be imposed depending upon 
the seriousness of discovery abuse. Not every document destruction or 
withholding situation is the same, and rule 37 allows courts to impose 
even stronger sanctions than this amendment, if the circumstances 
warrant.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is exactly right. If 
we allow a person making an allegation and then demanding a production 
of documents to be deemed to have proven their point; that whatever 
they allege was in those documents to have been what that party 
alleged, a serious misjustice will occur and abuses will crop up all 
throughout our legal system. This is a bad approach and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired. All time 
for debate on amendment No. 3 has expired.
  The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                              {time}  1400

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 107-375.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Keller

  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Keller:
       Page 9, insert the following after line 20 and redesignate 
     the succeeding section accordingly:

     ``Sec. 1716. Disclosure of attorney's fees

       ``Any court with jurisdiction over a plaintiff class action 
     shall require that, if there is a settlement of the class 
     action or a judgment for the plaintiffs, the attorneys for 
     the plaintiffs shall disclose to each plaintiff--
       ``(1) at the time when any payment or other award is 
     transmitted to the plaintiff in accordance with the 
     settlement of judgment, or
       ``(2) in a case in which no such payment or award is made 
     to a plaintiff, at the time when notice of the final 
     settlement or judgment is transmitted to such plaintiff,

     the full amount of the attorney's fees charged by the 
     attorneys for services rendered in the action.
       Page 6, in the matter preceding line 1, strike the item 
     relating to section 1716 and insert the following:

``1716. Disclosure of attorney's fees.
``1717. Definitions.''.

          Amendment No. 4, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Keller

  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment and further request that such modification be considered as 
read.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4, as modified, offered by Mr. Keller:
       Page 10, insert the following after line 4 and redesignate 
     the succeeding section accordingly:

     ``Sec. 1716. Disclosure of attorney's fees

       ``Any court with jurisdiction over a plaintiff class action 
     shall require that, if there is a settlement of the class 
     action or a judgment for the plaintiffs, the attorneys for 
     the plaintiffs shall disclose to each plaintiff--
       ``(1) at the time when any payment or other award is 
     transmitted to the plaintiff in accordance with the 
     settlement of judgment, or
       ``(2) in a case in which no such payment or award is made 
     to a plaintiff, at the time when notice of the final 
     settlement or judgment is transmitted to such plaintiff,
     the full amount of the attorney's fees charged by the 
     attorneys for services rendered in the action.
       Page 6, in the matter preceding line 7, strike the item 
     relating to section 1716 and insert the following:

``1716. Disclosure of attorney's fees.
``1717. Definitions.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment relating to the 
disclosure of attorneys' fees. Simply put, if there is a settlement or 
a judgment

[[Page 3127]]

for the plaintiffs in a class action suit, the plaintiffs' attorneys 
shall be required to disclose to their own clients the full amount of 
the attorneys' fees they are charging.
  Why is this necessary? Too often, lawyers cash in while the client 
gets a coupon or a de minimis cash payment.
  For example, in a class action suit against General Mills over a food 
additive in Cheerios cereal, lawyers were paid $2 million in fees while 
their clients received a coupon for a free box of cereal. In a class 
action lawsuit against Chase Manhattan Bank, the lawyers reached a 
settlement which provided the lawyers with $3.6 million in attorneys' 
fees and provided their clients with 33 cents each.
  In another settlement agreement reached last year with Blockbuster, 
the trial lawyers received $9.25 million in attorneys' fees and their 
clients got two free movie rentals and $1-off coupons.
  In a Texas class action suit against two auto insurance companies, 
the lawyer who filed the suit got $8 million in attorneys' fees. The 
policyholders got $5.50.
  In a class action suit brought against manufacturers of computer 
monitors, the trial lawyers settled the case for $6 million in 
attorneys' fees for themselves and $6 for their clients. The list 
literally goes on and on.
  This amendment simply brings some much-needed sunlight to this 
situation by requiring attorneys to disclose their own fees. It does 
not tell them how much to charge, how little to charge, but whatever 
they charge they are going to have to disclose to their clients.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Keller amendment and vote 
``yes'' on final passage of the Class Action Fairness bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas rise in 
opposition?
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Everyone is interested in fairness. Everyone is interested in 
transparency. I think no one has any opposition to making sure that 
both sides in the litigation and the court know about the amount of 
attorneys' fees, and that is fine.
  But this amendment is one-sided, Mr. Chairman, because this amendment 
requires only that the plaintiffs' attorney reveal the amount of fees 
to the clients. That is fair to neither the plaintiffs nor the 
defendants.
  Also, our friends on the other side of the aisle forget to note that 
courts already review fees with a long laundry list of issues and 
criteria such as time and labor involved, novelty and difficulty of the 
questions, skill requisite to perform the employment, the customary 
fees and things such as that. So our position is that what is good for 
the goose is good for the gander. If we want to have transparency and 
we want to know what the fees are, let us talk about the fees on both 
sides so everyone knows where we are.
  I wonder if the gentleman from Florida would be willing to consider 
requiring equal treatment for both sides, require the disclosure of 
fees for both defense attorneys and plaintiffs' attorneys.


            Request to Offer Modification to Amendment No. 4

  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Keller 
amendment be amended by inserting the words ``and the defendants'' 
after ``plaintiffs'' in line 5 of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair only would recognize that 
unanimous-consent request to make a modification if it was made by the 
amendment's sponsor himself.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, as I said before, this amendment is one-
sided and unfair. If the other side was really interested in letting 
consumers and the court and the public know about fees, the other side 
would say the defense should reveal the fees that the defense attorneys 
are charging, too. That is fair. That is equitable. They know it.
  The change I offered to this amendment, which was rejected by the 
gentleman from Florida, would have corrected that inequality. I would 
support a fair and equitable disclosure of all attorneys' fees, and 
those on the other side would not.
  I would note that later today the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Hart) will offer an amendment to commission a study to look at, among 
other things, attorneys' fees and get recommendations from experts on 
how best to ensure that they are fair and reasonable. Let us not put 
the cart before the horse. Let us not make change and then do a study. 
If we want to see if fees are fair, if they are equitable, if they are 
based upon the law, let us do the study and see what the study says; 
then we can look at the changes.
  The change should be applicable to the plaintiffs, the change should 
be applicable to the defendants. I think the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania's approach would better ensure that we are addressing the 
real problems.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. If you want to review 
attorneys' fees on both sides, then support Hart, support the study. 
But do not support one-sided legislation and then have the nerve to get 
up here and put the word ``fairness'' in the name of the bill. We know 
there is nothing fair about this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would note that the gentleman 
from Texas is not a member of the committee. Therefore, the gentleman 
from Florida has the right to close.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time. I commend him for offering this amendment and I 
strongly support it. Let me tell you why.
  To the gentleman from Texas, the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit 
do not pay the defendants' attorneys' fees, but they sure do in some 
class actions. How about the Bank of Boston settlement? Would it not 
have been a good idea for all the plaintiffs in that case if they knew, 
after the attorneys in the case were paid $8.5 million in attorneys' 
fees, that the members of the class would then be sued by their own 
attorneys to pay $25 million more? Would that not have been a useful 
thing for the plaintiffs to have had in that case, when they decide 
whether or not they want to support this particular proposed settlement 
of the class?
  Or how about the plaintiffs in the airline case where the attorneys 
received $16 million in fees, and the plaintiffs themselves received 
coupons for $25 off a $250 or more airline flight, in other words, a 10 
percent reduction? Many of those plaintiffs may have said the attorneys 
are getting $16 million and I am getting a coupon, no, I do not want 
that settlement. They ought to know that ahead of time.
  How about the case against the National Football League, where the 
attorneys received $3.7 million and the subscribers got somewhere 
between $8 and $20? Maybe they would like that, maybe they would not, 
but they ought to know ahead of time before they vote on the 
settlement.
  How about the Blockbuster case? Twenty-three class action lawsuits in 
which the class members got dollar-off coupons and buy-one-get-one-free 
coupons; and the attorneys are estimated, we do not know for sure 
because we do not have this disclosure requirement, are estimated to 
get $9.2 million in attorneys' fees. I think disclosure would be good 
in that case as well.
  And then, of course, my favorite again, this case where, against 
Chase Manhattan Bank, the attorneys get $4 million in fees and the 
plaintiffs get a check for 33 cents. But, of course, I remind you again 
they had to mail in that acceptance, so it cost them 34 cents to mail 
it in to get their 33 cents.

[[Page 3128]]

I bet people who knew that the attorneys in this case were getting $4 
million would not vote to get a penny off which is what the net result 
of that is.
  Again, that is the actual check from Chase Manhattan Bank. They cut 
all these checks. It cost 33 cents apiece to issue the check plus more 
than that to mail the checks to the plaintiffs. The attorneys, of 
course, their check is $4 million and I think if the plaintiffs knew 
that, they would vote against these settlements. They would let the 
court know, do not approve a settlement where all we get is a 33-cent 
check and the plaintiffs' attorneys get a $4 million fee.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very good amendment.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The statement from our last speaker shows a gross misunderstanding of 
these suits and the way the fees are paid. He indicated that the 
plaintiffs do not pay the attorneys. They fail to recognize that there 
is only so much money in these suits.
  What are the defendants scared of? What are the Enrons of the world 
trying to hide? What are the accounting firms trying to hide? What do 
the chemical manufacturers want to hide from the public? Why will they 
not accept fair and reasonable disclosure of the fees charged by 
defense counsel? That is because defense counsel is charging $750 an 
hour, $500 an hour, $450 an hour, countless hours with scores of 
attorneys, most of them not doing any work.
  If we are going to have transparency, if you are really interested in 
good public policy, if you really want to know how much fees are being 
paid, you should stand up there and do the right thing and say, we 
agree that the defense should reveal and show how much the defense is 
getting in addition to what the plaintiffs are getting.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Texas says, well, let us have the defense 
attorneys reveal how much they are charging. What he does not point out 
is that the class members themselves in this plaintiffs' suit are bound 
to class actions unless they affirmatively opt out.
  Defendants, in contrast, actually hire and fire their attorneys. 
There is a stark difference. They get those bills on an hourly basis 
every month. They know precisely what they are being charged and how 
much the attorneys make. It is the poor guy who gets the Cheerios 
coupon and then sees the attorney get several million dollars who is a 
little bit upset. And he is the one who needs some sunlight here; there 
already is sunlight on the other side.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my friend on the 
committee, the author of the amendment, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Keller). Is he not aware of the fact that in most of these settlements, 
the court requires that the amounts of recovery or payment to the 
lawyers is revealed in the settlement?
  Mr. KELLER. If the gentleman will yield, I am aware that if that is 
the case, then he should have no objection to my amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Is he aware or is he not?
  Mr. KELLER. I am aware that a lot of people who are members of the 
class are shocked and appalled to find out.
  Mr. CONYERS. I know they are shocked, but are you aware? You know 
that, do you not?
  Mr. KELLER. I am not aware of that most of the time.
  Mr. CONYERS. You do not know that.
  I thank the gentleman very much. He is not aware of it.
  Mr. KELLER. I am aware of the opposite.
  Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment, sir. I am not yielding you any more time.
  Mr. KELLER. You asked me a question.
  Mr. CONYERS. Now that we do understand that this is revealed 
frequently in the court, even though the gentleman did not know it 
before, the courts make this matter public.
  The other thing is, and this is a question I am going to yield to you 
on. Are you aware that in section 1715 of this bill that there is the 
same provision that you are now offering as an amendment?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KELLER. To answer your first question?
  Mr. CONYERS. Just answer this one, please. Are you aware or are you 
not?
  You are not. Then I suggest you look at section 1715, and you will 
see that this request that you are making, as one-sided as it is, is 
already in the bill that I guess you are supporting; and so it is 
redundant.
  I am impressed by the fact that defense attorneys' fees are not to be 
revealed, but plaintiffs' attorneys' fees are to be revealed, giving up 
yet another secret of the practice, namely, that defense lawyers 
frequently get far more than plaintiffs' lawyers.
  So thanks a lot for public disclosure. This is a very helpful 
amendment in trying to get what we call the vengeance of the ex-trial 
lawyers in Congress on their former profession.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I was asked several questions and really did not get a 
chance to respond to them, but I will go ahead and respond to them now.
  I was asked are you aware you already have this identical language in 
section 1715? First, I would make the point if the language really were 
there, then the gentleman, of course, would have no objection to this 
amendment, which he obviously does, so that is a little bit of a 
supercilious argument.
  Second, having looked directly at section 1715, I can say that 
language is not there. There is language talking about on the front end 
providing notice to members of the class as to a perspective amount of 
payment. My amendment deals with the actual payment that the attorney 
has received after there has been a judgment or a settlement. So it is 
distinctly different and is worthy of support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as was indicated by my friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan, fees are already revealed in settlements. Fees are a matter 
of public record; and they are approved, the fees, by the court based 
upon certain criteria that has been set out and is of long standing 
approval by the courts.
  There are two basic methods, the percentage method and the load star 
method. They have many of the same elements; but they consider things, 
such as an evaluation of the number of hours worked, benefits secured, 
the nature and complexity of the issues involved, the amount of money 
or value of property, the extent of the responsibilities assumed by the 
attorney, or that the attorney lost employment as a result of being 
employed in this case, novelty and difficulty of the questions, time 
limitations, experience, reputation and ability of counsel, 
undesirability of the case, awards in similar cases and customary fees.
  That is the general rundown. Those things are considered by the court 
and fees are placed against that standard when they are approved, and 
that is placed in the approval.
  Now, true enough, attorneys do get fees and do get paid; but our 
friends on the other side do not want the defense to reveal that. Why 
not? What are they scared of? What are they hiding? Answer me why the 
defense will not do it.
  In one case, Food Maker, Inc., as we heard today, killed three 
people. The attorneys got paid in a class action, and they got paid 
under the criteria that I read to you.
  In another case, a sulfuric acid compound leaked from a car in a 
General Chemicals Richmond, California, plant; 24,000 people sought 
medical treatment. The attorneys were paid, and they were paid based 
upon this criteria.

