[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4044-4070]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            FAIRNESS IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION ACT OF 2017


                             General Leave

  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials to H.R. 985.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 180 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 985.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1549


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 985) to amend the procedures used in Federal court class actions 
and multidistrict litigation proceedings to assure fairer, more 
efficient outcomes for claimants and defendants, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, recently an independent research firm surveyed 
companies in 26 countries and found that 80 percent of those companies 
that were subject to class action lawsuits were U.S. companies, putting 
those U.S. companies at a distinct economic disadvantage when competing 
with companies worldwide.
  But the problem of overbroad class action doesn't just affect U.S. 
companies. It affects consumers in the United States who are forced 
into lawsuits they don't want to be in. How do we know that? We know 
that because the median rate at which consumer class action members 
take the compensation offered in a settlement is incredibly low. That 
would be 0.023 percent. That is two-hundredths of a percent. That is 
right, only the tiniest fraction of consumer class action members 
bother to claim the compensation awarded them in a settlement. That is 
clear proof that vastly large numbers of class members are satisfied 
with the products they purchase, don't want compensation, and don't 
want to be lumped into a ginormous class action lawsuit.
  Federal judges are crying out for Congress to reform the class action 
lawsuit system, which currently allows trial lawyers to fill classes 
with hundreds and thousands of unmeritorious claims and use those 
artificially inflated claims to force defendants to settle the case. 
Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has recognized that ``A court's 
decision to certify a class . . . places pressure on the defendant to 
settle even unmeritorious claims.''
  Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, appointed 
by President Clinton, has explained that class certification ``is, in 
effect, the whole case.'' And as one appeals court judge, nominated by 
President Obama, wrote in his dissent in a recent class action case, 
``The chief difficulty we confront in this case arises from the fact 
that some of the members of the class have not suffered the . . . 
injury upon which this entire case is predicated and that could 
constitute as many as 24,000 consumers who would have no valid claim 
against the defendants under the state laws even if the named 
plaintiffs win on the merits.''
  He went on to chastise the other judges who allowed the class action 
to proceed, writing ``if the district court does not identify a culling 
method to ensure that the class, by judgment, includes only members who 
were actually injured, this court has no business simply hoping that 
one will work.''
  The purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of 
evaluating similar, meritorious claims, not to provide a way for 
lawyers to artificially inflate the size of a class to extort a larger 
settlement fee for themselves, siphoning money away from those actually 
injured, and increasing prices for everyone.
  Just look at an accounting of recent class action settlements. The 
SUBWAY food chain was sued in a class action because trial lawyers 
complained their foot-long subs weren't a full foot long. As part of 
the settlement, small amounts were paid to the 10 class 
representatives, but the millions of other class members received 
nothing; not a dime, not a sandwich. Meanwhile, the lawyers were 
awarded $520,000 in fees. The settlement was appealed, and during oral 
arguments Judge Diane Sykes remarked that ``A class action that seeks 
only worthless benefits for the class should be dismissed out of hand. 
That's what should have happened here. . . . This is a racket.''
  The Coca-Cola Company was sued in a class action lawsuit involving 
Vitaminwater. Class members received zero dollars in the settlement. 
The lawyers were awarded $1.2 million in fees.
  In a case involving Facebook, the company agreed to settle the case 
by paying class counsel $3 million. Zero dollars were paid to class 
members. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the deal, but in a withering 
dissent, Judge Kleinfeld observed that ``Facebook users who had 
suffered damages . . . got no money, not a nickel, from the defendants. 
Class counsel, on the other hand, got millions.''
  This bill includes several reforms. It prevents people from being 
forced into

[[Page 4045]]

a class with other uninjured or minimally injured class members, only 
to have the compensation of injured parties reduced. It prevents trial 
lawyers from using incestuous, litigation-factory arrangements to gin 
up lawsuits. It requires courts to use objective criteria in 
determining who is injured in a class action and how compensation will 
actually reach the victims. It requires that injured victims get paid 
first, before the lawyers, and that lawyer fees be limited to a 
reasonable percentage of the money received by victims.
  It requires judges to itemize exactly who gets what in a class action 
settlement and who is paying and controlling the lawyers. It requires 
all the rules governing class action be followed, that expensive 
pretrial proceedings be put on hold while the court determines if the 
case can't meet class certification requirements, and allows appeals of 
those class certification orders so justice can be done faster.
  It ensures lawyers don't add plaintiffs just for forum shopping 
purposes, and it requires the verification of allegations in 
multidistrict pretrial proceedings, ensuring defendants receive due 
process while plaintiffs, not lawyers, get the benefits of any cost 
savings achieved by the multidistrict pretrial process.
  H.R. 985 also contains provisions to include much-needed transparency 
into the asbestos bankruptcy trust system. On too frequent an occasion, 
by the time asbestos victims assert their claims for compensation, the 
bankruptcy trust formed for their benefit has been diluted by 
fraudulent claims, leaving these victims without their entitled 
recovery.
  The reason that fraud is allowed to exist within the asbestos trust 
system is the excessive lack of transparency created by plaintiffs' 
firms. The predictable result of this reduced transparency has been a 
growing wave of claims and reports of fraud.
  This bill strikes the proper balance of transparency and preserving 
the dignity and medical privacy of asbestos victims while also 
minimizing the administrative impact on the asbestos trusts. This bill 
saves the money in these trusts, which is a limited amount of money, to 
make sure future claimants, many of whom are veterans, have the 
opportunity to seek and receive compensation for their injuries and 
prevent double-dipping and fraud.
  Please join me in supporting this bill on behalf of consumers and 
injured parties everywhere.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 985, the so-called 
Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claims 
Transparency Act of 2017.
  I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Texas for his 
presentation and for also making clear that the overriding purpose here 
is really to give the class action mechanism the guillotine. Now, this 
doesn't formally abolish the class action mechanism. It is not the 
guillotine, but it is a straitjacket. Let's be very clear, the whole 
purpose of this legislation is to make it virtually impossible for 
class action lawsuits to be brought by groups of citizens who share a 
common injury from things such as consumer rip-offs, pharmaceutical 
drug mistakes, faulty product design, sex discrimination, sexual 
harassment, poisonous breast implants, asbestos poisoning, lead 
poisoning, and so on--all of the billions of dollars worth of tort 
actions, nothing fraudulent about them, all of them already determined 
by courts and by juries to have taken place against our citizens, and 
they want to make it virtually impossible for people to proceed in 
court under the class action mechanism.
  I began with a very important process observation which I noted 
before, Mr. Chairman. There has been no hearing on this legislation. 
There have been no calls for this legislation from people allegedly 
suffering the horrors of the reviled class action lawyers. I notice 
that while my thoughtful colleague from Texas uses much of his time to 
deplore the work of plaintiffs' lawyers, he says nothing about 
defendants' lawyers, who have defended guilty parties in all of the 
cases we have mentioned before--all of the mass toxic torts, all of the 
drug injury cases, all of the environmental crimes and torts, all the 
asbestos poisoning and so on--and they have got a right to do that. 
They are simply doing their job. But the plaintiffs' lawyers have a 
right to do their job, too. That is how our system works.
  I find it fundamentally disturbing that anybody would be out 
denouncing lawyers for representing people who have been injured in a 
tort case. But I oppose this misguided legislation because it sends 
another huge Valentine and wet kiss to large corporate polluters and 
tortfeasors but gives the finger to millions of American citizens who 
suffer injuries from these defendants.
  This legislation would shield corporate wrongdoers by making it far 
more difficult for them to get together to obtain justice in a class 
action lawsuit. So whether it is by making it almost impossible for 
Americans to pursue their day in court through the class action vehicle 
or threatening the privacy of asbestos victims, it is clear that H.R. 
985 wants to give corporate polluters and tortfeasors the power to play 
hide-and-go-seek with their victims in Federal court whenever they want 
to.

                              {time}  1600

  And it raises the broader question of who rightfully should hold 
power in a representative democracy like ours. Should it be large, 
private corporations, who are seeking rightfully their own profits? Or 
should it be the people, who are supposed to be sovereign?
  I say it is the people.
  This bill only favors the interests of the already powerful, to the 
detriment of the vast majority of the American people.
  In cases seeking monetary relief, the bill requires a party seeking 
class certification to show that every potential class member suffered 
the same type and scope of injury at the certification stage, something 
that is virtually impossible to do. This requirement alone would sound 
the death knell for class actions, which are the principal means we 
have in court for consumers to hold wrongdoers accountable, without 
having to engage in multiple duplicative actions all over a State or 
all over the country, piling up the expenses for courts.
  Most importantly, class actions make it feasible for those who have 
smaller but not inconsequential injuries to get justice. These injuries 
include diverse matters like products liability, employment 
discrimination, sexual harassment, and so on.
  It is already very difficult to pursue class actions. Under current 
law, the courts strictly limit the grounds by which a large group of 
plaintiffs may be certified as a class, including the existing 
requirement that their claims raise common and factual legal questions, 
and that the class representative's claims must be typical of those of 
the other class members.
  Finally, title II of H.R. 985 gives asbestos defendants--the very 
entities whose products have injured millions of Americans--new weapons 
with which to go out and harm their victims. This part of the bill 
would require a bankruptcy asbestos trust to report on the court's 
public case docket--which is then made immediately available on the 
internet--the name and exposure history of each asbestos victim who 
gets payment from a trust, as well as the basis of any payment made to 
that victim.
  As a result, the confidential personal information of asbestos 
claimants, including their names and entire exposure histories, would 
be irretrievably released into the public domain. Imagine what identity 
thieves, reporters, insurers, potential employers, lenders, and data 
collectors could do with this sensitive information.
  The proper title of this section of H.R. 985 should be the 
alternative fact act, not the FACT Act, because it penalizes the 
victims while favoring the perpetrators.
  The bill requires the trusts to make intrusive disclosures of 
victims' personal information, but it makes no

[[Page 4046]]

comparable demands on asbestos manufacturers, some of which 
intentionally concealed the life-threatening dangers of their products 
not just for months or years, but for decades, the result of which 
millions of unsuspecting workers and consumers were exposed to this 
toxic substance.
  Essentially, this bill re-victimizes asbestos victims by exposing 
their private information to all of the world--information that has 
absolutely nothing to do with compensation for asbestos exposure.
  Accordingly, I must oppose also this highly flawed provision of the 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleague across the 
aisle that over the past several Congresses, we have had multiple 
hearings on class action reform and asbestos trust litigation, all of 
which are easily and publicly available.
  I further would like to go on to say this bill doesn't prevent any 
claim from being brought as a class action--zero, zip, none. All it 
does is maximize the recovery of the victims.
  Under this bill, a class action lawyer's fees are pegged to a 
reasonable percentage of the money actually received by the client 
under the settlement. What that will do is incentivize lawyers to make 
the maximum amount available to their clients, to seek the maximum 
recovery for their client.
  Under this bill, class action lawyers will no longer be able to agree 
to settlements that give them millions of dollars and get their clients 
absolutely nothing, or maybe a coupon, if they are lucky.
  Under this bill, a class action lawyer will get more in fees as long 
as they agree to a settlement that actually means that their clients, 
the actual plaintiffs, are getting a reasonable amount of money. 
Imagine that: incentivizing lawyers to do the best work for their 
clients. That is what this bill does.
  I would also like to talk for a second about the asbestos portion of 
this. I have to say that this is a little troubling for me. The 
disclosure requirements in the FACT Act portion of this bill requires 
less than would be required in a State court pleading for damages. It 
is the minimum amount of information necessary to make sure somebody 
isn't double-dipping. It specifically protects medical records and 
social security numbers. It is designed as a fraud prevention tool.
  The argument that this is designed to protect companies that 
manufactured asbestos is flawed. This is designed for the asbestos 
trust--companies that have gone bankrupt and set aside large amounts of 
money to be paid to the victims of asbestos. This protects the assets 
in those trusts, not the tortfeasor companies. We are making sure there 
is enough money in these trusts to pay future victims by stopping 
fraudulent claims today.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the eloquence of my opponent might 
cloud the issue for some of the people in America. So rather than 
having us go back and forth disputing the character of the legislation 
before you, I urge everybody to go to it. But let's go to some of the 
people who care most about protecting innocent Americans from corporate 
wrongdoing and injury in the marketplace and in the workplace, and 
let's see what they have got to say about it.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a letter to the House from groups who oppose 
this legislation as an assault on the rights of consumers and workers, 
including the Alliance for Justice, the American Association for 
Justice, Americans for Financial Reform, the Asbestos Disease Awareness 
Organization, the California Kids IAQ, the Center for Justice and 
Democracy, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Central 
Florida Jobs with Justice, Coal River Mountain Watch, the Committee to 
Support the Antitrust Laws, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of 
America, Consumer Watchdog, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, 
Consumers Union.
  I have just gone through the Cs. I am not going to take us all the 
way through the Zs, Mr. Chairman. But America's consumer groups are 
opposed to this legislation, and America's workers' groups are opposed 
to this legislation. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing, Mr. Chairman.
  I have also gotten, specifically on the asbestos point, a letter from 
groups concerned with occupational health and safety who strongly 
oppose the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, saying that this 
bill will drain critical resources that have been set aside to secure 
justice for victims of asbestos diseases, while simultaneously 
publishing those victims' personal information on the internet. 
Included in this very long list of opponents are the Asbestos Disease 
Awareness Organization, the Communications Workers of America, the 
Maine Labor Group on Health, the National Council for Occupational 
Safety and Health, the New Jersey State Industrial Union Council, and 
on and on.
  So, again, they pushed this legislation through the House of 
Representatives at the speed of light, but under the cloak of darkness 
with no hearing at all. And then they come out and say: It is really 
for you, trust us. We are the Federal Government. We are here to help 
you. We are going to move all of the cases into Federal Court, and we 
are going to make it a lot easier to nullify class actions.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 985, the so-called 
Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim 
Transparency Act.
  This outrageous legislation would severely limit the ability of 
injured consumers and workers to obtain relief through class action 
lawsuits. If that were not bad enough, the bill also contains a totally 
unrelated measure to violate the privacy of asbestos victims, and 
subject them to potential discrimination. Together, this legislation is 
just one more measure in the Republican parade of bills this week to 
further tilt the playing field in favor of wealthy corporations over 
ordinary people.
  Class action suits are an essential tool to enable victims of 
corporate wrongdoing to be compensated for their injuries and to deter 
future misconduct. Plaintiffs often seek to band together as a class 
when the potential damages they could receive individually are too low 
to make it practical to hire a lawyer and bring a lawsuit alone. But, 
as members of a class, they have the power to secure relief from a 
multimillion-dollar company and put an end to its illegal practices.
  That is exactly why the big corporations oppose them. It makes it 
harder for those companies to operate with impunity from the law, with 
little regard for the injuries they may cause.
  It was class action lawsuits that helped uncover years of corrupt 
practices in the tobacco industry and began to turn around a public 
health disaster, not to mention recover billions of dollars. It was 
class action lawsuits that revealed contamination of groundwater that 
cause certain forms of cancer. It was class action lawsuits that 
revealed fraudulent pricing practices and misleading advertising by 
drug companies, widespread employment discrimination, and predatory 
payday lending practices. Class action lawsuits also helped expose and 
bring down the sham university peddled on winning victims by the 
current occupant of the White House.
  But this bill includes a range of provisions that would make such 
class action suits practically impossible. For example, it would 
require each member of a class to suffer ``the same type and scope of 
injury'' as the named class representative. What this means is that if 
two people use a defective product, but one suffers first-degree burns

