[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 86 (Thursday, June 12, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5281-H5307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2003
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 269 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. 1115.
{time} 1205
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. 1115) to amend the procedures that apply to consideration of
interstate class actions to assure fairer outcomes for class members
and defendants, to outlaw certain practices that provide inadequate
settlements for class members, to assure that attorneys do not receive
a disproportionate amount of settlements at the expense of class
members, to provide for clearer and simpler information in class action
settlement notices, to assure prompt consideration of interstate class
actions, to amend title 28, United States Code, to allow the
application of the principles of Federal diversity jurisdiction to
interstate class actions, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1115, the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2003. In years past, the occasional news account of
some outrageous class action verdict or settlement was light humor. Now
the stories are so common there is no punch line, the class action
judicial system itself has become a joke, and no one is laughing except
the trial lawyers, all the way to the bank.
Abuse of State class action lawsuits is now systemic and this
mounting crisis is a threat to the integrity of our civil justice
system and a persistent drain on the national economy. Since this House
passed nearly identical class action reform legislation in the 107th
Congress, a bill which died in the Democrat-controlled Senate, the
problem has only gotten worse. One major element of the worsening
crisis is the exponential increase in State class action cases, many of
which deal with national issues and classes.
In the past 10 years, State court class actions filing nationwide
have increased over 1,000 percent. In certain ``magnet courts'' known
for certifying even the most speculative class action suits, the
increase in filings over the last 5 years is approaching 4,000 percent.
Take, for example, the court in Madison County, Illinois, a rural
county of 250,000 people which is on pace for a projected 3,650 percent
increase in class action filings over 1998 levels. Eighty-one percent
of those cases sought to certify nationwide cases, including all
nationwide Sprint customers ever disconnected on a cell phone, all
Roto-Rooter customers nationwide whose drains were repaired by
unlicensed plumbers, and all nationwide customers who purchased a
``limited edition'' Barbie doll at a higher price.
So why are all these class action cases filed there? Madison County
did not experience a similar growth in population during this time, nor
did it suddenly become a hub for interstate commerce. Furthermore,
there is no evidence to suggest that the good people of Madison County
are somehow cursed or more plagued by injuries than the average
citizen. Indeed, the only explanation for this phenomenon is aggressive
forum shopping by trial lawyers to find courts and judges who will act
as willing accomplices in a judicial power grab, hearing nationwide
cases and setting policy for the entire country in a local court.
A second major element of the present class action crisis is a system
producing outrageous settlements that benefit only lawyers and trample
the rights of class members. Class actions were originally created to
efficiently address a large number of similar claims by people
suffering small harms. Today they are too often used to efficiently
transfer large fees to a small number of trial lawyers doing great
harm. The present rules encourage a race to any available State
courthouse in hopes of a rubber-stamped nationwide settlement that
produces millions in attorneys' fees. Clearly, some trial lawyers are
winners in this race, but as the Justice Department testified at the
committee's last hearing, the losers in this race are the victims who
often gain little or nothing through the settlement, yet are bound by
it in perpetuity. These same victims and all consumers often bear the
cost of these settlements through increased prices for goods and
insurance.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to share with Members a survey that was
published in the USA Today newspaper on Monday, March 24, 2003:
``Opinions on Class Action Lawsuits, Who Benefits the Most From Class
Action Lawsuits.'' Forty-seven percent said lawyers for plaintiffs, 20
percent said lawyers for companies, 12 percent said don't know, 9
percent said plaintiffs, 7 percent said companies being sued, and 5
percent said buyers of products.
Two-thirds of the American public according to this survey indicate
that the beneficiaries of class action lawsuits are lawyers and only 14
percent said plaintiffs and buyers of products. This bill is designed
to change this mix so that the consumers and the plaintiffs are the
ones that benefit rather than lawyers for plaintiffs or lawyers for
defendants.
Summarizing the problem last November, The Washington Post editorial
board in a critique of the present system wrote:
``Class actions permit almost infinite venue shopping; national class
actions can be filed just about anywhere and are disproportionately
brought in a handful of State courts whose judges get elected with
lawyers' money. These judges effectively become regulators of products
and services produced elsewhere and sold nationally. And when cases are
settled, the clients get token payments while the lawyers get enormous
fees. This is not justice. It is an extortion racket only Congress can
fix.''
Mr. Chairman, today Congress has an opportunity to end this extortion
racket and fix this problem. Article 3 of the Constitution empowers
Congress to establish Federal jurisdiction over cases between citizens
of different States, but current rules on class actions require that
all plaintiffs and defendants be residents of different States and that
every plaintiff's claim be valued at $75,000 or more. These
jurisdictional statutes enacted before the advent of modern class
actions lead to results the framers would find perverse.
For example, under current law, a citizen of one State may bring in
Federal court a simple $75,001 slip-and-fall
[[Page H5282]]
claim against a party from another State. But if a class of 25 million
product owners or users living in all 50 States bring claims
collectively worth $15 billion against a manufacturer, that lawsuit
usually must be heard in State court.
H.R. 1115 would apply new diversity standards to class actions by
changing the diversity requirements for class actions where any
plaintiff and any defendant reside in different States and where the
aggregate of all plaintiffs' claims is at least $2 million. These
modest changes will keep large actions of a national character in
Federal court where they belong.
{time} 1215
H.R. 1115 also addresses the other major area in need of reform, the
incentives for settlements in class action cases and scrutiny of those
settlements. Under current rules, the first case settled wins. Those
left out must either find a way to join the settlement or forego their
claim. This leads to bad settlements favoring lawyers over consumers in
jurisdictions with lax class action requirements. In the last year,
more such one-sided settlements benefiting only the lawyers occurred.
Example: A settlement with Blockbuster over late fees produced $9.25
million in lawyers' fees, and nothing more but dollar coupons for the
consumers represented, only 20 percent of which are likely to be
redeemed.
Another example: A settlement with Crayola over asbestos included in
crayons produced $600,000 in attorneys' fees, and nothing but a 75-cent
discount on more crayons for affected consumers.
In order to prevent abuses like this, H.R. 1115 aims to protect
plaintiffs by prohibiting the payment of bounties to class
representatives, barring the approval of net loss settlements, adopting
better notice requirement provisions which clarify class members'
rights, and by requiring greater scrutiny of coupon settlements and
settlements involving out-of-State class members.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the costs of
class action abuses are not limited to the parties of the settlements.
They are shared by the American consumer through higher prices and
higher insurance premiums.
Class action lawsuits also pose a threat to investors and the
security of American retirement plans, which are largely invested in
equity securities of American corporations. While class action
liability can be enormous, news of these lawsuits on Wall Street can
drive down any particular stock by as much as 10 points in one day.
I also would note that we are likely to hear names like Enron,
Adelphia and WorldCom tossed about today, and rhetoric that this bill
would let such noted corporate wrongdoers off the hook. The truth of
the matter is that nothing in H.R. 1115 would limit the rights of
plaintiffs to seek redress in court in these types of cases.
Under current law, most lawsuits against these companies will be
heard in Federal bankruptcy court, for the same reasons that Federal
courts should be able to resolve many of the class actions. Federal
courts protect the interests of diverse parties from all parts of the
country. In addition, section 4 of H.R. 1115 specifically excludes a
number of Federal securities and State-based corporate fraud lawsuits.
Mr. Chairman, the need to restore some common sense, fairness,
certainty, and dignity in our class action system is clear. The time to
act is now, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and to put
some sense back into our legal system.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, welcome to ``Bash Trial Lawyers Day'' in the House of
Representatives. My friend the chairman used the term 13 times in his
presentation.
I just keep wondering, I would ask the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Chairman Sensenbrenner), what kind of law did you practice? I am
intrigued by the right of trial lawyers not to be as effective as they
can in court.
I notice that the Enron people have pretty good trial lawyers. I
notice that WorldCom has pretty good trial lawyers. I notice that
Adelphia has pretty good trial lawyers. These are all Republican
supporters. I notice that Tyco has pretty good trial lawyers.
Why cannot people with class action suits have trial lawyers that are
effective and doing a good job and get compensated for it?
I would yield to the gentleman, if he chooses to comment on that.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Everybody has a right to have a lawyer, but you
ought to be for court reform.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, everybody has a right
to a lawyer. I thank the gentleman very much. I am very happy this gets
reiterated.
I just want to count the number of times trial lawyers get it in the
neck. Property lawyers, they are okay. Domestic relation lawyers, have
you got any beef about them? They are okay. But trial lawyers that try
these kinds of class action cases, they are making out like bandits,
so, let us put it in the Federal courts. Let us take all of the class
action cases and send them to the Federal courts, exactly where the
Federal judiciary is begging you not to send them; begging you not to
send them. All the consumer groups are begging you not to send them
there.
Yet you tried it in 1998, 1999, 2001, and, now for the fourth time in
6 years, you are back at it again.
Why? What is the problem, guys? Should not people, consumers injured,
be able to bring their cases to their State courts where they have
traditionally?
Well, the answer is, for me, yes; but for you, no.
Could somebody explain to me why we would make the cases retroactive
on top of it? I yield the floor. Tell me why Tyco, Enron, WorldCom,
Adelphia, just tell me why those five corporations should be granted a
delay?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield with pleasure to the gentleman from Virginia, my
friend on the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is not a delay, it is an expedition.
Quite frankly, they have no different treatment in Federal courts than
State courts.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I take my time back. I thank the gentleman
very much for his contribution.
What this bill does, and I just ask that you would read it, I will
quote you the exact place in the bill, is grant an automatic right of
appeal in class certification cases automatically. Is that going to
expedite things?
Most of the judges do not even grant an appeal if they had the
discretion, and think I think you or your staff may be aware of this.
That is a delay, I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte).
Now, in addition to the automatic delay, there is a stay of all
discovery proceedings while the right of appeal is exercised. Do you
know how long that could take, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte)? About 2 years. Now you are telling me that is really
expediting the process. I wait to hear your explanation of that.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1115. Although the legislation is
described by its proponents as a simple procedural fix, in actuality it
represents a major rewrite of the class action rules that would bar
most forms of State class actions and massively tilt the playing field
in favor of corporate defendants.
This is why the legislation is opposed by both the State and Federal
judiciaries, consumer and public interest groups, environmental and
health groups, and civil rights groups. There are several critical
problems with the bill before us.
First, H.R. 1115 will have serious adverse impact on the ability of
consumers and other harmed individuals to obtain compensation in cases
involving widespread harm. At a minimum, the legislation will force
most State class action claims into Federal courts where there will be
far more victims to litigate cases and where defendants could force
plaintiffs to travel long distances to attend proceedings. At worst,
because it is so much more difficult to certify class actions at the
Federal level, the bill will operate to terminate most class action
entirely.
Second, the bill includes a whole series of unrelated provisions that
have nothing to do with class action jurisdiction, but will serve to
benefit corporate wrongdoers. For example, section 6 of the bill gives
the defendant an absolute right to appeal preliminary court decisions,
which will delay the case by up to 2
[[Page H5283]]
years. The section also stops the discovery process dead in its tracks
while the appeal is pending.
Most outrageously of all, the bill was amended so that it applies
retroactively to pending cases. This means that the bill would apply to
pending in corporate fraud cases. As my hometown paper, the Detroit
Free Press wrote yesterday, ``the House version of the legislation is
particularly offensive because it is retroactive, meaning it would
affect class action claims now pending against Enron, Worldcom,
Adelphia and other corporations accused of defrauding investors while
their executives made millions of dollars.'' Is there a single Member
in this Chamber who could defend Congress intervening in a pending case
to help these corporate scam artists?
Fourth, the bill federalizes far more than just class actions.
Section 4 provides that private attorney general actions and mass tort
actions are to be treated as class actions and removed to Federal
court. This means that district attorneys will no longer be able to
combat fraud and abuse in their own State courts, and groups of harmed
tort victims will be forced out of their State courts as well.