[[Page 3129]]

  There was another case where we had $50 million to a class of 3,500 
people living near a pesticide plant contaminated in New Orleans. The 
amount paid to each plaintiff depended on the years they lived in the 
area, the extent of exposure, whether they owned their land, what 
illnesses arose, did they increase in severity, all reasonable things. 
The attorneys were paid. They were paid based on the criteria approved 
by the court and by the law.
  Lawyers recently filed assault in New Jersey on behalf of diabetics 
who used the prescription drug Rezulin to lower blood sugar levels. It 
was marketed as safe, but later it was showed that it caused severe 
liver damage, liver failure or death in 100 cases. It was shown the 
manufacturer knowingly concealed facts about the dangers of the drug 
from the consumers and the FDA in order to increase sales and make more 
money. They reached a settlement, and, you know what? The attorneys 
were paid, as they should have been, based upon the criteria approved 
by the law.
  It is transparent, it is clear. Everyone knows what the plaintiff 
gets. Everyone knows what they are paid. And the people here that are 
hiding something are over on that side of the aisle that say we refuse 
to let you know what defense gets; we refuse to let you know what the 
insurance lawyers are paid; we refuse to let you know what corporate 
America's attorneys get paid, because it would offend people such as 
Enron.
  If you want to protect corporate wrongdoers, you need to just get up 
there and say it and say that is what we are doing, because there is no 
excuse to say it should be transparent on one side but not transparent 
on the other. If you want to be fair, be fair; stand up, be fair about 
it. If you want to be partisan, if you want to protect corporate 
wrongdoers, just get up there and say it, because that is exactly what 
you are doing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment. We are just 
shedding some sunlight on the situation and requiring that the 
plaintiffs' attorneys tell their clients the full amount of fees they 
are charging. It is as simple as that. We are not saying how much they 
can charge, how little they can charge, just shed some sunlight on the 
situation.
  We have heard three principal objections to this amendment. First, we 
hear that some class actions may have merit, and you hear about the 
Enron case. Well, I agree. I think the Enron class action probably does 
have merit and probably think there are other class actions that have 
merit. This has nothing to do with the merit or lack of merit or any 
particular class action. It has nothing to do with how much they can 
charge. It simply relates to disclosure of attorney fees, shedding some 
sunlight on the situation.
  The second thing we have heard is this language of the Keller 
amendment is already in the bill. Well, it is not in the bill; but even 
if it were, then so be it. That would be great news. Vote for final 
passage.
  The third thing we hear is, well, defense attorneys should be 
required to tell their clients how much they charge. In fact, they do. 
In fact, defense attorneys, unlike the poor people in the class, 
actually hire and fire their attorneys. They get a monthly statement as 
to how much they are being charged. There already is full disclosure on 
that side. So there is a clear distinction.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Keller 
amendment. Let us bring some much-needed sunlight to this situation to 
require attorneys to disclose their fees.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the 
amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Keller).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


    Withdrawal of Request for Recorded Vote on Amendment No. 2, as 
                    Modified, Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, earlier I asked for a recorded vote on 
amendment No. 2, as modified. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw that 
request.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the recorded vote 
requested by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) on amendment No. 
2, as modified, is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is agreed to pursuant to the 
voice vote taken earlier today.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in House 
Report 107-375.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Lofgren

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Lofgren:
       Page 15, line 6, strike ``if--'' and all that follows 
     through line 17 and insert the following: ``if monetary 
     relief claims in the action are proposed to be tried jointly 
     in any respect with the claims of 100 or more other persons 
     on the ground that the claims involve common questions of law 
     or fact.''.
       Page 15, line 21, strike ``The'' and all that follows 
     through ``subparagraph (A).'' on line 24.
       Page 16, line 2, strike ``subparagraph (B)'' and insert 
     ``this paragraph''.


         Modification of Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Lofgren

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify 
amendment No. 5 so that the page numbers comport with the report this 
morning.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment, as 
modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 5, as modified, offered by Ms. Lofgren:
       Page 15, line 15, strike ``if--'' and all that follows 
     through page 16, line 2, and insert the following: ``if 
     monetary relief claims in the action are proposed to be tried 
     jointly in any respect with the claims of 100 or more other 
     persons on the ground that the claims involve common 
     questions of law or fact.''.
       Page 16, line 6, strike ``The'' and all that follows 
     through ``subparagraph (A).'' on line 9.
       Page 16, line 12, strike ``subparagraph (B)'' and insert 
     ``this paragraph''.

  Ms. LOFGREN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the modification is 
agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that there have been problems in the 
area of class action lawsuits. We have heard some reference to those 
problems here today, and certainly the Committee on the Judiciary heard 
testimony about some of the issues that do need to be addressed.
  However, the fact that there are problems with coupon settlements 
does not mean that we can adopt any old thing as a remedy. In fact, 
this bill has some flaws, and the amendment before the body now is a 
very important amendment because it cures one of those flaws.
  This is an amendment that is very important for local prosecutors. 
H.R. 2341, oddly enough, prevents district attorneys from taking civil 
actions to benefit the public under the guise of ``class action 
reform.''
  This provision of the bill is opposed by the California District 
Attorneys' Association, and that is because this provision of the bill 
is not limited to consumer protection class actions brought by 
plaintiff attorneys. It has a far-more reaching effect. It federalizes 
any State cause of action that is brought on behalf of the general 
public.

[[Page 3130]]

  California, like many other States, has enacted strong antitrust laws 
that prohibit unfair combinations and unlawful restraints of trade, and 
Californians have chosen to allow their district attorneys, in addition 
to the State attorney general, to enforce these laws in State courts. 
This bill would usurp California's choice with an expansive definition 
of ``class action'' that includes any case brought on behalf of the 
general public.
  The Federal Government should not force a local prosecutor to try 
State antitrust lawsuits in Federal court. Nor should the Federal 
Government force local prosecutors to comply with Federal class 
certification requirements that they likely cannot comply with, and if 
they fail to comply, their cases will be dismissed and very likely they 
will not be able to refile in State court.
  This bill would have a chilling effect on State and local antitrust 
law enforcement, as well as consumer protection actions in the civil 
side that are undertaken by district attorneys.
  The ability to bring these suits is a powerful tool for local 
district attorneys, many of whom, including in my own county of Santa 
Clara, have set up consumer protection units. In fact, one such unit in 
the San Francisco District Attorney's Office successfully settled a 
major consumer protection action against Providian Financial 
Corporation that netted $300 million for consumers.
  I would note that in addition to standing up for consumers, local 
district attorneys can also generate revenue for local government in 
their very modest fees that do not match the fees that we have heard 
talked about on this floor.
  Now, some have asked me, how can this bill do what I have described? 
I would simply direct Members to page 15 of the bill where class action 
is defined in this way: ``The named plaintiff purports to act for the 
interests of its members (who are not named parties to the action) or 
for the interests of the general public, seeking a remedy of damages, 
restitution, disgorgement, or any other form of monetary relief, and is 
not a State attorney general.''
  Well, I think the drafters of the bill have understood that State 
attorneys general bring civil actions. They just apparently have not 
understood that district attorneys and city attorneys can bring those 
same kinds of actions. It does not make any sense at all to force those 
district attorneys into Federal court, where they are going to then be 
asked to comply with rule 23, and the district attorneys will not be 
able to comply with rule 23 because they are not bringing a class 
action lawsuit, and, then, according to the bill, their lawsuits made 
on behalf of the people, most mandatory, will be dismissed.
  So this amendment offered by myself and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Schiff), a former prosecutor in California, would remedy this 
serious defect in the bill.
  I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) rise in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which 
effectively excludes private attorney general claims from the 
provisions of H.R. 2341.
  Allowing citizens to use private rights of actions as a class is an 
enormous loophole in this law that can be easily accessed and lead to 
continued abuses in local courts, even in California.
  Now, let me say when we are talking about diversity jurisdiction as 
established in the Constitution, we are talking about claims between 
plaintiffs in different States and defendants in different States, so 
if all the plaintiffs lived in California and the defendant was living 
in California, there would be no Federal diversity jurisdiction 
whatsoever and the case would be tried in the California court.
  However, the Federal courts were intended by the Framers in diversity 
jurisdiction to get away from having a State court be the hometown 
umpire and thus favoring litigants from the State where the court sat. 
So if I had a claim and were potentially a member of a class as a 
citizen of the State of Wisconsin, I really would not appreciate very 
much one of these private attorney general actions litigating my claim 
in a California court which is 1,500 miles away from my State. I would 
end up having my rights litigated and my remedies extinguished as a 
citizen of Wisconsin in a court that I might not think I would get a 
fair trial in.
  Now, under H.R. 2341, I, as a citizen of Wisconsin, if I were a 
defendant in this action, would have the right to remove the case into 
a Federal court and even the playing field.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to realize that every case that arises 
under diversity jurisdiction arises under State law. Cases that arise 
under Federal law jurisdiction, the jurisdiction is in the Federal 
courts, and they can automatically be removed simply because a Federal 
question is posed. So diversity jurisdiction applies where no Federal 
question is posed, but you have plaintiffs and defendants who live in 
different States and are citizens of different States.
  Now, I think that in order to protect the nonresident litigants, 
there ought to be a procedure to remove those types of private attorney 
general class action claims into Federal court. The bill provides that 
procedure. The gentlewoman from California wants to eliminate that 
procedure, and that means that those of us who happen to be either 
plaintiffs in a class action or a defendant in one of these private 
attorney general actions in a State like mine that does not allow them 
will end up having the case litigated in a court that might be 
thousands of miles away from where we live and would have the hometown 
bias.

                              {time}  1430

  That is not what this bill should be about, and that is why I hope 
this amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds to note that in 
the Providian case I mentioned where the district attorney in San 
Francisco pursued a remedy for the citizens, the public, the people in 
San Francisco, obtaining a $300 million benefit for consumers, there 
was incomplete diversity and it was not removed because one of the 
subsidiary defendants was from out of State. However, under this act, 
that action would have to be removed and would have to be dismissed, 
because rule 23 relative to class actions cannot possibly be complied 
with by district attorneys acting on behalf of the people, and I think 
that this is a very stealthy way to eliminate jurisdiction of district 
attorneys and city attorneys acting in their civil capacity on the part 
of the people. I would urge that this amendment be adopted to cure this 
fatal defect.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I too oppose this amendment.
  A rose by any other name would smell as sweet; a class action by any 
other name is still a class action. This legislation is designed to 
treat all similar types of actions similarly, and it is totally unfair 
to place parties in other States at the mercy of those who would have 
an exception to this rule that if it were brought by a local prosecutor 
or other attorney, that they would then be able to keep these cases in 
State court.
  As to the concern raised by the gentlewoman regarding the bringing of 
these actions in Federal court, no, they do not have to be moved to 
Federal