[[Page 4047]]

while the other person suffers third-degree burns, they cannot join 
together in a class because their injuries are of a different scope. Or 
take a company with a pattern of racial discrimination. If some workers 
are being paid less than others for doing the same job while other 
workers find themselves repeatedly passed over for deserved promotions, 
they cannot join in the same class action because they would not be 
deemed to have suffered the same type of injury--one having been paid 
less, the other having been passed over for promotions--despite being 
victims of the same discriminatory policies.
  This is just one of a host of unnecessary and onerous requirements 
placed on victims by this bill that makes it virtually impossible to 
form a class. When added together, it amounts to a giant bailout for 
wealthy corporations at the expense of injured consumers and workers.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not want the Federal courts to be simply 
collection agencies to large corporations. We need justice for the 
small, ordinary person.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Nadler for his excellent 
comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
985, a monster of a bill, combining the anticonsumer Fairness in Class 
Action Litigation Act and the antivictim Furthering Asbestos Claim 
Transparency Act.
  H.R. 985 has the same goals and objectives as the bill that just 
slithered out of this body just a few moments ago, the so-called 
Innocent Party Protection Act, which more appropriately should be 
called, the Corporate Wrongdoer Protection Act.
  H.R. 985 is part of a wave of anticonsumer corporate wrongdoer 
protection bills being considered this week by this Republican-
controlled Congress. The purpose of these bills is to protect and 
insulate big corporations from being held accountable when they rob, 
hurt, and maim everyday Americans struggling to make it here in 
America.
  As a former and long-term Member of the House Armed Services 
Committee, I would like to first remind this body of Susan Vento and 
Judy Van Ness, brave widows, who joined us during the Judiciary 
Committee markup of the FACT Act and shared with us the heartbreak 
asbestos exposure has caused their families.
  Susan is the widow of our late colleague, Congressman Bruce Vento. 
Judy's husband, Richard, was a Navy veteran, who served this country 
with distinction. Both men saw their lives tragically cut short--Bruce 
at 60 and Richard at 62--both by mesothelioma.
  Georgia is ranked 23rd in the Nation for mesothelioma and asbestos-
caused deaths, in part due to the large number of military operations, 
facilities, and military industrial complex projects throughout the 
State. Virtually every ship commissioned by the U.S. Navy between World 
War II and the Korean war contained several tons of asbestos in the 
engine room insulation, fireproof doors, and miles of pipes. While the 
military discontinued asbestos products around 1980, hundreds of 
military and civilian installations were left with asbestos in the 
flooring and ceiling tiles, cement foundations, as well as in thousands 
of military vehicles.

                              {time}  1615

  After defending our freedom abroad, many veterans returned to the 
civilian workforce where they were further exposed to asbestos, people 
such as Richard Van Ness, who suffered asbestos exposure while on a 
Navy destroyer and during his career as a union pipefitter. 
Unfortunately, veterans like Richard comprise over 30 percent of all 
asbestos-caused mesothelioma deaths, despite making up only 8 percent 
of the Nation's population.
  Eighteen veterans' groups, including the Military Order of the Purple 
Heart, AMVETS, and the Vietnam Veterans of America, these organizations 
have expressed their strong opposition to this bill. I include a letter 
from them in the Record.

                                                February 14, 2017.
     Re Veterans Service Organization oppose the ``Furthering 
         Asbestos Claims Transparency (FACT) Act''.

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington 
         DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington DC.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Conyers,
     Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan, Leader McCarthy, Leader Pelosi, Whip 
     Hoyer, Chairman Goodlatte, and Ranking Member Conyers: We, 
     the undersigned Veterans Service Organizations oppose the 
     ``Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency (FACT) Act.'' We 
     have continuously expressed our united opposition to this 
     legislation via written testimony to the House Judiciary 
     Committee, House Leadership, in-person meetings and phone 
     calls with members of Congress. It is extremely disappointing 
     that even with our combined opposition, the FACT Act will be 
     marked up in the House Judiciary Committee later this week.
       Veterans across the country disproportionately make up 
     those who are dying and afflicted with mesothelioma and other 
     asbestos related illnesses and injuries. Although veterans 
     represent only 8% of the nation's population, they comprise 
     30% of all known mesothelioma deaths.
       When our veterans and their family members file claims with 
     the asbestos bankruptcy trusts to receive compensation for 
     harm caused by asbestos companies, they submit personal, 
     highly sensitive information such as how and when they were 
     exposed to the deadly product, sensitive health information, 
     and more. The FACT Act would require asbestos trusts to 
     publish their sensitive information on a public database, and 
     include how much money they received for their claim as well 
     as other private information. Forcing our veterans to 
     publicize their work histories, medical conditions, majority 
     of their social security numbers, and information about their 
     children and families is an offensive invasion of privacy to 
     the men and women who have honorably served, and it does 
     nothing to assure their adequate compensation or to prevent 
     future asbestos exposures and deaths.
       Additionally, the FACT Act helps asbestos companies add 
     significant time and delay paying trust claims to our 
     veterans and their families by putting burdensome and costly 
     reporting requirements on trusts, including those that 
     already exist. Trusts will instead spend valuable time and 
     resources complying with these additional and unnecessary 
     requirements delaying desperately needed compensation for our 
     veterans and their families to cover medical bills and end of 
     life care.
       The FACT Act is a bill that its supporters claim will help 
     asbestos victims, but the reality is that this bill only 
     helps companies and manufacturers who knowingly exposed 
     asbestos to our honorable men and women who have made 
     sacrifices for our country.
       We urgently ask on behalf of our members across the nation 
     that you oppose the FACT Act.
           Signed:
       Air Force Association; Air Force Sergeants Association; Air 
     ForceWomen Officers Associated; AMVETS; AMSUS, the Society of 
     Federal Health Professionals; Association of the United 
     States Navy; Commissioned Officers Association of the US 
     Public Health Service, Inc.; Fleet Reserve Association; 
     Jewish War Veterans of the USA; Military Officers Association 
     of America; Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A.; 
     National Defense Council; Naval Enlisted Reserve Association; 
     Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of 
     America; The Retired Enlisted Association, USCG; Chief Petty 
     Officers Association; US Army Warrant Officers Association; 
     Vietnam Veterans of America.

  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RASKIN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman, and I would ask my 
colleagues to join me and the distinguished members of those 18 
veterans' organizations and oppose this bill.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Clearly there are two groups of individuals who we are not fearful 
will commit fraud. It is our Nation's veterans and servicemembers. At 
the same time, there is no reason to distinguish

[[Page 4048]]

between the disclosure obligation of veteran servicemembers and the 
disclosure obligations of ordinary citizens.
  This FACT Act provision is designed to protect veterans from fraud 
and make sure our future veterans who are exposed and other people who 
are exposed in their jobs to asbestos have the resources available 
because the company that actually made the asbestos is most likely 
bankrupt and out of business now.
  There are finite resources in these trusts, and we owe it to our 
servicemembers and to future victims of asbestosis or mesothelioma to 
make sure there is money there to take care of their medical bills and 
compensate them for the injuries. That is the purpose of the FACT Act 
portion of this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 985, the 
Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim 
Transparency Act of 2017.
  Mr. Chairman, there can be no doubt that this legislation is an 
assault on the civil justice system. By effectively banning class 
actions, H.R. 985 would give wrongdoers a permission slip to avoid 
public scrutiny or liability for their unlawful conduct. Worse still, 
this legislation also contains the text of the so-called FACT Act, 
which is designed to delay justice for asbestos victims and deny 
accountability for corporate defendants.
  As the ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee that 
exercises jurisdiction over this bill, I am strongly opposed to this 
dangerous and offensive measure.
  For decades, medical experts have closely linked asbestos exposure 
with mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer, and other forms of lung 
disease. Asbestos manufacturers have also known about the deadly 
effects of asbestos exposure; but, as a Federal judge noted in 1991, 
there is compelling evidence that these companies sought to conceal 
this information from workers and the general public. Instead of 
sharing this critical information, which could have saved countless 
lives through exposure prevention, asbestos companies ``continued to 
manufacture one of the most widely used asbestos products without 
informing workers or the public,'' as the nonprofit Environmental 
Working Group has reported.
  Real examples of this widespread corporate deception are legion, but 
one in particular stands out. In 1966, the senior executive of a 
corporation that currently operates as a subsidiary of Honeywell wrote 
that, if asbestos victims ``enjoyed a good life while working with 
asbestos products, why not die from it.''
  In the wake of numerous lawsuits related to asbestos-related deaths, 
Congress amended the bankruptcy code in 1994 to authorize the use of 
trusts for the settlement of asbestos liability.
  In 2001, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office conducted 
an exhaustive study of these trusts but did not find a single example 
of fraudulent conduct. Despite this finding, proponents of H.R. 985 now 
make the outrageous and totally unsupported claim that victims of 
asbestos exposure have committed fraud--more alternative facts.
  In the name of what they describe as transparency, the bill would 
force trusts to publicly disclose asbestos victims' sensitive personal 
information, including their names, partial Social Security numbers, 
and the like. Beyond the obvious consequences these requirements would 
have in the form of hacking and identity theft, this information is 
already available to relevant parties on a confidential basis through 
the discovery process, as both the GAO and the RAND Corporation have 
reported.
  I agree with the majority that asbestos trusts must be accountable 
and transparent to both present and future claimants, but there is no 
evidence to suggest any wrongdoing or any fraud. This legislation would 
only make it easier for wrongdoers to get away with harming others and 
to make it harder for Americans to be compensated for these injuries.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 985.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am going to have to beg to differ with my colleague from across the 
aisle.
  Fraud has been documented in news reports, State court cases, and in 
testimony before the Judiciary Committee.
  The Wall Street Journal conducted an investigation that found 
thousands of dispiritedly filed claims. Court documents in many States, 
including Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, and 
Virginia, attest to widespread fraud. Most recently, a bankruptcy case 
in North Carolina uncovered a startling number of dispiritedly filed 
claims.
  Additionally, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony over the course 
of four hearings about the FACT Act, during which witnesses repeatedly 
testified that fraud existed within the asbestos trust bankruptcy 
situation. Keep in mind that the fraud reported today has been in spite 
of the lack of disclosure that exists.
  Consistent with other multimillion-dollar compensation programs, 
there is fraud occurring in the asbestos trust system, and the FACT Act 
will go a long way to uncovering that fraud. The FACT Act is designed 
to provide the minimum amount of transparency necessary to prevent this 
fraud while protecting the personal information of those victims of 
asbestos.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, asbestos is a deadly poison. It can cause 
lung cancer and mesothelioma. Once detected, these patients survive 
only, on average, 8 to 14 months. It was true for Congressman Bruce 
Vento, who proudly served the families of Minnesota's Fourth District 
for more than 23 years in this House.
  Bruce was a friend, and he died from mesothelioma 8\1/2\ months after 
he was diagnosed. Congress has a responsibility to find real solutions 
to support mesothelioma victims and their families, but H.R. 985 would 
not support the families. In fact, it exposes families at a time of 
great vulnerableness.
  It exposes them by putting their identity, their name, their address, 
and the last four digits of their Social Security number on a public 
website--a public website--when this information has already been given 
in a confidential manner.
  It is especially outrageous to me that once again this legislation is 
on the floor and it fails to protect children who are victims of 
asbestos exposure from having their information shared publicly. 
Parents should have the peace of mind knowing that their child's 
privacy is secure and not on the internet where who knows who would be 
out possibly preying on them.
  I ask my colleagues to stand with me, stand with the mesothelioma 
victims, stand with their families, stand with their children, and 
oppose this bill, as they have asked me to do.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott.)
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 985. In addition to the legislation's 
many problems that have already been mentioned by my colleagues, I am 
particularly concerned about what the bill does in the so-called FACT 
Act, which will have a devastating impact on workers exposed to 
asbestos.
  I am acutely aware of the devastating impact that asbestos exposure 
has on working men and women in this country because I represent an 
area with several shipyards. In the last few decades, in my district 
alone, several thousand local shipyard workers have developed 
asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma from asbestos exposure that 
occurred between the 1940s and 1970s. Hundreds of these workers have 
already died, and asbestos deaths and

[[Page 4049]]

disabilities are continuing due to the long latency period associated 
with this illness.
  I believe that we cannot consider the legislation affecting the 
victims of asbestos exposure without remembering exactly who caused the 
problem. Court findings show that the companies made willful and 
malicious decisions to expose their employees to asbestos. Here are a 
couple of examples.
  One case, in 1986, after hearing both sides, the New Jersey Supreme 
Court declared:

       It is indeed appalling to us that the company had so much 
     information of the hazards of asbestos workers as early as 
     the mid-1930s and that it not only failed to use that 
     information to protect the workers, but, more egregiously, it 
     also attempted to withhold this information from the public.

  A few years earlier, the Superior Court, Appellate Division, in New 
Jersey said that: ``The jury here was justified in concluding that both 
defendants, fully appreciating the nature, extent, and gravity of the 
risk, nevertheless made a conscious and coldblooded business decision, 
in utter and flagrant disregard of the rights of others, to take no 
protective or remedial action.''
  In a separate case in Florida, after hearing both sides, the court 
declared that:

       The clear and convincing evidence in this case revealed 
     that, for more than 30 years, the company concealed what it 
     knew about the dangers of asbestos. In fact, the company's 
     conduct was even worse than concealment. It also included 
     intentional and knowing misrepresentations concerning the 
     danger of its asbestos-containing product.

  That is who we are talking about. These are the types of companies 
who will benefit from this legislation. Any suggestion that people are 
getting paid more than once is absurd. The fact of the matter is, 
because of bankruptcies, most of them aren't getting anywhere close to 
what they actually should be receiving, but the bill before us does not 
help those victims. It actually hurts them.
  The bill is nothing more than a scheme to delay the proceedings and 
allow the victims to get even less than they are getting now. Because 
of the delay, many of the victims will die before they get to court. 
This helps the guilty corporations that have inflicted this harm on 
innocent victims because, if the plaintiffs die before they get to 
court, their pain and suffering damages are extinguished. If they can 
delay the cases enough so that the plaintiffs die before they get to 
trial, the corporations will not only get to delay their payments, but 
when they finally pay, they will pay much less.
  These are the people who made those conscious and coldblooded 
business decisions. Those are the ones who will actually benefit from 
this legislation at the expense of hardworking, innocent victims. The 
victims of this corporate wrongdoing oppose this bill.
  Regrettably, many of those victims are our veterans because they were 
working aboard Navy ships.
  Mr. Chair, we should reject this legislation.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We obviously have a different vantage point on what is taking place 
in the civil courtrooms of America today. On our side, we look out over 
America and in the courts and we see millions of our neighbors, our 
fellow citizens who are suffering the effects of asbestos poisoning, 
which is real, not imaginary; lead poisoning, which is real, not 
imaginary; and manufacturing defects by large automobile manufacturers 
and others.
  They look at it and all they see is fraud, and they want to put the 
class action mechanism in a straightjacket to make it extremely 
difficult, if not impossible, for people to pursue class actions. They 
want to put the names of asbestos victims up online for the whole world 
to see.
  Obviously, we have got a division of opinion within the legislative 
branch. What about the judiciary itself?
  Well, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking 
arm of the Federal judiciary, and the American Bar Association both 
strongly oppose H.R. 985. The conference report that has been studying 
class actions for 5 years has considered many of the issues addressed 
in H.R. 985. It strongly urges Congress not to amend the class action 
procedures found in rule 23 outside the Rules Enabling Act process.