Do not be fooled by the Boucher amendment, which proponents claim
will incorporate the Feinstein language from the Senate. What they do
not tell you is that unlike the Feinstein compromise, the Majority's
bill applies retroactively, allows for two year delays or more, and
knocks out private attorney general actions. None of these provisions
were in the Feinstein amendment in the Senate.
I believe it is time for more corporate accountability, not less. I
urge a no vote on this one-sided, anti-consumer legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to invite the gentleman from Michigan
to my district, or I would be happy to go to Detroit, and have him
explain to my constituents or me explain to his constituents why giving
a consumer a coupon for 75 cents or $1 off a product that was
manufactured by the company that injured that consumer and had a
judgment entered against them, while giving a lawyer hundreds of
thousands or millions of dollars' worth of legal fees, or having the
lawyer send a deficiency bill to every member of the class, this bill
takes care of this, is correct, and how it puts consumers in charge
rather than lawyers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Goodlatte.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time and for his leadership in moving this legislation to the floor.
The reason why the interlocutory appeal allowed in the bill expedites
the process and does not make it longer is that that issue is going to
be heard on appeal anyway at the end of the trial, and, as you know,
that takes years and years. Interlocutory appeals have historically
been heard on average faster than appeals at the end of the trial, and,
therefore, this will speed up the bringing of whatever allows the
process to come to a conclusion.
Now, here is what we are talking about. Cheerios. What justice is
done when the plaintiffs' attorney gets $2 million in attorney's fees
and his clients get a box of Cheerios, the very product they allege was
defective in the first place? What kind of justice for the plaintiffs
is done there? I see the justice for the attorneys.
By the way, I say to the gentleman from Michigan, most trial lawyers
are embarrassed by this abuse. Only a small cartel of very wealthy
class action attorneys benefit from the current system. Most trial
lawyers who represent most plaintiffs in America are embarrassed by
this kind of abuse in the current system.
Abuses like $8.5 million in the Bank of Boston case for the
plaintiffs' attorneys. The plaintiffs wound up having to pay money to
their attorneys. Why did the attorneys get fees in a contingent fee
case when their plaintiffs wound up having to pay them? They did not
get anything.
Or the Blockbuster case that the gentleman from Wisconsin cited:
$9.25 million to plaintiffs, $1 off on your movie ticket.
The great airline case, the frequent flier case. A 10 percent
discount on your plane flight, if you buy another ticket on this so-
called defective airline for $250 or more. The attorneys got $25
million.
The Coca-Cola case, the lawyers got $1.5 million, the plaintiffs got
a 50-cent coupon.
Of course, my favorite case, the case of Chase Manhattan Bank, the
attorneys got $4 million, the plaintiffs got 33 cents. Here is one of
the checks, 33 cents. There is a little catch though, because you had
to use a 34-cent stamp in order to send in the acceptance to get the 33
cents. That does not sound like a good deal for me either.
This restores federalism. It removes to our Federal courts the cases
that involve the complexity and the diversity that our Founding Fathers
created diversity jurisdiction for. A simple change in the law does not
change the substance of class action, does not take away the right of
anybody to bring a class action, but it does protect our system and the
integrity of justice in America.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Virginia,
forgot to put in Enron class action cases. I guess that was an
oversight.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a former prosecutor, judge, and attorney.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1115. It is another series
in ill-advised attempts to institute broad tort reform measures by this
body. Class actions are often the only way in which small but
meritorious claims can find redress, and, as such, they are an
essential tool for enforcing civil rights, public health, environmental
and consumer rights and laws.
It is very important, because my colleague disparages the integrity
of elected State court judges. As a former State court judge, I speak
for all of my colleagues to say that we are as qualified as those
appointed by Presidents to the Federal bench.
I would also say that it is very important that if you look at the
campaign funds of the people who are supporting this legislation, I
guarantee you the organizations that do not want class actions are
funding their campaigns.
I do not have enough time to say much more, except to say to all of
you, vote against this legislation. It is not good for the consumer.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1115, another in a
series of ill-advised attempts to institute broad tort reform measures
by this body. Class action lawsuits play an important role in our
Nation's civil justice system, serving the dual objectives of
practicality and fairness. Class actions are often the only way in
which the small, but meritorious claims can find redress, and, as such,
they are an essential tool for enforcing civil rights, public health,
environmental and consumer rights and laws. The bill before us seeks to
remove this tool and impair consumers' access to justice. Further, it
disregards longstanding principals of federalism and would stress an
already overburdened Federal judiciary.
There is no statistical evidence of a State class action ``crisis''
as proponents of this bill claim. In fact, there is empirical evidence
to the contrary. For the past several years, the RAND Institute for
Civil Justice has been studying class action settlements, only to find
that given the small dollar amount of individuals' losses, it was
``highly unlikely that any individual claiming such losses would find
legal representation without incurring significant personal expense.''
This study also found that class actions often resulted in changes to a
companies business practices and that ``class counsel's fees were a
modest share of the negotiated settlements.'' Overall, it concluded
that its survey ``contradicts the view that damage class actions
invariably produce little for class members and that class action
attorneys routinely garner the lion's share of settlements.''
There is also no basis for the unfounded premise that big companies
cannot get a fair trial in State courts--claims that are promulgated by
sensationalist rhetoric surrounding a mere fraction of the class action
suits that are introduced. Where the infrequent abuse has occurred, it
is important to note that it is not an endemic feature of State
judiciaries as proponents of this legislation would have us believe--in
fact, many Federal class acitons have expeirenced the same outcomes
that attract criticism at the state level.
My colleague disparges the integrity of elected State court judges.
As a former judge I protest--if the campaign coffers of those
supporting this legislation were reviewed--I venture a guess then--the
contributors are supportive of this legislation.
But there is an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to the fact
that this bill would
[[Page H5284]]
make it harder--if not impossible--to bring cases against major
corporations in an era of increasing consumer and shareholder
vulnerability. Legitimate lawsuits could be thrown out or stalled if
defendants are given the right to move just about any class action case
from States to a crowded Federal court docket. Since the mid-1990s, the
Federal civil dockets have been severely backlogged. From 1993 to 2002,
U.S. district court civil filings climbed by nearly 37,000 cases (16
percent). And according to the U.S. Judicial Conference, the Federal
courts are short by 150 judges.
This legislation would not only further overburden the schedules of
Federal judges, but would put them in the difficult position of
interpreting a host of State law issues that don't belong in Federal
courts in the first place. This would result not only in extended
delays in obtaining benefits for class members, but also increase
delays for individual plaintiffs in other cases. And since Federal
judges are required to provide speedy trials to criminal defendants, it
is likely that class action suits would end up at the end of the long
Federal docket line, giving corporate offenders more time to ``shred''
documents or dump stock shares.
There is no doubt that State courts are institutionally better suited
to handle class actions than Federal courts. State courts' civil
dockets typically experience smaller caseloads than their Federal
counterparts, not to mention greater experience with State civil laws.
State courts are also more prepared to decide controversial issues of
State law than Federal courts. Without State court interpretations,
States' bodies of law will not develop solutions to new problems, or
guide future conduct of businesses.
It is also important to remember that State courts are held to the
very same standards of due process as their Federal counterparts. If
State judges fail to perform their duties appropriately, States have
adequate mechanisms for reprimanding them. And let us not forget that
State judiciaries are capable of self-regulation. Where real problems
with the certification process have occurred, the offending States have
responded with reforms aimed at improvement. In Alabama, the often-
cited ``swamp justice'' State according to the proponents of this
legislation--both the legislature and the judiciary have been acting to
tighten class action procedure in response to accusations for ``drive-
by'' certifications.
If the foundation of our democracy relies on the strength and
preservation of federalism and deference to State's rights, how can we
support legislation that has as its backbone the notion that State
judiciaries are not as competent as Federal courts? Just ask the
substantial number of Federal judges who have served on State
judiciaries if they are ``better judges'' now that they operate on a
Federal court level. I doubt any of them will respond that they are
more neutral, or less biased, as a result of their Federal appointment.
Put simply, neither the State nor Federal judiciaries are seeking class
action reform because they are quite confident in their own competence.
Indeed, Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Judicial Conference of the
United States are opposed to this legislation for reasons beyond
``unduly burdened'' Federal courts and disturbing States' jurisdiction
over in-State class actions--they are opposed because at its heart it
questions the principles that our Nation's courts are the backbone of a
fair and unbiased justice system.
Class actions play an important role in our civil justice system. We
need to refrain from targeting the few class-action infractions at the
expense of many citizens' right to their day in court. We also need to
refrain from altering the delicate balance between State and Federal
judiciaries established by the drafters of the Constitution and
carefully engineered by their contemporaries.
Let us heed the advice of our most senior authority on this matter,
Chief Justice Rehnquist, that ``Congress should commit itself to
conserving the Federal courts as a distinctive judicial forum of
limited jurisdiction in our system of federalism.'' This legislation is
nothing more than a technically unsupportable effort to enact
institutional advantages for large corporations in all class actions.
Instead of promoting fairness and efficiency, H.R. 1115 simply gives
tobacco companies, Enrons, Worldcoms, HMO's and polluters the power to
choose the legal forum they believe will benefit them most.
A vote against the bill will send the reassuring message to our State
and Federal judiciaries that their judgment and integrity is recognized
by Congress. As a former judge, and now as a Member of this body, I
urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, the
Internet, and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary.
{time} 1230
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act.
This bill reforms the class action system and addresses the abuses that
harm so many Americans.
In recent years, State courts have been flooded with thousands of
frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers looking for the most favorable
jurisdictions conduct the equivalent of a legal shopping spree. They
use loopholes so class action suits can be heard in State courts rather
than Federal courts. Today, State courts employ criteria so loosely
defined that virtually any controversy can qualify as a class action.
We have all heard of the lawsuits in which the plaintiffs walk away
with pennies, sometimes literally, while their attorneys walk away with
millions of dollars in fees. For instance, in a suit against Chase
Manhattan Bank that was referred to by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) a few minutes ago, consumers were awarded 33-cent checks
while the attorneys pocketed $4 million in fees. Mr. Chairman, to
describe this suit, as well as other class action lawsuits, as
``frivolous'' is an insult to frivolousness. Even The Washington Post
has acknowledged that under the present system ``lawyers cash in, while
the `clients' get coupons.''
There are many ``magnet'' State courts that have a reputation for
doling out enormous judgments. This bill makes it easier to get cases
into Federal court to avoid such unfair results.
Mr. Chairman, I, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Boucher), amended this bill in the Committee on the Judiciary to apply
the law to cases that have been filed, but not yet certified as class
actions. Cases that gain class certification after the date of
enactment will have, in fact, the new rules apply to them.
This language eliminates any incentive to rush to the courthouse to
avoid the reforms contained in the legislation. It also prevents
individuals from being made part of a frivolous suit that has been
filed before enactment of the new laws.
The widespread abuse of class action lawsuits must be stopped. The
Class Action Fairness Act includes bipartisan, sensible reforms that
clarify the rights of consumers and restore confidence in America's
civil justice system.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I
also thank the chairman of the committee for his action in passing this
today.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a distinguished member of the
committee.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, something in me enjoys this exercise in
self-flagellation by all of the lawyers in this Chamber. From time to
time, those of us who are not lawyers in this Chamber, we convene a
meeting, and we can do it in the phone booth in the cloakroom; but now
we are all so angry at lawyers.
But this is not about lawyers. Frankly, most Americans are neither
lawyers nor, thank God, are they victims, so they do not have to go
into courts; and that is a good thing. But the groups that do represent
victims, that do represent average Americans, almost universally oppose
this legislation. Those that represent cancer patients, the American
Cancer Society, oppose this legislation. Those who fight against
pollution, the Clean Water Action, oppose this legislation. Those who
represent seniors, the Gray Panthers, oppose this legislation. Those
who represent consumers oppose this legislation. Those who fight
against violence against women, the National Women's Health Network,
oppose this legislation, because it is bad for victims and it is bad
for those who use the system.