[[Page 3131]]

court; and if they are, the Federal court judge has wide latitude to 
remand cases to State court where the judge finds that an inequity 
would result or where it would be better to bring that case in State 
court in the first place.
  So there is no reason to draw a distinction. There are many, many 
class action lawsuits that can and should be heard in the State courts. 
If they meet the criteria of the law, they should do it.
  This bill is simply designed to make sure that cases that otherwise 
could be brought in Federal court because of diversity of jurisdiction 
can indeed be brought for that reason and not bogged down under a 
$75,000 per plaintiff limitation, which in so many, many of these class 
actions involving peanuts, being the amount of the settlement for the 
plaintiffs, could not be brought in Federal court and, instead, gets 
brought in that favorite jurisdiction, whether it is in California or 
any other State. This levels the playing field and makes sure that all 
of these actions are treated fairly and equally. There is no reason to 
make a distinction for this type of action.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment proposed 
by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  The gentleman who just spoke quoted that a rose by any other name is 
still a rose, and I would like to talk about one of those roses that we 
talk about frequently in this House, and that is the rose of 
federalism, that is the rose of State rights. Because State rights and 
deferring to the legislatures of the 50 States is as pure and as 
beautiful as a rose, both in this context, as it is in so many other 
contexts that our colleagues remind us of from time to time.
  What does that mean in the case of this amendment? It means that when 
a legislature like that in California passes a law to protect the 
consumers of that State by empowering individuals to act as private 
attorneys general, rather than simply expanding the attorney general's 
office and hiring more and more attorneys general, California has 
chosen to protect consumers by empowering individuals to act as the 
attorney general when the attorney general lacks the resources to do 
it. Maybe the case is too small to impose upon the attorney general, so 
private citizens can bring these actions to protect their rights.
  This is exactly what the States are supposed to do; they are supposed 
to innovate. They are supposed to use new methods of attacking old 
problems. So California has used this new method of private attorneys 
general to attack unfair business practices.
  What is the Congress doing in this bill right now by opposing this 
amendment? It is saying that, well, we are fine with federalism, we are 
fine with State rights except when the rights are about protecting 
consumers; except when we do not like the direction where the State may 
be headed.
  I served in the California legislature for 4 years. We have very 
strong consumer protections. Large corporations that do business in 
California, they take advantage of those protections in a positive way. 
They take advantage of all of the benefits of California law, and we 
should not pass a bill today that basically says that these large, out-
of-state companies that want to take advantage of the good economic 
environment in California and sell goods and products and services to 
Californians, to take advantage of that forum should be somehow immune, 
be able to remove from California courts, maybe remove from California 
completely, any action that consumers might bring or a private attorney 
general might bring on their behalf. That simply is not right.
  A rose by any other name is a rose, and the rose of federalism 
supports this amendment. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) on this amendment because the State of 
Michigan has precisely the same provision as the State of California.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) have explained it perfectly. I just had a 
Committee on the Judiciary staffer, Scott Deutchman, call the attorney 
general, Jennifer M. Granholm, in Michigan to confirm with her before I 
made the statement in support of the Lofgren provision that the 
Michigan attorney general is totally supportive and is stunned by the 
notion that anything in our laws, our procedures here would require her 
or citizens to go into a Federal court to seek a remedy that is 
uniquely available to them under State procedures.
  So I am very pleased to indicate that our attorneys general and like 
those of California are totally in support of the Lofgren amendment. I 
hope that the Members will appreciate the significance of this 
provision.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has the right to close. The gentlewoman from 
California has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I have heard the comments that the provision in the bill is fine 
because it is diversity jurisdiction, and I just do not buy that 
argument. I will tell my colleagues why.
  Take a look at the provision that creates sort of class action 
coverage for the actions of district attorneys, our local prosecutors. 
It specifically exempts State attorneys general. So the argument my 
colleagues are making that these cases need to be brought and heard in 
Federal court when there is diversity of any sort at all does not wash 
if we are exempting the State attorneys general from the provisions of 
these consumer protection actions.
  I called yesterday, I was ill last week and I wish I had called him 
before yesterday, but I called the district attorney in Santa Clara 
County. He was stunned to see this provision and adamantly opposes it. 
He put me in touch with the California State Attorneys General 
Association. They could not believe that this provision would be 
proposed; and they were absolutely amazed that it would seriously be 
considered, that their divisions that act in behalf of the people would 
essentially be shut down because they could never comply with rule 23.
  Please, support this amendment and cure this serious problem in the 
bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason there is an exemption for State attorneys 
general in this bill is because the State attorney general is the chief 
law enforcement officer of the State. In most States, the attorney 
general is an elected official.
  Now, if the attorney general is not doing his job, then it is up to 
the voters to choose a new attorney general in the next election. But 
just because attorneys general might not be able to do their job is no 
reason why we should empower a whole host of other people to file 
pseudo class actions, which is what the amendment of the gentlewoman 
from California seeks to do.
  Now, again, diversity jurisdiction interprets State law. Federal 
questions are automatically removable to Federal court. The reason the 
Framers put diversity jurisdiction into the Constitution was to prevent 
a State judge from being a hometown umpire to the prejudice against 
citizens of other States who happen to be litigants.
  So very simply, what we do in this bill is to provide a better way of 
protecting litigants who come from other States. For that reason, I 
would urge that this amendment be rejected.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as

[[Page 3132]]

modified, offered by the gentlewoman from California.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 6 printed in House 
report 107-375.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Conyers:
       Page 16, line 2, strike the quotation marks and second 
     period.
       Page 16, insert the following after line 2:
       ``(10)(A) For purposes of this subsection and section 1453 
     of this title, a foreign corporation which acquires a 
     domestic corporation in a corporate repatriation transaction 
     shall be treated as being incorporated in the State under 
     whose laws the acquired domestic corporation was organized.
       ``(B) In this paragraph, the term `corporate repatriation 
     transaction' means any transaction in which--
       ``(i) a foreign corporation acquires substantially all of 
     the properties held by a domestic corporation;
       ``(ii) shareholders of the domestic corporation, upon such 
     acquisition, are the beneficial owners of securities in the 
     foreign corporation that are entitled to 50 percent or more 
     of the votes on any issue requiring shareholder approval; and
       ``(iii) the foreign corporation does not have substantial 
     business activities (when compared to the total business 
     activities of the corporate affiliated group) in the foreign 
     country in which the foreign corporation is organized.''.


          Amendment No. 6, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment, and I further request that such modification be considered 
as read.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The text of amendment No. 6, as modified, is as follows:

       Page 16, line 12, strike the quotation marks and second 
     period.
       Page 16, insert the following after line 12:
       ``(10)(A) For purposes of this subsection and section 1453 
     of this title, a foreign corporation which acquires a 
     domestic corporation in a corporate repatriation transaction 
     shall be treated as being incorporated in the State under 
     whose laws the acquired domestic corporation was organized.
       ``(B) In this paragraph, the term `corporate repatriation 
     transaction' means any transaction in which--
       ``(i) a foreign corporation acquires substantially all of 
     the properties held by a domestic corporation;
       ``(ii) shareholders of the domestic corporation, upon such 
     acquisition, are the beneficial owners of securities in the 
     foreign corporation that are entitled to 50 percent or more 
     of the votes on any issue requiring shareholder approval; and
       ``(iii) the foreign corporation does not have substantial 
     business activities (when compared to the total business 
     activities of the corporate affiliated group) in the foreign 
     country in which the foreign corporation is organized.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I begin by hoping that this amendment may be accepted; 
but moving on, I would describe the amendment to my colleagues.
  This is an amendment designed to help adjust the problem that is 
happening with increasing frequency where our domestic United States 
corporations reincorporate at an office somewhere abroad, out of the 
United States, for the purpose of, one, avoiding United States taxes; 
and, two, avoiding legal liability.
  Now, in the 6 months of our fight against terrorism at home or 
abroad, it would seem to me the last thing that we should be doing 
would be to pass legislation which would in any way aid, help, or 
assist what I would call these corporate tax traitors.
  With increasing frequency, there are U.S. companies setting up shell 
companies in places like Bermuda, and the company continues to be owned 
by United States shareholders, continues to operate in the United 
States and do business in the USA and all its locations. The only 
difference is that the new foreign company escapes substantial tax 
liability and, under the provisions of this bill, could more easily 
avoid legal liability in State class action cases.

                              {time}  1445

  The actions of these companies are a slap in the face to every 
citizen who works hard and pays their taxes in this country. Our 
amendment responds to this egregious behavior by treating the former 
United States companies as a domestic corporation for class action 
purposes.
  Now, apologists for these financial outlaws may attempt to argue that 
our amendment may not be necessary because the bill only deals with 
national class actions. But, Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further 
from the truth.
  Under this bill, actions involving State consumer protection laws 
brought by residents who all reside in one State could be removable to 
a Federal court simply because the financial outlaws tried to abscond 
from the State. This is not a national class action. This is a State 
class action that belongs in a State court, the fact that a financial 
corporate outlaw engaged in a sham transaction should be irrelevant as 
far as the legal liability in these cases would be concerned.
  So the bottom line is simple: as presently written, the bill gives a 
liability windfall to these foreign tax evaders. Today we have an 
opportunity to send a message that it is wrong to pretend one is a U.S. 
corporation when one is incorporated in Bermuda. It is wrong to seek 
the benefits of corporate citizenship without responsibility. It is 
wrong to engage in sham offshore transactions which leave hard-working 
United States citizens paying more taxes because they are paying less.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this Conyers-Jackson-Lee-Neal 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Does any Member rise in 
opposition?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This is 
a red herring if there ever was one. There is nothing in this 
legislation that has anything to do with the tax liability of 
corporations that may have been moved offshore. To raise it in this 
class action lawsuit is a big mistake. It would provide more 
jurisdiction over larger cases to State courts and undermine our effort 
to allow Federal courts jurisdiction over large, interstate class 
actions, the very point of bringing this legislation forward. The most 
complex cases should be heard in the courts designed to hear them: the 
Federal courts.
  Attempting to redefine the home base of a corporation just for the 
purposes of class action lawsuits will not affect any other lawsuits 
brought against the corporation. It certainly will not affect their tax 
liability. If this amendment is about tax loopholes, then that is 
something that should be dealt with by the Committee on Ways and Means.
  This amendment is intended to prevent nationwide, even international, 
class actions having national implications then plaintiffs from many 
States from being heard in Federal court.
  The premise of H.R. 2341 is to allow Federal courts to resolve these 
large class actions in a balanced and fair way. That is why the 
Founding Fathers created article III courts, to resolve Federal 
questions and issues of a wide degree of diversity. That is what class 
actions are by their very nature.

[[Page 3133]]

  The fact of the matter is that a dispute between two individuals from 
different States for slightly more than $75,000 can be resolved by a 
Federal court, but with a national class action worth billions of 
dollars, in the case of this amendment a foreign corporation, the case 
cannot be heard in Federal court. That is wrong.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is something that 
would give State courts jurisdiction over cases that involve U.S. 
companies that have been purchased by foreign companies. These are 
generally large, nationwide lawsuits that we are talking about. They 
are precisely the kind of cases that should be brought and heard in 
Federal court.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who has worked on this subject 
matter for many years.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding time to me and certainly 
acknowledge some of the questions that have been raised by a former 
constituent of mine, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  But I want to call attention to this issue. The gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is sitting on the floor, as well. I know that he 
has filed similar legislation to the bill that I filed last week.
  Let me, if I can, Mr. Chairman, outline the nexus of this problem. 
Last week the Defense Department announced that the U.S. was sending 
military advisers to Yemen, the Philippines, and Georgia, in the former 
USSR. This is going to be expensive, but we acknowledge it is a 
necessary defensive action.
  And as we prosecute this war on terrorism, Mr. Chairman, one U.S. 
corporation next week will vote on whether or not to leave the United 
States solely to avoid U.S. income taxes, taxes which our constituents 
and I will have to pay more of to fund this war against evil.
  Today I am urging the Members to support a commonsense amendment 
telling these corporate expatriates, these financial deceivers, that 
they should not enjoy special legal protections. This amendment is 
based on bipartisan legislation that surely at some point is going to 
see the light of day and make it to the floor of this House.
  But, Mr. Chairman, one accountant, a very aggressive accountant, I 
might add, advised her clients just 3 months ago to sneak out of the 
United States; just leave in the dark of night to avoid paying American 
income taxes. The Treasury Department just stated 2 weeks ago: ``We are 
seeing a marked increase in the size and frequency of these 
transactions.'' For a mere $27,000, a corporate expatriate can rent a 
post office box offshore and avoid $40 million in Federal income taxes.
  If individuals were doing this, the American people would be 
outraged. As our Senate colleague from Iowa, the ranking Republican on 
the Finance Committee, said last week, it is a slap in the face to 
individual taxpayers who bear the brunt of the total Federal tax burden 
when the business community buys into these deals. Support this 
amendment today denying a liability windfall to these corporations that 
shelve the Stars and Stripes to simply save on the bottom line.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  First of all, I agree with the comments of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers). I agree with most of the comments of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). I think it would be 
beneficial, and we would ask the gentleman to merge his bill with our 
bill.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) would merge his bill with my bill. We are only 5 
percent different.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, as the first in order of number, we will 
take the gentleman on our bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the point is, we agree on the substance of the abuse 
that is taking place out there, and we want to close the loophole. This 
is not the bill to close the hole. This is not the Committee on Ways 
and Means, and this is not the Committee on Ways and Means' bill.
  What has happened here is they put this amendment out, I think, 
simply to express our disdain, properly express our disdain with what 
is going on out there and with what some of the corporations are doing, 
including Stanley Tool Corporation and some others that I think ought 
to be held publicly accountable.
  In fact, I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I was at a 
dinner last weekend with several hundred blue-collar workers, 
mechanics; and I urged every one of them not to buy Stanley tools as a 
result of what Stanley Tool Corporation is attempting to do. While our 
American young people fight overseas, we have these corporations that 
enjoy the protection of this putting up a post office box in Bermuda.
  This simply has nothing to do with it. This amendment deals with 
diversity. This amendment deals with standing. To try and link, to make 
that leap, we are not making the link. So the issue is right and the 
platform is wrong.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentleman on 
his support for the theory behind this.
  I would just point out to him that escaping legal liability is not a 
function of any other committee but the Committee on the Judiciary. So 
we are not trying to get to the tax prosecution, sir. We are just 
getting to those who are escaping, to escape the kind of jurisdiction 
of class action suits.
  Mr. McINNIS. Reclaiming my time very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I am not 
trying to take jurisdiction from the gentleman's committee, obviously. 
I disagree that this amendment is going to do what the gentleman is 
saying it is going to do. I say that with all due respect. I think this 
amendment out there is simply to bring up this discussion.
  We ought to have lots of discussion and public exposure, I say to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), on what is going on out there. 
It is wrong. But this is not the platform to do it. This amendment does 
not accomplish what the sponsors say it will as far as the legal 
corporation for standing in class suits and diversity. I think it is a 
good discussion, wrong place.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis) agree that not only is this not the right place to do this, 
but this amendment does not cure the problem that the gentleman is 
talking about? It has nothing to do with changing the tax laws of these 
corporations.
  Mr. McINNIS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
Virginia is absolutely correct. This does not accomplish what the 
intent behind it may be, and the proper discussion that is taking place 
here really will take place in great detail in front of the Committee 
on Ways and Means with both of our bills, and I urge that is where we 
move it back to and get on with the business at hand.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who is a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