                              {time}  1630

  Likewise, the ABA observes the many problems of advancing 
comprehensive class action reform without a hearing to examine all the 
complicated issues involved with so many rule changes.
  Mr. Chairman, the other side invoked some hearings. I was astonished 
to hear it because I have been here for several months. I just joined 
Congress. I didn't have any hearings. It turns out I understand they 
were referring to hearings that took place last year, perhaps the year 
before, where I understand--but all of it is hearsay to me because I 
wasn't here--that actual victims of asbestos poisoning were not 
permitted themselves to testify. It was a completely one-sided, 
lopsided process, and I will try to get to the bottom of that in order 
to determine it.
  This is what happens when they are moving legislation through this 
body at lightening speed, but really in the thick of darkness because 
we don't have any meaningful, transparent communication about what the 
underlying issues are.
  Well, I restate my opposition to this. The class action mechanism has 
been a central vehicle for justice for Americans for many decades. And 
now without so much as a hearing, without the mobilization of any proof 
that this should be done over the objections of the Judicial Conference 
of the United States, over the objections of the American Bar 
Association, and over the objections of every consumer group and worker 
group that has written in that I have seen, they are purporting to be 
acting in the name of the American people. In fact, what they are doing 
is they are pulling the rug out from underneath the class action 
vehicle.
  Class actions have been so central to vindicating the rights of 
people who have been victimized by corporate polluters and toxic 
contaminators and automobile manufacturers who knowingly put defective 
instruments into cars, leading to people's deaths and injuries, and 
they want to make it more difficult for people to pursue justice in the 
courts.
  I urge all of my colleagues to study this legislation the best they 
can and to reject it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to address the fact that there have been numerous hearings on 
the FACT Act and the problems associated with it. There was one hearing 
before the Judiciary Committee on the Constitution on September 9, 
2011. There were three legislative hearings before the Subcommittee on 
Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law, one during the 112th 
Congress, one during the 113th Congress, and one during the 114th 
Congress. I am sure the gentleman's staff could have gotten him copies 
of those.
  I also point out that the minority used these opportunities to call 
witnesses that were representatives of the plaintiffs' asbestos trial 
bar. They called the attorneys to voice their concern about the bill, 
not the victims. In fact, the minority called the same witness for 
three out of the four hearings. Now they claim that asbestos victims 
were never provided an opportunity to testify.
  The Judiciary Committee has provided ample opportunity to include 
asbestos victims' views on the legislation in the record, and there are 
many letters and statements from victims in the record.
  In closing, I do want to say--going back to the class action part of 
this bill for a second only--that only the tiniest fraction of 
consumers in class actions bother to claim the compensation awarded 
them in the settlement. That is clear proof that the vastly large 
number of class members are satisfied with the products they have 
purchased, don't want compensation, and don't want to be lumped into a 
gigantic class action lawsuit.

[[Page 4050]]

  Federal judges are crying out for Congress to reform the class action 
system, which currently allows trial lawyers to fill classes with 
hundreds and thousands of meritorious claims and use those artificially 
inflated classes to force defendants to settle the case.
  As I recounted, class action settlements have left lawyers with 
millions of dollars while victims receive absolutely nothing or a 
coupon, at best. The bill prevents people from being forced into class 
actions with other uninjured or minimally injured members only to have 
the compensation of injured parties reduced. It requires that lawyer 
fees be limited to a reasonable percentage of the money injured victims 
actually receive. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  I also want to talk a second about the FACT Act. We hear these 
stories about these corporations that did all of this wrong. Many of 
them are bankrupt, and the only money available to the victims are the 
money that has been set aside in these asbestos trust funds. When an 
unscrupulous attorney makes a claim against multiple trusts or files 
claims in Federal court and State court, it is difficult, if not 
impossible, to find out if that claim has already been made. The FACT 
Act makes that easily available while providing privacy necessary to 
protect the victims.
  The FACT Act is designed to protect the future victims and make sure 
there is money there for the children, for the veterans, for the 
hardworking Americans who are injured by asbestos but whose symptoms 
have not yet manifested. Sometimes these asbestos-related diseases take 
decades to show up, and there needs to be money there to take care of 
those folks. That is what this legislation is intending to do, not to 
protect corporations.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill that provides much-needed 
reform to the class action system and to the asbestos trust system.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to Rules 
Committee Print 115-5 of H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action 
Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017, 
which is a radical measure that would overturn centuries of American 
law.
  This committee print buries the ``Furthering Asbestos Claim 
Transparency Act of 2017,'' crammed through committee on a party-line 
vote, within the overarching legislation intended to effectively 
obliterate class actions in America, H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class 
Action Litigation Act of 2017.
  I oppose this two-for-one bill combination because it will, in sum, 
undermine the enforcement of this Nation's civil rights laws and upend 
decades of settled class action law.
  The fact that the House would even consider such sweeping, reckless 
legislation without holding a single hearing is an outrage.
  This poorly drafted legislation will create needless chaos in the 
courts without actually solving any demonstrated problem.
  Class action lawsuits are among the most important tools to enable 
injured, cheated, and or victimized individuals and small businesses to 
hold large corporations and institutions accountable and deter future 
misconduct.
  H.R. 985 would eviscerate that tool.
  Let me remind my colleagues that class actions are critical for the 
enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, 
education, and access to public areas and services.
  As the Supreme Court has recognized in Amchem Products, Inc. v. 
Windsor, class actions provide ``vindication of the rights of groups of 
people who individually would be without effective strength to bring 
their opponents into court at all.''
  Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997). Courts 
have interpreted Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 
federal class action rule, over decades and the Advisory Committee on 
Civil Rules has, through its deliberative process, reviewed and amended 
the rule to ensure its fair and efficient operation.
  No further revisions are needed at this time.
  Civil rights injuries are never identical and are already subject to 
rigorous judicial review.
  H.R. 985 imposes a new and impossible hurdle for class certification.
  This alone would sound the death knell for most class actions.
  It requires that the proponents of the class demonstrate that each 
class member has suffered the same type and scope of injury.
  At this early stage of a civil rights class action, it is frequently 
impossible to identify all of the victims or the precise nature of each 
of their injuries.
  Classes inherently include a range of affected individuals, and in no 
case does every member of the class suffer the same scope of injury 
from the same wrongful act.
  But even if this information were knowable, class members' injuries 
would not be the same.
  As a simple example, those overcharged for rent will have different 
injuries.
  In an employment discrimination class action, the extent of a class 
member's injuries will depend on a range of factors, including their 
job position, tenure, employment status, salary, and length of exposure 
to the discriminatory conditions.
  For this reason, nearly forty years ago, the Supreme Court developed 
a two-stage process for such cases in International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 371-72 (1977).
  In the first stage, the court determines whether the employer engaged 
in a pattern or practice of discrimination.
  If the employer is found liable, the court holds individual hearings 
to determine the relief (if any) for each victim.
  The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the use of the Teamsters model 
for discrimination class actions in part because of the individualized 
nature of injuries.
  In the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 366 
(2011).
  Thus, this bill would overturn the approach established four decades 
ago to permit a class of victims of discrimination to seek effective 
relief.
  Certainly, many civil rights, discrimination and employment class 
actions, including cases involving refusals by companies to properly 
pay workers, would not satisfy these criteria.
  Some provisions would make it even more difficult to bring race and 
gender discrimination class actions.
  Other provisions would have a dramatic impact on cases against toxic 
polluters.
  For example, arbitrary and unworkable standards for attorneys' fees 
undermine civil rights enforcement.
  If a case is successful, the judge awards a reasonable fee based upon 
the time that the advocates have spent working on the case.
  This method of determining attorneys' fees provides for consistent 
and predictable outcomes, which is a benefit to all parties in a 
lawsuit.
  H.R. 985 would entirely displace this well-settled law with a 
standard long ago rejected as arbitrary and unworkable.
  Under the bill, attorneys' fees would be calculated as a percentage 
of the value of the equitable relief. Sec. 1718(b)(3).
  But how is a judge to determine the cash value of an integrated 
school, a well-operating foster care system, the deinstitutionalization 
of individuals with disabilities, or myriad other forms of equitable 
relief secured by civil rights class actions?
  Asking judges to assign a price tag in such cases is an impossible 
task and would lead to uncertainty and inconsistency.
  Non-profit organizations cannot bear the risk of these long and 
expensive cases if, at the end, their fees are calculated under this 
incoherent and capricious standard.
  Indeed, the bill creates an incentive for defendants to prolong the 
litigation so as to make it economically impossible for plaintiffs' 
attorneys to continue to prosecute the litigation.
  In addition, by considering this bill now, Congress is circumventing 
the process that Congress itself established for promulgation of 
federal court rules under the Rules Enabling Act, bypassing both the 
Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Civil rights class actions are often about systemic reforms that 
benefit the most vulnerable.
  Interference with the proper federal court rules process is reckless 
and irresponsible, particularly when this proposal is so damaging to 
victims.
  Mr. Chair, the only beneficiaries of the so-called FACT Act, are the 
very entities that knowingly produced a toxic substance that killed or 
seriously injured thousands of unsuspecting American consumers and 
workers.
  The FACT Act would force asbestos patients seeking any compensation 
from a private asbestos trust fund to reveal on a public web site 
private information including the last four digits of their Social 
Security numbers, and personal information about their families and 
children.
  In fact, not a single asbestos victim has come forward in support of 
this legislation.

[[Page 4051]]

  Worse, this bill would allow victims of asbestos exposure to be 
further victimized by requiring this information about their illness to 
be made publicly available to virtually anyone who has access to the 
Internet.
  For example, the bill requires all payment demands, as well as, the 
names and exposure histories of each claimant--together with the basis 
for any payment the trust made to such claimants--to be publicly 
disclosed.
  This sensitive information must be posted on the court's public 
docket, which is easily accessible through the Internet with the 
payment of a nominal fee.
  Once irretrievably released into the public domain, this information 
would be a virtual treasure trove for data collectors and other 
entities for purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with 
compensation for asbestos exposure.
  Insurance companies, prospective employers, lenders, and predatory 
scam artists as well as the victim's neighbors would have access to 
this information.
  Many of the people who would be hurt by the FACT Act are veterans, 
who are disproportionately affected by asbestos disease.
  To address this serious failing of the bill, I offered an amendment 
which would ensure that the quarterly reports required under the FACT 
Act, contain only aggregate payment information.
  My amendment also deletes the bill's burdensome discovery 
requirement.
  As noted by the widow of our former colleague Congressman Bruce Vento 
who passed away from asbestos-induced mesothelioma, the bill's public 
disclosure of victims' private information: ``could be used to deny 
employment, credit, and health, life, and disability insurance.''
  Mrs. Vento also warned that asbestos victims ``would be more 
vulnerable to identity thieves, con men, and other types of 
predators.''
  Supporters of this legislation say that Bankruptcy Code section 107 
will prevent such results.
  But, they are wrong; this provision only permits--it does not 
require--the bankruptcy court to issue a protective order.
  In fact, such relief may only be granted for cause if the court finds 
that ``disclosure of such information would create undue risk of 
identity theft or other unlawful injury to the individual.''
  What this means is that an asbestos victim would have to retain 
counsel and go to court in order to prove cause to obtain relief.
  And, even though Bankruptcy Rule 9037 does require certain types of 
personal information to be redacted from a document filed in a 
bankruptcy case, said Rule would be overridden by this legislation, as 
written.
  Accordingly, for these reasons and more, I oppose this harmful 
legislation.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Joyce of Ohio). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-5. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 985

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness 
     in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim 
     Transparency Act of 2017''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

              TITLE I--FAIRNESS IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION

Sec. 101. Short title; reference; table of contents.
Sec. 102. Purposes.
Sec. 103. Class action procedures.
Sec. 104. Misjoinder of plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful 
              death actions.
Sec. 105. Multidistrict litigation proceedings procedures.
Sec. 106. Rulemaking authority of Supreme Court and Judicial 
              Conference.
Sec. 107. Effective date.

            TITLE II--FURTHERING ASBESTOS CLAIM TRANSPARENCY

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Amendments.
Sec. 203. Effective date; application of amendments.

              TITLE I--FAIRNESS IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Fairness 
     in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017''.
       (b) Reference.--Whenever, in this title, reference is made 
     to an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of title 28, United States Code.
       (c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this title 
     is as follows:

Sec. 101. Short title; reference; table of contents.
Sec. 102. Purposes.
Sec. 103. Class action procedures.
Sec. 104. Misjoinder of plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful 
              death actions.
Sec. 105. Multidistrict litigation proceedings procedures.
Sec. 106. Rulemaking authority of Supreme Court and Judicial 
              Conference.
Sec. 107. Effective date.

     SEC. 102. PURPOSES.

        The purposes of this title are to--
       (1) assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members and 
     multidistrict litigation plaintiffs with legitimate claims;
       (2) diminish abuses in class action and mass tort 
     litigation that are undermining the integrity of the U.S. 
     legal system; and
       (3) restore the intent of the framers of the United States 
     Constitution by ensuring Federal court consideration of 
     interstate controversies of national importance consistent 
     with diversity jurisdiction principles.

     SEC. 103. CLASS ACTION PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 114 is amended by inserting after 
     section 1715 the following:

     ``Sec. 1716. Class action injury allegations

       ``(a) In General.--A Federal court shall not issue an order 
     granting certification of a class action seeking monetary 
     relief for personal injury or economic loss unless the party 
     seeking to maintain such a class action affirmatively 
     demonstrates that each proposed class member suffered the 
     same type and scope of injury as the named class 
     representative or representatives.
       ``(b) Certification Order.--An order issued under Rule 
     23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that 
     certifies a class seeking monetary relief for personal injury 
     or economic loss shall include a determination, based on a 
     rigorous analysis of the evidence presented, that the 
     requirement in subsection (a) of this section is satisfied.

     ``Sec. 1717. Conflicts of interest

       ``(a) Required Disclosures.--In a class action complaint, 
     class counsel shall state whether any proposed class 
     representative or named plaintiff in the complaint is a 
     relative of, is a present or former employee of, is a present 
     or former client of (other than with respect to the class 
     action), or has any contractual relationship with (other than 
     with respect to the class action) class counsel. In addition, 
     the complaint shall describe the circumstances under which 
     each class representative or named plaintiff agreed to be 
     included in the complaint and shall identify any other class 
     action in which any proposed class representative or named 
     plaintiff has a similar role.
       ``(b) Prohibition of Conflicts.--A Federal court shall not 
     issue an order granting certification of any class action in 
     which any proposed class representative or named plaintiff is 
     a relative of, is a present or former employee of, is a 
     present or former client of (other than with respect to the 
     class action), or has any contractual relationship with 
     (other than with respect to the class action) class counsel.
       ``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, `relative' 
     shall be defined by reference to section 3110(a)(3) of title 
     5, United States Code.