The gentleman from Virginia had these great charts. I am going to
have to gesture because he would not let me use them. He had these
great charts about 35 cents; that is all people are getting. Do my
colleagues know why? Because there are millions and millions of
victims; millions and millions of victims in that class. That is all
that can go around is 35 cents. There
[[Page H5285]]
are hundreds and thousands of victims in this class. When you brag
that, well, all the money that was left after they gave out these
multimillion dollars was only 35 cents a person, that is a subject of
how many people there were in that class.
I say to my colleagues, the bottom line is that it is ironic to hear
the same people who came to this floor a couple of weeks ago and said,
oh, the amount the victims are getting is too high, let us cap it at
$250,000, now they are saying that 35 cents is too low. Do my
Republican colleagues want to have a minimum? Sign me up. What is the
number going to be? I know it is lower than $250,000 and higher than 35
cents, but we have to let my colleagues decide, because a jury cannot
handle it. Oh, no. It is too mind-boggling for a jury to handle,
because that is nine or 12 people from your district. They chose you,
but they cannot figure out if Cheerios was right to short-change
millions of consumers.
And let me say one other thing. Let me tell my colleagues one other
group who should oppose this legislation: anyone that has the audacity
to call themselves conservative. If you think it is conservative to
take power away from the people and their States and give it to 1,500
Federal judges who sit in there in their marble chambers, who never
talk to anyone or touch anyone, if you think that is conservative, you
have it completely backwards. But then again, you do. You have it
completely backwards.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The gentleman from New York unfortunately has got it all wrong. What
this bill does is it takes the power away from one State court judge to
decide national legal and national economic policy and puts it in the
Federal courts where the founders intended it to be when they
established the right of Congress to establish diversity jurisdiction.
The second point that I would like to make is why did all of these
consumers only get 33-cent checks? It is because the lawyers signed off
in the settlement that filled their pockets to overflowing with legal
fees and giving 33-cent checks to the clients that they supposedly
represented. Now, if those lawyers were a little bit more fighting for
their clients and less for themselves, maybe those checks would have
been bigger because the fees would have been smaller.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his
work on this issue.
I am a lawyer. I am for class action reform. These lawsuits continue
to victimize the victims. Even The Washington Post, as the gentleman
from Texas referred to, said the clients get token payments: 33-cent
checks, boxes of Cheerios. In one case, the clients even ended up
having to pay. The lawyers get enormous fees. This is not justice; it
is an extortion racket that only Congress can fix. That is why we are
here today. We are here to fix it.
The intent of the class action system is to facilitate large groups
who have similar harm caused to them to efficiently recover damages.
Recover damages. That is appropriate damages, not 33-cent checks. We
are here to change that so that appropriate damages will be recovered.
How are we going to do that? We are going to change the system. We
are going to make sure that not one small court in one State makes a
decision for an entire Nation of victims. We are going to put it in the
Federal court where it should be.
Recent studies of the class action system show there is a 1,315
percent increase in class action suits filed in State courts. Listen
closely: 1,315 percent increase in class action suits filed in State
courts. Why? Because some of those State courts have been very friendly
to that small group of trial lawyers who take on these suits and get 33
cents for their clients and large, million-dollar settlements for
themselves.
Here is another number: those attorneys who search for local friendly
courts like Madison County, Illinois. Madison County, Illinois, has
seen a 1,850 percent increase in class action filings that certify
their classes and they will rubber-stamp these ridiculous, useless
settlements.
This abuse has three larger consequences. First, as I said, the
plaintiffs are denied real relief, and we have heard many examples,
while the attorneys pocket huge rewards. It is time for us to take
responsibility and make sure that clients get proper settlements.
Support this reform.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues who does support this bill,
and particularly the provision that makes the automatic appeal and the
stay of the discovery proceedings retroactive. It is none of the groups
that were enumerated by the gentleman from New York, no. We have two
letters that were submitted as testimony, as exhibits before the
Committee on the Judiciary. One is the Association to Advance
Technology. Another is a similar trade association involving the high-
tech industry. My memory is that it was submitted by the gentleman from
Virginia.
I just wonder, and I am really posing a question, I guess, do any
members of either of these trade associations have class action suits
pending against them now? I do not know, and I do not see the gentleman
responding. But he was very effective with his parade of horror
stories.
Well, let me tell my colleagues, too, I do not have any charts; but
maybe we could present pictures here, pictures of dead people, people
who died as a result of defective tires that were manufactured by
Firestone. Maybe we could read the names of those who died as a result
of not being informed by the tobacco industry about the carcinogens
that are present in a cigarette. But thank God we had class action
suits, because this Congress is not ready to take action until some
lawyer, yes, a lawyer, went out and filed a class action suit and
finally revealed what the truth was, that these industries were
withholding information that affected the public welfare of the people
of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, this bill doesn't ``reform'' the class action system.
It eviscerates it. And before we curtail the ability of our citizens to
bring class actions, we need to be clear about why they exist in the
first place.
Class actions do not exist solely or even primarily to provide relief
for private wrongs. They exist to correct, punish and deter misconduct
that harms large numbers of ordinary people and society as a whole.
Class actions level the playing field, uniting ordinary citizens who
could never undertake complex and costly litigation on their own.
You can understand why a mechanism like this is threatening to major
corporations. Faced with a single lawsuit by an average citizen, most
major companies can barely stifle a yawn. It is only the prospect of a
class action suit joined by hundreds or thousands of such citizens that
can get their attention.
You can understand why corporate defendants would do all they can to
stack the deck in their favor. Or in this case, to shuffle the deck in
their favor.
The sponsors have hit on a brilliant strategy. Since Congress cannot
dictate the rules by which state courts handle their cases, the bill
simply removes the cases from state court and transfers them to federal
court. Then, once they're in federal court, the bill changes the rules
to make sure that most of these cases will never see the light of day.
As soon as the district court either grants or denies certification
to the class, the bill gives the parties the right to an automatic
interlocutory appeal of the decision. And as soon as a party files an
appeal, the bill halts all discovery proceedings in the case until the
appeal is completed.
What does this mean in practical terms? Given the huge backlogs in
federal court--backlogs which this bill will only make worse--it will
be years before discovery can resume. And years more before plaintiffs
who have suffered grievous injuries can get to trial on the merits.
What's important to understand is that this doesn't just delay
recoveries. It undermines the very purpose of the class action system
by removing the incentive for corporate defendants to fix problems. And
delaying the release to the public of information that might save
lives.
The current federal rules permit the judge to entertain an appeal of
a class certification order, and even to stay proceedings until the
appeal is resolved. But as Judge Scirica has
[[Page H5286]]
explained in a recent letter to the committee on behalf of the Judicial
Conference of the United States: ``Providing an appeal as of right
might tempt a party to . . . appeal solely for tactical reasons.
Staying discovery and other proceedings in the district court would
only increase the tactical advantages of filing an interlocutory
appeal, particularly because resolution of the appeal may not occur for
12 to 18 months.''
Nor will this problem affect only the cases that the bill transfers
to federal court. It will also affect the hundreds of cases that are
already there, since the bill applies retroactively to cases that have
not yet been certified at the time it goes into effect.
Thoses cases include some of the most notorious corporate fraud cases
in history, including--
The Enron case, on behalf of thousands of investors who claim more
than $20 billion in damages as a result of the series of fraudulent
transactions that destroyed the company and rendered its stock
worthless.
The WorldCom case, in which the plaintiffs contend that corporate
insiders and auditors disseminated materially false and misleading
information and used illegitimate accounting schemes to hide losses and
inflate reported earnings.
The Adelphia case, in which plaintiffs allege violations of federal
securities laws flowing from the failure to disclose billions of
dollars in debt.
The Global Crossing case, in which plaintiffs cite the accounting
schemes that grossly misrepresented the company's financial picture and
precipitated the ruin of the company.
The ImClone case, in which senior corporate executives engaged in
fraud, perjury, and obstruction of justice for which the CEO has just
been convicted in federal court and other indictments are pending.
These class actions seek to address the looting of company after
company by corporate insiders, whose brazen misconduct and self-dealing
defrauded creditors and investors of billions of dollars, and stripped
employees and retirees of their livelihood and life savings.
Yet if this bill becomes law, the victims of those practices will
face new obstacles in their efforts to call those executives to task.
Are there abuses of the class action system? Of course. We've all
herd about abusive coupon settlements, collusive settlements, excessive
fees, and the like. The Democratic substitute would address these
problems. But the bill does not. That is not its purpose. Its purpose
isn't to fine-tune the class action system but to eviscerate it. To
shield corporate malefactors from civil liability and leave the public
unprotected.
At our markup of this bill, one of its supporters said, ``The goal of
this bill is to ensure that legitimate plaintiffs receive fair and
prompt recoveries.''
Plainly that is not the goal of the bill. The goal is to ensure that
legitimate plaintiffs are denied any recovery at all. And that whatever
recovery they do receive is delayed as long as possible.
This bill is not about protecting plaintiffs. It's not about
protecting the public. It's about protecting large corporations whose
conduct has been egregious. It's about protecting the powerful at the
expense of the powerless. And to prevent people from banding together
as a class to challenge that power in the only way we can.
We must also see this bill in its proper context. It is only part of
an ambitious and multi-pronged campaign by major corporations to evade
their obligations to society.
Under the guise of ``deregulation'' we're watching the wholesale
dismantling of health and safety standards, environmental protections,
and longstanding limits on concentration of ownership within the media
and other key industries.
This House has just passed a bill that releases gun manufacturers
from liability for the death and destruction they cause. And a
bankruptcy ``reform'' bill that rewards abuses by credit card companies
and does nothing to curb the greed and irresponsibility that have
bankrupted major corporations and left employees, retirees and
creditors holding the bag. And a medical malpractice bill that caps
recovery for the injuries inflicted on patients by negligent health
care providers, while doing nothing to reduce the rate of medical
errors or curb the exorbitant premiums charged by insurance companies.
Today's bill completes this picture. It takes aim at the civil
justice system that exists to correct the wrongs that the government
cannot or will not address. Not content to put an end to regulation,
the proponents seek to muzzle the courts as well.
We cannot allow them to do it, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no.''
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1115, the
Class Action Fairness Act, and I want to thank the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) for bringing this legislation to the floor today. It is
critical that the House act on this issue.
Over the past 10 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the
filing of class action lawsuits in the United States. Some of these
lawsuits have played a valuable role in our legal system allowing for
the efficient resolution of legitimate claims where there were numerous
parties involved. Unfortunately, too many class actions are frivolous
and are brought about by greedy trial lawyers who are more concerned
with shopping for the best venue to collect fees than with producing
justice for the injured parties.
We have heard about some of these examples. The Blockbuster Video
case where customers got a coupon for a dollar off the next video. The
court in Minnesota that gave the credit card company that was engaged
in deceptive practices, those customers got some coupons, and the
chance to apply for a credit card at a lower rate. The attorneys got
$5.6 million there. In the Blockbuster case, we heard they split $9.25
million. The Coca Cola case, the customers got some 50-cent coupons and
the lawyers split $1.5 million.
Mr. Chairman, Americans love couponing. They love double couponing.
They love triple couponing. But let me tell my colleagues something:
this is a mighty expensive way to do it. The American people get ripped
off, and the big-time lawyers and the greedy trial lawyers are getting
the millions of dollars. They are hitting the coupon jackpot.
It is time to reform the system. I encourage my colleagues to support
this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The so-called Class Action Fairness Act has nothing to do with
fairness. This corporate defendants' ``Choice of Forum Act'' is a one-
sided, unfair gift to the polluters, the Enrons, and the pharmaceutical
companies that will hurt consumers by delaying their access to justice.
It will indefinitely delay hearings for people who may be victims of
defective products, fraud, discrimination, and environmental pollution.
Mr. Chairman, this class action bill was a terrible bill when the
House passed it in the last Congress; and fortunately, that bill died
in the other body. Incredibly, H.R. 1115, this year's iteration of the
bill, is even worse, as it now contains retroactivity language that
will allow some of the worst corporate wrongdoers, companies like
Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Andersen, to remove cases filed against
them in State court to the Federal courts where their attorneys can use
the huge civil case backlogs in our Federal court system to just
``slow-walk'' the victims of their misconduct.