[[Page 3134]]


  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to go back to the comments 
of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), who I more frequently see 
on Special Orders at night in my home than I do on the floor. I am 
happy to find he and I in agreement.
  But he asked the question, will this amendment accomplish what we say 
it will. Well, we have talked with the American Law Division, and they 
agree that, in its current form, the measure offers new abilities, this 
bill, to remove cases to Federal court for companies that engage in 
corporate repatriation transactions that are not available under 
present law.
  So, in other words, the only place we can stop this is in the 
Committee on the Judiciary in terms of this jurisdictional opportunism.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me, and I would like to pursue the argument he just made. I 
think that is the crux of the difference of opinion that we have in 
opposing this legislation but supporting this amendment. That is, where 
there is a benefit, there has to be a burden.
  I think that the Committee on the Judiciary in this jurisdiction is 
frankly the appropriate place for this amendment to be placed, because 
what we are suggesting is that if one is absconding from the United 
States, absconding from paying taxes, then one should not have the 
benefit of going into the Federal courts where they will be able to, in 
essence, block petitioners who are in a class action litigation.
  We are opposed to this particular legislation because it does 
undermine class actions that have been successful in State courts. Let 
me cite an example: Foodmaker, Inc., the parent company of Jack-in-the-
Box restaurants, agreed to pay $14 million in a class action settlement 
in Washington. The class included 500 people, mostly children, who 
became sick early in 1993 after eating undercooked hamburgers tainted 
with e. Coli bacteria.
  The victims suffered from a wide range of illnesses, from more benign 
sicknesses to those that required kidney dialysis. Three children died. 
The settlement was approved on September 25, 1996, in King County, 
Washington Superior Court.
  If, for example, this legislation was in place, there is clear 
opportunity, possibly if one of the plaintiffs had just moved over to 
Oregon or had been visiting from Oregon, that case would have been in a 
Federal court.
  We are suggesting that if one absconds from the United States in 
order not to pay taxes, if this legislation were to have passed, we do 
not believe they should have any right to the benefit of moving the 
case, a class action case, to the Federal courts. That is the crux of 
this. This is the bill that is moving through the House now.
  I certainly appreciate the legislation of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and I want to support the legislation. I 
appreciate his support. He is on the Committee on Ways and Means.

                              {time}  1500

  That bill can move of its own legs, and we will support it, but this 
bill is moving, and we are only talking about legal liability, the 
inability to access the Federal court, a benefit that one would secure 
if this legislation passed. We want to block that benefit because we 
need to protect consumers on this.
  Let me just simply say, we are standing here today to say to 
Americans, who have just gone through a traumatic experience with the 
collapse of a major corporation, that we are going to smack them in the 
face and go against the rights of consumers. We are also going to allow 
someone who absconds to another island, another place to establish a 
foreign corporation, to now not only access the Federal courts and 
benefit from the presence of that legislation, but also not pay taxes.
  This is a common-sense, good-sense consumer protection amendment, and 
I believe my colleagues, if they look at it, will understand it is 
appropriately tracking this legislation which is under the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, because we are preventing them from 
having a legal benefit when they abscond from the United States and 
desire not to pay taxes.
  Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Conyers.
  I am proud to join Mr. Conyers in offering the Conyers Jackson-Lee 
Neal amendment which would deny corporations who relocate to foreign 
countries simply to avoid paying income taxes from enjoying the 
benefits of this bill.
  As the saying goes, ``death and taxes are the only guarantees in 
life''. You and I could never avoid paying taxes, but we try to 
minimize them to the best of our ability. The same philosophy applies 
to companies.
  However, there is a growing trend in this country where American 
companies are incorporating Bermuda, or other countries that do not 
have income taxes, to avoid paying taxes altogether while maintaining 
the benefits and security of doing business in the United States. But 
these companies don't actually relocate to Bermuda. Rather, they are a 
Bermuda corporation only on paper.
  But the tax benefits are profound. Tyco International, a diversified 
manufacturer headquartered in New Hampshire but incorporated in 
Bermuda, saved more than $400 million last year in taxes alone. And 
Stanley Works, a Connecticut manufacturer for 159 years, will cut its 
tax bill by $30 million a year to about $80 million.
  Although it is a growing trend, some companies hesitate to 
incorporate in Bermuda because of patriotism issues, especially after 
the tragedies of September 11. But low and behold, ``profits trump 
patriotism''.
  Enron Corp had set up an estimated 2,800 to 3,000 ``special purpose 
entities'' (SPEs) in an attempt to hid amounting debt and losses and to 
avoid paying taxes. As a matter of fact, Enron had not paid any income 
taxes in the last five years. And due to the nature of these 
transactions, and the fact that these SPEs were created as a separate 
entity from Enron, government officials have been unable to acquire 
more information to determine the extent of liability.
  Allowing companies who relocate to foreign countries simply to avoid 
paying taxes and still benefit from class actions in a federal forum 
would enable a defendant corporation to avoid accountability and result 
in the plaintiff class having a more difficult time seeking redress.
  Again, this amendment would attempt to bring justice within the reach 
of the victims aggrieved by these corporate giants. I ask my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte), who has the right to close, has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, frankly this amendment is not just wrong, it does not 
make any sense at all. What the other side is proposing to do here will 
not have the effect that they are suggesting. They are limiting the 
options of those who would bring class action lawsuits against some of 
these corporations that they refer to.
  There are many instances now in which a case cannot be brought in 
Federal court because of this diversity rule which could be brought 
against those corporations; in my State of Virginia, for example, a 
State that does not recognize class action lawsuits, so making it 
easier to bring actions in Federal court is not something that is going 
to harm these corporations whatsoever.
  As explained during the Committee on the Judiciary markup, the 
purpose of this amendment is to discourage companies from moving their 
parent entities offshore, to turn them into foreign corporations in 
order to achieve tax advantages. Thus, although this amendment does not 
seek to derail enactment of the core provision of the bill, that is, 
the provisions expanding Federal diversity jurisdiction over interstate 
class actions, it would preclude companies owned by foreign or offshore 
companies from exercising that change.
  This effort to establish tax policy through procedural and 
jurisdictional rules applicable to civil litigation is truly bizarre, 
the ultimate non sequitur.
  As stated by its authors, the purpose of the amendment is to punish 
companies with offshore owners by forcing them to litigate class 
actions brought against them in State court, while companies that have 
U.S. parents may remove their cases to Federal court under the expanded 
Federal jurisdiction of provisions of this bill.

[[Page 3135]]

  Obviously, making this sort of distinction among companies based on 
foreign ownership is a constitutionally suspect policy, but equally 
important is the fundamental premise of the amendment, that forcing 
parties to litigate interstate class actions in State courts 
constitutes a sort of punishment.
  Thus, although this amendment should be defeated, it does suggest 
agreement on the key predicate for H.R. 2341: State courts are not an 
ideal place for parties to litigate class actions.
  This amendment should be defeated, but this amendment should be 
remembered as confirming the key reasons why the overall bill, the 
fundamental provisions of H.R. 2341, should be enacted.
  Let us not limit the choice that is involved here where these cases 
can be considered. Let us make the Federal diversity rules work. That 
is what this bill is about. That is what this amendment would defeat, 
and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 3 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters); Amendment No. 
5 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren); and 
Amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


          Amendment No. 3, As Modified, Offered by Ms. Waters

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on Amendment No. 3, as modified, offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on which further proceedings 
were postponed on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 251, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 56]

                               AYES--174

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

                               NOES--251

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Blagojevich
     Davis (IL)
     Eshoo
     Hinojosa
     Kilpatrick
     Napolitano
     Traficant

                              {time}  1527

  Messrs. SKEEN, BOEHNER, GREENWOOD, EHLERS, HILL, BOOZMAN, Ms. PRYCE 
of Ohio, Ms. GRANGER, and Mrs. THURMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. TIERNEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I was in the Chamber intending to vote 
``yes'' on rollcall 56. Had I voted I would have voted ``aye'' on 
rollcall 56.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 
XVIII, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device 
will be taken on

[[Page 3136]]

each amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


          Amendment No. 5, As Modified, Offered by Ms. Lofgren

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren) 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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 231, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 57]

                               AYES--194

     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
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     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
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     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
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--231

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     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
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     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 (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     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 (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Blagojevich
     Davis (IL)
     Eshoo
     Hinojosa
     Kilpatrick
     Pelosi
     Traficant

                              {time}  1536

  So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 6, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 6, as modified, 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 designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202, 
noes 223, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 58]

                               AYES--202

     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)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     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
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark

[[Page 3137]]


     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

                               NOES--223

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Jenkins
     John
     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 (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     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)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Blagojevich
     Davis (IL)
     Eshoo
     Hinojosa
     Istook
     Kilpatrick
     Traficant

                              {time}  1544

  So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 107-375.


          Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 18, line 14, strike the quotation marks and second 
     period.
       Page 18, insert the following after line 14:
       ``(g) Certain Actions Not Removable.--A party to a class 
     action may not remove the class action to a district court 
     under this section if that party has been found by a court to 
     have knowingly altered, destroyed, mutilated, concealed, 
     falsified, or made a false entry in, any record, document, or 
     tangible object in connection with that class action.''.


  Modification of Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
modify the amendment, and further request that such modification be 
considered as read.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7, as modified, offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of 
     Texas:
       Page 18, line 25, strike the quotation marks and second 
     period.
       Page 18, add the following after line 25:
       ``(g) Certain Actions Not Removable.--A party to a class 
     action may not remove the class action to a district court 
     under this section if that party has been found by a court to 
     have knowingly altered, destroyed, mutilated, concealed, 
     falsified, or made a false entry in, any record, document, or 
     tangible object in connection with that class action.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have before the House today the Class Action 
Fairness Act of 2002, and what those of us who believe this legislation 
could either be made better or in fact does not really speak to the 
interests of consumers are trying to do is to ensure that those who are 
fraudulent, those who misrepresent, those who would abscond and not pay 
taxes, not have the benefit of an action or legislation that is 
proposed to be in the Class Action Fairness Act.
  The amendment I offer today strikes at the very heart of consumer 
protection. It strikes at the very heart of the ability of any litigant 
to go into court with a fair opportunity to pursue their case.
  This amendment would prohibit the removal provision in section 5 of 
this bill from applying if a party to a class action suit destroys 
material relating to the subject matter of the class action or makes a 
misrepresentation with respect to the existence of such materials.
  The destruction of documents, particularly in contemplation of 
litigation, is already a sanctionable act. Destroying such documents 
prohibits the discovery of truth and justice. If a party participates 
in such activity, they should not have the benefit of removing a class 
action suit to Federal court jurisdiction, where this bill makes it 
more difficult for the class to be certified. Justice requires that 
these parties remain under State jurisdiction, where the playing field 
will be more level.
  It is obvious that when you are trying to put together a massive 
class action case, there is nothing more daunting and devastating to 
your case than losing, the destruction of, or misrepresentation over, 
documents. An example of this would be the collapse of Enron, the 
Texas-based energy trading giant, that once was America's seventh 
largest company, now undergoing America's largest-ever bankruptcy.
  On behalf of Enron employees, both existing and those who are no 
longer Enron employees, the fact that there are documents that no 
longer exist undermines probably the bankruptcy case and any other 
matter that they would be pursuing. It is certainly a case that when 
you lose documents, you lose a part of your case.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks not to give giant corporate 
defendants in a class action lawsuit more benefits in defending their 
suit. They have deep pockets for such expenses as legal fees, travel 
and expert witnesses, which the class does not have.
  Again, how daunting it would be to find out that documents that you 
might be able to secure no longer exist. So the information has been 
retained by the defendant; but you, the petitioner in the class action, 
have no way of accessing it.
  We must maintain the spirit to which class action lawsuits were 
developed, to efficiently bring justice to a large group of people 
victimized by historically large, giant, multiconglomerate 
corporations.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, I might say that the court of equity was 
the first place the State class actions was to go based on common law, 
common