     ``Sec. 1718. Class member benefits

       ``(a) Distribution of Benefits to Class Members.--A Federal 
     court shall not issue an order granting certification of a 
     class action seeking monetary relief unless the class is 
     defined with reference to objective criteria and the party 
     seeking to maintain such a class action affirmatively 
     demonstrates that there is a reliable and administratively 
     feasible mechanism (a) for the court to determine whether 
     putative class members fall within the class definition and 
     (b) for distributing directly to a substantial majority of 
     class members any monetary relief secured for the class.
       ``(b) Attorneys' Fees in Class Actions.--
       ``(1) Fee distribution timing.--In a class action seeking 
     monetary relief, no attorneys' fees may be determined or paid 
     pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
     Procedure or otherwise until the distribution of any monetary 
     recovery to class members has been completed.
       ``(2) Fee determinations based on monetary awards.--Unless 
     otherwise specified by Federal statute, if a judgment or 
     proposed settlement in a class action provides for a monetary 
     recovery, the portion of any attorneys' fee award to class 
     counsel that is attributed to the monetary recovery shall be 
     limited to a reasonable percentage of any payments directly 
     distributed to and received by class members. In no event 
     shall the attorneys' fee award exceed the total amount of 
     money directly distributed to and received by all class 
     members.
       ``(3) Fee determinations based on equitable relief.--Unless 
     otherwise specified by Federal statute, if a judgment or 
     proposed settlement in a class action provides for equitable 
     relief, the portion of any attorneys' fee award to class 
     counsel that is attributed to the equitable relief shall be 
     limited to a reasonable percentage of the value of the 
     equitable relief, including any injunctive relief.

[[Page 4052]]



     ``Sec. 1719. Money distribution data

       ``(a) Settlement Accountings.--In any settlement of a class 
     action that provides for monetary benefits, the court shall 
     order class counsel to submit to the Director of the Federal 
     Judicial Center and the Director of the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts an accounting of the disbursement 
     of all funds paid by the defendant pursuant to the settlement 
     agreement. The accounting shall state the total amount paid 
     directly to all class members, the actual or estimated total 
     number of class members, the number of class members who 
     received payments, the average amount (both mean and median) 
     paid directly to all class members, the largest amount paid 
     to any class member, the smallest amount paid to any class 
     member and, separately, each amount paid to any other person 
     (including class counsel) and the purpose of the payment. In 
     stating the amounts paid to class members, no individual 
     class member shall be identified. No attorneys' fees may be 
     paid to class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure until the accounting has been 
     submitted.
       ``(b) Annual Settlement Distribution Reports.--Commencing 
     not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this 
     section, the Judicial Conference of the United States, with 
     the assistance of the Director of the Federal Judicial Center 
     and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts, shall annually prepare and transmit to the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives for public dissemination a report summarizing 
     how funds paid by defendants in class actions have been 
     distributed, based on the settlement accountings submitted 
     pursuant to subsection (a).

     ``Sec. 1720. Issues classes

       ``(a) In General.--A Federal court shall not issue an order 
     granting certification of a class action with respect to 
     particular issues pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure unless the entirety of the cause of 
     action from which the particular issues arise satisfies all 
     the class certification prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and Rule 
     23(b)(1), Rule 23(b)(2), or Rule 23(b)(3).
       ``(b) Certification Order.--An order issued under Rule 
     23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that 
     certifies a class with respect to particular issues shall 
     include a determination, based on a rigorous analysis of the 
     evidence presented, that the requirement in subsection (a) of 
     this section is satisfied.

     ``Sec. 1721. Stay of discovery

       ``In any class action, all discovery and other proceedings 
     shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to 
     transfer, motion to dismiss, motion to strike class 
     allegations, or other motion to dispose of the class 
     allegations, unless the court finds upon the motion of any 
     party that particularized discovery is necessary to preserve 
     evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party.

     ``Sec. 1722. Third-party litigation funding disclosure

       ``In any class action, class counsel shall promptly 
     disclose in writing to the court and all other parties the 
     identity of any person or entity, other than a class member 
     or class counsel of record, who has a contingent right to 
     receive compensation from any settlement, judgment, or other 
     relief obtained in the action.

     ``Sec. 1723. Appeals

       ``A court of appeals shall permit an appeal from an order 
     granting or denying class-action certification under Rule 23 
     of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     chapter is amended by inserting after the item pertaining to 
     section 1715 the following:

````Sec. 1716. Class action injury allegations.
````Sec. 1717. Conflicts of interest.
````Sec. 1718. Class member benefits.
````Sec. 1719. Money distribution data.
````Sec. 1720. Issues classes.
````Sec. 1721. Stay of discovery.
````Sec. 1722. Third-party litigation funding disclosure.
````Sec. 1723. Appeals.''.

     SEC. 104. MISJOINDER OF PLAINTIFFS IN PERSONAL INJURY AND 
                   WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS.

        Section 1447 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Misjoinder of Plaintiffs in Personal Injury and 
     Wrongful Death Actions.--
       ``(1) This subsection shall apply to any civil action in 
     which--
       ``(A) two or more plaintiffs assert personal injury or 
     wrongful death claims;
       ``(B) the action is removed on the basis of the 
     jurisdiction conferred by section 1332(a); and
       ``(C) a motion to remand is made on the ground that one or 
     more defendants are citizens of the same State as one or more 
     plaintiffs.
       ``(2) In deciding the remand motion in any such case, the 
     court shall apply the jurisdictional requirements of section 
     1332(a) to the claims of each plaintiff individually, as 
     though that plaintiff were the sole plaintiff in the action.
       ``(3) The court shall sever the claims that do not satisfy 
     the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332(a) and shall 
     remand those claims to the State court from which the action 
     was removed. The court shall retain jurisdiction over the 
     claims that satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of 
     section 1332(a).''.

     SEC. 105. MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS PROCEDURES.

       Section 1407 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Allegations Verification.--In any coordinated or 
     consolidated pretrial proceedings conducted pursuant to 
     subsection (b), counsel for a plaintiff asserting a claim 
     seeking redress for personal injury whose civil action is 
     assigned to or directly filed in the proceedings shall make a 
     submission sufficient to demonstrate that there is 
     evidentiary support (including but not limited to medical 
     records) for the factual contentions in plaintiff's complaint 
     regarding the alleged injury, the exposure to the risk that 
     allegedly caused the injury, and the alleged cause of the 
     injury. The submission must be made within the first 45 days 
     after the civil action is transferred to or directly filed in 
     the proceedings. That deadline shall not be extended. Within 
     30 days after the submission deadline, the judge or judges to 
     whom the action is assigned shall enter an order determining 
     whether the submission is sufficient and shall dismiss the 
     action without prejudice if the submission is found to be 
     insufficient. If a plaintiff in an action dismissed without 
     prejudice fails to tender a sufficient submission within the 
     following 30 days, the action shall be dismissed with 
     prejudice.
       ``(j) Trial Prohibition.--In any coordinated or 
     consolidated pretrial proceedings conducted pursuant to 
     subsection (b), the judge or judges to whom actions are 
     assigned by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 
     may not conduct any trial in any civil action transferred to 
     or directly filed in the proceedings unless all parties to 
     the civil action consent to trial of the specific case sought 
     to be tried.
       ``(k) Review of Orders.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Court of Appeals having jurisdiction 
     over the transferee district shall permit an appeal to be 
     taken from any order issued in the conduct of coordinated or 
     consolidated pretrial proceedings conducted pursuant to 
     subsection (b), provided that an immediate appeal from the 
     order may materially advance the ultimate termination of one 
     or more civil actions in the proceedings.
       ``(2) Remand orders.--Notwithstanding section 1447(e), a 
     court of appeals may accept an appeal from an order issued in 
     any coordinated or consolidated proceedings conducted 
     pursuant to subsection (b) granting or denying a motion to 
     remand a civil action to the State court from which it was 
     removed if application is made to the court of appeals within 
     14 days after the order is entered.
       ``(l) Ensuring Proper Recovery for Plaintiffs.--The 
     claimants in any civil action asserting a claim for personal 
     injury transferred to or directly filed in coordinated or 
     consolidated pretrial proceedings conducted pursuant to 
     subsection (b) shall receive not less than 80 percent of any 
     monetary recovery obtained in that action by settlement, 
     judgment or otherwise. The judge or judges to whom the 
     coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings have been 
     assigned shall have jurisdiction over any disputes regarding 
     compliance with this requirement.''.

     SEC. 106. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY OF SUPREME COURT AND JUDICIAL 
                   CONFERENCE.

        Nothing in this title shall restrict in any way the 
     authority of the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court to 
     propose and prescribe general rules of practice and procedure 
     under chapter 131 of title 28, United States Code.

     SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATE.

        The amendments made by the title shall apply to any civil 
     action pending on the date of enactment of this title or 
     commenced thereafter.

            TITLE II--FURTHERING ASBESTOS CLAIM TRANSPARENCY

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Furthering Asbestos Claim 
     Transparency (FACT) Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 202. AMENDMENTS.

       Section 524(g) of title 11, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) A trust described in paragraph (2) shall, subject to 
     section 107--
       ``(A) file with the bankruptcy court, not later than 60 
     days after the end of every quarter, a report that shall be 
     made available on the court's public docket and with respect 
     to such quarter--
       ``(i) describes each demand the trust received from, 
     including the name and exposure history of, a claimant and 
     the basis for any payment from the trust made to such 
     claimant; and
       ``(ii) does not include any confidential medical record or 
     the claimant's full social security number; and
       ``(B) upon written request, and subject to payment 
     (demanded at the option of the trust) for any reasonable cost 
     incurred by the trust to comply with such request, provide in 
     a timely manner any information related to payment from, and 
     demands for payment from, such trust, subject to appropriate 
     protective orders, to any party to any action in law or 
     equity if the subject of such action concerns liability for 
     asbestos exposure.''.

     SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     this title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this title.
       (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this 
     title shall apply with respect to cases commenced under title 
     11 of the

[[Page 4053]]

     United States Code before, on, or after the date of the 
     enactment of this title.

  The ACTING Chair. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 115-29. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 12, strike ``of,'' and all that follows 
     through line 15, and insert ``or employee of''.
       Page 4, insert after line 19 the following:
       ``(d) Exception.--This section shall not apply to a private 
     action brought as a class action that is subject to section 
     27(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77z-1(a)) or 
     section 21D(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 
     U.S.C. 78u-4(a)).''.
       Page 8, line 14, add at the end the following: ``This 
     section shall not apply to a private action brought as a 
     class action that is subject to section 27(a) of the 
     Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77z-1(a)) or section 21D(a) 
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u-
     4(a)).''.
       Page 9, line 6, strike ``amended--'' and all that follows 
     through line 12 and inserting the following: ``amended by 
     inserting after subsection (e) the following:''.
       Page 9, line 13, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       Page 9, line 16, insert ``commenced in a State court'' 
     before ``in which''.
       Page 10, line 2, strike ``defendants'' and insert 
     ``plaintiffs''.
       Page 10, line 3, strike ``plaintiffs'' and insert 
     ``defendants''.
       Page 10, line 9, strike ``The court'' and insert ``Except 
     as provided in paragraph (4), the court''.
       Page 10, line 14, insert after ``section 1332(a).'' the 
     following:
       ``(4) The court shall retain jurisdiction over a claim that 
     does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of section 
     1332(a) if--
       ``(A) the claim is so related to the claims that satisfy 
     the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332(a) that they 
     form part of the same case or controversy under Article III 
     of the United States Constitution; and
       ``(B) the plaintiff consents to the removal of the 
     claim.''.
       Page 11, line 7, strike ``30 days'' and insert ``90 days''.
       Page 11, line 19, strike ``any trial in any civil action'' 
     and insert ``a trial in a civil action''.
       Page 11, line 21, strike ``to the civil action'' and insert 
     ``to that civil action''.
       Page 11, line 21, strike ``to trial of'' and all that 
     follows through ``to be tried'' on line 22.
       Page 12, line 4, insert after ``provided that'' the 
     following: ``the order is applicable to one or more civil 
     actions seeking redress for personal injury and that''.
       Page 12, line 8, strike ``1447(e)'' and insert ``1447(d)''.
       Page 12, strike line 15, and all that follows through 
     ``requirement.'' on line 25, and insert the following:
       ``(l) Ensuring Proper Recovery for Plaintiffs.--A plaintiff 
     who asserts personal injury claims in any civil action 
     transferred to or directly filed in coordinated or 
     consolidated pretrial proceedings conducted pursuant to 
     subsection (b) shall receive not less than 80 percent of any 
     monetary recovery obtained for those claims by settlement, 
     judgment, or otherwise, subject to the satisfaction of any 
     liens for medical services provided to the plaintiff related 
     to those claims. The judge or judges to whom the coordinated 
     or consolidated pretrial proceedings have been assigned shall 
     have jurisdiction over any disputes regarding compliance with 
     this requirement.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes several 
technical changes to the bill, none of which alter its basic policy, 
but all of which add clarity to the bill where necessary.
  First, in the section of the bill governing conflicts of interest, 
this amendment strikes the prohibition on the use of the same class 
counsel if the named plaintiff is a present or former client or has a 
contractual relationship with the class counsel. In some instances, 
those restrictions may unduly limit the availability of class counsel 
or class representatives, so this amendment would remove them. It also 
clarifies that nothing in the conflicts of interest section of the bill 
applies to securities class actions, which have their own provisions 
for selection of class representatives and counsel elsewhere in the 
U.S. Code. The same exemption for securities class actions is made to 
the stay of discovery section of the bill because, again, securities 
class actions have their own discovery stay provisions elsewhere in the 
U.S. Code.
  Second, the amendment makes technical changes to the misjoinder 
section of the bill, making clear it applies only to civil actions 
commenced in State court and subsequently removed to Federal court, and 
that a Federal court can retain jurisdiction over claims that are so 
related to each other that they form part of the same case and 
controversy under Article III of the Constitution, and the plaintiff 
consents to the removal of the claim.
  Third, the amendment extends from 30 days to 90 days the amount of 
time for Federal courts to review the sufficiency of the allegations 
verification submissions made in the section on multidistrict 
litigation. The amendment also makes clear that a particular case may 
not be tried in a multidistrict proceeding unless all parties in that 
particular case consent--not all parties in the entire multidistrict 
proceeding. And it also makes clear in the section providing that the 
claimant shall not receive less than 80 percent of any monetary 
recovery, that such section does not alter the claimant's obligations 
to satisfy liens on the recovery--that is, debts owed to the Federal 
Government or to private insurers--for medical services received by the 
claimant for the treatment of the injuries alleged in the litigation. 
So, for example, if a person took a medicine and alleges he suffered 
injury as a result, a Federal program may have paid for the treatment 
of the injury. If the person gets a settlement of his claim, it would 
include money for those medical services that should be paid back to 
the Federal Government. The revision makes clear that the satisfaction 
of such liens should come out of the 80 percent received by the 
claimant. The amendment also makes clear that the authorization for 
appeals from orders in MDL proceedings is limited to cases seeking 
redress for personal injury.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these 
clarifying and improving amendments, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's 
amendment to H.R. 985 with all due deference to the chair of our 
committee.
  Although the amendment makes a number of mostly technical amendments 
to the bill, it still fails to address the numerous fundamental flaws 
that we have identified in the underlying legislation, which is a 
dagger pointing at the heart of class action lawsuits in America.
  The major substantive change that I noted under the manager's 
amendment was that class certification would still be prohibited when a 
named plaintiff or class representative is a relative or employee of 
the class counsel, but made some other changes narrowing the scope of 
the conflict of interest provision slightly. The amendment still fails 
to address the fundamental problem with that provision, which is that 
there is no justification for concluding that the specified 
relationships are, per se, problematic or that class certification 
should be denied just because such a relationship exists.
  The general problem pervading the legislation remains. The first is a 
procedural problem, which we have identified.
  I was delighted that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) 
responded to our complaint that we had

