[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14578-14587]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1115, CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 
                                  2003

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 269 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 269

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1115) to amend the procedures that apply to 
     consideration of interstate class actions to assure fairer 
     outcomes for class members and defendants, to outlaw certain 
     practices that provide inadequate settlements for class 
     members, to assure that attorneys do not receive a 
     disproportionate amount of settlements at the expense of 
     class members, to provide for clearer and simpler information 
     in class action settlement notices, to assure prompt 
     consideration of interstate class actions, to amend title 28, 
     United States Code, to allow the application of the 
     principles of Federal diversity jurisdiction to interstate 
     class actions, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), the ranking member of our committee, pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 269 is a structured rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. It provides that the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary 
now printed in the bill be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment.
  The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment 
may be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be debatable for the

[[Page 14579]]

time specified equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or demand for a 
division of the question.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill and 
waives all points of order against such amendment.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleagues that while 
this is a structured rule, it is a balanced rule. This rule makes in 
order four amendments, three Democrat amendments and one bipartisan 
amendment. In fact, only eight amendments were originally submitted to 
the Committee on Rules, and two of those amendments were withdrawn from 
consideration. In a world often frequented with sports analogies, we 
would say that four for six is pretty good at the plate.
  Mr. Speaker, the history of our judicial process was purposely and 
deliberately constructed by our forefathers to be a system that employs 
fairness and balance in the rendering of justice. One of the many tools 
of this judicial system is the class action lawsuit. In its ideal form, 
the class action suit is meant to give many individuals who hold the 
same claim of wrongdoing against the same defendant an efficient and 
effective way to have their grievances heard as a unified voice. 
Essentially, it acts as a pedestal and a megaphone using the collective 
nature of the many to increase the profile and the potency of the 
group's accusations of injustice.
  As used by public interest organizations and truly injured groups of 
individuals, class action lawsuits have proven effective in restoring 
justice and righting wrongs. By correcting egregious negligence, 
curbing dangerous misconduct, or even convincing people in 
organizations to merely abide by the law, class action suits are an 
integral part of the American system of justice.
  However, and very sadly, these suits are also one of the most grossly 
abused parts of the American system of justice.

                              {time}  1030

  We have seen a deluge of frivolous lawsuits designed to coerce quick 
and often unwarranted settlements only to enrich a few. This abuse of 
the system stunts economic growth and job creation, and it clogs the 
courtroom and our system, making it more difficult to receive justice 
in valid lawsuits. In fact, class action filings in State courts have 
increased 1,000 percent in just 10 years; 1,000 percent in just 10 
years. Somebody is catching onto something around here.
  One wonders how effective local courts and judges can even start to 
get through their workload when it is increasing so rapidly. Perhaps 
worst of all is the abusive way in which class action suits enrich a 
small group of trial attorneys and a very small fraction of plaintiffs 
while leaving most of the rest of the entire class with little or next 
to nothing.
  In one instance, and there are thousands and thousands of these types 
of stories, but in one instance a State court approved a class action 
settlement in a case brought by account holders against a bank. The 
result, the plaintiffs' attorneys received over $8 million in fees and 
the 700,000 members of the class only received $10 each. Eight million 
dollars to the trial lawyers, $10 to the plaintiffs. In addition, each 
class member was stuck holding the remainder of the bank's legal bills, 
approximately $100 each. These class members had to pay the bank's 
liabilities, a net loss at the end of the day of $90. How thick the 
irony, and we want people to respect our system of justice when they 
see this type of result? This may seem extreme, but it is becoming the 
norm very, very rapidly.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will dispute these 
facts. They will allege that the system is fine as it is, and that by 
passing this plan and working to restore justice to our system, we are 
robbing consumers of their legal rights. Let me be clear, no one is 
eliminating or diminishing anybody's rights to sue. No one is taking a 
wrecking ball to the court system that our forefathers so carefully 
established, and no one is ignoring legitimate claims of negligence or 
advocating bad guys being left off the hook. We are not doing that.
  This bill simply curbs the abuse of class action suits. It curbs the 
abuses while preserving the rights of the truly injured to bring 
meritorious claims to court. In addition, this plan would remove large 
interstate class action lawsuits to Federal court where appropriate. 
This provision would enable more efficient and effective consolidation 
of claims. It would also provide greater uniformity in consideration of 
these cases by requiring the decisions that affect individuals from all 
across the country be decided by courts that represent the Nation as a 
whole and not just one State which might have a particular bias for 
particular parties.
  As this plan cracks down on the abuses of class action suits, it also 
protects the legal rights of individuals through a consumer class 
action bill of rights. This bill of rights requires that the notices 
sent to class members be simple and intelligible, ensures that 
victorious plaintiffs do not suffer a net loss because the attorneys 
took all of the money, it prevents geographic discrimination against 
certain class members, and it prohibits disproportionate awards from 
going to some class members at the expense of others.
  The bottom line is that this plan provides greater judicial scrutiny 
to make our court system more efficient and effective, while restoring 
fairness to ensure that truly wronged victims receive their fair share 
of settlements.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former judge, I have to say, our court system and 
the judges and attorneys that serve within it serve nobly by 
administering and executing true justice when they can. But it is the 
job of this Congress to make sure that our judicial system is not 
misused or abused to the point where it cannot perform its very 
purpose, or it provides the very opposite of justice.
  The Class Action Fairness Act creates important reforms that will 
reduce lawsuit abuse and protect individuals. It is as simple as that. 
I urge support for this legislation and for the fair and balanced rule 
before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this can be a complicated legal issue, but at its core, 
this bill that Republicans have given such a misleading name, the Class 
Action Fairness Act, is very simple. Here is what it does. It protects 
big corporate wrongdoers like Enron and WorldCom against individuals 
that they harm. It makes it easier for fraudulent and unethical 
corporations and their executives to escape accountability for their 
actions.
  That may not be what some of its supporters intend, but that is 
exactly what this bill would do, and it is exactly the type of thing 
the Republican House has been doing for the past 8\1/2\ years, turning 
the American people's government over to a small, elite group of the 
wealthiest and most powerful. We have seen it for the past week as 
House Republicans have tried to block tax relief for working and 
military families who need it the most. They gave millionaires tax 
breaks totaling $93,000, but they called it welfare when Democrats 
tried to give $150 in tax relief to the military families who need it 
most to feed and clothe their children.
  We are seeing it again here today on this class action bill. Believe 
it or not, the latest version of the Republican bill is even worse for 
consumers than the versions they have offered in the past two 
Congresses. That is because this one does not just protect future 
corporate wrongdoers, it acts retroactively to pull the rug out from 
under the victims of some of the worst corporate scandals in recent 
memory. If Members do not think that was intentional, just take a look 
at the rule the Republican leadership has written for this bill.
  In the past two Congresses, the House has been allowed to vote on 
every amendment offered by a Member. In