[[Page 3138]]

sense, equity and fairness. To destroy documents strikes at the very 
heart of the access of the little person to get in the courtroom.
  This amendment would prohibit the removal provision in Section 5 of 
this bill from applying if a party to a class action suit destroys 
material relating to the subject matter of the class action, or makes a 
misrepresentation with respect to the existence of such materials.
  The destruction of documents, particularly in contemplation of 
litigation, is already a sanctionable act. Destroying such document 
prohibits the discovery of truth and justice. If a party participates 
in such activity, they should not have the benefit of removing a class 
action suit to federal court jurisdiction where this bill makes it more 
difficult for the class to be certified. Justice requires that these 
parties remain under state jurisdiction where the playing field will be 
more level.
  An example of this would be the collapse of Enron Corporation, the 
Texas-based energy-trading giant that was once America's seventh-
biggest company, now undergoing America's largest ever bankruptcy 
proceeding. Enron is based in my District--the 18th District of Texas.
  Enron's former accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, in light of 
approaching litigation, organized the destruction of tons of Enron-
related documents that may have been potentially harmful and would have 
subjected Andersen to civil as well as criminal liability.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to not give giant corporate 
defendants in a class action lawsuit more benefits in defending their 
suit. They have deep pockets for such expenses as legal fees, travel, 
expert witnesses, for which the class does not have. And we must 
maintain the spirit to which class action lawsuits were developed--to 
efficiently bring justice to a large group of people victimized 
historically by corporate giants.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) rise in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if the civil and criminal law did not provide for 
sanctions against those who deliberately destroy documents, I believe 
that the arguments of the gentlewoman from Texas would be valid. But 
they do. Adopting the amendment that she proposes will simply allow the 
trial lawyers to have another tool to game the system and to prevent 
the removal of cases that really should be removed as a result of the 
changes in the diversity of citizenship requirements that are contained 
in this bill.
  Let me point out that in many instances, the destruction of 
subpoenaed documents is a criminal obstruction of justice. The 
gentlewoman from Texas keeps on bringing up the case of Enron. There is 
a criminal investigation going on whether Enron and Arthur Andersen and 
other people who are involved in this obstructed justice by altering or 
destroying documents. I hope that that investigation is thorough, and, 
if there is probable cause to believe that such misconduct happened, 
that the Justice Department will seek indictment, prosecute those who 
are responsible, the jury will convict them, and I hope that the judge 
sentences them to jail for a long, long time, because destroying 
documents that are needed to fairly administer justice is something 
that cannot be tolerated, and it goes to the very heart of the ability 
of the courts to fairly mete out justice. We wish the gentlewoman were 
on the other side when we were talking about that when President 
Clinton was accused of destroying documents a few years ago.
  But on the civil side, there are plenty of sanctions that can be 
imposed by a court if discovery is being thwarted, up to and including 
the court ordering a default judgment entered against a defendant that 
destroys documents and completely obstructs the discovery that the 
Federal Rules of civil procedure allow.
  Mr. Chairman, I will tell you what will happen if the Jackson-Lee 
amendment becomes a part of this bill and the bill becomes law, and 
that is there will be repeated allegations of misconduct through the 
destruction of documents. When an allegation is made, the court is 
going to have to hold a hearing on it and take testimony and make a 
determination on whether removal can be thwarted because of the 
provision of the Jackson-Lee amendment. As a result, it ends up being 
tried in the State court, because the Federal court will not be able to 
determine whether or not a case is removable.
  Now, that is ridiculous. If this type of amendment was put into law, 
if there was a civil action filed alleging a civil rights violation in 
a State court with a redneck judge anywhere in the country, this game 
could be played to prevent the Federal court from getting jurisdiction 
over it, and that would be equally ridiculous in terms of thwarting the 
administration of justice.
  Now, this bill, in section 1716(C)(2), provides that discovery should 
not proceed while a motion to dismiss an action is pending and also 
during appeals from class certification rulings.
  But the bill flatly states that in these circumstances, discovery 
shall proceed where necessary to preserve evidence and to prevent undue 
prejudice. Thus the bill anticipates and deals with document 
destruction risk and gives the Federal court the authority to prevent 
documents that are necessary to find out what the true facts are from 
being altered or mutilated or destroyed.
  According to the Manual for Complex Litigation, third edition, courts 
normally issue orders requiring the preservation of documents at the 
outset of litigation of such cases. Thus any document-destruction risk 
is addressed by such orders. So we do not need additional laws, civil 
laws, statutory laws or criminal laws, to protect against the 
destruction and mutilation of documents.
  The amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas merely gives the trial 
lawyers' bar another tool to game the system. It is unnecessary because 
of the other provisions of law and rule that I stated and should be 
rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I totally agree with my chairman in that 
I hope that all those who have misrepresented and destroyed documents 
in the present ongoing protracted episode of Enron and Arthur Andersen 
are in fact brought to justice. That we agree on.
  With respect to my position on the Clinton documents, my amendment 
responds to that by indicating that it should be a court-determined 
destruction of documents. That was not the case in the Clinton 
situation.
  So I would hope that we recognize that if you are court determined to 
have destroyed documents, then you do not need the benefit of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, we hope that the first legislation passed 
in this House in the post-Enron world should not be to make the world 
safer for Enron.
  My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), 
challenged me earlier when I said that this could make the world safer 
for Enron. Well, we just did a little bit of research about that over 
the lunch hour and found a case called Bullock v. Arthur Andersen, et 
al. It is a case in Washington County, Texas. If it were to be 
certified as a class action under this legislation, the defendants, who 
include some names Andrew Fastow, Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, 
would be given the privilege by your legislation to force this to be 
removed to Federal court away from Washington County.
  Now, that is exactly one of the reasons why we think this is the 
wrong approach. And even if you exempted Enron in its entirety, Enron 
is an example of why we are going the wrong way because of all the 
other companies that potentially could be liable.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

[[Page 3139]]


  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, do the three gentlemen that the 
gentleman mentioned live in Texas?
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not know the 
residence. I cannot tell the gentleman offhand. But I can say this is 
subject to your bill if it is a class action, and therefore it is 
wrong.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
if they all live in Texas, the case is not removable because there is 
not diversity.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point I bring to 
the gentleman's attention is this is exactly the kind of case that is 
subject to removal if there is diversity. They plead fraud, they pled 
negligence; and under your statute, you want to give them the right to 
get out of Texas into Federal court. We think that is wrong.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to 
say that some the defendants in the case that the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee) was speaking of dealing with Enron are not from 
Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a former State district court judge in the State 
of Texas.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, in the law we have a doctrine called the 
``clean hands doctrine.'' Courts express it by saying he who seeks 
equity must do equity.
  We have seen precious little equity today. First, our friends want to 
reveal plaintiffs' fees and what they receive, but when we ask to 
reveal the exorbitant fees of the corporate attorneys and insurance 
attorneys and defense attorneys, they said no.
  I have got a question: What are you hiding? What are you hiding?
  You said the recovery in Cheerios is not enough. You forgot to tell 
us that the expensive litigation is between the insurance companies. 
The defendants have been indicted, tried and sent to prison.
  You are outraged that the plaintiffs have received too little money 
in one case, but there is absolutely no outrage in your position when a 
major American company, Nestle, put sugar water in bottles and sold it 
to American mothers to give to children. You got no outrage in that, 
other than the attorneys got paid.
  Well, surely, surely you can support legislation that says if you 
destroy evidence, if you commit a crime, if you do things that you are 
not supposed to do, you do not get the benefit of the law. If you 
commit a crime, you do not have clean hands. If you destroy evidence, 
you do not get the benefit of the legislation. Surely you can support 
something as clean as that.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Texas was so interested in 
disclosing defendant's fees, he could have gone to the Committee on 
Rules and asked them to make in order an amendment for the disclosure 
of defendant's fees. He failed to do so, and that is why we are not 
considering this today under the structured rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I also strongly oppose this amendment.
  This amendment is doing what those offering amendments have already 
done on two other occasions in this debate so far, and that is to try 
to obscure what this legislation is all about with unrelated issues. 
Whether or not a case is heard in Federal court or State court has 
nothing to do with whether or not documents have been destroyed.
  In the earlier debate with regard to the Waters amendment, we pointed 
out all of the tools that are available to a Federal court judge when 
documents are destroyed in a case. It could very well be much better 
that the case is in Federal court rather than State court, and we 
should not write law based upon unrelated matters.
  That is exactly what has been offered here repeatedly today to try to 
obfuscate the issue here, which is a very simple one, and that is that 
our Federal diversity rules are written in such a way that the most 
complex litigation in the country cannot get into the courts that were 
not designed to handle diversity cases and designed to handle more 
complex litigation and designed to consolidate class actions brought in 
various parts of the country related to the same issue.
  When we create these artificial barriers to removing the case, we are 
not accomplishing justice for the plaintiff or the defendant. Somebody 
in the case has to have the ability to remove the case to Federal 
court. What we say is that any party in the case should be able to do 
that. If they have unclean hands, address that with the Rules of 
Procedure that exist in the Federal Rules.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
argument.
  The crux of these amendments that we have been offering on this 
legislation is to talk about benefit and burden. This amendment 
specifically says if the court has determined that documents have been 
destroyed, what we are doing is undermining the plaintiffs' case, which 
typically are little people who have come together in a class action.
  That defendant who has destroyed documents should not be allowed to 
take the benefit of this legislation if it passes. That is all we are 
saying.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are a 
multitude of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and I do not know of 
other ones, in which the law says in advance that because somebody did 
something else somewhere else unrelated to the issue of whether the 
case belongs in Federal court or State court would be prohibited from 
raising that issue. It is a matter of fairness for everybody involved, 
but that is particularly true of the plaintiffs.
  We are trying to create an environment here where cases can be heard 
in such a way that uniform fairness applies. If we start drawing 
distinctions between domestic corporations and foreign corporations and 
somebody who may have shredded documents for a good reason or for a bad 
reason and deciding whether or not they can remove cases to court, that 
is simply bad public policy and should not be the measure upon which 
this bill is voted upon; and certainly this amendment should be 
opposed.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2\1/
2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a 
former member of the Texas Supreme Court.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  How truly typical it is, sad though it is, that the first piece of 
legislation dealing with the Enron-Andersen fiasco that our House 
Republican leadership permits us to discuss here on the floor of the 
United States Congress is a bill designed to protect the wrongdoer and 
to place more burdens on the victims. This is exactly the opposite of 
where our priorities should be; yet that is the approach that is taken 
with this piece of legislation.
  It is rather fundamental that a right without a remedy, is rather 
meaningless. People do not choose to come together in class actions 
because they like to be in a class with many other people; they come 
together in class actions because often, that is the only way, given 
the complexities of our legal system and the tremendous imbalance in 
power between one individual who has been defrauded and one of the 
largest corporations in the world, to equalize the power. If they are 
working together in a class, they may have a chance, difficult as it 
may be, to equate in our courts of justice their rights against those 
who have wronged them.
  All this bill is designed to do is to help those, who committed 
wrongs to avoid responsibility for their wrongdoing. This bill seeks to 
ensure that wrongdoers are not held personally accountable for their 
misconduct, if they