[[Page 4054]]

had no hearings on the bill. In response to that, he directed my 
attention to a hearing that took place in 2011, 6 years ago.
  There are nine members of the Judiciary Committee who just joined 
this year and many dozens of Members who have joined the House since 
2011. It is true that we could go back and read it within the 24 hours 
we had to do that before the markup took place. We could also go back 
and just read at that point the Constitution of the United States, 
which guarantees to everybody a jury trial which attempts to establish 
civil justice in America.
  What we are getting instead is an attempt to put class action 
lawsuits and civil liability into a straitjacket. It is an attempt to 
make it far harder for people to see their rights vindicated when they 
have been violated by an auto manufacturer, someone who is putting 
asbestos into materials that are being used near servicemembers, those 
who are selling poisonous breast implants, and so on.
  I am rising in opposition to the amendment simply because it does 
nothing to answer the many massive objections leveled against this 
legislation by consumer groups like the Consumer Federation of America, 
by groups defending civil justice, like the Alliance for Justice, and 
indeed by the Judicial Conference of the United States and the American 
Bar Association, both of which strongly oppose this legislation because 
they do not think it is warranted. They don't think that it responds to 
any problems that are really out there.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1645


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Deutch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, strike line 22, and insert the following: ``In a 
     class action''.
       Page 4, strike line 9, and all that follows through line 
     19.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, the right to choose one's own counsel is a 
basic right in our democracy. This is a right that is a foundation of a 
fair and impartial judicial system.
  Having the right to choose one's own attorney ensures that a person 
can hire an attorney who will best represent their interests and 
protect their rights in the judicial process.
  H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, undermines 
this basic right by requiring a court to deny any class action 
certification based solely on a proposed class representative or named 
plaintiff being represented by a family member. The bill provides no 
discretion to the court and no exceptions.
  The bill uses an expansive definition that includes not only 
immediate family members, but extended parts of a family tree by blood 
and marriage. Such a broad definition is an unfair restriction on the 
right to an attorney of one's own choosing.
  Previously, the manager's amendment modified this provision but did 
not relieve these concerns. Such broad, blanket assumptions about 
family relationships fail to recognize the importance of trust and 
expertise into the attorney-client relationship.
  In many instances, a family member will best represent their 
interests in court or could have specialized training and experience 
relevant to the case, yet the language in this bill does not provide 
for any discretion or any exceptions.
  The fact that a lawyer representing a potential class is a family 
member of a named class member does not, in itself, create a conflict 
of interest; and under current law, there is a process for courts to 
address real conflicts of interest when they arise.
  Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(g), courts have an 
extensive list that must be satisfied when appointing counsel to 
represent a class. There also already is a strong disincentive against 
conflicts through fairness hearings after settlement is reached. Any 
potential conflict of interest risks spoiling the agreement and wasting 
the efforts of counsel and the class.
  Removing the discretion of the courts is overly broad and will remove 
access to appropriate counsel where no conflict exists. I urge strong 
support for my amendment and the removal of this provision from this 
bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated. 
Abraham Lincoln left behind pages of notes on a lecture he was to give 
to lawyers. They say: ``Never stir up litigation. A worse man can 
scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a 
fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search 
of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife and put money in his 
pocket?''
  That was Lincoln in the 1850s. Here is Forbes Magazine just a couple 
of years ago:

       The lead plaintiff in the 5-Hour case . . . worked in 
     marketing for a cosmetic surgery center in California. But in 
     a grueling 5-hour deposition, she admitted she had been 
     recruited to serve as a plaintiff by her cousin, who worked 
     for a Texas lawyer; had purchased two bottles of 5-Hour 
     ENERGY specifically to sue the manufacturer; had never 
     complained to the company or sought a refund; and had signed 
     a backdated retainer agreement with the trial lawyer, 
     Rubinstein, the fellow seen here at his own deposition. . . . 
     Another one of Rubinstein's clients . . . admitted she had 
     served as a plaintiff for Rubinstein in at least four class 
     actions over products like Swanson pot pies and lipstick. . . 
     . Emails and other communications 5-Hour's lawyers uncovered 
     in their suit showed that Rubinstein belonged to a loose 
     affiliation of lawyers who ran an assembly-line process of 
     identifying companies to sue and then helping each other find 
     plaintiffs.

  Lawsuits are supposed to be initiated by truly injured plaintiffs 
seeking redress, not invented by lawyers who hunt for a plaintiff to 
assert a supposed injury made up by the lawyer.
  Few class members bother to collect the payments available in class 
action settlements, in large part because they don't feel injured by 
the supposedly wrongful conduct in the first place.
  In too many cases, trial lawyers come up with an idea for a lawsuit 
and then search for a person who has bought the product, or they send a 
relative or employee to buy the product so they will have someone who 
can sue on behalf of a proposed class of all other buyers. No product 
purchaser has actually complained or feels cheated; it is just lawyers 
in pursuit of money. That is a major reason why so few class members 
bother to collect the payments available in class action settlements. 
They don't feel injured by the supposedly wrongful conduct in the first 
place.
  This abuse of the class action lawyer-driven lawsuits must end. The 
base bill, therefore, requires lawyers to disclose how proposed class 
representatives became involved in the class action. Further, it 
prohibits class actions in which any proposed class representative, 
that is, a named plaintiff that will be representing everyone else in 
the class action, is a relative of or an employee of the class action 
lawyer.
  Further clarifications making clear that this provision will not 
apply to present or former clients of, or those who have had any 
contractual relationship with, class counsel have already been made to 
the bill in the manager's amendment. The only prohibition that remains 
in the bill is the bar on class counsel using a relative or employee as 
a class representative. Clearly, that shouldn't be permitted.

[[Page 4055]]

  The class representative is supposed to be representing the class 
interests, to independently ``be the client'' for the class, and tell 
counsel what to do. That independence will be gone if the class 
representative is a relative or employee of the class counsel. This 
amendment should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this 
important amendment to ensure that they have an opportunity to be heard 
when they are injured by an attorney of their choice.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Deutch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 8.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the 
right to vote, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, 
and other rights enumerated in the Constitution have an intrinsic value 
that cannot be adequately expressed in dollars and cents. When a 
person's constitutional rights are violated, they cannot be made whole 
entirely with money, and yet the bill that we have before us today 
would require our judicial system to hang a price tag on our most 
cherished constitutional rights.
  Under H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, if a 
``judgment or proposed settlement in a class action provides for 
equitable relief, the portion of any attorney's fee award to class 
counsel that is attributed to the equitable relief shall be limited to 
a reasonable percentage of the value of the equitable relief, including 
any injunctive relief.''
  Mr. Chairman, when a court grants such relief, it is not awarding 
money to a plaintiff. In these cases, the courts are stepping in to say 
this is a violation of constitutional rights and it must stop.
  My amendment would strike the provision in this bill that would 
devalue our fundamental rights by requiring a highly subjective and 
wasteful, costly, and demeaning process of putting a price tag on these 
rights. Worse, it would deter attorneys from bringing critical civil 
lawsuits that reform systemic and widespread violations of individual 
rights.
  When we think of class actions, we usually imagine a group of people 
seeking money to compensate them for an injury or a harm--a toxic 
spill, a horrific accident, an Erin Brockovich-type story. But the 
reality is that there are many class actions that do not seek monetary 
damages but are fighting to right a systemic wrong in our society.
  These class actions have made lasting changes to our legal system and 
society that have moved our country closer to equality and justice, 
landmark class actions such as: Brown v. Board of Education, ending 
separate but equal as a basis for racial segregation in our schools; 
Allen v. State Board of Elections, finding that section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act requires preclearance of any changes in voting practices; 
and Alexander v. Holmes County School District, requiring immediate 
integration of the schools. In these cases, plaintiffs asked the courts 
to protect and preserve their constitutional rights for themselves and 
others in similar situations in the future.
  Under the system set forward by H.R. 985, a court would have to also 
set a dollar value to the judgment. How do you place a price tag on 
desegregating our Nation's public schools? How do you place a price tag 
on protecting the right to vote? How do you put a price tag on 
preserving the Constitution's Sixth Amendment right to counsel? How do 
you put a price tag on the fundamental right of marriage? It is not 
possible. These are fundamental, constitutional rights, and these 
rights are priceless.
  If this bill were to become law, courts and civil cases would become 
bogged down in ancillary litigation aimed at establishing the value of 
rights, rights that are protected through equitable and injunctive 
relief. It would be a mess, and we don't have to make this unforced 
error.
  I oppose the underlying bill, but it is my sincere hope that, if the 
House is going to pass it, the least that we can do is remove this 
provision from the bill and end this insulting pretense that the courts 
or anyone else can put a dollar value on our constitutional freedoms.
  I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated.
  Insofar as a class action seeks equitable relief, that is, the 
nonmonetary relief, including any injunctive relief that seeks to stop 
the defendant from doing something wrong, the portion of any class 
action lawyer's fee should be limited to a reasonable percentage of the 
value of that relief as determined by the court.
  This provision won't affect fee awards in civil rights cases because 
both the monetary and equitable relief attorney's fees provision in 
this bill are qualified with the initial phrase, ``unless otherwise 
specified by Federal statute.''
  The Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Award Act of 1976 allows a court, in 
its discretion, to award reasonable attorney's fees as part of the 
costs to a prevailing party in Federal civil rights lawsuits, including 
cases brought under 28 U.S.C. section 1983, the statute most commonly 
used to assert civil rights claims. Consequently, this bill won't 
affect attorney's fees in civil rights class actions at all.
  Regarding other equitable relief cases that don't involve civil 
rights claims, Federal courts routinely determine the value of 
intangible relief such as equitable or injunctive relief for purposes 
of determining whether the amount in controversy requirement--
currently, $75,000 to get into court--is met.
  A majority of courts consider only the value of the injunctive relief 
from the plaintiff's perspective or viewpoint. Some courts determine 
the jurisdictional amount by evaluating the claim from the perspective 
of the party seeking Federal court jurisdiction. Others have adopted 
the ``either viewpoint'' rule, which allows the court to look to either 
the plaintiff's or the defendant's viewpoint in establishing the amount 
in controversy in cases seeking some form of injunctive relief.
  The bottom line is that, under this bill, Federal courts will be able 
to use either approach in deciding the value of the injunctive relief 
provided to class members; and generally speaking, counsel should be 
paid on the basis of what lawyers actually deliver to their clients.
  This base bill, of course, does not alter in any way the relief that 
would be granted to equitable relief class action members. It only 
limits the fees attorneys would receive to a reasonable percentage of 
the value of what the class members actually received. So all this 
amendment would do would be to put more money in the hands of lawyers 
and less in the hands of victims.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

[[Page 4056]]


  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, section 1983 that my friend, the chairman, 
refers to as to providing attorney's fees, requires a determination of 
attorney's fees by the number of hours reasonably expended on 
litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly fee.

                              {time}  1700

  This bill is very different from that. Instead of referring to hours 
and an hourly rate reasonably spent by an attorney, this bill requires 
the court to establish the value of the actual, equitable, or 
injunctive relief.
  As I have suggested already, I cannot think of anyone who would 
believe that we should leave it up to a court to put a value on our 
constitutional rights that are, without question, priceless in our 
democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this good amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, constitutional rights are priceless, but 
attorney's fees have to be set by the court. Who else is going to set 
them in those cases?
  I want to correct the gentleman, again, on this point about section 
1983 cases because this bill says very clearly: unless otherwise 
specified by Federal statute.
  So this bill is not affected by the very example that he cites 
because that is something that is otherwise specified by Federal 
statute.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this needless and 
harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Soto

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, strike line 7 and all that follows through line 14 
     (and amend the amendment to the table of contents on page 9 
     after line 3 accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Soto) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 1721 of 
this Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017. The irony of 
section 1721 is it unfairly subjects class action plaintiffs to an 
inevitable deluge of prolonged delay.
  A stay of discovery means no depositions. It means injured people 
will not get essential documents. It means victims will not be entitled 
to the names of necessary witnesses and more as long as a motion that 
may dispose of the case is pending. There is nothing to prevent a 
corporation from filing motion after motion to obstruct a victim's path 
to justice.
  Numerous consumer, civil rights, environmental, labor, and other 
public interest groups oppose this bill because it builds in an 
automatic stay of discovery in the district court whenever an alleged 
wrongdoer files any one of a list of motions, including common motions 
like a motion to strike, a motion to dismiss, and a motion to dispose 
of class action allegations. There will be no end to the filing of 
these motions. This is an invitation for gamesmanship and delay and 
will deprive judges of the ability to properly manage their cases.
  The framers of the bill want you to believe that plaintiffs are 
greedy, undeserving people who want to hinder small business. This 
could not be further from the truth. If there are big settlements, it 
is because the damage to the victims was heinous.
  Is there any doubt that huge corporations would file motion after 
motion to obstruct these victims from getting the facts they need?
  Class actions are critical for enforcement of laws prohibiting 
discrimination in employment, housing, education, and access to public 
areas and services.
  At the end of the day, if we are trying to reduce litigation, why 
have this glaring loophole where someone continues to file motions to 
stop ordinary discovery from going forward?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support my amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Byrne). The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be rejected. The discovery 
process--the pretrial process in a lawsuit in which trial lawyers 
demand documents and other things from the people they are suing--
imposes huge costs on defendants, particularly because of the 
astronomical costs associated with the discovery of electronic 
information, such as emails.
  Law Technology News has reported that the total cost of electronic 
discovery rose from $2 billion in 2006 to $2.8 billion in 2009 and 
estimated that the total cost would rise 10 to 15 percent annually over 
the next few years. In a more recent case study of Fortune 500 
companies, the RAND Institute found that the median total cost for 
electronic discovery among participants totaled $1.8 million per case.
  These costs are asymmetric. While defendants typically are subject to 
gigantic discovery costs, because they are large organizations 
possessing large amounts of data, plaintiffs have little information in 
their possession, and, therefore, are subject to a very small financial 
burden during the discovery process.
  Moreover, discovery conducted before a motion to dismiss is decided 
is unfair. Why should defendants bear the burden of paying for 
discovery before a complaint is held legally sufficient, especially 
when the threat of huge costs may coerce an unjustified settlement?
  The reality for most civil litigation is that the defendants' 
obligation to bear these exorbitant discovery costs incentivizes 
plaintiffs to serve burdensome discovery requests on defendants with 
zero downside risk to themselves. As professor Martin Redish has 
explained: ``The fact that a party's opponents will have to bear the 
financial burden of preparing the discovery response actually gives 
litigants an incentive to make discovery requests, and the bigger 
expense to be borne by the opponent, the bigger incentive to make the 
request.''
  Because defendants seek to avoid these exorbitant costs, discovery is 
all too often used as a weapon to coerce settlement of claims 
regardless of their merit. Even the Supreme Court has recognized this 
problem, lamenting that the threat of discovery expense will push cost-
conscious defendants to settle even anemic cases before reaching trial.
  For example, assume that a defendant moves to dismiss a class action 
because it doesn't assert any valid claims. Under current law, the 
named plaintiff can serve massive discovery requests that force 
defendants to spend $10 million to collect the requested documents. A 
rational decision for that defendant is to settle the case for 
millions, even if 4 months later the court grants the motion to 
dismiss, finding the class claims to be totally without merit. That is 
because, without a stay in discovery, the defendants will, in the 
meantime, have been required to spend all or part of the $10 million 
costs complying with the discovery requests for, it turns out, no 
legitimate reason. Trial lawyers pursue discovery in this circumstance 
primarily in an effort to pressure the defendant to settle invalid 
claims.
  The subsection of the bill entitled ``Stay of discovery'' would stop 
the use of discovery to coerce unjustified settlements by requiring 
Federal courts