[[Page 14580]]

fact, let me read from the Congressional Record from a year ago when my 
friend the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) who is handling the rule 
today was handling the rule at that time.
  ``I would like to take a moment to clarify for my colleagues that 
while this is a structured rule, our committee, the Committee on Rules, 
did make in order every amendment submitted to us on this legislation. 
The rule simply incorporates some time confines equally applied to all 
of the amendments in order to provide some level of certainty and order 
during consideration of the legislation in the House.''
  In other words, last year and, in fact, the year before, the 
Republican majority made in order every amendment that was submitted to 
the committee. Now, this year they have neglected to make in order two 
amendments. Which two did they not make in order? The one dealing with 
retroactivity; that is, one cannot sue somebody for what they did a 
couple of years ago and suits are already on file, those suits will 
suddenly go away. Who are we talking about? We are talking about 
wrongdoers at Enron and WorldCom and other places. But they will not 
make that amendment in order. That, of course, is the amendment offered 
by the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt).
  What is the other amendment that they will not make in order this 
time? That deals with unnecessarily delaying lawsuits by interlocutory 
appeals and freezing everything in place. What is wrong with that? 
Well, because as it is written, this class action bill would give Enron 
the power to unilaterally freeze the case that defrauded retirees in 
Texas have filed against it. Many of these people have lost their life 
savings in a massive corporate fraud. Their case has already been 
delayed more than a year and a half, a delay that allowed Arthur 
Andersen to shred important documents; and now this bill would give 
Enron the power to unilaterally delay the case for many more years.
  Just to be clear, last year, and 2 years ago, Republicans let all of 
the amendments be made in order. This year, they cannot do that; no 
amendment on the question of retroactivity and no amendment on the 
question of freezing lawsuits pending appeals.
  That is not just wrong, it is indefensible, because it is simply 
welfare for some of the worst corporate wrongdoers, companies like 
WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, and Enron. But the Republican leadership has 
used this power to protect corporate criminals, killing the Conyers-
Delahunt amendment on retroactivity last night in the Committee on 
Rules so they would not have to debate it in the light of day on the 
House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, there are other major problems with the Republican bill. 
Its operating principle is: Justice delayed is justice denied. State 
and Federal judiciaries, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court, William Rehnquist, oppose it. And because the Federal courts are 
already overburdened, consumers will have to wait for years for their 
claims to be heard. In the meantime, big corporate wrongdoers like 
WorldCom and Enron will have new procedural tactics to run up the bills 
and run out the clock on the consumers they have injured.
  At the same time, the so-called consumer protection provisions of the 
bill are a cynical sham. They do not provide any new protections for 
consumers, they just codify the ones that already exist, and they do 
not come close to making up for the fundamental lack on consumer rights 
that the entire bill represents.
  I am sure the Republicans will come to the floor to complain about 
the so-called coupon settlements which are no more common in State 
courts than they are in Federal courts that Republicans favor. No 
matter how many times Republicans talk about this problem, their bill 
does not do anything about it. Only the Democratic alternative 
increases consumer protections against coupon settlements.
  The truth is the Democratic alternative offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) is 
the only sensible and workable class action reform on the House floor 
today. It will help consumers hold corporations accountable for their 
actions, and it will help courts manage large class action litigation. 
It tightens the rules on lawyers' fees and coupon settlements. It 
protects consumers against unfair settlements and enacts other 
consumer-friendly revisions that have been recommended by the Judicial 
Conference of the United States. And to protect the rights of out-of-
State defendants, it establishes a State level multidistrict litigation 
panel, like those operating on the Federal level, to manage large class 
action suits filed in multiple jurisdictions.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative. But 
first I urge my Republican friends to stand up to the Republican 
leadership and oppose the previous question. If we defeat the previous 
question, then the House can consider the Conyers-Delahunt amendment to 
strike the retroactive provisions of this bill, and it also can 
consider another very important amendment on the provisions that permit 
lawsuits to be frozen in place. This is the only way we can block 
welfare for corporate wrongdoers like Enron and WorldCom.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. Many of the 
objections that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) just iterated 
about the Committee on Rules being unfair about are contained in the 
Democratic substitute which was allowed by our committee. Retroactivity 
is specifically addressed there, so there is a chance to debate and 
vote on that. And it will be a lively debate, I am sure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Columbus, Ohio 
(Ms. Pryce), my good friend and able colleague, and I thank her for her 
fine leadership on this and other issues.
  Obviously our goal here is very simple. We want to empower 
individuals rather than the lawyers. That is what this comes down to. 
There is bipartisan interest in doing that, based on a number of 
amendments which have been proposed. And I would argue, Mr. Speaker, 
that we have a very fair and balanced process around which we are going 
to be debating this issue.
  We have heard this juxtaposition between the consideration of this 
measure in the 107th Congress and what we are doing today. In the 107th 
Congress, we had a rule just like this one. It was a structured rule. 
We also have a structured rule in this measure. We had 8 amendments 
that were filed, 6 Democratic amendments, a bipartisan amendment and a 
Republican amendment. Two amendments were subsequently withdrawn. We 
made 4 amendments in order. Three of those 4 amendments have been 
offered by Democrats, including something they did not offer in the 
107th Congress, and that is a Democratic substitute. We make a 
Democratic substitute in order.
  In the last Congress, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) talked 
about the number of amendments made in order. Well, of the amendments 
made in order, 55 percent of them in the last Congress were Democratic 
amendments, and in this Congress, it is 75 percent. Three of the 4 
amendments made in order have been offered by Democrats. That is why 
when we hear this issue of fairness continually raised, I argue that 
this is a very fair, a very balanced rule, that will allow us to take 
on one of the very, very important issues of the rights of individuals 
under this system of justice that we have.