{time} 1245
The bill provides an automatic right of an interlocutory appeal of a
class action certification, slow walk, and a stay on all discovery
while the class certification appeal is pending. Slow walk.
This unwise, ill-conceived intrusion on the jurisdiction of the State
courts will destroy access to justice while overwhelmingly increasing
the burdens on our Federal courts. That is why this bill is opposed by
the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Conference of
Chief Justices.
It is also strenuously opposed by every Democratic member of the
caucus who has served as a trial judge at either the State or Federal
level. It is even opposed by Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Finally, the bill will destroy the efficacy of private attorney
general actions that consumers may now bring in the State of California
to combat corporate fraud and wrongdoing. No one is better situated
than the people of California to protect their rights as consumers
under California law. That is why we should not support any bill that
would allow corporate defendants to remove these cases to Federal court
where they can avoid having to answer
[[Page H5287]]
to those State court judges with real expertise and the greatest
knowledge of California law.
I strongly support the amendment that the gentlewomen from California
(Ms. Lofgren) and (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) will offer to strike the
language permitting California private attorney general actions to be
removed to Federal court. Mr. Chairman, this bill will injure consumers
and assist those corporate defendants who simply want to game the
system.
We can protect consumers from any perceived abuses in coupon
settlements without adopting this assault on consumer access to full,
fair, and timely justice. I urge my colleagues to reject this latest
Republican miscarriage of justice. I urge my colleagues, just simply
oppose this bad bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, once again the opponents of this bill are wrong. The
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is talking about Enron and
WorldCom cases being removed to Federal court. They already are there.
Both of these corporations have filed for bankruptcy. Once there is a
bankruptcy filing by anybody, the cases are heard in Federal court,
simple as that.
I really would hope that they get their facts straight before they
attack the bill the next time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Feeney).
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate and thank the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for this fine bill. This is a commonsense
reform of the class action process throughout the United States.
Mr. Chairman, this bill does not deny anybody access to a court or to
a judge. What it does say is that lawyers that have a special
relationship with a judge cannot forum shop and select their own judge;
they have to have equal-handed justice. This cuts down on the lottery
mentality in the court system and gives everybody the same fair and
equal access.
Mr. Chairman, the Founders of our great Republic were very concerned
about some forum shopping throughout the States where some States would
not treat out-of-state defendants fairly, so they created diversity
jurisdiction to allow Federal courts to make sure there was an even-
handed array of justice.
In some States where they elect their justices, literally we have
special interests, in some cases the trial lawyers, that are actually
able to buy elections and have their favorite justices determine the
entire constitutionality of issues because they run the supreme court.
All this bill does is to say everybody gets a fair shot at a Federal
judge if there is legitimate diversity jurisdiction. It stops the
lottery game in our court system.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), ranking member of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), as well.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for yielding time
to me. It is my pleasure to rise in support of the bill that is before
us.
In the 20 years that it has been my privilege to serve in the House,
the class action reform measure that is before us today is the most
modest litigation reform that has been debated, and it strikes in a
narrow and appropriate way at an egregious abuse and miscarriage of
justice.
The bill that is before us makes procedural changes only. There are
no restrictions on the substantive rights of plaintiffs. There are no
caps on damages. There is no limitation on the rights of plaintiffs to
recover. The bill simply permits the removal to Federal court of class
actions that are national in scope, with plaintiffs living across the
Nation and a large corporate defendant doing business throughout the
country, even if current diversity of citizenship rules are not
strictly met.
This change is much needed. Cases that are truly national in scope
are being filed as State class actions before certain favored judges
who employ an almost anything-goes approach that renders virtually any
controversy subject to certification as a class action. Once the
certification occurs, there is then a rush to settle the case. The
lawyers who filed the case tend to make an offer that is very hard for
the corporate defendant to refuse. They ask for large fees for
themselves, typically in the millions of dollars, and then coupons are
requested for the class members.
Rather than go through years of expensive litigation, the defendant
settles. The judge who certified the case quickly approves the
settlement. The lawyer who filed the case gets rich; the plaintiff
class members he represents get virtually nothing. That is the problem.
That is the abuse that this reform is designed to resolve.
This reform permits the removal of these national cases to the
Federal court in the State in which the State class action is pending.
In the Federal court, the rights of plaintiffs will be more carefully
observed. Any settlement involving noncash compensation will be
carefully reviewed to assure that it is fair. Under the bill, cases
that are local in scope will remain in the State court where they are
filed.
Later today I will be joining with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and other Members in offering an amendment that the
Committee on the Judiciary and the other body adopted, originally
drafted by Senator Feinstein of California, that gives Federal judges
greater direction in deciding which cases are national in scope and
should be removed to Federal court, and which cases should remain in
the State courts in which they are filed.
This is a needed reform. It is a modest remedy. It is procedural
only. The rights of all plaintiffs to participate in a class action
will be respected, either in State or Federal court. I am pleased to
rise in support of this measure and urge its adoption in the House.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2003.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for
proposing this good legislation.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I welcome this
opportunity to address some of the criticism that we have heard about
this legislation, that it would diminish State court authority or
otherwise offend basic federalism principles.
Opponents of this bill have suggested that removing a lawsuit filed
in State court to Federal court deprives the State court of its right
to decide matters of State law, but all State law-based actions do not
presumptively belong in State court. Federal diversity jurisdiction,
established by the Framers of the Constitution, allows State law-based
claims to be moved from local courts to Federal courts to ensure that
all parties will be able to litigate on a level playing field and to
ensure that interstate commerce interests will be protected.
Additionally, the expansion of diversity included in the Class Action
Fairness Act is consistent with current diversity law, since it allows
Federal courts to hear large cases which have interstate implications.
By nature, class actions fulfill these requirements.
Mr. Chairman, in most State law-based class actions, the proposed
classes encompass residents of multiple States. Therefore, the trial
court, regardless of whether it is a State or a Federal court, must
interpret and apply the laws of multiple jurisdictions. It is far more
appropriate for a Federal court to interpret the laws of various States
as opposed to having one State court dictate the substantive laws of
others States.
I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a distinguished member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I have followed my colleagues' debate about this,
particularly my colleague on the Democratic
[[Page H5288]]
side, the gentleman from Virginia, who says that there are no
substantive changes in this bill, there are only procedural changes,
and that this is a modest change.
The thing that is amazing about that is the modest change is going to
move a tremendous volume of cases from the State court to the Federal
courts, which is exactly why the Federal judges are opposed to this.
If this is only procedural in nature, I am not sure that I, for the
life of me, can understand why we are doing it. If this is only
process, it would seem to me that we should be able to get the same
result in the Federal court or the State court, because if we listen to
what the supporters of this bill are saying, they are not making any
substantive changes.
Now, I used to think that I understood my Republican colleagues when
they said that they believed in States' rights, and that when we have
the level of government or a judicial system that is close to the
people, that is where we are likely to get the best kinds of results in
cases.
Why, then, if we follow that theory, would we take all of the cases
that are now being tried in State court and pick them up and move them
into Federal court? For some reason, there is something wrong with that
picture. They say the rights of the parties will be carefully preserved
in the Federal court. I think that is what I heard my friend, the
gentleman from Virginia, say. Well, does that mean that the rights of
the parties for all of these years have not been carefully preserved in
the State court? I thought that is what the Republican Party stood for,
taking things back to the local and State level. I thought they
believed in States' rights.
They said, well, if we move to Federal court, we are going to get
fairness. We are going to get fairness. They have also said, for some
reason, if we move the cases into Federal court we are going to get
fairness. The opposite of that is if we leave them in the State court
somehow we are not going to get fairness. If we are not changing the
substance, then why are they doing this? Why are they doing this?
So this must be about the results that some people are getting that
they are not happy with. I am telling the Members, I think if we have
the same case in Federal court or State court, we ought to get the same
result. That is the way it has always been, and that is the way it
would be in the absence of this new bill. I encourage my colleagues to
oppose the bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Watt), seems to have forgotten that the civil rights laws that were
passed in the 1960s were passed with Republican support because his
predecessors in North Carolina would not support civil rights laws, no
way, no how. Those laws took away from the States the right to ensure
equal treatment of all American citizens. I am proud my party, the
party of Lincoln, led the charge on that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
I thank others who have advanced this legislation, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), on
our side, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and many
others.
Mr. Chairman, we know that class actions have played a very important
role in advancing progressive goals, like civil rights and consumer
rights. But something has gone wrong. A lot of trial lawyers will tell
us, privately, that this has to be fixed, and, You guys need to rein it
in.
There is an unintended loophole in the interpretation of diversity
jurisdiction. That is where we are getting the abuse. We are getting a
few trial lawyers who go forum shopping, and they go into the courts of
judges who are elected, oftentimes with the contributions of trial
lawyers. I am not saying this alone, but The Washington Post said this
in their own editorial. They know what decision they are going to get.
Oftentimes, they get the thing certified before even notifying the
defendants, and then they wind up settling.
{time} 1300
But who gets hurt? The consumer gets hurt. And it is not just in
paying higher prices for products. They get those worthless coupons. A
lot of them do not even know they are members of the plaintiff class.
There is any number of consumer provisions in here. It requires
scrutiny of these coupon settlements. It prohibits settlements where
the class members come out as losers. It bars bounties for class
representatives. Settlement awards cannot be based on geography. How
unfair a system to base it on where you happen to live. It requires the
settlement to be put in plain English so the consumers know what they
are dealing with.
This is commonsense legislation. Let us pass it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.
Every time a black Member of Congress gets up to talk about an issue
like this, it always becomes a race debate; but I want to tell the
gentleman that he is absolutely right.
We used to file every race discrimination case in America in the
Federal court, but the law allows those cases to be filed in the State
courts, too. And in many cases now, because the States have started
appointing judges who came out of this century as opposed to the 19th
and 18th century in their racial opinions, then you can get a fair
trial in the State courts. And I think you can get a fair trial in the
State courts on this issue if you will let the State courts do what
they are supposed to do.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind my friend, the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, that he was not that happy with Federal
courts in the University of Michigan affirmative action case. Remember
that one?
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to also voice my strong opposition to this
bill, H.R. 1115. This bill is worse than what we saw last year, and it
would be applied retroactively to pending cases, including those
brought by employees at Enron for financial fraud, Dow Chemical for
environmental charges, and Wal-Mart for employment discrimination
against women.
In midstream the bill would strip the rights of plaintiffs in these
cases, causing expensive and wasteful interruption of their pursuit for
justice and equal treatment under the law.
In the wake of corporate scandals, workers in our country have lost
well over $175 billion in retirement savings. Let us look at the real
facts here. In California alone, workers have lost over $18 billion in
retirement savings. At a time when we should be holding corporations
more accountable, not less, their bill sends the wrong message.
Congress should stand up and protect consumers, employees,
pensioners, and not corporate wrongdoers. They call this the Class
Action Fairness bill? I am sorry. In my language it is a mentiras. That
means it is a lie.
I urge my colleagues to please vote for the Sandlin-Conners
substitute.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 1115 and in support of the
Democratic substitute. There is no fairness in this so-called Class
Action Fairness Act. This bill amounts to a sweeping Federal takeover
of State class action lawsuits.
Instead of improving the class action litigation process, this bill
guarantees that those victims of discrimination of corrupt corporate
practices will be forced to wait for years for any hope of justice.
H.R. 1115 alters the constitutional distribution of judicial power by
moving State class action suits into the Federal court system. This
bill undermines State rights and jeopardizes civil rights. Adding cases
to the already clogged Federal court system will delay hearings for all
class action
[[Page H5289]]
cases and cause those civil rights class action cases that truly belong
in the Federal courts to await behind cases that should be heard in the
State court.