[[Page 4057]]

to stay discovery pending resolution of rule 12 motions--that is, 
motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim--motions to strike 
class allegations, motions to transfer, and other motions that would 
dispose of class allegations unless the court finds that particularized 
discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue 
prejudice to a party.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, even if we included motions to dismiss in the 
stay, which are at the beginning of the case because they are 
dispositive motions, there are still motions to strike that are left in 
this bill.
  After surviving a motion to dismiss, motions to strike are regularly 
filed. Anybody who has had any time in the courtroom know they can be 
filed over and over and over again. There is no limit of them under the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So simply by filing motion to strike 
after motion to strike, a defendant can continue to delay justice; and 
justice delayed is justice denied.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will be pleased to know 
that tomorrow we will consider on the floor of this House legislation 
that, under rule XI, would impose mandatory sanctions on attorneys who 
engage in the type of activity he just described. That is an abuse as 
well. It will be covered by that legislation. But this legislation is 
appropriate to make sure that justice is done in class action 
litigation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 21, insert after ``Civil Procedure.'' the 
     following (and amend the amendment to the table of contents 
     on page 9 after line 3 accordingly):

     ``Sec. 1724. Applicability

       ``Sections 1716 through 1723 shall not apply in the case of 
     any civil action alleging fraud.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment ensures the draconian class action rules 
created by H.R. 985 do not apply to cases alleging fraud.
  Corporate malfeasance and fraudulent practices are an ongoing problem 
facing American consumers. We saw this firsthand with the recent Wells 
Fargo case. In response to the company creating over 2 million phony 
bank and credit card accounts, thousands of account holders certified 
as a class to hold Wells Fargo accountable in court. However, under 
H.R. 985's new requirements, this class action would have been stopped 
dead in its tracks at the certification phase. This is because the bill 
does not clearly define exactly how similar the scope and how similar 
the type of injury a class member must suffer. Since each individual 
Wells Fargo account holder endured varying degrees of financial harm 
from the company's unauthorized actions, it is unclear if the victims 
would be considered a class under these new rules.
  The Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal is another example of a fraud case 
that would be at risk under these new rules. The German company 
defrauded thousands of consumers by selling cars that did not meet EPA 
emissions standards. The cars were, instead, fitted with illegal defeat 
software, which allowed them to pass routine emissions tests while 
still producing up to 35 times the legal limits of nitrogen oxides. A 
new MIT study found that the excess emissions generated by these cars 
between 2008 and 2015 will cause 1,200 premature deaths in Europe and 
60 in the United States. This is in addition to the thousands of 
consumers who faced financial loss because they owned these defective 
vehicles that they could not trade in or sell.
  As part of the class action settlement, consumers were able to recoup 
their losses through a buyback program. As currently drafted, H.R. 985 
would have made such a settlement unlikely because of the restrictions 
on cases involving financial injuries.
  Finally, we have the notorious and infamous Trump University class 
action. Class certification was granted for the thousands of students 
who were hurt by the President's allegedly fraudulent for-profit 
scheme. Over 7,000 students were eligible for the class action because 
they were cheated into thinking they would become the next big real 
estate mogul. Instead, students lost thousands of dollars and wasted 
valuable time at this joke of a school.
  To avoid any admission of wrongdoing or face an embarrassing trial, 
the President and the now-defunct Trump University opted for a $25 
million settlement. Because of the impossible certification 
requirements in H.R. 985, it is safe to assume that Trump University's 
lawyers would have had a field day dismantling this class action from 
the very beginning of the litigation.
  Earlier this week, it was reported in The New York Times that one of 
the students is opting out of the settlement, and if this bill passes, 
the risk will be that the class action could fall apart to the benefit 
of President Trump.

                              {time}  1715

  Knowing how litigious our President is, this outcome is highly 
likely, as H.R. 985 applies not just to future cases but, suspiciously, 
pending ones as well--an almost unheard of clause to include in 
legislation.
  We cannot allow corporations, whether foreign or domestic, whether 
controlled by an unnamed board or by the President of the United 
States, to defraud consumers without facing accountability. My 
amendment looks to protect Americans in such cases and allows them to 
move forward in the courts as part of a class action.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would subject certain 
class members to unfair treatment and should be rejected.
  The purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of 
evaluating like claims, not to provide a means of artificially 
inflating the size of a class to extort a larger settlement value. 
Exempting a subset of cases from the bill, as this amendment would do, 
would serve only to incentivize the creation of artificially large 
classes to extort larger and unfair settlements from innocent parties 
for the purpose of disproportionately awarding uninjured parties.
  Why should only the claimants covered by the amendment be subject to 
particularly unfair treatment by being allowed to be forced into a 
class action with other uninjured or minimally injured members, only to 
see their own compensation reduced? This does a disservice to those 
claimants. Yet, that is exactly what this amendment would do.
  Regardless of the subject matter, class action plaintiffs are 
increasingly

[[Page 4058]]

inclined to include fraud claims in their complaints. If they are suing 
about an allegedly defective product, they will add fraud claims, 
alleging that the manufacturer committed fraud by not disclosing the 
defect. If they are suing for a breach of contract, they will add fraud 
allegations, saying that the defendant didn't disclose the alleged 
breach, and so on and so forth.
  Thus, this amendment would effectively gut the entire bill, since, to 
avoid its important reforms, class action lawyers would simply add 
fraud claims to their complaints, as they are increasingly prone to do 
in any event.
  Regarding the Volkswagen case, some opponents have urged that, if 
enacted, the base bill would have prevented the filing of the class 
actions related to the Volkswagen diesel emission controversy. Those 
assertions are false.
  This bill's injury provision would be readily satisfied in the VW 
cases, as class members presumably would argue that they have been 
injured by their purchase of vehicles with noncompliant emission 
systems.
  Further, if the scope or type of injury differed among class members, 
separate class actions could be filed for each group, as actually 
occurred with respect to differing models in the Volkswagen MDL 
proceeding.
  The bill's requirement about class representative disclosures would 
be easily satisfied. Many class members are interested in the 
litigation and presumably ready to serve as conflict-free class 
representatives who would not run afoul of these provisions.
  The bill's ascertainability provisions would pose no obstacles 
because vehicle registration records would provide reliable class 
member lists and counsel could easily demonstrate a method to get any 
relief to class members.
  Requiring that payment of counsel fees await distribution of class 
benefits and that fees reflect a reasonable percentage of benefits 
actually received by class members would not impede bringing such 
cases.
  The cases would be litigated without resort to issues classes. 
Disclosure of any third-party litigation funding of the class actions 
wouldn't preclude such cases. The provision doesn't prohibit such 
funding. Only disclosure is required. Staying discovery while motions 
to dismiss are pending also poses no roadblock.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I urge my colleagues to defeat this gutting 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, protecting big, multinational 
corporations from fraud claims is not only unfair, it is odious. If you 
can't hold a big, multinational corporation accountable for fraud, then 
your money is at risk, your health is at risk, and the lives of 
innocent people are at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that all of my colleagues support this amendment, 
which protects the American people from fraud.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman that 
there is nothing in this bill that would restrict access to class 
actions based upon fraud claims. And in fact, this bill is designed to 
maximize the recovery for those fraud victims, rather than lining the 
pockets of attorneys.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 25, insert after ``Civil Procedure.'' the 
     following (and amend the amendment to the table of contents 
     on page 9 after line 3 accordingly):

     ``Sec. 1724. Applicability

       ``Sections 1716 through 1723 shall not apply in the case of 
     any civil action alleging a violation of a civil right.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which 
would exempt H.R. 985's unnecessary and burdensome class action 
provisions all class actions asserting civil rights claims.
  Class actions are an important litigation tool that consumers, 
workers, and anyone else who has suffered injury can use to vindicate 
their rights. They are also a critical mechanism for enforcing public 
policy and are especially key in the enforcement of Federal civil 
rights laws.
  For instance, plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases who seek 
backpay because of an adverse employment decision often pursue class 
actions because such cases tend to be the kind that are well-suited for 
class treatment. These cases typically concern multiple victims who 
were subjected to the same discriminatory employment practice or 
policy.
  While damages awarded pursuant to a single plaintiff may not be large 
enough to deter the employer's alleged wrongdoing, aggregate damages 
awarded to plaintiffs as a result of class action would have a 
deterrent effect.
  Unfortunately, this bill, H.R. 985, requires class action plaintiffs 
to prove at the certification stage that every potential class member 
suffered the same type and same scope of injury, a requirement that is 
obviously virtually impossible and cost prohibitive to meet.
  This onerous requirement would effectively deter employment 
discrimination and other civil rights plaintiffs from proceeding with 
any class action.
  As if this provision were not onerous enough, H.R. 985 would also 
harm civil rights plaintiffs by making it virtually impossible to 
pursue class actions pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure.
  All Federal appeals courts interpret that provision as allowing 
courts to certify a class limited to one issue in a case, such as 
liability, without having to certify a putative class for the entire 
cause of action.
  Allowing courts to decide common questions within a case, while 
permitting other issues to be determined on an individual basis, would 
promote judicial efficiency, which is also one of the principal 
benefits of class actions.
  H.R. 985, however, would prohibit certification of such ``issue'' 
class actions unless the putative class for the entire cause of action 
is certified, which would only further delay and possibly deny justice 
for plaintiffs.
  This provision would have a particularly devastating impact on civil 
rights class actions that often can only be maintained as to particular 
issues, such as liability.
  Indeed, for these, and many other reasons, including the bill's 
mandatory appeals provision, its automatic stay of discovery, and its 
draconian and unworkable standards for setting attorneys' fees, 123 
civil rights groups and organizations have written a letter to the 
Judiciary Committee in strong opposition to H.R. 985, which I include 
in the Record.
                                                    March 7, 2017.
     Re Strong Opposition to H.R. 985--Section 2.

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: We understand that the 
     House will soon consider H.R. 985, the ``Fairness in Class 
     Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency 
     Act of 2015.'' The 123 signatory civil rights organizations 
     and advocates write to strongly oppose Section 2 of H.R. 985. 
     The bill will undermine the enforcement

[[Page 4059]]

     of this nation's civil rights laws and upend decades of 
     settled class action law. This sweeping and poorly drafted 
     legislation will create needless chaos in the courts without 
     actually solving any demonstrated problem. In this letter, we 
     highlight the most egregious of its many harms.
       As advocates for the marginalized and often invisible 
     members of our society, we write to remind House members that 
     class actions are critical for the enforcement of laws 
     prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, education, 
     and access to public areas and services. As the Supreme Court 
     has recognized, class actions provide ``vindication of the 
     rights of groups of people who individually would be without 
     effective strength to bring their opponents into court at 
     all.'' Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 
     (1997). Courts have interpreted Rule 23 of the Federal Rules 
     of Civil Procedure, the federal class action rule, over 
     decades and the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules has, 
     through its deliberative process, reviewed and amended the 
     rule to ensure its fair and efficient operation. No further 
     revisions are needed at this time.


    H.R. 985 Adds Years of Additional Delay, Expense, and Disruption

       One of the stated purposes of the bill is to ``assure . . . 
     prompt recoveries,'' yet it includes provisions that will 
     extend the duration of cases by years and add exponentially 
     to the expense on both sides.
       The bill allows for an automatic appeal--in the middle of 
     every case--of the class certification order. Such appeals 
     are extraordinarily disruptive and typically add one to three 
     years to the life of the case. While the case sits in an 
     appellate court, expenses and fees rise, memories fade, and 
     injured victims remain without justice. Automatic appeals of 
     all class certification orders will clog our already-taxed 
     Courts of Appeals. Appeals of class certification rulings are 
     already permitted at the discretion of the Courts of Appeals. 
     An appeal of every class certification ruling is unnecessary.
       The bill similarly builds in an automatic stay of discovery 
     in the district court whenever an alleged wrongdoer files any 
     one of a list of motions. This is an invitation for 
     gamesmanship and delay, and will deprive judges of the 
     ability to properly manage their cases.
       The bill, by its terms, applies to all cases pending upon 
     the date of enactment. This means that hundreds of cases that 
     have been litigated and certified under existing law would 
     start from scratch with new standards, new class 
     certification motions, and new automatic interlocutory 
     appeals. The resulting waste of judicial resources would be 
     enormous.


 Civil Rights Injuries Are Never Identical and Are Already Subject to 
                        Rigorous Judicial Review

       H.R. 985 imposes a new and impossible hurdle for class 
     certification. It requires that the proponents of the class 
     demonstrate that ``each class member has suffered the same 
     type and scope of injury.'' At this early stage of a civil 
     rights class action, it is frequently impossible to identify 
     all of the victims or the precise nature of each of their 
     injuries.
       But even if this information were knowable, class members' 
     injuries would not be ``the same.'' As a simple example, 
     those overcharged for rent will have different injuries. In 
     an employment discrimination class action, the extent of a 
     class member's injuries will depend on a range of factors, 
     including their job position, tenure, employment status, 
     salary, and length of exposure to the discriminatory 
     conditions. For this reason, nearly forty years ago, the 
     Supreme Court developed a two-stage process for such cases in 
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 
     371-72 (1977). In the first stage, the court determines 
     whether the employer engaged in a pattern or practice of 
     discrimination. If the employer is found liable, the court 
     holds individual hearings to determine the relief (if any) 
     for each victim. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the 
     use of the Teamsters model for discrimination class actions 
     in part because of the individualized nature of injuries. 
     Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 366 (2011). 
     Thus, this bill would overturn the approach established four 
     decades ago to permit a class of victims of discrimination to 
     seek effective relief.
       For the same reason, the bill's limitation on ``issue 
     classes'' will impede the enforcement of civil rights laws. 
     Under current practice, the district court will decide in 
     some cases that the best approach is to resolve the 
     illegality of a discriminatory practice in an initial 
     proceeding, and then allow class members to pursue individual 
     remedies on their own. In such cases, class certification for 
     the core question of liability (often a complex proceeding) 
     will be tried and resolved just once for the benefit of the 
     many affected individuals. These issue classes can promote 
     both efficiency and fairness. Section 1720, however, would 
     deprive courts of this ability that they currently have to 
     manage class actions to ensure justice.


   Requiring the Early Identification of Class Members Is Unnecessary

       Section 1718 seeks to impose a heightened standard for 
     identifying class members, an approach that has been rejected 
     by the majority of circuits to have considered the question. 
     This stringent standard would not further any interest that 
     is not already adequately protected by Rule 23, which 
     requires that the court consider whether the case is 
     manageable and the class action device is the ``superior'' 
     method for fairly and efficiently resolving the case.
       Moreover, Sec. 1718 would impose a nearly insurmountable 
     hurdle in situations where a class action is the only viable 
     way to pursue valid but low-value claims. In such cases, 
     records of who has been affected may have been destroyed by 
     the wrongdoer, may be incomplete, or may have never existed 
     at all. In those cases, individual notice to all class 
     members may be impossible. But, without class certification 
     in these situations, class members who have valid claims and 
     who can be identified would not be allowed to recover. The 
     bill also ignores the important objective of deterring and 
     punishing wrongdoing, and encourages defendants not to 
     maintain relevant records.