                              {time}  1045

  I congratulate the members of the Committee on the Judiciary who have 
worked long and hard on this. We continue to try and bring this back, 
and

[[Page 14581]]

we hope very much we will be able to bring about a resolution in behalf 
of the American people.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Of course, I just heard the comments by my friend, the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules; and my only point was in the last Congress, 
both times this came up, the last Congress and the Congress preceding, 
all amendments that were filed we permitted to be made in order. This 
time the majority has cherry-picked and said, well, we will have these 
couple of amendments made in order, but the ones that are really 
important, we are not going to let those be made in order.
  Also, I would like to read from the hometown newspaper of my good 
friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio, who is managing the bill. This is an 
editorial that appeared in the Columbus Dispatch May 8, 2003: ``Courts 
have the power to police such abuses, and proponents of the bill have 
not shown that abuses are widespread or that the courts have failed 
such that the Congress needs to step in. If there are problems that 
require a legislative solution, the solution should be one that is 
carefully tailored, not the blunt instrument of this bill.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules works in mysterious ways. As the 
newest member of the committee, I continue to be fascinated by the 
twists and contortions in the process. I have seen some crazy things: 
entire bills rewritten behind closed doors; Members of this House shut 
out of the process, and debate stifled. But last night takes the cake. 
Last night the Republicans in charge of the committee denied two of the 
six amendments that were filed. My good friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), sponsored both of the 
denied amendments. He took time out of his busy schedule to testify 
before the Committee on Rules in support of his amendments, but the 
chairman and the other committee Republicans decided that the Delahunt 
amendments would not be considered by the House.
  Now, I am sure that they had their reasons. After all, one of the 
Delahunt amendments would repeal the retroactive provision of the bill. 
In other words, the lawsuits filed by the former workers at Enron 
against Ken Lay after he destroyed their life savings would be delayed 
for years without the Delahunt amendments. And just in case all of the 
tax cuts for Ken Lay and his rich friends were not enough, now the 
Republicans are protecting him from facing his former employees in 
court.
  Now, when we saw the rule in committee and I saw that the Delahunt 
amendments were not made in order, I assumed the chairman had a good 
reason, so I asked him why he denied these two amendments; and the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, whom I have great respect for, 
replied that he denied these amendments ``because that is what they 
decided.'' I was even more surprised to hear another Republican on the 
committee declare that ``these amendments were denied because he wanted 
them denied.''
  Now, the irony is almost overwhelming. Every day we hear the 
Republican leadership whine and complain about the other body, about 
how a single Senator can shut down the whole process, about how so-
called ``holds'' and filibusters are threatening the very foundation of 
our democracy. I want my colleagues and the American people to know 
that there are holds right here in the House of Representatives. 
Apparently, a single member of the Committee on Rules, on a thoughtless 
whim, has the power to shut down debate on a critical issue.
  Mr. Speaker, these amendments were thoughtfully and carefully 
drafted. They addressed real problems with the legislation. But 
shockingly, we were not even given the courtesy of a genuine response 
to our questions. Real questions about real public policy issues were 
simply waved away like nuisances. We were essentially told that what 
happens in the Committee on Rules and in this House really is none of 
our business.
  Now, we have debated, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 
said, the issue of class action reform twice before, both times under 
an open process with relevant amendments made in order by the Committee 
on Rules, but not anymore. The Republicans are setting a very dangerous 
precedent, Mr. Speaker; and people deserve to know what is happening 
behind closed doors in the people's House.
  The leadership of this House has become so arrogant, they believe 
they can stifle debate without any accountability. This body, the 
greatest deliberative body in the world, and the constituents we 
represent deserve much, much better.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to my good friend and very distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding 
me this time.
  I rise in support of House Resolution 269 and urge the House to 
approve this rule so that we can move on to consideration of the 
underlying legislation, H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act of 
2003.
  This structured rules makes in order a total of four amendments. In 
fact, three of those amendments are sponsored by Democrats. The other 
amendment has bipartisan sponsorship. Thus this rule will allow the 
House to work its will on the key issues that these amendments raise, 
and H. Res. 269 should receive bipartisan support for doing so.
  The editorial staff for The Washington Post once wrote that ``no 
portion of the American civil justice system is more of a mess than the 
world of class actions. None is in more desperate need of policymakers' 
attention.'' I agree.
  Class action litigation is one of America's most embarrassing 
judicial practices, pitting settlement-hungry lawyers against 
unsuspecting consumers seeking redress for their grievances. I know 
that all of the Members of this House are very familiar with some of 
the outrageous class action settlements that have become depressingly 
common in States all across the Nation.
  In these instances, skillful trial lawyers earn million-dollar fees 
for filing meritless class action lawsuits which are frequently settled 
rather than litigated in court. When this happens, trial lawyers are 
the primary beneficiaries, and the individuals with the class action 
lawsuits receive very modest financial payments or even, in some cases, 
just coupons toward future purchases. Surely we can do better than that 
for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1115 contains a number of commonsense reforms all 
designed to curb these abusive lawsuits, while still ensuring that 
legitimate lawsuits can move through the court system.
  The fact that this class action reform was crafted in a bipartisan 
fashion is a credit to its authors, the gentlemen from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) and (Mr. Boucher). I support their responsible collection of 
legal reforms, and I hope legislation of this nature can be enacted 
during this Congress.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding me this time.
  I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill, H.R. 1115, the so-
called Class Action Fairness Act. This is an unfair bill that does 
nothing to resolve disputes. Moreover, the bill has a number of 
significant problems.
  First, the bill will disrupt ongoing litigation because it applies to 
pending class actions. Some of those class actions that would be 
affected would be those cases against Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur 
Andersen for financial fraud; other major cases involving environmental 
damage or employment