This misnamed bill is opposed by both Federal and State judges. It is
opposed by consumer groups. It is opposed by civil rights groups. It is
opposed by environmental groups. But predictably it is supported and
endorsed by the big corporations. I urge my colleagues to adopt the
Democratic substitute.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, Teddy Roosevelt would be spinning in his
grave if he knew his party had decided to join ranks with what he
referred to as the malefactors of great wealth. And that is exactly
what this bill does.
It is incredible to me that some of my colleagues who support this
bill come to this well and purport, say that they are on the side of
consumers because they have such great sorrow and empathy for
consumers. Well, you have to decide what you are on. The Consumers
Federation of America knows this is a bad bill for consumers and they
are against it. The Consumers Union of America knows this is a bad bill
and they are against it. The Consumers for Auto Liability and Safety
know this is a bad bill and they are against it. The consumers of
America recognize this bill reduces their rights.
And the part that I want to focus on, and I heard one speaker refer
to it as mere rhetoric that the consumers are going to get hurt, tell
that to the thousands of people that are damaged by Ken Lay and Enron's
depredations on them, whose lawsuit will be stayed for at least another
year and a half to 2 years if this bill passes. You ought to know what
side consumers are on, and in this bill they are against it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, what are the Republicans trying to hide with H.R. 1115?
Who are they are trying to protect? Do the names WorldCom, Enron and
Arthur Andersen strike a familiar note?
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are jumping up and down
like rodeo dogs trying to claim that they are interested in protecting
individuals. Now, is that not a fine kettle of fish?
They must mean individuals like Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Bernie Ebbers
and the CEOs of corporate wrongdoers who enrich themselves at the
expense of American families and pensioners.
Oh, now, I understand. Those are the individuals who we are
protecting.
Mr. Chairman, these CEOs do not need further protections. They have
the fifth amendment and they use it all the time. Individual groups,
the real individual groups such as the American Cancer Society, the
American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, CWA, MALDEF,
National Education Association, National Women's Health Network, SEIU,
United Church of Christ, NAACP, true individuals oppose this
legislation. They are the ones that need protections.
Mr. Chairman, who knows more about the judicial system than the Chief
Justice of the United States Supreme Court? He is opposed. How about
the Judicial Conference of the United States? Opposed. How about ten
attorney generals who gave a statement just yesterday? Opposed. Federal
courts? Opposed. State courts? Opposed. And I find it interesting that
the Republicans have now adopted the Washington Post as their
spokesman.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I will see their Washington Post and raise them
the Augusta Journal. I will raise them the Columbus Dispatch. I will
raise them the Wilmington, North Carolina Star News. I will raise them
the Salt Lake City Tribune. I will raise them the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel. The list goes on and on.
And why, oh why, did our Republican friends make this retroactive? We
do not do that. Who are they trying to protect? The individuals they
are claiming to be interested in? Give me a break, Mr. Chairman. Do the
Republicans actually believe anyone in America will believe that the
Republicans are standing up for individuals against corporate
wrongdoers? And the automatic appeal? That gives Enron some extra years
to destroy evidence. That is why they want that.
Make no mistake about it. Thus far it is Enron, for; the American
Cancer Society, opposed. Worldcom says yes; the National Education
Association, the teachers, they say no. Arthur Andersen, good; United
Church of Christ and NAACP, bad.
This act should be called exactly what it is: the Corporate Wrongdoer
Past, Present and Future Protection Act; and, by the way, do not forget
to send the money.
Let us shred up this document. Let us shred up this piece of
legislation just like the documents that the corporate wrongdoers love
to destroy. That would be true justice. That is what ought to happen to
this legislation.
It is improper. It is unconstitutional. Our friends on the other side
know it, and the judicial system of the United States has said this
should be opposed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I wish the Democrats would get their facts straight
before they come to the floor. First, any entity, individual or
corporate, that is in bankruptcy is in Federal court and all claims go
there: Enron, WorldCom, anybody else that is in bankruptcy.
Secondly, page 16 of the bill, which I will send over to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), provides specific exemptions for
the removal of class action cases to Federal court for all the types of
corporate wrongdoing that he said on the floor.
Read the bill, be accurate in your arguments, and support it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Detroit, Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, for
yielding me time, and I appreciate this debate. I just wish it was
longer, to be able to be more edifying of what we are talking about.
My voice is a little raspy this morning, but it seems that day after
day and time after time, we come to this floor to try to keep the door
of justice open.
This seems like a one-sided victory. We know they have the votes. But
this is personal. And I have always been taught that when we uphold the
Constitution and speak on behalf of the American people, we should
remove our personal considerations. There is a fight between a few
defense lawyers who have come up against worthy plaintiffs' lawyers who
prevailed on behalf of class action plaintiffs in a myriad of issues,
whether it is the Ford Pinto, whether it has to do with thalidomide
that made babies deformed in the 1950s. These are the causes that we
are talking about.
This class action legislation is an abuse of power because it
undermines the tenth amendment that I have thought we respected in some
instances; and that is, we leave certain issues to the States. There
are 68 vacancies in the Federal court. All you need to do is kick class
action lawsuits out of the State courts that have moved progressively
along to allow plaintiffs to have their say, and you will have a
backlog of Federal jurisdiction and docket, and you will never see the
light of day.
So individuals who have been injured with respect to medical devices
or other kinds of manufacturing devices and have drawn together because
their resources are small will not have their day in court.
The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights have brought up another issue.
Is it because the juries are predominantly minority in many cases that
you run away from justice? Let me say to my friends, justice comes in
all shapes, colors, and sizes. I want to stand for justice.
Vote against this bad bill. It closes the door of justice to the
American people.
Mr. Chairman, today this Chamber is considering H.R. 1115, the
``Class Action Fairness Act of 2003.'' I oppose H.R. 1115 for several
policy reasons including severe infringement on the discretion of the
judiciary. I remain steadfast in my belief that this legislation is yet
[[Page H5290]]
another example of the legislature interfering in the affairs of the
judiciary.
It is remarkable that the proponents of this legislation have always
espoused the wisdom of allowing state courts and legislatures to decide
for their own citizens what is best for them. They have professed that,
as much as possible, the Federal government should not interfere in
state business. But H.R. 1115 directly interferes with state court
discretion by broadening Federal jurisdiction over state class action
lawsuits.
H.R. 1115 makes severe changes to diversity jurisdiction
requirements. The bill also makes substantial revisions to the rules
governing aggregation of claims. Both of these changes would result in
significantly more state court actions being removed to federal courts
thereby overburdening the federal caseload.
H.R. 1115 also provides a party to a class action lawsuit with the
right to an interlocutory appeal of the court's class certification
decision provided an appeal notice is filed within 10 days. The appeal
would stay discovery and other proceedings during the pendency of the
appeal. This is a substantial change to Rule 23(f) which presently
provides the court with discretion to allow an appeal of the class
certification order without staying other proceedings. The automatic
stay under H.R. 1115 provides defendants with another delaying tactic
and another tool to increase the expense for plaintiffs.
These delay tactics and other provisions give a decisive advantage to
well-financed corporate defendants. I am deeply concerned that if we
pass H.R. 1115 we would eliminate the means by which innocent victims
of corporate giants can find justice. First, I believe that before we
consider this legislation, Congress should insist on receiving
objective and comprehensive data justifying such a dramatic intrusion
into state court prerogatives. This legislation has the potential to
damage federal and state court systems. H.R. 1115 will expand federal
class action jurisdiction to include most state class actions. H.R.
1115 will dramatically increase the number of cases in the already
overburdened federal courts.
For example, as of February 2, 2002, there were 68 federal judicial
vacancies. Judicial vacancies mean other courts must assume the
workload. Assuming this additional burden contributes to federal
district court judges having a backlogged docket with an average of 416
pending civil cases. These workload problems caused Supreme Court Chief
Justice Rehnquist to criticize Congress for taking actions that have
exacerbated the courts' workload problem.
H.R. 1115 also raises serious constitutional issues because it strips
state courts of the discretion to decide when to utilize the class
action format. In those cases where a federal court chooses not to
certify the state class action, the bill prohibits the states from
using class actions to resolve the underlying state causes of action.
Federal courts have indicated in numerous decisions that efforts by
Congress to dictate such state court procedures implicate important
Tenth Amendment federalism issues and should be avoided. The Supreme
Court has already made clear that state courts are constitutionally
required to provide due process and other fairness protections to the
parties in class action cases.
H.R. 1115 also adversely impacts the ability of consumers and other
victims to receive compensation in cases concerning extensive damages.
The bill has the potential to force state class actions into federal
courts which may result in increase litigation expenses. Corporate
defendants may attempt to force less-financed plaintiffs to travel
great distances to participate in court proceedings. There are also
added pleading costs for plaintiffs. For example, under the bill,
individuals are required to plead with particularity the nature of the
injuries suffered by class members in their initial complaints. The
plaintiff must even prove the defendant's ``state of mind,'' such as
fraud or deception, to be included in the initial complaint. This is a
very high standard to impose of plaintiffs who may not yet have had the
benefit of formal discovery. If the pleading requirements are not met,
the judge is required to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.
Additionally, plaintiffs under H.R. 1115 will face a far more arduous
task of certifying their class actions in the federal court system.
Fourteen states, representing some 29 percent of the nation's
population, have adopted different criteria for class action rules than
Rule 23 of the federal rules of civil procedure. Plaintiffs may also be
disadvantaged by the vague terms used in the legislation, such as
``substantial majority'' of plaintiffs, ``primary defendants,'' and
claims ``primarily'' governed by a state's laws, as they are entirely
new and undefined phrases with no precedent in the United States Code
or the case law.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1115 is riddled with provisions that are
burdensome to potential plaintiffs and that potentially infringe on the
discretion of state courts. I urge all of my colleagues to reject H.R.
1115 as it is presently written. I commend my colleagues for proposing
numerous amendments to this bill and I hope that these amendments will
address the gross inequities in this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\
minutes.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this bill is class warfare with a
vengeance.
Here my conservative friends, Republicans, are supporting the bill
that will help Enron, Ken Lay, that is right, Adelphia, WorldCom, Tyco,
by making retroactive all the automatic appeal provisions. By the way,
the Chambers of Commerce are enthusiastic that maybe the fourth time
this will get through the Congress. The National Association of
Manufacturers are for it, and so is the President of the United States.
That is one side.
Now, who are the victims? All consumers groups are against the bill.
All civil rights groups are against the bill. All environmental groups
are against the bill. All health care groups are against the bill. All
judges, Federal and State, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, are against the bill.
Get the picture? We do. And so do the people in your districts from
whom you are taking the right to be jurors in these trials away from.
{time} 1315
Let us talk about the coupon business, because in the Democratic
substitute, on page 12, section 1711, is the only corrective action to
coupons, which have been cried about on this floor this morning. If
there is any provision in the bill that is on the floor now about
coupons that will eliminate it or make it harder to bring, I would sure
like to hear about it in the closing comments; and I have a Detroit
Free Press editorial that came out yesterday saying class action, the
plan seems less about justice than helping business. And I will insert
it and a letter from the NAACP for the Record at this point.
[From the Detroit Free Press, June 11, 2003]
Class Action: Plan Seems Less About Justice Than Helping Business
Now don't go making a federal case of it . . .
That old expression is a good one to direct at Congress,
since the House and Senate appear to be racing each other to
pass bills that would discourage class-action lawsuits by
shifting them from state courts to the federal system. This
is an interesting tack for a lot of conservative lawmakers
who profess to want less federal involvement in American
lives. Federal judges, already buckling under case overload,
are opposed to it. So are state judges. Consumer groups see
the bills as an overkill remedy for a system that's already
being repaired by judicial initiatives.
Class-action suits allow one or a few people to seek
damages for hundreds or even thousand of individuals who may
have been affected by a bad product or policy. They are,
understandably, the bane of big business and have been
outrageously lucrative to some lawyers. But they also have
produced changes in dangerous products or practices and held
companies accountable.
Shifting such suits to federal courts sets up new
procedural hurdles, appeal possibilities, and delays even
before the merits of a claim are addressed. Even suits in
which the entire ``class'' of potentially harmed people
resides in the same state as the company being sued would be
moved to the federal system, where cases languish years
longer than in state courts.