[[Page 3140]]

just took a little from everybody instead of a great deal from a few.
  As for the importance of the gentlewoman's amendment in the debate on 
this particular bill, the only thing that has been faster than those 
shredding machines shredding up the documents of misconduct at Enron 
and Andersen, the only thing faster than those shredders is the spin 
machine running here in Washington today, spinning that this bill to 
help some avoid responsibility has anything to do with helping American 
families. Get serious.
  The judges of the States of the United States, our State court 
judges, have not asked for this. Our Federal court judges, upon whom 
the burden will be placed of handling these cases, are already 
overburdened; they have not asked for it. The National Conference of 
State Legislatures opposes it. This is the wrong thing to do at the 
wrong time. It is being done only to protect wrongdoers like Enron and 
Andersen, and it ought to be rejected.
  To aid even those who tear up documents and give them additional 
rights in our courts is particularly outrageous.
  I commend the gentlewoman for attempting to resolve this problem, and 
I recommend her amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each 
side?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has 1 minute remaining.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. As the proponent of the amendment, do I 
have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Member on the committee opposing the 
amendment has the right to close.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to 
close?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman does wish to close.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 
time, although I was hoping to hear the distinguished chairman's 
representation of the Cheerio box.
  But let me say this, in all sincerity: We have come into some very 
troubling times in the litigation history of America. With Enron as a 
backdrop, and Firestone that knowingly sold defective tires where tread 
separation caused more than 800 injuries, and Monsanto, which hid 40 
years' worth of dumping toxic PCBs, there is great opportunity for 
documents to be destroyed, because people want to win. The only 
opportunity for the little guy to achieve victory sometimes is to 
organize a class action.
  They have been successful in State courts, but they cannot be 
successful under this legislation, nor can they be successful when 
those will go knowingly into the courthouse, who have destroyed 
documents, fraudulently misrepresented and disadvantaged their cases.
  This amendment will prevent that kind of action, allowing those who 
have been found to have destroyed documents not to take advantage of 
this legislation. This is consumer protection legislation. I cannot 
imagine any of my colleagues that would not support this amendment.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really disappointed in the argument of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who is a distinguished former 
member of the State Supreme Court, saying that this has to do with 
Enron. Enron is in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a Federal law. The Federal 
bankruptcy court will determine the rights of all people who have got 
claims against Enron, and there is an automatic stake that is entered 
by the Federal court when a bankruptcy is filed against proceeding in 
any other court, State or Federal, besides the bankruptcy court.
  Now, I think what we are really getting down to is, how are consumers 
being protected? I do not think most consumers really care whether a 
class action suit is litigated in State court or Federal court; they 
care what kind of recompense they get, should the class action suit be 
resolved.
  I have this box of Cheerios here, because General Mills, which owns 
Cheerios, was sued in a class action suit alleging that there were 
harmful additives in Cheerios. When the case was settled, what did all 
the members of the class get? A coupon to buy another box of Cheerios. 
If Cheerios had food additives that were so damaging, that caused 
millions of dollars in lawyers' fees to settle this suit out, then why 
would the lawyers sign off to require people who wanted to cash in on 
their settlement to eat more Cheerios? It does not make any sense.
  The amendment ought to be rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 8 printed in House 
report 107-375.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Frank

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Frank:
       Page 18, line 14, strike the quotation marks and second 
     period.
       Page 18, insert the following after line 14:
       ``(g) Procedure After Removal.--If, after an action is 
     removed under this section, the court determines that any 
     aspect of the action that is subject to its jurisdiction 
     solely under the provisions of section 1332(d) may not be 
     maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure, the court shall remand all such 
     aspects of the action to the State court from which the 
     action was removed. In such event, the State court may 
     certify the action or any part thereof as a class action 
     pursuant to the laws of that State, and such action may not 
     be removed to Federal court unless it meets the requirements 
     of section 1332(a).''.


          Modification to Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Frank

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I was informed, and perhaps I should have 
been paying closer attention, that there was some line number item 
alteration and I, therefore, in compliance with what has happened, ask 
unanimous consent to modify the amendment, and I request that the 
modification be considered as read.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The text of Amendment No. 8, as modified, is as follows:

       Page 18, line 25, strike the quotation marks and second 
     period.
       Page 18, insert the following after line 25:
       ``(g) Procedure After Removal.--If, after an action is 
     removed under this section, the court determines that any 
     aspect of the action that is subject to its jurisdiction 
     solely under the provisions of section 1332(d) may not be 
     maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure, the court shall remand all such 
     aspects of the action to the State court from which the 
     action was removed. In such event, the State court may 
     certify the action or any part thereof as a class action 
     pursuant to the laws of that State, and such action may not 
     be removed to Federal court unless it meets the requirements 
     of section 1332(a).''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

[[Page 3141]]


  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When I originally heard of this bill, I was inclined to be 
supportive. It was described to me several years ago as a bill that 
would more accurately determine, in fact, whether a class action was 
multistate or unistate in its real focus. I was told, and I think there 
is some accuracy, that the technical way in which the diversity rules 
operated resulted in some class actions that really were national in 
scope being tried in particular State courts when, under our system of 
government, they would more appropriately be tried in Federal court; 
and I thought that was reasonable, and I supported a bill that would do 
that, and I still would, unlike some of my colleagues here.
  When I read the bill, though, it became clear that the bill does not 
simply say that certain class actions will be tried in Federal court 
rather than State court; much of its attraction, I believe, to its 
proponents is that it will make sure that certain potential class 
actions are never tried at all. That is the way the bill reads.
  If a class action is brought in State court, and under the 
liberalized removal procedures of this bill, it is then removed to 
Federal court, and a Federal judge finds that he or she does not 
believe that it meets the requirements for a Federal class action, it 
is dismissed, in effect, with prejudice. That is, it cannot ever again 
be tried as a class action. If it was restarted in State court, it 
would go back again to Federal court, which would again dismiss it, so 
that would be fruitless. An individual case could obviously be brought.
  So I have been asked if this is an amendment that guts the bill. I do 
not think it guts the bill. I think it does something of which I am 
generally more in favor. I think it outs the bill. What it does is to 
say, let us stop pretending to be something we are not. Let us not 
claim simply to be a bill that is about which jurisdiction tries the 
case. Let us be clear that its impetus is to reduce the number of class 
actions, because people believe that some States imprudently and 
improvidently allow class actions and because some Members in the 
majority, many of them, do not trust all of the State courts to 
honestly apply class action rules; they want to be able to go into 
Federal court so the Federal court can, in some cases, prevent the 
class action from being maintained anyway.
  Again, under the proposal that I advance in my amendment, if, in 
fact, the case meets the criteria set forward in this bill for removal, 
it is removed, and the Federal court can go forward with it. The only 
change I make is, the Federal court does not have the option of saying, 
this can never be tried as a class action.
  So I hope the Members will adopt it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time 
in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, this can be called the two-or-more-kicks-at-the-cat 
amendment, because what the gentleman is proposing is that when the 
Federal court refuses to certify a class, then it goes back to State 
court and the State court looks at it again and may certify a class. 
While most States have got class action rules similar to rule 23 of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they are not always uniformly 
applied, and that is why there is all this forum shopping that is going 
around that has caused this bill to come before the House of 
Representatives today.

                              {time}  1615

  So I think that we really should not allow two kicks at the cat. They 
can have their day in court. If the Federal court determines that the 
Federal rules do not allow for the certification of a class, then we 
should not go back to square one and have the plaintiffs' lawyers shop 
around to a friendly State judge that may very well certify that the 
class that is not allowed in the Federal rules ends up getting 
certified and the trial ends up proceeding.
  So I think that everybody should have one day in court, not more than 
one day in court. For that reason, I would urge that the amendment be 
rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the very purpose of that amendment is to guarantee that 
as a class action you will get one day in court. Without that 
amendment, the bill gives no days in court.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman) be allowed to control the time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, just on the good chairman's last point, he wants to 
give people a day in court. As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank), the author of the amendment, just pointed out, without this 
amendment, there is no day in court. They file their class action in 
State court, the defendants remove it to Federal court, the Federal 
court refuses to certify it, remanding it back to the State court, they 
pursue it in State court, and they remove it again back to Federal 
court. They never get a chance to try it.
  If this bill is about trying to have cases, legitimate Federal class 
action cases, heard in Federal court and not in State courts, then the 
amendment does nothing to destroy the focus of this bill.
  If this bill is about removing the ability of local judges, rather 
than Federal judges, to give hometown kinds of decisions and rulings, 
there is nothing in this amendment that hurts this bill.
  It is only if one accepts, which I believe is true, that the only 
purpose of this bill is to eliminate any State or any of the 50 States' 
ability to decide there are certain kinds of class actions they want to 
hear that come outside the scope of rule 23, and that, in effect, this 
bill wipes out the right of all 50 States to make that decision, and 
defines rule 23 in the Federal courts as the only place to ever bring a 
class action, that is the only reason to oppose this amendment.
  It is hard for me to believe that States' rights-loving adherents to 
federalism who see a role for the Federal courts and the State courts 
could, with a straight face, promote this bill, which, in effect, 
preempts and sucks up all class action rights, forces them into Federal 
court, eliminates a State legislature and a State judiciary's ability 
to decide that, there are situations and circumstances where we want a 
State class action body of law to exist that go beyond the Federal rule 
23.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote for this amendment. I think it is essential. 
With this amendment, this bill truly becomes an effort to get the true 
Federal class action cases into Federal court and still allows the 
States to decide if there are areas left out where they want to allow 
at least some jurisdiction so that the person can have his day in at 
least one court.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I rise in strong support of the bill and in opposition to this 
particular amendment. It undermines the principles of H.R. 2341, which 
is that large interstate class actions should be allowed in Federal 
court because many State courts are not effectively processing these 
lawsuits.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I welcome the 
opportunity to address the criticism that this legislation would 
diminish State court authority or otherwise offend basic federalism 
principles.
  Opponents of this bill have suggested that removing a lawsuit filed 
in State court to Federal court deprives the State court of its right 
to decide matters of State law. But all State law-based actions do not 
presumptively belong in State court. Federal diversity

[[Page 3142]]

jurisdiction, established by no less than the Framers of the United 
States Constitution, allows State law-based claims to be moved from 
local courts to Federal courts to ensure that all parties will be able 
to litigate on a level playing field and that interstate commerce 
interests will be protected.
  Additionally, the expansion of diversity included in the Class Action 
Fairness Act is consistent with current diversity laws, since it allows 
Federal courts to hear large cases which have interstate implications. 
By nature, class actions fulfill these requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, in most State law-based class actions, the proposed 
classes encompass residents of multiple States. Thus, the trial court, 
regardless of whether it is a State or Federal court, must interpret 
and apply the laws of multiple jurisdictions. It is far more 
appropriate for a Federal court to interpret the laws of various States 
as opposed to having one State court dictate the substantive laws of 
other States.
  For that and other reasons, I would oppose this particular amendment, 
and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
Let us be clear: the vote on this amendment will tell us whether this 
is a bill aimed at giving Federal courts the chance to deal with class 
actions that they currently cannot, or whether this is a bill aimed at 
just shutting down all class actions. That is what this is about.
  Under this amendment, a class action originally filed in State court 
could still be removed to Federal court. But let us say that a Federal 
court will not certify that class. That is where the rubber meets the 
road. The failure to get class certification in Federal court does not 
mean that the suit lacks merit. It does not mean this case will be 
decided on the merits. It simply means it does not meet rule 23.
  But the sponsors of this bill would shut down class actions right 
there, just shut them all down, whether they have merit or whether they 
do not, saying that if it is refiled in State court, it gets shunted 
back out to the Federal court that has already said it will not hear 
it. So what is the result? There is a merry-go-round that begins. It is 
nothing more than a merry-go-round. Justice is delayed, and then it is 
denied.
  So this bill goes beyond giving Federal courts a chance to hear and 
use their powers to consolidate class actions that they currently 
cannot touch. It blocks class actions that were capable of being 
certified under State law. This amendment would stop the merry-go-round 
by letting that class action, sent back to State court, move forward on 
the merits.
  There was a letter by a well-known outside group in support of this 
bill in 1998. This is what the outside group said. I think it kind of 
gets to the meat of what we are talking about here: ``This bill would 
enable class action suits filed in State courts to be moved to Federal 
court, where such wasteful lawsuits can easily be dismissed.''
  That is what an outside group said. We should not let that happen. If 
this is a bill about taking any kind of lawsuit and saying that they 
are all wasteful and dismissing them early, then let us say that is 
what this is about. That is what the group said earlier.
  This amendment allows the framers of the bill, the authors of the 
bill, to get their way in terms of having Federal courts to deal with 
these, but lets the State courts hear these actions on the merits if 
they do not meet the technical definition of a class action suit.
  We should not let this happen. We want to support this bill. This 
bill should not be about killing class action. Support this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief in stating my opposition to this 
amendment. If the amendment is adopted, the basic reforms that we are 
seeking to achieve simply will not be achieved. Some cases simply 
should not be certified as class actions, either in the Federal or the 
State courts.
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is narrowly drawn so as to protect 
the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants to traditional due process 
as their rights are litigated. Under rule 23, cases that are overly 
broad because of conflicting laws that establish the rights of 
individual class members, or because of the factual differences in the 
circumstances of the plaintiffs, will not be certified as class 
actions. Only through denial of certification can the rights of the 
plaintiff class members be protected.
  When cases are denied class action status, all of the individual 
plaintiffs are then free to file their individual claims, no one is 
denied a right to recover damages, and another class action can be 
instituted in State court if it is reconfigured to be a state-centered 
class action.
  I want to stress that denial of class action status in Federal court 
when the case is removed does not mean an end to the litigation. It 
does not preclude recovery by the plaintiffs, either in individual 
actions or in a reconfigured class action proceeding.
  But if the gentleman's amendment is adopted, any case which, because 
of its broad scope, cannot meet the requirements of Federal Rule 23, 
and therefore is dismissed as a class action in Federal court, could 
then be certified as a class action in State court from which it was 
removed. The case would be free to proceed as a State class action, and 
no further removal to Federal court would then be allowed.
  Under the amendment, the cases that are truly national in scope would 
still be heard in State court, and some States would continue to apply 
their often unique laws to govern the rights of plaintiffs who live in 
States that have laws that would dictate that an opposite result be 
reached.
  This extraterritorial application of State law does serious damage to 
our traditional principles of federalism. It is a kind of reverse 
federalism that should not continue. But under the amendment that is 
now pending, it would continue. Our basic reform would not be achieved.
  The amendment is a recipe for a continuation of the status quo, and I 
urge that it not be accepted.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Virginia for the honesty with which he 
acknowledged that the effect of the bill without the amendment, and 
indeed the purpose, is to prevent many cases from being class actions 
at all.
  I differ with one aspect of his argument when he said that some truly 
national cases will then be, under my amendment, brought to State 
court. No, I think that is not true. If they are truly national and 
they truly represent a national class, they will be tried in Federal 
court, because under this bill, the Federal court can, under the terms 
of this bill, take the case from the State court if somebody moved it 
and try it in the Federal court. So we are not saying that truly 
national ones cannot be done in Federal court.
  What this bill does is to say very simply, in modern slang, rule 23 
rules. What it says is this: rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure describing class actions is now, by this bill, the rule for 
every State in America. No State can deviate from rule 23, because if 
you have a different description of what class action ought to be, then 
you will lose to the Federal people.
  Now, I find it particularly odd that my friends who pretend to be for 
States' rights, and excuse me, I do not want to violate the rules, who 
assert that they are for States' rights, now want to say that rule 23 
will preempt any State law to the contrary, because that is what this 
bill does. This bill