[[Page 14582]]

discrimination; and several drug companies involving problems with 
their pharmaceuticals. It is fundamentally unfair for Congress to 
change the rules for consumers midstream by including these pending 
cases and, therefore, making it more difficult to resolve disputes in a 
timely manner.
  This bill is overly broad. It defines class actions not only to 
include class actions, but also State actions brought on behalf of the 
general public by State attorneys general. These cases are important 
consumer protection tools in some States, particularly California; and 
all of these cases would be considered class actions and subject to the 
provisions of the bill, even though they were not filed as class 
actions and even though they were brought by the State attorney general 
under State law.
  Mr. Speaker, by shifting class actions to Federal court, H.R. 1115 
will overload the Federal judiciary and increase delays. Criminal cases 
are always given priority in Federal courts; and because the courts are 
already overloaded with criminal cases, including many traditionally 
State cases that have been transferred to Federal jurisdiction over the 
past few years, State actions that are referred to Federal courts by 
this bill will be delayed. They also may get caught up in some judicial 
districts that have been dealing with terrorism cases or the temporary 
onslaught of other criminal cases. Adding in complex class action 
litigation to an already overloaded docket will only add to additional 
delays.
  These delays will be exacerbated by the provision in the bill that 
grants an automatic, pretrial appeal and a stay of discovery during 
that appeal. Guilty corporations who use their appeals under the bill 
will be able to delay their inevitable judgment day by several years. A 
rule that was offered in committee by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
and myself would have specifically dealt with this problem, but that 
amendment was rejected by the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, many of the cases, in fact, should remain in State 
court. H.R. 1115 would often require Federal judges to apply State law 
when State judges have more familiarity with the law in their own 
States. This may result in mistakes being made in the application of 
State law, affecting both plaintiffs and defendants.
  H.R. 1115 violates uniform rules of Federal procedure. For example, 
Federal courts will be required to apply one set of rules on diversity 
jurisdictions for everybody except class actions. There will be a 
separate rule for class actions. There will also be rules on removal, 
dismissal, remand, appellate review, and discovery where there will be 
rules for everybody, except class actions, another set of rules for 
class actions.
  Now, there has been a whole lot of hoopla about so-called coupon 
settlements, about how legislation is necessary to address that problem 
when plaintiffs get a negligible recovery. Now, as the gentleman from 
Texas has pointed out, there are as many examples of Federal court 
abuses regarding coupon settlements as there are State court abuses.
  But there is nothing inherently wrong with coupon settlements. If a 
business has been stealing only 50 cents at a time, the recovery for 
each individual class member will be minuscule. But a class action, 
even with a coupon settlement, will be effective in stopping the 
ongoing theft. One recent case involved a business which fraudulently 
calibrated its cash registers to steal small amounts of money from each 
customer. Now, how much will each customer be entitled to if they are 
cheated out of 3 cents? If you cannot have a favorable verdict when the 
individual damages are de minimis, you give an unscrupulous corporation 
a free pass, so long as they do not steal too much from each person.
  Federal and State judges oppose this bill. The Federal Judicial 
Conference headed by the Chief Justice of the United States, the 
Conference of the Chief Justices which represents chief justices around 
the country, both oppose H.R. 1115. It is also opposed by the American 
Bar Association and consumer advocacy groups.
  We have the responsibility to our citizens to ensure timely access to 
the courts for damages sustained. This bill will do nothing to help 
that issue. It will only give unscrupulous defendants new procedural 
schemes to delay justice, and justice delayed is justice denied.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that we reject the rule and reject the bill as 
unnecessary, unwise, and creating more problems than it solves. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), my very distinguished 
colleague and the whip of the Republican majority.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here in favor of the rule and, of course, the 
underlying bill, and looking forward to the debate today.
  This is an issue that we have brought to the floor now for the last 
several Congresses. And every time we do it, I see our Members on both 
sides of the aisle, many of whom will vote for it on both sides of the 
aisle, begin to understand that this is a great opportunity to talk 
about how badly the current system works. A debate that we used to 
dread, a debate that we used to fear, a debate that we used to be 
concerned about, now our Members are eager to talk about because of the 
incredible abuses out there in the system. We will see the gentleman 
from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and others stand up here during the 
day today with chart after chart after chart that shows what happens 
when consumers are unfairly treated in this system.
  The changes we advocate today create an environment where the people 
that are impacted have a better chance to get money rather than the 
lawyers who put these class action suits together. It creates an 
opportunity to go to a court that will look carefully at the issues. We 
are going to see example after example of the millions of dollars that 
go to the lawyers involved and the $1 coupons and the smallest box of 
Cheerios and the 33-cent check that goes to the people in the class. 
Obviously, the lawyers thought the class had very little impact, as 
demonstrated by the settlement that they were willing to agree to.