The House version of the legislation is particularly
offensive because it is retroactive, meaning it would affect
class-action claims now pending against Enron, WorldCom,
Adelphia and other corporations accused of defrauding
investors while their executives made millions of dollars.
Supporters will say these bills are about reforming a bad
process. What they really are about is discouraging a
legitimate right to seek redress for wrongdoing--without
making a federal case of it.
____
National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People,
Washington, DC, June 11, 2003.
Members,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
re: oppose h.r. 1115 class action lawsuit legislation
Dear Representative: on behalf of the NAACP, our nation's
oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots civil
rights organization, I urge you, in the strongest terms
possible, to oppose H.R. 1115, the so-called ``Class Action
Fairness Act of 2003'', legislation that would substantially
[[Page H5291]]
alter the constitutional distribution of judicial power and
have a severely negative impact on the struggle for civil
rights in this country.
Class action lawsuits are essential to the enforcement of
our nation's civil rights and voting rights laws. They are
often the only means by which individuals can challenge and
obtain relief from systemic discrimination. Indeed, federal
class actions were designed to accommodate, and have served
as a primary vehicle for, civil rights litigation seeking
broad equitable relief.
The proposed legislation, if enacted, would remove most
state law class actions into federal court; clog the federal
courts with state law cases and make it more difficult to
have federal civil rights cases heard; deter people from
bringing class actions; and impose barriers and burdens on
settlement of class actions. The pending legislation would
also discourage people from bringing class actions by
prohibiting settlements that provide named plaintiffs full
relief for their claims and would impose new, burdensome
delay tactics for all class actions by automatically allowing
a defendant to appeal any class certification in federal
court and staying all the proceedings while the appeal is
pending.
I urge you again, in the strongest terms possible, to
oppose H.R. 1115, the so-called ``Class Action Fairness Act
of 2003'' if and when it comes before you. If enacted, its
impact would be profound, and it would result in new and
substantial limitations on access to the courts for victims
of discrimination. Should you have any questions about the
NAACP position, please feel free to contact me at (202) 638-
2269. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Hilary O. Shelton,
Director.
My colleagues may get a Tyco and Enron out of jail with this delay,
but they are not going to get this bill through the Federal legislative
body.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Chairman, this country has a crisis in manufacturing.
Particularly, small- and medium-sized manufacturing jobs are going
overseas by the droves, particularly to China, and there are a whole
lot of reasons for that; but one of the reasons is a judicial system
that is out of control.
My colleagues can talk about business, but it is business that
creates the jobs that hire our constituents who pay the taxes to make
the government run; and by having court reform, which is what this bill
does, it is not tort reform because nobody's rights to a jury trial or
to get into a court are constricted by one iota. It is where this is
done and how class actions get certified and protections for consumers
such as the coupon settlements and the deficiency judgments that are
entered against class members.
This is going to help keep America's economy vibrant. Pass the bill.
Mr. STARK. I rise today to oppose this misguided legislation. Don't
be fooled by the title of this bill. It would lead some to believe that
Congress is standing up for the average American--modifying certain
inequities in our judicial system. Instead, it is a Republican
sponsored hoax unfairly threatening the very people we are all elected
to protect.
I don't think that the American public would be satisfied knowing
that if H.R. 1115 passes, the accountability of such companies as
Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Anderson and pharmaceutical giants like Eli
Lilly, Aventis Pasteur and Abbott laboratories would be held less
responsible in pending class action cases againt them. This bill will
adversely affect low-income groups and consumers to effectively assert
their rights against large corporations.
Why should corporations reap the benefits of our judicial system by
avoiding civil penalties? They are the ones committing crimes. The
intent of pursuing a class action suit in court allows redress for
average Americans financially unable to launch a judicial battle on
their own. Class action suits empower consumers to challenge
wrongdoings by wealthy corporations who would otherwise ignore their
appeal.
We know that truthful law-abiding citizens are the ones who will lose
if this bill becomes law. Apparently, in America today, you must
contribute a significant amount to the Republican Party's campaign
pocketbook to be considered protected under the law. This bill
certainly protects major Republican campaign contributors--too bad for
all the average working people who are left behind.
I ask my colleagues to stand up for real people and vote against H.R.
1115.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the pages of our newspapers have been
filled with accounts of corporate abuse of investors and consumers.
Part of the reason Oregon has the highest unemployment rate in America
for over a year is the result of the Enron scandal and the California
energy crisis. To make it harder for Oregonians who have been abused to
seek legal redress is nothing short of outrageous.
This legislation would severely undermine the ability of Americans to
seek relief from activities that harm consumers, the environment and
public health. We should be working in Congress to help mend the
relationship between corporations and the American public, rather than
promote measures like this which will make it more difficult for
injured consumers to bring class-action lawsuits.
By allowing corporations to move most class-action lawsuits from
state courts, where they properly belong, into already overburdened
federal courts and by imposing new procedural hurdles, the measure
would delay, if not deny, justice to plaintiffs in legitimate class-
action lawsuits. The federal courts have fewer than 1,500 judges
compared to more than 30,000 judges currently serving on state courts.
Thousands of class actions lawsuits spending in state courts around the
country would be added to the federal docket under H.R. 1115 because of
its retroactivity provision.
This legislation would also dilute the right of consumers to bring
class action lawsuits against the firearms industry. Firearms are one
of the only consumer products not subject to federal consumer safety
regulation. Citizen lawsuits--including class actions--are one of the
only incentives for the firearms industry to act responsibly.
We should not take away this important tool for the American public
to protect their rights and secure compensation for their injuries and
losses.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R.
1115, the so-called Class Action Fairness Act. This bill is actually
unfair to consumers because it would make it more difficult, more
expensive, and more time-consuming for Americans with legitimate claims
to access justice in class-action lawsuits. Instead, this bill rewards
corporate wrongdoers and companies that fail to avoid dangerous
practices and refuse to remove faulty products from store shelves.
Class action suits are an invaluable asset to consumers and all who
engage in business of any kind. No one is immune from potentially being
treated unfairly, being discriminated against, being taken advantage
of, or being cheated. However, those who are victims are often those
with no voice and no resources to fight back. But class action suits
allow them to join with hundreds of others who have suffered the same
harm and, together, become a strong voice for justice. In many cases,
class action lawsuits are the only way that those who have been harmed
can be heard and have their day in court.
Unfortunately, this bill would make most class action suits and the
empowerment they provide to consumers a thing of the past. We've seen
this bill repeatedly in the past, and we're seeing it again today
because the Republicans will stop at nothing to protect their big money
corporate supporters--those who get them elected--from being held
accountable for their actions. This is especially evident in the bill
before us today which goes further than the Republican class action
bills of the past by making the legislation retroactive! If passed,
this bill would apply to pending class actions, including the cases
against Enron and WorldCom for financial fraud, Dow Chemical for
environmental damage, Wal-Mart for employment discrimination, and Eli
Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Laboratories and others for autism and
other neurological damage.
This bill would change the rules midstream. While a class action has
been filed against Enron by retirees, this class has yet to be
certified. Under this bill, Enron for the first time would be given the
opportunity to make an immediate appeal of any court decision granting
class certification. The result could be a hold on all proceedings,
including investigations to make discoveries of evidence, while the
appeal was pending. This is an unwarranted, expensive, and wasteful use
of time, and all while Enron retirees sit and wait for a decision
regarding their retirement funds. This is not compassionate and not
fair.
This bill looks the other way as workers are taken advantage of by
big corporations, as patients are abused by HMOs, and as the
environment continues to suffer damage from big polluters. In such a
claim, it is critical that people have access to justice. This bill
takes away that access and protects those who will continue to do harm.
Republicans are committing fraud against the American people by
proposing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1115.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R.
1115, the Class Action Fairness Act.
Our system of class action litigation is in dire need of reform. Most
class action cases are national in scope and should be heard in federal
court, where like claims may be combined and uniform decisions
rendered. Under the current system, however, these interstate suits are
often filed in state or country court, where the decision of a local
judge and jury may affect the laws of all 50 states. As a former state
insurance commissioner, I am
[[Page H5292]]
deeply troubled that a jury panel in a class action case in Mississippi
or New Mexico could effectively overturn state regulations in my home
state of North Dakota.
In addition, by allowing interstate class action claims to be filed
in any of the thousands of local courts across the country, the
likelihood is increased that a plaintiffs lawyer will find at least one
judge who is willing to entertain a claim that most people would
consider to be without merit. Once a sympathetic judge is found, the
plaintiffs' attorney can leverage nationwide settlements that all too
often provide little benefit to the actual plaintiffs but enormous
benefit to the attorney.
I support the amendment brought forward by Representatives
Sensenbrenner, Boucher, Dooley, Stenholm, and Terry, that incorporates
the so-called ``Feinstein Amendment.'' Through this amendment, class
action suits would be apportioned to federal or state courts depending
on the domicile of the plaintiffs. I believe that the Feinstein
Amendment addressed an important criticism to the bill in that it would
leave lawsuits that are clearly of local concern, with state courts.
However, I was disheartened to learn that an amendment that would
effectively strike the retroactivity provision in the bill was ruled
out-of-order and will not be brought forward for a vote here today.
This provision would unfairly apply the new law to cases already filed
in state courts, but not granted class certification. It sets bad
public policy because it changes the rules for injured Plaintiffs in
the middle of the game. I understand that this provision was added
during Committee debate of the bill and was added at the urging of a
special interest. Such political favoring produces bad policy that I
cannot support. Therefore, I cannot support class action reform that
retroactively applies to active cases.
We have not heard the last of this issue. I look forward to
continuing to work on this issue so that we can finally reform the
class action system.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1115, the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2003.
H.R. 1115 is just another attempt by Republicans to deny people their
fair day in court. Once again, they are siding with Goliath at the
expense of David. They are siding with the big corporate interests at
the expense of the public interest. They are siding with their campaign
contributors at the expense of the American people.
This legislation is unfair to consumers. It wrongly limits the
authority of State courts, bogs down Federal courts, and makes it more
difficult for consumer claims to be heard. This is a deliberate attempt
b7 conservatives to protect big businesses like WorldCom, Arthur
Andersen and Enron.
When a company violates the rights of consumers, consumers are
entitled to have their claim go before a judge and jury in a timely
manner. Republicans would love to be the judge and jury in these cases,
siding with and protecting their corporate friends. But that's not the
way it works.
In my home state, the University of California pension plan lost $353
million as a result of the WorldCom accounting scandal. Like many other
Americans, they were victims of the fraudulent activities of Arthur
Andersen.
Under H.R. 1115, the University of California would have been
prevented from having their day in a State court. Instead, the suit
would have been moved to Federal court, causing terrible delays and
hurting those Californians who depended on their pensions.
The people of California and all across this nation deserve to have
fair and easy access to a speedy judicial system.
This legislation places huge barriers in the path of consumers. It
limits the rights of consumers, undermines the authority of state
courts, and increases the burden on federal courts.
That sound you hear is the sound of big business applauding this
legislation. They appreciate the additional time this bill would give
them to shred documents, destroy evidence and cause harm to hard-
working Californians and to all Americans.
It simply isn't fair and we must do more to protect our consumers.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 1115
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Class
Action Fairness Act of 2003''.
(b) Reference.--Whenever in this Act reference is made to
an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision,
the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of title 28, United States Code.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; reference; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Consumer class action bill of rights and improved procedures
for interstate class actions.
Sec. 4. Federal district court jurisdiction of interstate class
actions.
Sec. 5. Removal of interstate class actions to Federal district court.
Sec. 6. Appeals of class action certification orders.
Sec. 7. Enactment of Judicial Conference recommendations.
Sec. 8. Effective date.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Class action lawsuits are an important and valuable
part of our legal system when they permit the fair and
efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties
by allowing the claims to be aggregated into a single action
against a defendant that has allegedly caused harm.