[[Page 3143]]

says the Federal standard for class action will be the standard to 
govern everywhere.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is 
recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, what this boils down to is if we believe there is a 
need for reform, it is with class action or not. If Members do not 
believe there is a need for reform, then this amendment is fine, 
because under this amendment we have no change at all. There is no 
reform, because anything that goes to the Federal court can come right 
back to the State court, where the abuse occurred in the first place.
  The examples of abuse are rampant here. We have gone through them 
before, but it serves us well to go through a few of them again.
  In this case, trial lawyers, $2 million; the plaintiffs, a coupon for 
a box of Cheerios. That kind of abuse, if allowed by this amendment, 
would go up to the Federal court. If the Federal court says under rule 
23 it does not qualify as a class action, it goes back to the State 
court, where the abuse can occur again.

                              {time}  1630

  The other example, trial lawyers get over $100,000; the plaintiffs, 
four golf balls.
  If my colleagues do not think that that is abuse, then this amendment 
is fine. If Members do, strike down the amendment; do not vote for the 
amendment because we need reform, and we need it now.
  Next example, where the attorneys were awarded $4 million, what did 
the plaintiffs get? Thirty-three cents, only after they sent in for it, 
costing them 34 cents. So a net loss of one cent.
  If Members do not think there is at least a need for reform, vote for 
the amendment. If Members agree that there is abuse, then they had 
better vote for the amendment because it will occur regardless 
otherwise. If it goes to State court or Federal court, goes back to 
State court, we have the abuse again. It does not solve anything.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. It is the only 
way reform will occur. Vote against the amendment. If Members vote for 
the amendment, no reform occurs. If Members believe that we have 
fraudulent abuse as it stands, Members have to vote against the 
amendment.
  If Members believe the situation, the status quo is fine, then 
certainly vote for the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). All time for debate has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 9 printed in House 
Report 107-375.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hart

  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Hart:
       Page 19, insert the following after line 11 and redesignate 
     the succeeding section accordingly:

     SEC. 7. REPORT ON CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, 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 
     prepare and transmit to the Committees on the Judiciary of 
     the Senate and House of Representatives a report on class 
     action settlements in the Federal courts.
       (b) Content.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     contain--
       (1) recommendations on the best practices that courts can 
     use to ensure that proposed class action settlements are fair 
     to the class members whom the settlements are supposed to 
     benefit;
       (2) recommendations on the best practices that courts can 
     use to ensure that--
       (A) the fees and expenses awarded to counsel in connection 
     with a class action settlement appropriately reflect the 
     extent to which counsel succeeded in obtaining full redress 
     for the injuries alleged and the time, expense, and risk that 
     counsel devoted to the litigation; and
       (B) the class members on whose behalf the settlement is 
     proposed are the primary beneficiaries of the settlement; and
       (3) the actions that the Judicial Conference of the United 
     States has taken and intends to take toward having the 
     Federal judiciary implement any or all of the recommendations 
     contained in the report.
       (c) Authority of Federal Courts.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to alter the authority of the Federal 
     courts to supervise attorney's fees.


          Modification of Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hart

  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment and further request that such modification be considered as 
read.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Page 19, insert the following after line 21 and redesignate 
     the succeeding section accordingly:

     SEC. 7. REPORT ON CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, 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 
     prepare and transmit to the Committees on the Judiciary of 
     the Senate and House of Representatives a report on class 
     action settlements in the Federal courts.
       (b) Content.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     contain--
       (1) recommendations on the best practices that courts can 
     use to ensure that proposed class action settlements are fair 
     to the class members whom the settlements are supposed to 
     benefit;
       (2) recommendations on the best practices that courts can 
     use to ensure that--
       (A) the fees and expenses awarded to counsel in connection 
     with a class action settlement appropriately reflect the 
     extent to which counsel succeeded in obtaining full redress 
     for the injuries alleged and the time, expense, and risk that 
     counsel devoted to the litigation; and
       (B) the class members on whose behalf the settlement is 
     proposed are the primary beneficiaries of the settlement; and
       (3) the actions that the Judicial Conference of the United 
     States has taken and intends to take toward having the 
     Federal judiciary implement any or all of the recommendations 
     contained in the report.
       (c) Authority of Federal Courts.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to alter the authority of the Federal 
     courts to supervise attorney's fees.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The editorial that many have referred to today that appeared in last 
Saturday's Washington Post supporting the passage of H.R. 2341 did get 
it right. Too often our current class action system allows trial 
lawyers to enrich themselves without benefiting those that those 
lawyers represent.
  As presented, though, H.R. 2341 would have corrective influence on 
this problem, particularly by allowing the removal of more interstate 
class actions from the State courts to the Federal courts. Empirical 
data indicate that this problem of attorneys getting the biggest piece 
of class action settlements is fundamentally a State court problem. Our 
Federal courts have done a far better job of ensuring that that does 
not happen.
  Though I do support the bill in all its respect, I would like to add 
one modest piece to the legislation that I believe would aid in 
ensuring that these class actions do benefit to serve the class 
members, not just the attorneys.
  The amendment is a request by Congress that the Judicial Conference 
of the United States, our Federal judges, prepare for the House and 
Senate Committees on the Judiciary a report on

[[Page 3144]]

class action settlements. As envisioned by my amendment, that report 
would have several parts.
  First, it would contain the judges' recommendations on best practices 
that the court will use to ensure that these proposed class action 
settlements are fair to the class members, that is, the plaintiffs. 
After all, these class members are the people that the settlements are 
supposed to benefit, but as we have seen, have not been benefiting. We 
need to find ways to make sure that they are not forgotten when their 
claims are being settled.
  Second, this report will contain recommendations on best practices 
that the courts would use first to ensure that attorneys' fees in class 
settlements appropriately reflect the results that the attorneys get 
for the class members; and also the report would contain 
recommendations to ensure that class members, and not the lawyers, are 
the primary beneficiaries of a settlement.
  Finally, the report would indicate the Judicial Conference's plans 
for implementing the good practices recommendations.
  I believe that the value of this amendment is obvious, Mr. Chairman, 
but let me make two points about its purposes.
  First, I want to stress that this amendment is not intended in any 
way to be an intrusion on the judicial branch of our government. I 
offer this amendment because I have been advised that the Judicial 
Conference, particularly through its Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, 
is already devoting considerable time and energy to this important 
issue. The committee has held public hearings already, they have 
conducted research, they have drafted and proposed civil rules 
amendments, and these are all intended to bring more rationality to 
class settlements.
  I believe that we should applaud the efforts of our Federal judges in 
this regard. Thus, I offer this amendment not to give our diligent 
Federal judges a new homework assignment, but rather I offer it to 
recognize their effort and suggest that they continue their 
investigation in this arena and encourage them to complete this 
project.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, I wish to emphasize this amendment would not 
directly regulate attorneys' fee awards. I truly believe that the 
attorneys' fees lie at the root of the key problems in what the 
Washington Post editorial referred to as the ``sorry world of class 
action litigation here in the United States.'' I also recognize an 
effort by this body to regulate directly the award of such fees could 
be very divisive.
  The bill that we presently have before us is worthy of, and actually 
has, healthy bipartisan support. So my proposal on the fees issue is a 
very limited one. It would simply encourage the completion of the work 
that our Federal judges have undertaken to develop best practices on 
this issue, all within the current framework of the attorneys' fee 
awards.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to adopt the 
amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HART. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a very 
constructive amendment, and I would urge the House to adopt it.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member claim the time in 
opposition?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) is recognized.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 
4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) for yielding me the time.
  There is kind of a breathtaking level of temerity that the 
Republicans are engaging in today. As the Enron case and many others 
hang over our country's financial marketplace, as Arthur Andersen 
basically struggles for survival of all of the fraudulent activity that 
was perpetrated on investors, on workers, on consumers across this 
country, the Republican response to it is to bring out yet another bill 
that will make it difficult for those ordinary investors and workers to 
bring suits against the big guys, the people who play games with the 
books.
  It is almost like there is no shame whatsoever, and I would almost 
understand it if they kind of snuck this through in July or August when 
the coast was clear on the Enron and Arthur Andersen case, that had 
kind of died down a little bit.
  What they are doing today is putting in place a dangerous 
anticonsumer, anti-investor and antiworker piece of legislation. They 
are standing with the Enrons of the world, the Arthur Andersens of the 
world against the consumer, against the investors in our country, and 
it is just incredible to me.
  However, remember, the first article of the Republican Contract with 
America back in 1995 was passing out on this floor the Private 
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Amongst other things, that is 
making it very difficult for people to sue Arthur Andersen right now 
because they no longer have joint and several liability. They only have 
proportionate liability. Even as their auditors and consultants are 
together playing the game and keeping score, because of that 1995 Act 
it is hard to make them liable, and everyone knows that they were part 
of this game.
  Today, we see the results of their fine handiwork. Just a few weeks 
ago, Members may have read press reports about Arthur Andersen reaching 
a $217 million settlement in a class action lawsuit brought under State 
law in the State of Arizona against Arthur Andersen in connection with 
a fraud involving a charity organization. According to the testimony 
delivered to the Committee on the Judiciary at around the same time the 
State class action was filed, a Federal class action was also filed, 
same case, same facts, State court, Federal court.
  Guess what happened to the Federal class action. It was thrown out of 
court because the Republicans in 1995 changed the pleading standards in 
the Federal securities laws to favor wrongdoers. So these poor people 
who have been defrauded could not even get into Federal court.
  What happens? We have a controlled experiment seeing what happens in 
Federal and State court. The same people now go to the State court with 
the same case, same facts. In the State court, the plaintiffs win. They 
can win. They do win. Same case, same events, same facts. In Federal 
court, under the 1995 Republican Act, wrongdoers are protected. They 
cannot recover, they are out $217 million. In the State courts, the 
plaintiffs won. The wrongdoers lost.
  What is the Republican vision of the future? They now want to do that 
for all classes of all plaintiffs. They want to take the public's legal 
rights away, and that is what this bill would do. So we have to defeat 
this bill. It is terrible. It says we cannot trust the States, we 
cannot trust local courts, we cannot give local people a chance to 
decide whether or not local, fraudulent, big companies have hurt the 
investors and the workers in their community.
  That is a vision of the past, not of the future. Defeat this bill.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in complete support 
of the idea behind my colleague from Pennsylvania's amendment to H.R. 
2341.
  It seems perfectly logical to want to know exactly whether or not 
this legislation is really needed by requesting a report on Federal 
class action settlements. We need to know what we are doing.
  This report would include recommendations on how to ensure 
settlements are fair, that they are in the best interests of the 
plaintiffs, and that the expenses awarded to the lawyers are 
appropriate.