                              {time}  1100

  If people were affected by this terrible thing that the lawyers 
contend happened, how is 33 cents a proper settlement? How is $1 a 
proper settlement? How is a coupon with money off, to go back to the 
same company that apparently had been so dastardly in launching suit, 
how could that possibly be a proper settlement?
  How could any attorney spend time and go to the court and say to them 
at the end of this case, I want you to give my client a $1 coupon? I 
want you to give my client the smallest possible box of cereal? I want 
you to give my client a check for 33 cents?
  This system is terribly abused. It needs to be changed. Vote for this 
rule. Seeing Democrats and Republicans on the floor today vote for the 
bill sends a message that will change this system in a way that 
benefits consumers and benefits justice.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the proponents, they do not want to reform class 
actions; they really want to destroy them.
  Not only have they for all intents and purposes barred States from 
considering these cases by means of a massive expansion of Federal 
jurisdiction, against the advice, by the way, of the Chief Justice of 
the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Judicial Conference of 
the United States, and the Conference of State Chief Justices, but they 
have cleverly changed the rules in the Federal courts to further thwart 
class action suits. I want to acknowledge that it is a brilliant 
strategy.
  Do Members realize that even Washington cannot dictate the rules by

[[Page 14583]]

 which State courts handle their cases? So they simply remove most of 
these cases to the Federal court. Then once they are in the Federal 
court, they design an obstacle course to make sure that most of these 
cases will just linger and linger and linger and never see the light of 
day. They did this by adding a section which creates an automatic right 
of appeal. If a Federal district court simply certifies, simply 
certifies a class, that appeal comes before the case is even heard on 
the merits.
  Now, that is not all. The bill, as others have indicated, would halt 
all discovery proceedings in the case until the appeal, until the 
appeal is completed. This unprecedented new right for defendants is 
unheard of in the American civil justice system.
  What does it mean in practical terms? There is already an enormous 
backlog in the Federal courts, as others have suggested. This bill in 
and of itself will seriously exacerbate that problem and it will delay 
the resolution of these cases by years. As the gentleman from Virginia 
has said: Justice delayed is justice denied.
  What I find particularly unconscionable is that the sponsors claim 
that the first purpose of this act is to ensure fair and prompt, and 
prompt, recoveries for class members with legitimate claims. Well, as 
that great philosopher, Rodney Dangerfield, said, Give me a break. It 
is important to understand that class actions do not exist solely, 
solely, to provide relief for private wrongs. No, they exist to correct 
and punish and deter; most importantly, deter corporate misconduct that 
harms large numbers of ordinary people and can put all Americans at 
risk.
  Remember, Mr. Speaker, the Firestone case, the tobacco cases, where 
it was class action suits that revealed the ugly truth that lives had 
been sacrificed because of corporate greed? Because of this bill, we 
will create fertile ground for future Firestone and tobacco cases. That 
is a tragedy.
  We should also understand that the existing practice which was 
adopted by rule in 1998 gives the judge discretion to permit an appeal 
of a class certification order and to stay proceedings. But as Judge 
Scirica, writing on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United 
States, said in a recent letter to the committee, and now I am quoting, 
``Providing an appeal as a right might tempt a party to appeal solely 
for tactical reasons.''
  He pointed out that many appeals are unnecessary, wasteful, and 
expensive. He said that he was unaware of any dissatisfaction, not a 
single complaint from the bench or bar, with the current rule; and that 
since the rule had only been promulgated recently, any consideration of 
it being amended should be deferred.
  Well, as my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) said, 
we agreed with Judge Scirica and filed an amendment to undo their 
damage. Of course, it was not made in order. I guess I should not be 
surprised.
  Members should know that these concerns would not only affect future 
class action suits in the Federal court. No, the sponsors were not 
satisfied with that. They wanted the whole enchilada. Unbelievably, 
they made that provision retroactive, so it will alter the course of 
hundreds of cases that have already been filed in Federal court and 
cause further delay, further delay; cases like the ImClone case, in 
which that CEO was just sentenced to 7 years in prison for fraud and 
perjury and obstruction of justice; and like the Enron case, brought by 
thousands of investors who claim more than $20 billion in damages as a 
result of the series of fraudulent transactions that destroyed the 
company and rendered its stock worthless.
  Are there abuses of the system? Of course. That is undeniable. The 
Democratic substitute would address them; but the underlying bill does 
not. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is to shield corporate 
wrongdoers from civil liability and leave the public unprotected.
  This is not about protecting plaintiffs, and, as I said, ensuring 
prompt recoveries; it is about protecting large corporations whose 
conduct has been egregious. It is about protecting the powerful at the 
expense of the powerless, and to prevent people from banding together 
as a class to challenge power in the only way they can.
  Defeat the rule and defeat the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, there's a lot that's wrong with this bill. But nothing 
is as wrong as the provision that was added to it during our committee 
debate to give it retroactive effect with respect to cases already 
pending in court.
  It's one thing to make new policy for future cases. It's quite 
another to rewrite the rules once the whistle has sounded.
  Why in the world would the sponsors of the bill insist on making it 
retroactive?
  During our markup, one of the supporters of the amendment making the 
bill retroactive said, and I quote, ``If this bill is enacted but 
pending cases that have not been certified for class treatment are 
excluded, it would discriminate against those who may be joined to a 
class in a pending case after the date of enactment.''
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, we must transfer all pending cases to 
federal court and make every class certification subject to automatic 
appeal to ensure that no individual is forced to be a member of a class 
against his or her will. That's like saying that we have to quarantine 
the entire U.S. population to contain a single outbreak of West Nile 
virus. The truth is that individuals can already opt out of the class 
at the time they receive notice of the suit. And under rules that go 
into effect in December, judges will be able to extend the opt-out even 
after certification.
  Such an argument does not deserve to be taken seriously. But the 
supporters also make a second argument. Unless we apply the new rules 
to pending cases, they say, there will be a rush to the courthouse by 
new plaintiffs seeking to file ``frivolous'' lawsuits under the old 
rules.
  Here again, they propose to disrupt the hundreds of cases now 
awaiting class certification, some of which have already been in court 
proceedings for many months, in order to prevent certain other people, 
as yet unknown, from racing to file other cases.
  This argument is almost so absurd that one is embarrassed to respond 
to it. If a suit is frivolous, it will survive a motion to dismiss, 
where it is filed in state or federal court. That is the customary 
remedy for frivolous lawsuits, and the courts are quite capable of 
using it.
  No, I'm afraid that ``this dog won't hunt,'' as my good friend, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), is so fond of saying.
  The real reason they're so desperate to make the bill retroactive is 
obvious. It's the only way to throw a monkey wrench into the class 
actions that are now proceeding against the former executives at 
companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossing, who are facing 
both civil and criminal liability for the systematic looting of their 
companies. For the brazen misconduct and self-dealing that defrauded 
creditors and investors of billions of dollars, and stripped employees 
and retirees of their livelihood and life savings.
  If this bill passes, those executives will be able to breathe a sigh 
of relief. In fact, they'll get another year or two in which to spend 
down their ill-gotten gains before they need to worry about going to 
trial.
  It's no surprise that the House leadership was unwilling to make in 
order an amendment that would have stripped the retroactivity language 
from the bill. They don't want the public to know what they're doing. 
They're embarrassed by it. And they ought to be.
  Oppose the rule and vote ``no'' on the bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 8 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture; but more importantly, today, 
the author of this important reform legislation and a very valued 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, our excellent 
conference chairman, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good and fair rule. I would urge my colleagues 
to adopt it. It makes in order important amendments that should be 
considered and debated carefully. It makes in order an amendment 
offered by the gentleman from the other side of the aisle, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), along with the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and myself, which will take into account some of the 
provisions that were considered in the Senate. We are pleased to do 
that because we are certainly interested in making the bill better.
  I would urge my colleagues to defeat the other amendments that are 
going