(2) Over the past decade, there have been abuses of the
class action device that have--
(A) harmed class members with legitimate claims and
defendants that have acted responsibly;
(B) adversely affected interstate commerce; and
(C) undermined public respect for the judicial system in
the United States.
(3) Class members have been harmed by a number of actions
taken by plaintiffs' lawyers, which provide little or no
benefit to class members as a whole, including--
(A) plaintiffs' lawyers receiving large fees, while class
members are left with coupons or other awards of little or no
value;
(B) unjustified rewards being made to certain plaintiffs at
the expense of other class members; and
(C) the publication of confusing notices that prevent class
members from being able to fully understand and effectively
exercise their rights.
(4) Through the use of artful pleading, plaintiffs are able
to avoid litigating class actions in Federal court, forcing
businesses and other organizations to defend interstate class
action lawsuits in county and State courts where--
(A) the lawyers, rather than the claimants, are likely to
receive the maximum benefit;
(B) less scrutiny may be given to the merits of the case;
and
(C) defendants are effectively forced into settlements, in
order to avoid the possibility of huge judgments that could
destabilize their companies.
(5) These abuses undermine the Federal judicial system, the
free flow of interstate commerce, and the intent of the
framers of the Constitution in creating diversity
jurisdiction, in that county and State courts are--
(A) handling interstate class actions that affect parties
from many States;
(B) sometimes acting in ways that demonstrate bias against
out-of-State defendants; and
(C) making judgments that impose their view of the law on
other States and bind the rights of the residents of those
States.
(6) Abusive interstate class actions have harmed society as
a whole by forcing innocent parties to settle cases rather
than risk a huge judgment by a local jury, thereby costing
consumers billions of dollars in increased costs to pay for
forced settlements and excessive judgments.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members
with legitimate claims;
(2) to protect responsible companies and other institutions
against interstate class actions in State courts;
(3) to restore the intent of the framers of the
Constitution by providing for Federal court consideration of
interstate class actions; and
(4) to benefit society by encouraging innovation and
lowering consumer prices.
SEC. 3. CONSUMER CLASS ACTION BILL OF RIGHTS AND IMPROVED
PROCEDURES FOR INTERSTATE CLASS ACTIONS.
(a) In General.--Part V is amended by inserting after
chapter 113 the following:
``CHAPTER 114--CLASS ACTIONS
``Sec.
``1711. Judicial scrutiny of coupon and other noncash settlements.
``1712. Protection against loss by class members.
``1713. Protection against discrimination based on geographic location.
``1714. Prohibition on the payment of bounties.
``1715. Definitions.
``Sec. 1711. Judicial scrutiny of coupon and other noncash
settlements
``The court may approve a proposed settlement under which
the class members would receive noncash benefits or would
otherwise be required to expend funds in order to obtain part
or all of the proposed benefits only after a hearing to
determine whether, and making a written finding that, the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for class
members.
``Sec. 1712. Protection against loss by class members
``The court may approve a proposed settlement under which
any class member is obligated to pay sums to class counsel
that would result in a net loss to the class member only if
the court
[[Page H5293]]
makes a written finding that nonmonetary benefits to the
class member outweigh the monetary loss.
``Sec. 1713. Protection against discrimination based on
geographic location
``The court may not approve a proposed settlement that
provides for the payment of greater sums to some class
members than to others solely on the basis that the class
members to whom the greater sums are to be paid are located
in closer geographic proximity to the court.
``Sec. 1714. Prohibition on the payment of bounties
``(a) In General.--The court may not approve a proposed
settlement that provides for the payment of a greater share
of the award to a class representative serving on behalf of a
class, on the basis of the formula for distribution to all
other class members, than that awarded to the other class
members.
``(b) Rule of Construction.--The limitation in subsection
(a) shall not be construed to prohibit any payment approved
by the court for reasonable time or costs that a person was
required to expend in fulfilling his or her obligations as a
class representative.
``Sec. 1715. Definitions
``In this chapter--
``(1) Class action.--The term `class action' means any
civil action filed in a district court of the United States
pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
or any civil action that is removed to a district court of
the United States that was originally filed pursuant to a
State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an
action to be brought by one or more representatives on behalf
of a class.
``(2) Class counsel.--The term `class counsel' means the
persons who serve as the attorneys for the class members in a
proposed or certified class action.
``(3) Class members.--The term `class members' means the
persons who fall within the definition of the proposed or
certified class in a class action.
``(4) Plaintiff class action.--The term `plaintiff class
action' means a class action in which class members are
plaintiffs.
``(5) Proposed settlement.--The term `proposed settlement'
means an agreement that resolves claims in a class action,
that is subject to court approval, and that, if approved,
would be binding on the class members.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
chapters for part V is amended by inserting after the item
relating to chapter 113 the following:
``114. Class Actions............................................1711''.
SEC. 4. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION OF INTERSTATE
CLASS ACTIONS.
(a) Application of Federal Diversity Jurisdiction.--Section
1332 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d)(1) In this subsection--
``(A) the term `class' means all of the class members in a
class action;
``(B) the term `class action' means any civil action filed
pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
or similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure
authorizing an action to be brought by one or more
representative persons on behalf of a class;
``(C) the term `class certification order' means an order
issued by a court approving the treatment of a civil action
as a class action; and
``(D) the term `class members' means the persons who fall
within the definition of the proposed or certified class in a
class action.
``(2) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction
of any civil action in which the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $2,000,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and is a class action in which--
``(A) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a
State different from any defendant;
``(B) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign
state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any
defendant is a citizen of a State; or
``(C) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a
State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or
subject of a foreign state.
``(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to any civil action in
which--
``(A)(i) the substantial majority of the members of the
proposed plaintiff class and the primary defendants are
citizens of the State in which the action was originally
filed; and
``(ii) the claims asserted therein will be governed
primarily by the laws of the State in which the action was
originally filed;
``(B) the primary defendants are States, State officials,
or other governmental entities against whom the district
court may be foreclosed from ordering relief; or
``(C) the number of proposed plaintiff class members is
less than 100.
``(4) In any class action, the claims of the individual
class members shall be aggregated to determine whether the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $2,000,000,
exclusive of interest and costs.
``(5) This subsection shall apply to any class action
before or after the entry of a class certification order by
the court with respect to that action.
``(6)(A) A district court shall dismiss any civil action
that is subject to the jurisdiction of the court solely under
this subsection if the court determines the action may not
proceed as a class action based on a failure to satisfy the
requirements of rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
``(B) Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall prohibit plaintiffs
from filing an amended class action in Federal court or
filing an action in State court, except that any such action
filed in State court may be removed to the appropriate
district court if it is an action of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.
``(C) In any action that is dismissed under this paragraph
and is filed by any of the original named plaintiffs therein
in the same State court venue in which the dismissed action
was originally filed, the limitations periods on all
reasserted claims shall be deemed tolled for the period
during which the dismissed class action was pending. The
limitations periods on any claims that were asserted in a
class action dismissed under this paragraph that are
subsequently asserted in an individual action shall be deemed
tolled for the period during which the dismissed action was
pending.
``(7) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to any class action
brought by shareholders that solely involves a claim that
relates to--
``(A) a claim concerning a covered security as defined
under section 16(f)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
section 28(f)(5)(E) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
``(B) the internal affairs or governance of a corporation
or other form of business enterprise and arises under or by
virtue of the laws of the State in which such corporation or
business enterprise is incorporated or organized; or
``(C) the rights, duties (including fiduciary duties), and
obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to any
security (as defined under section 2(a)(1) of the Securities
Act of 1933 and the regulations issued thereunder).
``(8) For purposes of this subsection and section 1453 of
this title, an unincorporated association shall be deemed to
be a citizen of the State where it has its principal place of
business and the State under whose laws it is organized.
``(9) For purposes of this section and section 1453 of this
title, a civil action that is not otherwise a class action as
defined in paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection shall
nevertheless be deemed a class action if--
``(A) the named plaintiff purports to act for the interests
of its members (who are not named parties to the action) or
for the interests of the general public, seeks a remedy of
damages, restitution, disgorgement, or any other form of
monetary relief, and is not a State attorney general; or
``(B) monetary relief claims in the action are proposed to
be tried jointly in any respect with the claims of 100 or
more other persons on the ground that the claims involve
common questions of law or fact.
In any such case, the persons who allegedly were injured
shall be treated as members of a proposed plaintiff class and
the monetary relief that is sought shall be treated as the
claims of individual class members. The provisions of
paragraphs (3) and (6) of this subsection and subsections
(b)(2) and (d) of section 1453 shall not apply to civil
actions described under subparagraph (A). The provisions of
paragraph (6) of this subsection, and subsections (b)(2) and
(d) of section 1453 shall not apply to civil actions
described under subparagraph (B).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1335(a)(1) is amended by inserting ``(a) or
(d)'' after ``1332''.
(2) Section 1603(b)(3) is amended by striking ``(d)'' and
inserting ``(e)''.
SEC. 5. REMOVAL OF INTERSTATE CLASS ACTIONS TO FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 89 is amended by adding after
section 1452 the following:
``Sec. 1453. Removal of class actions
``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `class',
`class action', `class certification order', and `class
member' have the meanings given these terms in section
1332(d)(1).
``(b) In General.--A class action may be removed to a
district court of the United States in accordance with this
chapter, without regard to whether any defendant is a citizen
of the State in which the action is brought, except that such
action may be removed--
``(1) by any defendant without the consent of all
defendants; or
``(2) by any plaintiff class member who is not a named or
representative class member without the consent of all
members of such class.
``(c) When Removable.--This section shall apply to any
class action before or after the entry of a class
certification order in the action, except that a plaintiff
class member who is not a named or representative class
member of the action may not seek removal of the action
before an order certifying a class of which the plaintiff is
a class member has been entered.
``(d) Procedure for Removal.--The provisions of section
1446 relating to a defendant removing a case shall apply to a
plaintiff removing a case under this section, except that in
the application of subsection (b) of such section the
requirement relating to the 30-day filing period shall be met
if a plaintiff class member files notice of removal within 30
days after receipt by such class member, through service or
otherwise, of the initial written notice of the class action.
``(e) Review of Orders Remanding Class Actions to State
Courts.--The provisions of section 1447 shall apply to any
removal of a case under this section, except that,
notwithstanding the provisions of section 1447(d), an order
remanding a class action to the State court from which it was
removed shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.
``(f) Exception.--This section shall not apply to any class
action brought by shareholders that solely involves--
``(1) a claim concerning a covered security as defined
under section 16(f)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
section 28(f)(5)(E) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
``(2) a claim that relates to the internal affairs or
governance of a corporation or other form of business
enterprise and arises under or by virtue of the laws of the
State in which such corporation or business enterprise is
incorporated or organized; or
[[Page H5294]]
``(3) a claim that relates to the rights, duties (including
fiduciary duties), and obligations relating to or created by
or pursuant to any security (as defined under section 2(a)(1)
of the Securities Act of 1933 and the regulations issued
thereunder).''.
(b) Removal Limitation.--Section 1446(b) is amended in the
second sentence by inserting ``(a)'' after ``section 1332''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of
sections for chapter 89 is amended by adding after the item
relating to section 1452 the following:
``1453. Removal of class actions.''.
SEC. 6. APPEALS OF CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION ORDERS.
(a) In General.--Section 1292(a) is amended by inserting
after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Orders of the district courts of the United States
granting or denying class certification under rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if notice of appeal is
filed within 10 days after entry of the order.''.
(b) Discovery Stay.--All discovery and other proceedings
shall be stayed during the pendency of any appeal taken
pursuant to the amendment made by subsection (a), unless the
court finds upon the motion of any party that specific
discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent
undue prejudice to that party.
SEC. 7. ENACTMENT OF JUDICIAL CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATIONS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the amendments
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which are
embraced by the order entered by the Supreme Court of the
United States on March 27, 2003, shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act or on December 1, 2003 (as
specified in that order), whichever occurs first.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall
apply to--
(1) any civil action commenced on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(2) any civil action commenced before such date of
enactment in which a class certification order (as defined in
section 1332(d)(1)(C) of title 28, United States Code, as
amended by section 4 of this Act) is entered on or after such
date of enactment.