Arbitrary and Unworkable Standards for Attorneys' Fees Undermine Civil 
                           Rights Enforcement

       Civil rights class actions are often about systemic reforms 
     that benefit the most vulnerable. In many cases, the sole 
     remedy is an injunction to change illegal laws or practices. 
     To ensure that non-profit legal organizations and other 
     advocates are able to undertake these important, complex, and 
     often risky cases, dozens of our civil rights laws 
     incorporate fee-shifting provisions. If a case is successful, 
     the judge awards a reasonable fee based upon the time that 
     the advocates have spent working on the case. This method of 
     determining attorneys' fees provides for consistent and 
     predictable outcomes, which is a benefit to all parties in a 
     lawsuit.
       H.R. 985 would entirely displace this well-settled law with 
     a standard long ago rejected as arbitrary and unworkable. 
     Under the bill, attorneys' fees would be calculated as a 
     ``percentage of the value of the equitable relief.'' 
     Sec. 1718(b)(3). But how is a judge to determine the cash 
     value of an integrated school, a well-operating foster care 
     system, the deinstitutionalization of individuals with 
     disabilities, or myriad other forms of equitable relief 
     secured by civil rights class actions? Asking judges to 
     assign a price tag in such cases is an impossible task and 
     would lead to uncertainty and inconsistency.
       Non-profit organizations cannot bear the risk of these long 
     and expensive cases if, at the end, their fees are calculated 
     under this incoherent and capricious standard. Indeed, the 
     bill creates an incentive for defendants to prolong the 
     litigation so as to make it economically impossible for 
     plaintiffs' attorneys to continue to prosecute the 
     litigation.
       These serious issues warrant, at a minimum, careful 
     consideration and public hearings. A rush to pass such far-
     reaching and flawed legislation will deny access to justice 
     for many and undermine the rule of law.
           Respectfully Submitted,
                                                Jocelyn D. Larkin,
                                  Executive Director, Impact Fund.


                              Signatories

       1. 9to5, National Association of Working Women
       2. A Better Balance
       3. Advancement Project
       4. American Association of University Women
       5. American Civil Liberties Union
       6. Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
       7. Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Asian Law Caucus
       8. Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Los Angeles
       9. Association of Late Deafened Adults
       10. Atlanta Women for Equality
       11. Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc
       12. Business and Professional Women/St. Petersburg-Pinellas
       13. California Employment Lawyers Association
       14. California Women's Law Center
       15. Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, 
     Columbia University
       16. Center for Children's Advocacy
       17. Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York
       18. Center for Justice and Accountability
       19. Center for Popular Democracy
       20. Center for Public Representation
       21. Center for Responsible Lending
       22. Central Alabama Fair Housing Center
       23. Centro Legal de la Raza
       24. Chet Levitt Fund for Employment Law
       25. Child Care Law Center
       26. Children's Law Center, Inc.
       27. Children's Rights
       28. Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center
       29. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition
       30. Columbia Legal Services
       31. Communities for a Better Environment
       32. Community Development Project of the Urban Justice 
     Center
       33. Community Justice Project
       34. Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
       35. Dade County Bar Association Legal Aid Society
       36. Disability Law Center
       37. Disability Rights Advocates
       38. Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
       39. Disability Rights Maryland

[[Page 4060]]


       40. Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project
       41. Earthjustice
       42. EarthRights International
       43. Empire Justice Center
       44. Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
       45. Equal Justice Center
       46. Equal Justice Society
       47. Equal Rights Advocates
       48. Farmworker Justice
       49. Florida Justice Institute, Inc.
       50. Florida Legal Services, Inc.
       51. Florida's Children First
       52. Freedom Network USA
       53. Heart of Florida Legal Aid Society Inc
       54. Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings
       55. Human Rights Defense Center
       56. Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center
       57. Impact Fund
       58. Institute for Science and Human Values
       59. Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc.
       60. Justice in Motion
       61. Lambda Legal
       62. LatinoJustice PRLDEF
       63. Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
       64. Lawyers Civil Rights Coalition
       65. Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San 
     Francisco Bay Area
       66. Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
       67. Legal Aid at Work (formerly Legal Aid Society--
     Employment Law Center)
       68. Legal Aid Justice Center
       69. Legal Aid of Manasota
       70. Legal Aid of Marin
       71. Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Inc.
       72. Legal Aid Society of NYC
       73. Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, Inc.
       74. Los Angeles Center for Community Law and Action
       75. Make the Road New York
       76. MALDEF
       77. Maurice & Jane Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social 
     Justice
       78. Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association
       79. Mississippi Center for Justice
       80. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
       81. National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good 
     Shepherd
       82. National Center for Lesbian Rights
       83. National Center for Transgender Equality
       84. National Center for Youth Law
       85. National Disability Rights Network
       86. National Employment Law Project
       87. National Employment Lawyers' Association
       88. National Employment Lawyers' Association--New York
       89. National Housing Law Project
       90. National Immigration Law Center
       91. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
       92. National Partnership for Women & Families
       93. National Women's Law Center
       94. New Mexico Environmental Law Center
       95. North Carolina Justice Center
       96. North Florida Center for Equal Justice, Inc.
       97. Northwest Health Law Advocates
       98. Oregon Communication Access Project
       99. Prisoners' Legal Services of Massachusetts
       100. Prison Law Office
       101. Public Advocates
       102. Public Counsel
       103. Public Interest Law Project
       104. Public Justice
       105. Public Justice Center
       106. Public Utility Law Project of New York
       107. Rhode Island Center for Justice
       108. San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc.
       109. Southern Center for Human Rights
       110. Southern Legal Counsel, Inc.
       111. Southern Poverty Law Center
       112. Southwest Pennsylvania Chapter, National Organization 
     for Women
       113. Southwest Women's Law Center
       114. Tenants Together
       115. Texas Fair Defense Project
       116. Transgender Law Center
       117. Uptown People's Law Center
       118. Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and 
     Urban Affairs
       119. Washington State Communication Access Project
       120. Western Center on Law & Poverty
       121. Women's Employment Rights Clinic, Golden Gate 
     University
       122. Women's Law Project
       123. Workplace Fairness

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, with great deference and respect to my 
friend and colleague, the ranking member, this amendment would subject 
certain class members to unfair treatment and, thus, should be 
rejected.
  First, the bill's provisions on type and scope of injury only apply 
to proposed classes ``seeking monetary relief for personal injury or 
economic loss.'' Insofar as civil rights cases do not seek money 
damages, they are completely unaffected by the bill and would proceed 
just as they do today.
  However, if money damages are sought by a proposed class, then, of 
course, they should be subject to the procedures in the bill. The 
purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of evaluating like 
claims, not to provide a means of artificially inflating the size of a 
class to extort a larger settlement value.
  Exempting a subset of money damage cases from the bill, as this 
amendment would do, would serve only to incentivize the creation of 
artificially large classes to extort larger and unfair settlements from 
innocent parties for the purpose of disproportionately awarding 
uninjured parties.
  Any claims seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic 
loss should be grouped in classes in which those who are the most 
injured receive the most compensation. Why should civil rights 
claimants seeking money damages be subject to particularly unfair 
treatment by being allowed to be forced into a class action with other 
uninjured or minimally injured members, only to see their own 
compensation reduced? That does a disservice to those claimants. Yes, 
that is exactly what this amendment would do.
  Further, the bill's provision on attorneys' fees won't affect fee 
awards in civil rights cases at all because both the monetary and 
equitable relief attorneys' fees provision in the bill are qualified 
with the initial phrase ``unless otherwise specified by Federal 
statute.''
  The Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Award Act of 1976 allows a court, in 
its discretion, to award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the 
costs to a prevailing party in Federal civil rights lawsuits, including 
cases brought under 28 U.S.C. section 1983, the statute most commonly 
used to assert civil rights claims.
  Consequently, this bill will not affect attorneys' fees in civil 
rights class actions at all, including, of course, cases brought under 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, which has its own attorneys' fees 
provision.
  The conflicts of interest provision reflects a valid concern in all 
class actions. The courts need to know how the named plaintiffs came to 
be involved in class actions in all types of cases to ensure there 
aren't conflicts and that the due process rights of all class members 
are protected.
  The issues class provision won't disrupt the manner in which civil 
rights cases are normally litigated. Discovery stays while dispositive 
motions are pending won't disrupt civil rights cases. Like any other 
case, the plaintiffs need to show they have a facially valid complaint 
before discovery should commence.
  Disclosure of third-party funding is no less important in civil 
rights cases than in other class actions. The appeals provision 
benefits both plaintiffs and defendants, giving either side the right 
to appeal if class certification is granted or denied.
  I urge all my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which would set 
back the just causes of civil rights claimants.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1730

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page 4061]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 13, strike line 19 and all that follows 
     through line 15 on page 14, and insert the following:
       ``(8) A trust described in paragraph (2) shall file with 
     the bankruptcy court, not later than 60 days after the end of 
     every quarter, a report that shall be made available on the 
     court's public docket and with respect to each such reporting 
     period contains an aggregate list of demands received and an 
     aggregate list of payments made.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I think the question is: Is there any 
collegiality and respect for the Federal judicial system?
  Let me read a letter in reference to the underlying bill:

       We strongly urge Congress not to amend the class action 
     procedures found in rule 23 outside of the Rules Enabling Act 
     process.

  It goes on to talk about an advisory committee, but I don't know any 
sentence more clear than that. I know that as a parent raising a child, 
``do not'' and ``no'' are very clear, yet we maintain this debate on 
the floor of the House.
  Let me also mention a debate that is tomorrow, but I think it is 
relevant to my amendment, LARA. This is a rule that was in in 1983. In 
1993, it was thrown out because it had a deleterious effect on 
meritorious civil rights cases, employment cases, and others. The 
Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, that is tomorrow. The courts also don't 
want you to do that, and most of the courts say it is a waste of 
resources.
  My amendment is going to help us solve the problem for this bill, 
H.R. 985. It would improve the rules of the committee print by 
replacing the substantive text of the bill with a requirement that the 
bankruptcy asbestos trust report quarterly an aggregate list of demands 
received and payments made. Specifically, the Jackson Lee amendment 
protects the privacy of asbestos victims from overly broad and invasive 
disclosure requirements by striking from the bill's text personal 
information disclosure mandates.
  Mr. Chairman, the only beneficiaries of the so-called FACT Act are 
the very entities that knowingly produced a toxic substance that killed 
or seriously injured thousands of unsuspecting American consumers and 
workers--it is the defendants. And, no, it does not provide for a 
safety for the trust.
  Worse, this bill would allow victims of asbestos exposure to be 
further victimized by requiring information about their illness to be 
made publicly available to virtually anyone who has access to the 
internet. Once irretrievably released into the public domain, this 
information would be a virtual treasure trove for data collectors and 
other entities for purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with the 
compensation for asbestos exposure.
  Why do these people have to be doubly, triply penalized? They are 
already dying, many of them.
  Insurance companies, prospective employers, lenders, predatory scam 
artists all have access to these unsuspecting and devastated families 
or victims. I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense Jackson Lee 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules 
Committee for making the Jackson Lee Amendment in order.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee 
Amendment to Rules Committee Print 115-5 of H.R. 985, the ``Fairness in 
Class Action Litigation And Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act 
of 2017.''
  My amendment would improve the Rules Committee Print 115-5 to H.R. 
985 by replacing the substantive text of the bill with a requirement 
that the bankruptcy asbestos trust report quarterly an aggregate list 
of demands received and payments made.
  Specifically, the Jackson Lee Amendment protects the privacy of 
asbestos victim plaintiffs from overly broad and invasive disclosure 
requirements, by striking from the bill's text personal information 
disclosure mandates.
  Mr. Chair, the only beneficiaries of the so-called ``FACT Act,'' are 
the very entities that knowingly produced a toxic substance that killed 
or seriously injured thousands of unsuspecting American consumers and 
workers.
  In fact, I am unaware of any asbestos victim who supports this 
legislation.
  Worse yet, this bill would allow victims of asbestos exposure to be 
further victimized by requiring information about their illness to be 
made publicly available to virtually anyone who has access to the 
Internet.
  For example, the bill requires all payment demands, as well as, the 
names and exposure histories of each claimant together with the basis 
for any payment the trust made to such claimants to be publicly 
disclosed.
  This sensitive information must be posted on the court's public 
docket, which is easily accessible through the Internet with the 
payment of a nominal file.
  Once irretrievably released into the public domain, this information 
would be a virtual treasure trove for data collectors and other 
entities for purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with 
compensation for asbestos exposure.
  Insurance companies, prospective employers, lenders, and predatory 
scam artists as well as the victim's neighbors would have access to 
this information.
  To address this serious failing of the bill, my amendment would 
ensure that the quarterly reports required under the ``FACT Act,'' 
contain only aggregate payment information.
  My amendment also deletes the bill's burdensome discovery 
requirement.
  As noted by the widow of our former colleague Representative Bruce 
Vento who passed away from asbestos-induced mesothelioma, the bill's 
public disclosure of victims' private information: ``could be used to 
deny employment, credit, and health, life, and disability insurance.''
  Mrs. Vento also warned that asbestos victims ``would be more 
vulnerable to identity thieves, con men, and other types of 
predators.''
  I am sure that the supporters of this legislation will say that 
Bankruptcy Code section 107 will prevent such results.
  But this provision only permits--it does not require--the bankruptcy 
court to issue a protective order.
  In fact, such relief may only be granted ``for cause'' if the court 
finds that ``disclosure of such information would create undue risk of 
identity theft or other unlawful injury to the individual.''
  What this means is that an asbestos victim would have to retain 
counsel and go to court in order to prove ``cause'' to obtain relief.
  And, even though Bankruptcy Rule 9037 does require certain types of 
personal information to be redacted from a document filed in a 
bankruptcy case, said Rule would be overridden by this legislation, as 
written.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee 
amendment to ensure that the privacy of asbestos victims is protected.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, the FACT Act is designed to require 
increased transparency to combat fraud committed against asbestos 
trusts. This amendment strikes the requirement that asbestos trusts 
publish the very data that is necessary to detect fraud between the 
trusts and State tort proceedings. In its place, this amendment calls 
for only a quarterly report with an aggregate list of demands received 
by the trusts.
  The simple aggregation of information is worthless in allowing 
parties to make a meaningful inquiry into whether or not they are being 
defrauded. This amendment guts the bill, and I urge opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on my side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me say whose side I want to stand 
on, and that is the side of Mrs. Vento, the widow of our former 
colleague, Representative Bruce Vento, who passed away from asbestos-
induced cancer.
  The bill's public disclosure of victims' private information could be 
used to deny employment, credit, and health, life, and disability 
insurance. Mrs. Vento also warned that asbestos

[[Page 4062]]

victims would be more vulnerable to identity thieves, con men, and 
other types of predators.
  There is no reason for this bill. Not only is the Judicial Conference 
of Federal Judges against it, but victims are crying out: Stop it, and 
stop it now.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a StarTribune 
article.