[[Page 14584]]

to be offered because they do not make this legislation better; they 
would gut it, they would harm it. I would urge Members' opposition to 
it.
  In response to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), this is not tort reform; this is court reform. As a result, we 
are not harming the ability of any of those cases that the gentleman 
cited to be considered carefully and fairly.
  In fact, because this legislation improves the court process, it is 
court reform, and it will make those cases heard better in courts more 
capable of hearing them. We will address some of those specific cases 
as the debate proceeds.
  With regard to his comments about coupon settlement reform, let me 
point out that while the gentleman may laud coupon settlements, most of 
us think they are a considerable abuse. The reason is very simple: The 
plaintiffs' attorney sues a company and then settles the case for 
millions of dollars, not for the plaintiffs but in attorneys' fees. The 
plaintiffs, the people he is supposed to be protecting, supposed to be 
representing, get a coupon to buy more of the product that he alleged 
was defective in the first place.
  Coupon settlements are a gross abuse, and what this bill does to 
correct the problem is to require greater scrutiny of those cases. It 
also cuts out the abuse of that plaintiffs' attorney going to his or 
her secretary or friend or neighbor and saying, hey, help me bring this 
case because you fit into this class, and I will give you $100,000 for 
doing that when we settle the case; but the rest of the plaintiffs will 
get a coupon. That is an abuse. It ought to be ended.
  To the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), I would point out that while 
he may cite the newspaper of the gentlewoman from Ohio criticizing this 
legislation, that newspaper is by far in the minority in this country 
on this issue.
  America's newspapers know that this is a class act when they see it, 
and that is what this legislation is. The Washington Post called it 
``Making Justice Work.'' They said, ``This'', the current system, ``is 
not justice. It's an extortion racket that only Congress can fix.''
  Newsday, not a newspaper that ordinarily endorses legislation from 
this side of the aisle, they said, ``Congress should stem abuses of 
class-action lawsuits. Class-action lawsuits are ripe for reform.''
  The Christian Science Monitor: ``Reforming Class-Action Suits.'' 
``Class-action suits have also become an ATM for unscrupulous lawyers . 
. . ''
  USA Today: ``Class-action Plaintiffs Deserve More Than Coupons.'' `` 
. . . lawyers, who put their own welfare ahead of their client's 
needs,'' under the current system.
  The Hartford Current: The Class-Action Racket.'' They described the 
current system. `` . . . the Class Action Fairness Act would help 
eliminate some of the worst abuses.''
  It does not stop there. The Buffalo News, the Indianapolis Star, the 
Des Moines Register, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Omaha World 
Herald, the Wall Street Journal, the Providence Journal, the Financial 
Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Oregonian, Cedar Rapids Gazette, the 
Akron Beacon Journal, the Albany Times Union, the list goes on and on 
of newspapers endorsing what we are trying to do. Why? Because of the 
abuses.
  Here is a great case: A settlement with Cheerios over food additives 
produced a $2 million settlement in attorneys' fees, while class 
members only received coupons for more Cheerios.
  Here is another one: After being named in 23 class action lawsuits, 
Blockbuster agreed to provide class members with only $1-off coupons; 
buy one, get one free coupons; and free Blockbuster Favorites video 
rentals. And those are the old videos you come back and hope they will 
rent more of, not the latest ones. Attorneys for the plaintiff received 
$9.2 million in fees.
  It gets better. A settlement of a suit against an airline gave class 
members $25 coupons off to use when they purchased an additional 
airline ticket of $250 or more from the same airline from which, I 
presume, there was some complaint regarding the service they were 
providing. You get a 10 percent discount if you buy another ticket for 
$250 or more. What did the plaintiff's attorneys get? Sixteen million 
dollars.
  The Bank of Boston, a settlement over disputed accounting practices 
produced an $8.5 million attorneys' fee and actually cost the class 
members they were representing. Why? Because they had to pay an 
additional $80. Later, the plaintiffs' attorney came into the case and 
sued the class members, the people they were representing, for an 
additional $25 million. You did not pay them enough. Even though you 
had to pay $80 in the settlement of the case and you did not get a 
coupon, they had to get more.
  Here is my favorite. This is the case where consumers were awarded a 
33-cent check in a class action against Chase Manhattan Bank, 33 cents. 
Great. There was a catch, though. At that time, in order to accept your 
33-cent check, you had to use a 34-cent stamp to send in the 
acceptance.