[[Page 3145]]

  I end up asking myself, why are we considering this as an amendment? 
Why not its own legislation? Why would we pass legislation and then 
amend it with a requirement that we be told whether or not the 
legislation was actually necessary in the first place? That makes no 
sense.
  I propose today that we work together and pass this amendment as 
stand-alone legislation and then revisit this whole area of class 
action reform when we have the recommendations from the report and can 
act accordingly.
  To date, we have not been provided with comprehensive data justifying 
the changes proposed in this legislation. The report would give 
Congress a chance to really understand whether or not these reforms are 
even necessary.
  I offer today to spearhead an effort in this body to quickly adapt 
stand-alone legislation introduced by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Hart) that would require such a report.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could we hold up this bill till we get the 
report?
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I would either withdraw this 
proposal today so that, in fact, we could do this amendment as a stand-
alone bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the author of this amendment for 
yielding me the time.
  One of the previous speakers referred to something he called the 1995 
Republican Act. Specifically, he was talking about the Securities 
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

                              {time}  1645

  First, it was not the 1995 Republican Act. It was passed 
overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans, including such well-known 
Democrats as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Chris 
Dodd from Connecticut, who supported this in the Senate, in the other 
body; Ted Kennedy, from the Member's own State who made these remarks; 
my own Senator Feinstein, and so on. And it was supported by all these 
Democrats and Republicans because it benefits the plaintiffs in these 
cases.
  The Enron case is the best example. In the old days, before this law, 
the first plaintiff to file would have been able to pick who the lead 
plaintiff in the case is and collusion between the lawyers and the 
favored class member through bonus payments, which were also outlawed 
in that legislation, resulted in cents on the dollar. But now the 
University of California Regents have been selected as the lead 
plaintiff in the Enron case, and they will be a real lead plaintiff and 
stand up for the rights of all the plaintiffs. That is the kind of 
reform that both Democrats and Republicans supported.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, the chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The Security Litigation Reform Act, passed in 1995, was indeed passed 
by a great overwhelming majority of the House and Senate Democrats and 
Republicans. It was the first class action reform, and it stopped the 
strike suits that were filed against American corporations not to win 
judgments for fraud but just to shake them down.
  Ninety-five percent of those cases were being settled at 10 cents on 
the dollar. They were shake-down lawsuits designed to defraud the 
companies. These class action lawsuits before the 1995 act were not 
real efforts to find fraud, and those reforms have indeed protected 
constituents across America.
  The class action suit brought against Enron now is the best example. 
Where there is real evidence of fraud, those suits go forward. The 
strike suits, on the other hand, have ended; and they should have ended 
a long time ago. That is good reform, just like this bill before us.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Members are reminded to avoid 
inappropriate references, under House rules, to Members of the other 
body.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about how much 
time I have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce was talking about sham class action 
lawsuits. I do not know which ones he was talking about, but he was not 
talking about the Firestone case, the Monsanto case, the W.R. Grace 
case, all the tobacco company cases, the asbestos cases, the black lung 
case, air bags, Pinto, and it goes on and on.
  None of those were sham lawsuits settled at 10 cents on the dollar. 
And I am sorry he is not here to further explain which cases he had in 
mind.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The debate, unfortunately, around this amendment has not really dealt 
with this amendment. I would like to clarify that this amendment has 
absolutely nothing to do with Enron, Mr. Chairman.
  This amendment has to do with doing what is right. It has to do with 
Congress requesting facts, requesting the Judicial Conference to 
prepare a report for us, for the House and Senate Committees on the 
Judiciary, so that we know and we have better information about class 
action settlements.
  The report would contain recommendations from the judges on best 
practices to ensure that attorneys' fees in class settlements actually 
reflect the results of those class actions, that is, that the attorneys 
get appropriate fees, the class action members, the plaintiffs, 
actually get a settlement instead of 33 cents.
  It is a simple amendment that complements the work our Federal judges 
have already begun. It urges them to complete their report 12 months 
after the bill is passed so that we will make sure that we are not just 
paying lip service to our constituents who believe that class actions 
have become a joke in this country. It is to make sure that class 
action lawsuits are real and really provide a real answer to the 
concerns that were brought to the court.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I certainly attribute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania her 
concern about the consumers, inasmuch as she has offered an amendment 
to determine the facts of how this legislation would impact those 
consumers or individuals petitioning the courts. I would have liked 
this amendment to precede the passage of this legislation. And, in 
fact, in the discourse just had with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) and a proponent of the amendment, it was just noted that the 
proponent of the amendment would have rather and would liked for this 
to be a stand-alone amendment and leave the class action legislation 
off to the side. Leave it where it is right now. Do not proceed with 
it. Let us get a study to find out if in fact there is a problem with 
class actions in State courts versus Federal courts.
  I am confused about a study after the fact. I believe those who 
oppose this legislation have been asking repeatedly to be given the 
data to suggest there is a premise for denying plaintiffs, that is the 
little guy, to get into State court. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I will 
later submit for the Record letters from the Federal courts that 
absolutely oppose the underlying legislation.

[[Page 3146]]

  I am concerned that we would make light of the decisions in State 
courts when I have already noted for the record the Foodmaker, Inc. 
case, the parent company of the Jack-in-the-Box, where three children 
died and 500 people were part of a class. Most of these children were 
made sick by undercooked hamburgers. I believe this case was in a State 
court. The settlement was approved on September 25, 1996; and it was a 
reputable settlement for people who had no other opportunity to address 
their grievances other than to go into Washington Superior Court in 
King County.
  This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is one that does not protect the 
consumers. The gentlewoman would do well to have her amendment 
presented singly, standing alone, to provide us with the data so that 
we might make an intelligent decision not on behalf of special 
interests but on behalf of the consumers of America, the children that 
died from the tainted hamburger at the Jack-in-the-Box, those impacted 
by asbestos, and those impacted by the Firestone tires. Those are the 
people we should be trying to impact in this House today, particularly 
in light of the ups and downs that we have had in corporate America 
over the last couple of months.
  I would ask my colleagues to recognize that this amendment may have a 
good underlying basis; but in fact, the question is why not have it do 
the job without this legislation. I ask my colleagues to oppose the 
underlying legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 7 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and amendment 
No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


   Amendment No. 7, As Modified, Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas 

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 7 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.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 248, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 59]

                               AYES--177

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

                               NOES--248

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     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
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     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)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Blagojevich
     Davis (IL)
     Eshoo
     Hinojosa
     Kilpatrick
     Murtha
     Traficant

                              {time}  1719

  Messrs. LEACH, SIMPSON and BASS, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut and Mrs. 
BONO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement By The Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 
XVIII, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device 
will be taken on the remaining amendment on which the Chair postponed 
further proceedings.

[[Page 3147]]




           Amendment No. 8, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Frank

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 8, as modified, offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), 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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 234, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 60]

                               AYES--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     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
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     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
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--234

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Blagojevich
     Davis (IL)
     Eshoo
     Hinojosa
     Kilpatrick
     Murtha
     Traficant

                              {time}  1728

  So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 60, I inadvertently voted 
``aye'' but I meant to vote ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gilchrest) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Chairman pro tempore 
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. 
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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 367, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1730


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Sandlin

  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Is the gentleman opposed to 
the bill?
  Mr. SANDLIN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in its 
present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Sandlin moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2341 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions that the 
     Committee report

[[Page 3148]]

     the same back to the House with the following amendment:
       Page 19, add the following after line 25:
       Any defendant who is a knowing participant in any 
     conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit an act of 
     terrorism shall not be entitled to remove a class action to 
     federal court pursuant to section 1332(d) of title 28, as 
     added by section 4 of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sandlin) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
motion.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, by matter of correction, retraction and 
addition, the reference is section 1332(d).
  Mr. Speaker, today's debate has illustrated a number of very serious 
problems with the bill before us. By federalizing class actions, it 
would make it far more burdensome, expensive, and time-consuming for 
groups of injured victims to obtain access to justice and far more 
difficult to protect our citizens against violations of fraud, consumer 
health, safety, and environmental laws.
  The legislation goes so far as to prevent State courts from 
considering class actions which involve solely violations of State laws 
such as State consumer protection laws. In the post-Enron world, when 
we are trying to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable for their 
actions, this bill takes us in exactly the wrong direction.
  The motion to recommit responds to another very serious problem with 
this legislation: the fact that it would permit parties who engage in 
terrorism to remove a class action brought against them in Federal 
court. As the bill is presently written, if a terrorist released a 
nuclear device or an anthrax cloud, the harmed victims could very well 
lose their ability to seek redress as a class in their local State 
court.
  For example, if a class composed of mostly New Yorkers, but some 
citizens in New Jersey and Connecticut, want to pursue a terrorist in 
New York State court, I believe they should have that option. It is a 
matter of national security. This bill today prevents that.
  The language in the motion would eliminate this problem by removing 
terrorists from the party defendants whose rights are enhanced by the 
bill. The language is based on the text of the airline bailout bill and 
the airport security bill we approved last fall. Any defendant who is a 
knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit 
terrorist acts should not get the benefits of the bill.
  The bills we passed previously provided for protections and 
limitations on liability to protect airlines, airplane manufacturers, 
the City of New York, and others, but we agreed on a bipartisan basis 
that nothing in the reform should in any way assist terrorist 
defendants. We should do the same thing in this bill.
  Let me repeat, since September 11, every single liability bill we 
have passed has included an exclusion for terrorists based on the 
language of this motion. We have excluded terrorists. The last thing we 
should be doing today is anything that will make the terrorists lives 
easier.
  Let us vote yes on the motion, send the bill back to committee, and 
let us fix this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the usual motion to recommit that this House 
considers at the end of legislation. Those motions direct the committee 
of jurisdiction to report the legislation back to the House forthwith 
with an amendment. The motion to recommit of the gentleman from Texas 
omits the word ``forthwith,'' and that means that if this motion is 
adopted, the bill will go back to the Committee on the Judiciary and 
will come out sometime in the future to be brought up under another 
rule where the House will spend another day listening to the same 
arguments that we have debated and rejected repeatedly through the 
amendment process.
  So for that reason alone, the motion to recommit should be rejected.
  Now, secondly, litigation resulting from a massive terrorist attack 
is precisely the type of complex legislation envisioned to be decided 
in our Federal courts. That type of litigation involves multiple 
parties from different districts asserting multiple laws, but having 
the same set of facts that the court will decide.
  The House has already dealt with this issue when, earlier last year, 
it passed H.R. 860 by voice vote. This was supported by Members on both 
sides of the aisle and unanimously reported by the Committee on the 
Judiciary. This legislation is known as the multi-multi-multi bill, 
which is in direct response to air crash cases and multiple tort cases 
such as a terrorist attack, and it directs which Federal court those 
types of cases can be consolidated in. So the House has already dealt 
with that issue.
  The amendment is unnecessary because it does not require the bill to 
be brought back forthwith. It is a sneaky way to attempt to kill the 
bill by referring it to the committee, and I would urge Members to 
oppose this motion simply to get rid of this issue and to send it on 
its way to the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary for yielding me this time, and for his leadership in 
moving this legislation through the House.
  This is a good, bipartisan bill. I was pleased to introduce it with 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran). We need bipartisan support to pass this 
legislation.
  We have all day long from the opponents of this bill seen 
obfuscation. This bill is not about terrorists, it is not about Enron, 
it is not about shredding documents; what it is about is good, common-
sense class action lawsuit reform to end this kind of abuse, where the 
lawyers get $2 million in attorneys' fees and the plaintiffs, the 
American families, get a box of Cheerios.
  It is about a case where the plaintiffs get a $25 coupon off a $250 
future plane flight, a 10 percent reduction, and the attorneys get $16 
million in attorneys' fees.
  It is about this great case wherein the Bank of Boston, the attorneys 
got $8.5 million in fees and then sued, sued their own clients for an 
additional $25 million.
  It is about this Blockbuster case, 23 class action lawsuits settled 
for $1-off coupons; the attorneys got an estimated $9.2 million in 
attorneys' fees.
  Here is my favorite one. The attorneys got $4 million in their suit 
against Chase Manhattan Bank; the plaintiffs, including this plaintiff, 
33 cents. But there is a catch to the 33 cents. There it is, 33 cents; 
the catch is that in order to accept the settlement, you had to use a 
34-cent stamp to send in the acceptance, and so you came out 1 penny 
short.
  Our friends at the Washington Post summed it up best when they said, 
Having invented a client, the lawyers also get to choose a court. Under 
the current absurd rules, national class actions can be filed in just 
about any court in the country. This bill changes that. This bill 
treats American families with more than pennies; it restores integrity 
to our judicial system. Vote against this obfuscating motion to 
recommit and for this good legislation.
  Again, the Washington Post: That it is controversial at all reflects 
less on the merits of the proposal than on the grip that the trial 
lawyers have on many Democrats.
  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. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 191, 
noes 235, not voting 8, as follows:

[[Page 3149]]



                             [Roll No. 61]

                               AYES--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     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
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     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
     Tauscher
     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

                               NOES--235

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     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
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     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
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     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)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barrett
     Blagojevich
     Davis (IL)
     Eshoo
     Hinojosa
     Kilpatrick
     Murtha
     Traficant

                              {time}  1802

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). 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.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 190, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 62]

                               YEAS--233

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     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
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     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)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     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
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt

[[Page 3150]]


     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     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
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Terry
     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--11

     Barrett
     Blagojevich
     Davis (IL)
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Hinojosa
     Kilpatrick
     Murtha
     Rush
     Traficant

                              {time}  1812

  Ms. BROWN of Florida changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay''.
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________