                         [From the StarTribune]

    Stand With Families Affected by Asbestos, and Help Kill FACT Act

       My husband was the late U.S. Rep. Bruce F. Vento, who 
     served for almost 24 years in the House of Representatives 
     representing Minnesota's Fourth Congressional District. He 
     died from mesothelioma in 2000 within eight and a half months 
     of being diagnosed.
       Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer caused by asbestos 
     exposure. Bruce was exposed while working his way through 
     college as a laborer, years before he became involved in 
     public life.
       With his death, our country lost a hardworking and humble 
     public servant years before his time. Bruce's parents, 
     siblings, children, grandchildren and I lost so much more.
       Since his death, I have worked with asbestos patients and 
     family members from across the country to fight for a ban on 
     asbestos and to protect the rights of people whose lives have 
     been forever affected by this terrible poison.
       I have recently been involved in the effort to stop the so-
     called ``Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act,'' or 
     FACT Act, which would obstruct justice for victims dying from 
     asbestos-related diseases while giving a handout to the very 
     corporations that knowingly poisoned and killed them.
       The FACT Act would require that the personal information of 
     sick and dying asbestos patients and their families be posted 
     on a public website, including names, addresses, medical 
     diagnoses, financial compensation received and the last four 
     digits of our Social Security numbers.
       This is precisely the kind of information that law 
     enforcement officials tell the public we should not share on 
     the Internet because it leaves us vulnerable to identity 
     thieves and con artists.
       The House could be considering a vote on this bad 
     legislation in the coming weeks, making it all the more 
     urgent that we act now to protect the privacy of asbestos 
     victims and their families.
       Supporters of the FACT Act are the corporations that 
     exposed innocent workers, consumers and their family members 
     to asbestos, while concealing what they knew about this 
     dangerous poison. They claim that this gross violation of our 
     privacy is necessary in order to protect asbestos patients 
     from fraud against the asbestos trust funds that were set up 
     to compensate asbestos victims and their families. Yet, not a 
     single instance of fraud against the trust funds has been 
     identified.
       What is worse, while the bill's supporters claim that they 
     are doing it for asbestos victims, not one victim of asbestos 
     exposure or an affected family member has been allowed to be 
     heard on this legislation. The only people who would be 
     directly affected by the bill have been completely shut out 
     of the process.
       The FACT Act would also bog down the asbestos trust funds 
     in endless paperwork to respond to information requests from 
     asbestos companies. This would drain the funds of money that 
     is desperately needed to compensate sick and dying victims. 
     As the victims get more and more desperate, they will be 
     willing to settle cases for pennies on the dollar, taking 
     needed compensation away from families and leaving it in the 
     pockets of the responsible companies.
       I recently traveled to Washington, D.C., and met with Sens. 
     Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Betty McCollum, all of 
     whom committed to work with asbestos patients and family 
     members to stop the FACT Act from becoming law. I hope that 
     we can count on the rest of Minnesota's congressional 
     delegation to stand with asbestos patients and families and 
     against the FACT Act.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, without having the ability to hear my 
colleague's opposition, I know that the supporters of this legislation 
will say that Bankruptcy Code section 107 will prevent these 
devastating results, but it is not true. This provision only permits 
it. It does not require the bankruptcy court to issue a protective 
order.
  My amendment protects these vulnerable victims against the release of 
their data, making them, in addition to the devastating disease that 
they got from asbestos--and our good friend Bruce Vento, many of us 
knew Congressman Vento, we knew his wife, and we knew that his death 
was both untimely and devastating, and now you are saying to victims 
like him: Release all the data. Open yourself up to more. Open your 
families up to more.
  The Jackson Lee amendment is a commonsense amendment that will 
provide for an asbestos trust report quarterly, an aggregate list of 
demands received and payments made. As well, it would protect the 
privacy of asbestos victim plaintiffs from overly broad and invasive 
disclosure requirements by striking down the bill's text about personal 
information disclosure mandates. No matter what my good friend from 
Texas says, he does not have an answer to protecting the privacy of 
these victims.
  I ask our colleagues to support a commonsense response. Stop it now. 
The courts don't want it, and it is horrible for the victims. It is 
doubling down on people who have lost loved ones and victims who are 
suffering from asbestos-induced cancer. I ask my colleagues to support 
the Jackson Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, the FACT Act requires that a very basic 
amount of information be released to protect against fraud against the 
asbestos trust system. I am standing with future victims of asbestos.
  The diseases associated with asbestos typically don't manifest 
themselves for decades, in some cases, beyond or after exposure. These 
trusts are being drained by fraudulent and duplicative claims. These 
requirements of disclosure prevent that fraud by requiring the minimal 
amount of information being required. In fact, a judge with 29 years of 
bench experience testified before the Committee on the Judiciary that 
the FACT Act provides more protection in terms of confidentiality of 
records than the legal system is able to do.
  This is commonsense legislation, does not invade people's privacy, 
and preserves these trust funds to make sure all victims are 
compensated. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Jackson 
Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Espaillat

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 115-29.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 13, line 21, insert ``subject to subparagraph (C),'' 
     after ``(A)''.
       Page 14, line 6, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 14, line 7, insert ``subject to subparagraph (C),'' 
     after ``(B)''.
       Page 14, line 15, strike the close quotation marks and the 
     period at the end, and insert ``; and''.
       Page 14, after line 15, insert the following:
       ``(C) not comply with subparagraphs (A) and (B) with 
     respect to such claimant who is or has been living in public 
     housing (as such term is defined in section 3(b) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b))) or 
     any dwelling unit for which rental assistance is provided 
     under section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Espaillat) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering 
Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017.
  My amendment would exempt a claimant who is or has been living in 
public housing or any dwelling unit for

[[Page 4063]]

which rental assistance was provided under the Section 8 housing 
program. While I firmly believe that every individual should be exempt 
from this outrageous provision, my amendment recognizes that we, the 
Federal Government, are the landlords, the owners, if you may, of 
public housing.
  Speaker Ryan is a landlord of public housing. Our leader, the 
gentlewoman from California, is a landlord of public housing. The 
President is a tenant of public housing. The White House is public 
housing. While the White House has hot water, a nice roof, and likely 
no asbestos, it is still public housing. We, the taxpayers, pay the 
rent. We, as the Federal Government on both sides of the aisle, are the 
owners and the landlords of public housing.
  As the owners of public housing, we have a unique obligation to the 
people living in these units. We are responsible for the dilapidated 
conditions of our public housing units, and we are responsible for the 
health and well-being of low-income tenants living in them.
  Much of our public housing was built in the 1950s and 1960s, 
coinciding with what was perhaps the peak time for the use of asbestos-
containing products in building and construction materials. This has 
left thousands of our most vulnerable citizens at risk of exposure to 
asbestos, which has killed as many as 15,000 Americans each year.
  People who have a legitimate claim and have been exposed to asbestos 
while living in either public housing or Section 8 housing should be 
afforded the due process they deserve and given the opportunity to 
bring their claims in a timely manner. I think this entire bill is a 
misnomer and should be renamed the unfairness in class action 
litigation act.
  No one--no one--should have their due process rights delayed or 
denied. There is no doubt that the consequences of this legislation 
will be especially and uniquely detrimental to low-income individuals. 
This legislation will completely upend privacy and bankruptcy laws.
  As it stands today, our laws guarantee that a claimant's information 
is protected. This bill, however, will require that an individual 
claimant's personal information and the amount they have received from 
the trust be made available on a public website. Not only is this a 
complete and total disregard for the individual's privacy, but it makes 
the most vulnerable in our society prey for financial predators.
  My amendment will guarantee that tenants living in public housing and 
Section 8 housing are not subjected to such an outrageous shift in 
privacy rights. The bill sends trusts on a wild goose chase for 
information that may not even be there, while they should be spending 
their time working through the pending claims.
  These companies hid the dangers of asbestos for decades, for far too 
long, and there is absolutely no reason why we should be helping them 
now. Rather than wasting time and taxpayer dollars obstructing the 
judicial system, we should be focusing on initiatives that will update 
our crumbling infrastructure. And, yes, public housing is undoubtedly 
infrastructure.
  Finally, the CBO has indicated that, financially, this amendment will 
cost nothing. This amendment will cost absolutely nothing. But I can 
promise you that not adopting it will come at a great cost to our 
system of justice. I ask my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent asbestos 
trusts from disclosing claims information submitted by individuals 
living in public housing in its quarterly reports and in response to 
information requests.
  There is no reason to distinguish between the disclosure obligations 
of individuals living in public housing and the disclosure obligations 
of ordinary citizens. To the extent that claimants do not affirmatively 
identify themselves as living in public housing, this amendment would 
require asbestos trusts to determine whether claimants qualify in these 
categories, further draining them of funds needed to compensate future 
victims.
  The FACT Act balances the need for transparency and protecting 
claimants' privacy. The FACT Act excludes any confidential medical 
records and the claimants' Social Security numbers. We should ensure 
that bankruptcy asbestos claims are processed in an open, fair, and 
transparent method in order to protect the limited amount of money 
reserved for compensating future asbestos victims.

                              {time}  1745

  The FACT Act should apply uniformly to all claimants, and it should 
not impose disparate burdens relating to individuals living in public 
housing.
  Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
115-29 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Deutch of Florida.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Deutch of Florida.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Soto of Florida.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Conyers of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Espaillat of New York.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Deutch

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Deutch) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 227, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 140]

                               AYES--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted

[[Page 4064]]


     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Barletta
     Brady (TX)
     Carson (IN)
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     DeGette
     Espaillat
     Jayapal
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (IL)
     Langevin
     Matsui
     McCaul
     Moore
     Richmond
     Rush
     Sinema
     Speier
     Titus
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1807

  Messrs. POSEY, STIVERS, and TURNER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. KRISHNAMOORTHI, SOTO, CORREA, and CLEAVER changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 140.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 140.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Deutch

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Deutch) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 228, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 141]

                               AYES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--228

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur

[[Page 4065]]


     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Aderholt
     Barletta
     Cleaver
     Davis (CA)
     Ellison
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Matsui
     Richmond
     Rush
     Sinema
     Titus


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1811

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


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Soto

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Soto) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 230, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 142]

                               AYES--192

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Barletta
     Davis (CA)
     Matsui
     Richmond
     Rush
     Sinema
     Titus


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. GAETZ changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 230, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 143]

                               AYES--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)

[[Page 4066]]


     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Faso
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barletta
     Davis (CA)
     Larson (CT)
     Matsui
     Richmond
     Rush
     Sinema
     Titus
     Yoho


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1818

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' 
on rollcall No. 143, the Hank Johnson Amendment No. 5.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 230, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 144]

                               AYES--191

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher

[[Page 4067]]


     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barletta
     Clay
     Davis (CA)
     Matsui
     Richmond
     Rush
     Sinema
     Titus


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1821

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


               Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 229, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 145]

                               AYES--193

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Barletta
     Davis (CA)
     Matsui
     Richmond
     Rush
     Sinema
     Titus


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1825

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


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Espaillat

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Espaillat) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.

[[Page 4068]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 228, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 146]

                               AYES--193

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Faso
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--228

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barletta
     Davis (CA)
     Joyce (OH)
     Matsui
     Richmond
     Rush
     Sinema
     Titus


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1828

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Byrne, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 985) to 
amend the procedures used in Federal court class actions and 
multidistrict litigation proceedings to assure fairer, more efficient 
outcomes for claimants and defendants, and for other purposes, and, 
pursuant to House Resolution 180, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. KILDEE. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kildee moves to recommit the bill H.R. 985 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 13, insert after line 10 the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 108. PROTECTING SAFE DRINKING WATER.

       Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title 
     shall apply to any civil action brought to protect public 
     drinking water supplies.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  My motion to recommit is quite simple. It exempts class action 
lawsuits that are brought to protect public water supplies.
  I know some of you have heard me speak of this. I am from Flint, 
Michigan, and we know, in my community, what happens when we fail to 
protect drinking water.
  In the course of the day, most Americans take for granted that water 
that comes from the tap is safe. But for my community of 100,000 
people, that is not true. It hasn't been true for years. Since the 
State government switched to a corrosive water source, the Flint River, 
they have not been able to drink water out of the tap.
  This terrible decision poisoned the city's water supply with 
corrosive water, resulting in high levels of lead leaching into their 
water system, going

[[Page 4069]]

into their pipes, into their homes, into their bodies, 100,000 people, 
7,000 children under the age of 6. Nearly 3 years later, those same 
families are still reeling from this crisis. It is unacceptable. It is 
an injustice.
  Lead is a potent neurotoxin. There is no safe level of lead. Lead 
exposure can lead to serious health effects felt for years.
  But the impacts are not limited just to health. Those high levels of 
lead also damaged Flint's infrastructure, and we now have to remove 
thousands of pipes in order to provide safe water.
  Thankfully, this Congress, Democrats and Republicans, came together 
to provide necessary help for my hometown to fix those pipes. But Flint 
residents will continue to suffer. That was important, but not enough. 
There are lots of health effects.
  Just recently we learned that many cases, in fact, many deaths that 
we thought were attributable to pneumonia, were, in fact, Legionnaires' 
disease, traceable to the bacteria caused by this terrible crisis. A 
dozen people have already died as a result of Legionnaires' disease, 
and others, whose deaths may be reclassified, could bring that number 
much higher.
  The corrosiveness of that water not only had health impacts, but it 
literally destroyed people's homes from the inside out. So, in addition 
to those service lines, people's plumbing in their homes, their water 
heaters, their washing machines destroyed, ruined, and their lives 
potentially ruined as well.
  So where does the support, where does the funding come for those 
losses experienced by residents of my hometown?
  It comes from the justice system. This bill would create more 
barriers for people in my hometown to access that justice system, to 
seek justice for what happened to them. They have suffered a terrible 
crisis, and they should be able to seek justice and restitution.
  Unfortunately, this bill could prevent people from Flint, and other 
Americans, from seeking justice, and that is what my motion intends to 
correct.
  In order to receive justice from the harm that they have experienced 
from this public water source, residents have filed class action suits. 
This bill severely curtails their access to the courts to seek redress, 
to seek that restitution. This bill would weaken their access to 
justice.
  My motion is simple. It would allow lawsuits that are brought to 
protect our precious public water supplies to be exempt from the 
additional hurdles, from the additional barriers that this underlying 
bill sets out.
  Having safe drinking water is a human right, and the access to that 
and the access to justice related to that basic human right ought to be 
completely unfettered. My motion to recommit would assure that, and I 
ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the base bill contains provisions that 
allow all claims to go forward as class actions and also maximize 
awards to deserving victims.
  Why would anyone want to single out safe drinking water victims for 
adverse treatment and deny them the benefits of the base bill that 
would maximize any recovery they might receive in a class action?
  This motion to recommit would do that, and it should be defeated.
  In closing, let me say that we know that only the tiniest fraction of 
consumer class action members ever bother to claim the compensation 
awarded them in a settlement. That is clear proof that the vast 
majority--the vast large numbers of class members are satisfied with 
the product they purchased. They don't want compensation. They don't 
want to be lumped into gigantic class action lawsuits.
  Federal judges are crying out for the Congress to reform the class 
action system, which currently allows trial lawyers to file classes 
with hundreds and thousands of unmeritorious claims and use those 
artificially inflated classes to force defendants to settle the case.
  As I have recounted, some class action settlements have left lawyers 
with millions in fees while the alleged victims receive absolutely 
nothing.
  This bill prevents people from being forced into class actions with 
other uninjured or minimally injured members, only to have the 
compensation of injured parties reduced. It requires that lawyer fees 
be limited to a reasonable percentage of the money injured victims 
actually receive.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this motion to recommit 
and supporting this bill on behalf of the consumers and injured parties 
everywhere.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 234, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 147]

                               AYES--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford

[[Page 4070]]


     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Barletta
     Davis (CA)
     Matsui
     Richmond
     Rush
     Sinema
     Titus


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1846

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220, 
noes 201, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 148]

                               AYES--220

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--201

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Faso
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
       Griffith
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Barletta
     Davis (CA)
     Matsui
     Richmond
     Rush
     Sinema
     Titus


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1852

  Mr. SUOZZI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. POSEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________