                              {time}  1115

  Sounds like a 1-cent net loss. The attorneys in the case, well, they 
came out all right, $4 million in attorney fees. Here is one of the 
checks: 33 cents.
  Now, some have said that there is an issue of federalism here, that 
somehow we are taking away rights from the States. But under current 
law, a simple slip-and-fall lawsuit involving a Virginia defendant and 
a Maryland plaintiff can be brought in Federal district court today. 
Yet, a nationwide class action lawsuit worth $100 million, $1 billion, 
with plaintiffs in the hundreds of thousands from all 50 States, with 
multiple defendants from more than one State, that winds up in a State 
court in Illinois. It cannot be removed to Federal court because of the 
antiquated class action laws.
  Now, do people understand this? You bet they do. Here is a USA Today 
poll. Opinions on class action lawsuits. Who benefits most from class 
action lawsuits? Is it the plaintiffs? Is it consumers? No, they know. 
Lawyers for the plaintiffs, 47 percent of the public says that. Who is 
second? Lawyers for the defendants. They come out all right, too. They 
are going to get paid.
  How about the plaintiffs themselves? Nine percent. Sixty-seven 
percent say the lawyers benefit. Nine percent say the plaintiffs 
themselves are benefiting.
  And, again, I remind you, there is broad bipartisan support for this 
legislation. The clients get token payments while the lawyers get 
enormous fees.
  This is not justice. This is an extortion racket that only Congress 
can fix. Who said it? The Washington Post.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the 
underlying legislation. This has great prospect for success this year. 
We are very close in the Senate to passage of this legislation as well. 
The President anxiously awaits it on his desk.
  Let us support this bipartisan simple tort reform that will make it 
possible for class actions to be heard and dealt with fairly throughout 
this country.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), my very distinguished colleague.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for those very informative charts. I believe 
we need to stop the lawsuit lottery in this country.
  Today I rise in support of H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act 
of 2002. H.R. 1115 is a critical piece of legislation that can reform 
tort law and give reprieve to our beleaguered State and local courts 
that are suffering under the weight of frivolous lawsuits.
  Statistics have shown that upwards of 93 percent of Americans believe 
tort reforms are needed. These statistics also show that 50 percent of 
all tort awards go towards lawyers' fees and their administrative 
costs. From these figures it is easy to discern that the American 
people demand tort reform and protection from lawyers who are looking 
out for their own interests rather than those of the plaintiffs they 
represent.
  The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 seeks a balanced and sensible 
approach

[[Page 14585]]

to address the worst class action abuses. It provides protections for 
consumers and assures fair and prompt recoveries for class members with 
legitimate claims. The bill specifically discourages lawyers from forum 
shopping for courts most likely to approve a prospective class of 
plaintiffs and award large monetary decisions.
  By curbing these abuses of the class action system, consumer costs 
will be driven down and these lawsuits will benefit plaintiffs they are 
intended to compensate. This sensible legislation will restore balance, 
fairness, and uniformity to our civil justice system. It is a good step 
in the right direction in reforming tort law and will protect 
plaintiffs and consumers alike.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1115 to set a precedent 
of judicial fairness.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker. Does 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) have anyone further?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have one speaker, and 
then will she close after that?
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King), my distinguished colleague and a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remark on the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Goodlatte) comments.
  There is nothing I can add to the emphasis he has put here today. I 
simply add my voice and I wish to associate myself with the very 
dramatic and emphatic presentation that the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte) has made.
  I would point out that our tort system consumes up to 3 percent of 
our gross domestic product. If we need 3\1/2\ growth just to sustain 
our economy, and our freedom, I might add, then our economy has to grow 
at 6\1/2\ percent in order to make up for the 3 percent that is 
consumed in our tort system.
  It is a deep problem that we must address. It is a loophole in our 
current system that allows class action lawsuits involving plaintiffs 
from nearly every State to file suits in those few States that are 
known to be plaintiff-friendly and hostile to out-of-State defendants.
  These few State courts are making the decisions that set the policy 
for other States and the entire country. Out-of-State companies and 
residents are being sued in class action lawsuits in other States where 
their rights are being determined under those State laws. H.R. 1115 
appropriately addresses this forum shopping problem by allowing Federal 
courts to hear class action lawsuits involving plaintiffs or defendants 
from multiple States or foreign countries.
  The biggest winners in the current class action scheme are trial 
lawyers, not consumers. The public knows that, as was pointed out. The 
large fees awarded class action lawyers through settlements all too 
often do not constitute legitimate harm, because many companies agree 
to these settlements in order to lower the costs of nuisance lawsuits. 
Unfortunately, settling cases with little or no merit results in higher 
prices for consumers. Frivolous class action cases are, in effect, a 
litigation tax imposed on consumers because the economic damage to a 
company results in higher prices for its products.
  The explosion of class actions lawsuits has reached crisis 
proportions. I encourage you to vote for H.R. 1115 and help address the 
growing class action problem in America.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the great crocodile tears shed 
on the other side on the issue of coupon settlement proposition. Of 
course, if they want to change that, they should support the Democratic 
substitute which is stronger on the issue of coupon settlements than 
their underlying bill.
  Also, it is fascinating to listen to the advocates of States rights 
on the other side suddenly shift gears and become advocates of a very 
strong Federal system. I guess there is just a fundamental distrust of 
our State court system on the part of Republicans, and I find that very 
curious and very interesting. Also, particularly in light of the fact 
that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is 
opposed to dumping these additional lawsuits into the already 
overburdened Federal system.
  So we just have a peculiar situation in which people on the other 
side of the aisle are disregarding the Chief Justice of the United 
States, a member of their own party, and are also suddenly, in this 
particular instance, advocating for stronger action by the Federal 
system which would override the State system that they normally 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. Last 
night the Committee on Rules broke with its past precedents and refused 
to make in order two important amendments Democratic Members brought to 
the committee.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to 
the rule that will restore fairness in the debate on class action 
reform that the House has adopted in the previous two Congresses. Under 
my proposal, the House will be allowed to debate one amendment by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) that will delete the bill's retroactive 
provisions; and, two, the Delahunt-Scott amendment to prevent 
corporations from using interlocutory appeals to run out the clock on 
class action lawsuits.
  No matter what their position is on this bill or on these particular 
amendments, all Members should support bringing fairness back to the 
process and vote no on the previous question.
  I am merely asking that all Members with serious amendments be 
allowed to bring them to the House floor just as they have been able to 
on the earlier occasions when we have debated class action reform.
  Let me make it very clear. A no vote would not stop the House from 
taking up the Class Action Fairness Act and would not prevent any of 
the amendments made in order by the rule from being offered. However, a 
yes vote will preclude the House from considering these two very 
important amendments that are critical to the debate on class action 
lawsuits.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendments immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, again, vote no on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing let me just remind my colleagues that the 
critics had it backwards. This bill restores, rather than undermines, 
the principled balance of Federalism. It is the other 49 States' rights 
that are being protected when one State's judge is precluded from 
making law and determining the law and the outcome for the other 49. 
This is truly an example of a principle of federalism.
  This legislation provides important and needed reform. It will help 
plaintiffs that are part of a class receive more than just a coupon for 
a box of cereal, a coupon that goes back to the very company that was 
sued in the first place.
  It is laughable, Mr. Speaker. It will give needed accountability 
while preserving the rights of the truly injured. But more importantly 
for me as a former member of the bench, it will bring back the public's 
faith in our justice system, because really it has become a joke. As 
you listen to the debate this afternoon, it is so sad that it

[[Page 14586]]

is almost funny. This country is only as strong as the faith our 
citizens have in its laws and how they are applied to them. When it 
becomes a joke, it weakens us.
  H.R. 1115 has the strong support of the administration. It is an 
important step forward in commonsense reform. I urge my colleagues to 
put the plaintiffs first. Let us get justice back in our system. 
Support this fair and balanced rule and the underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

  Previous Question for H. Res. 269--Rule on H.R. 1115, Class Action 
                          Fairness Act of 2003

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendments printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order as though printed after the amendment numbered 3 in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules if offered by the Member 
     designated. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     specified in section 3 and shall be debatable for 20 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent.
       ``Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in section 2 are as 
     follows:''
       (1) Amendment by Representative Conyers of Michigan or a 
     designee:
       Strike section 8 and insert the following:

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any civil 
     action commenced on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Amendment by Representative Delahunt of Massachusetts 
     or a designee:
       Strike section 6 and redesignate the succeeding sections 
     accordingly.

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered on the 
question of adoption of the resolution and, thereafter, on approving 
the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 193, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 265]

                               YEAS--229

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--193

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Ackerman
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Eshoo
     Gephardt
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Marshall
     Nunes
     Rothman
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1148

  Messrs. CAPUANO, BOYD, BAIRD and RODRIGUEZ changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 188, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 266]

                               AYES--235

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert

[[Page 14587]]


     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--188

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Ackerman
     Cubin
     Eshoo
     Gephardt
     Johnson (CT)
     Nunes
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Sullivan


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1157

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________