(b) Filing of Notice of Removal.--In the case of any civil
action to which subsection (a)(2) applies, the requirement
relating to the 30-day period for the filing of a notice of
removal under section 1446(b) and section 1453(d) of title
28, United States Code, shall be met if the notice of removal
is filed within 30 days after the date on which the class
certification order referred to in subsection (a)(2) is
entered.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 108-148. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 108-148.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner:
In section 1332(d) of title 28, United States Code, as
proposed to be inserted by section 4(a)(2) of the bill--
(1) in paragraph (2), strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert
``$5,000,000'';
(2) redesignate paragraphs (4) through (9) as paragraphs
(5) through (10), respectively;
(3) strike paragraph (3) and insert the following:
``(3) A district court may, in the interests of justice,
decline to exercise jurisdiction under paragraph (2) over a
class action in which greater than one-third but less than
two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes
in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of
the State in which the action was originally filed based on
consideration of the following factors:
``(A) Whether the claims asserted involve matters of
national or interstate interest.
``(B) Whether the claims asserted will be governed by laws
other than those of the State in which the action was
originally filed.
``(C) In the case of a class action originally filed in a
State court, whether the class action has been pleaded in a
manner that seeks to avoid Federal jurisdiction.
``(D) Whether the number of citizens of the State in which
the action was originally filed in all proposed plaintiff
classes in the aggregate is substantially larger than the
number of citizens from any other State, and the citizenship
of the other members of the proposed class is dispersed among
a substantial number of States.
``(E) Whether 1 or more class actions asserting the same or
similar claims on behalf of the same or other persons have
been or may be filed.
``(4) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to any class action in
which--
``(A) two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed
plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants
are citizens of the State in which the action was originally
filed;
``(B) the primary defendants are States, State officials,
or other governmental entities against whom the district
court may be foreclosed from ordering relief; or
``(C) the number of members of all proposed plaintiff
classes in the aggregate is less than 100.'';
(4) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, strike
``$2,000,000'' and insert ``$5,000,000''; and
(5) in paragraph (10), as so redesignated--
(A) in the third sentence, strike ``paragraphs (3) and
(6)'' and insert ``paragraph (7)''; and
(B) in the last sentence, strike ``(6)'' and insert
``(7)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 269, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment is intended to mirror the
amendment offered by Senator Feinstein over in the other body. It is in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the bill and would slightly
broaden the category of class action cases that would remain in State
court in two ways.
First, the amendment raises the aggregate amount and controversy
required for Federal jurisdiction from $2 million to $5 million.
Second, it allows Federal courts discretion to return intrastate class
actions in which local law governs the State courts after weighing five
factors to determine the case is appropriately of a local character.
This discretion would come into play when between one-third and two-
thirds of the plaintiffs are citizens of the same State as the primary
defendants. If less than one-third are citizens of the same State, the
case would automatically be eligible for Federal court jurisdiction
under the new diversity rules in the bill. Likewise, if more than two-
thirds are citizens of the same State, the case would not be subject to
the new rules in this bill and would remain in State court.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment to help speed passage of
this important legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is to celebrate the gentlewoman, the
Senior Senator from California Day in addition to Attorney Bashing Day.
We have a letter from the senior Senator of California, which says she
is opposed to the bill and why she is. So what we have here is a
Feinstein-lite or a fake Feinstein here.
I do not know what we are trying to do here, but this attempt to fix
the class action bill creates, as I expected, more confusion and does
not deal with the real defects in the bill.
Her letter says: ``As I said in committee before this amendment was
adopted, I will not support any class action legislation that moves
those suits to Federal court.''
So we have the senior Senator from California saying that this is a
class action bill, and there has been general agreement that we need
reform on class actions; but these provisions in the bill do not relate
to class actions.
This is far from a done deal. I do not think we correct the basic
defects in the bill; and since this is Feinstein-lite, I am going to
reject the amendment that I am sure is made in good faith by the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
I include the letter from Senator Feinstein in the Record at this
point.
June 11, 2003.
Hon. Rick Boucher,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Boucher: I wanted to clarify several
issues with regard to S.274, the Class Action Fairness Act,
and two
[[Page H5295]]
Amendments I offered to it in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
During House consideration of H.R. 1115, there has been some
misunderstanding about my position. I thought a clarification
might be helpful to you in your deliberations.
During Committee consideration of S.274, I offered an
amendment to raise the amount in controversy to $5 million
and to set specific criteria based on a percentage formula to
determine whether certain intrastate cases should be heard in
state or federal court. This is what has popularly become
known as the ``Feinstein Amendment.'' It is my understanding
that Chairman Sensenbrenner and a number of Democrats plan to
offer this as an amendment to H.R. 1115 on the House floor,
and of course, I support its inclusion.
I also co-authored an amendment with Senator Specter to
strike a provision from the bill that would have made certain
citizen suits and ``private attorney general'' actions
removable to Federal Court as well. I felt strongly then, and
I feel strongly now, that such suits--particularly those
brought under Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professional Code--properly belong in state court and should
not be classified as class actions under the bill. As I said
in Committee before this amendment was adopted, I will not
support any class action legislation that moves those suits
to federal court.
Senators Specter's amendment also, however, struck a
provision from the bill that would make so-called ``Mass
Actions'' subject to the same removal provisions in the bill
that apply to class actions. That was not my concern, and in
fact I believe that truly national ``Mass Actions'' should be
removable to Federal Court under the same procedures as class
actions.
I hope this clarifies some of my views on this matter. I
appreciate your concerns about this important legislation and
welcome you to contact me or to have your staff contact my
Chief Counsel, David Hantman, at 224-4933 if you have further
questions.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
What the gentleman from Michigan is saying is this is a good
amendment but not good enough. I think if it is a good amendment, it
ought to be supported; and I know my cosponsor, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), will tell us it is a very good amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Boucher).
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding me the time and for his willingness to accept the amendment
that was drafted by Senator Feinstein of California, which was approved
by the Committee on the Judiciary of the other body when that committee
reported class action fairness legislation.
We are joined in offering this amendment by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry); and I thank
them for their cosponsorship as well.
Under the approach of the bill, only cases that are filed as State
class actions which are national in scope will be removable to Federal
court, notwithstanding the absence of complete diversity of
citizenship. Cases that are local in nature will remain in the State
courts where they are filed.
Senator Feinstein's amendment, which is the same as the amendment we
are now offering, gives Federal judges clear directions in determining
which cases are national in character and which are local. Under this
test, if two-thirds of the members of the plaintiff class reside
outside of the State and at least one of the primary defendants resides
outside of the State, the case is deemed to be national in scope and
can be removed to Federal court. By contrast, if two-thirds of the
plaintiffs and the primary defendants are residents of the foreign
State, the case is local and will remain in State court.
There is a middle category of cases in which more than one-third and
less than two-thirds of plaintiffs are residents of the foreign State,
and in these instances the amendment directs the Federal judge to weigh
five specific criteria that will be set forth in the statute in order
to determine whether the case is national or local in character. This
approach will promote a higher degree of uniformity among the Federal
districts in the application of the new law and assure that local class
actions remain in State courts.
The amendment also raises from $2 million to $5 million the aggregate
jurisdictional amount for removals under the bill, assuring that cases
which are of lesser value remain in the State courts.
The amendment is a useful addition to the bill, and I urge its
adoption.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Chairman, the name of the senior Senator from California, Ms.
Feinstein, has been bandied about on both sides of the aisle; and she
has sent a letter to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), which
says in part: ``It is my understanding that Chairman Sensenbrenner and
a number of Democrats plan to offer this as an amendment to H.R. 1115
on the House floor, and of course, I support its inclusion.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment and the bill.
Mr. Chairman, over the last decade, elements of the class action
litigation system have gone terribly wrong. H.R. 1115 is a moderate,
sensible measure. This bill is not tort reform. This legislation makes
a common sense correction in Federal law so that large, multistate
class action lawsuits can be heard in Federal court. Cases that are
national in scope should be decided by courts that represent the nation
at large, not individual county courts, where oftentimes, judges are
elected by the very trial lawyers who are bringing suits to their
courtroom.
This bill does not take away anyone's right to file a class action.
This bill does not cap damages. This bill is a process improvement.
Chairman Sensenbrenner has worked with Democrats to improve the bill
and make key changes to include a provision crafted by Senator Dianne
Feinstein that keeps a single state case in that state's courts, not
Federal court.
On February 10th 2003, the American Bar Association's House of
Delegates overwhelmingly endorsed a resolution of the ABA's Class
Action Task Force, voicing qualified support for the principle of
expanded Federal jurisdiction over class actions.
That is precisely what this bill accomplishes.
H.R. 1115 is the only proposal on the table that will curb abuse.
Vote ``yes'' on Final Passage. Vote ``yes'' on the Sensenbrenner,
Boucher, Moran, Dooley, Stenholm, Terry amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my
good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and
I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for their work on this bill and the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and the underlying
bill. As one who often comes to this well to express frustration at the
unwillingness of the other side of the aisle to work with members on
this side, I am extremely pleased to come to the floor in support of
this bipartisan amendment which reflects the input of several members
on this side of the aisle.
I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Mr. Goodlatte for working
with me and other members on this side of the aisle to develop a
balanced approach on this issue that deserves strong bipartisan
support. I also want to comment Mr. Boucher for his hard work on this
legislation.
This legislation is based on a simple, common sense principle that
class action lawsuits that affect several states should be considered
in federal courts. It does not make sense to allow state judges in a
few local jurisdiction to make decisions that will affect businesses
and consumers nationwide. Cases that are brought on behalf of folks
from across the country and will have consequences in many states
should be heard in the federal court.
The amendment before us, which was the product of bipartisan
negotiations in the other body, clarifies the line between class
actions that may be handled by federal courts and class actions that
should be resolved by state courts. It ensures that class actions of
predominantly local concern remain in state court, while allowing
federal courts to handle larger cases that are national or interstate
in character. In other words, if a class action lawsuit
[[Page H5296]]
is primarily a multi-state lawsuit, it goes to federal court and if it
is a primarily a single state lawsuit it stays in state court.
The legislation before us is much stronger because of the commitment
of Chairman Sensenbrenner to deal with this issue in a truly bipartisan
manner. The legislative process and the American people are served best
when we work together across party liens to find a reasonable middle
ground on legislation. I hope that the process by which Chairman
Sensenbrenner has handled this legislation is a model for other
legislation in this body.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard some very charming stories about this
amendment, but how about a little truth in advertising. The
Sensenbrenner amendment that we are considering today is not Feinstein.
While it is true that a rose by any other name is still a rose, calling
a dandelion a rose do not make it so. Yet that is precisely the hoax
that is being perpetrated by the Sensenbrenner amendment.
In a desperate attempt to make H.R. 1115 appear moderate, trying to
hide that it is really a radical expansion of Federal authority and
away from the States, the proponents of the Sensenbrenner amendment
want the House to believe that adopting this amendment makes H.R. 1115
the same proposal advanced by Senator Feinstein last month in the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Chairman, that is just not so. The Feinstein amendment was only
about class actions, period. That is it. It was not meant to apply, nor
does it apply, to mass tort cases, consolidated cases, joinder cases or
State Attorney General actions; and as my friends on the other side of
the aisle are so prone to say, why do they not read their own darn
amendment.
Let us get real on this. Here is what the proponents of the
Sensenbrenner amendment will not tell my colleagues and do not want us
to know:
In the Senate, committee passage of the bill, including adoption of
the Feinstein amendment, was tied to the passage of another amendment,
the Feinstein-Specter amendment that narrowed the scope of the bill so
that it applied only to class action. Now Sensenbrenner is more extreme
in other ways, of course. That is what we are about here, extremist
policy.
There are three very important ways that it is more extreme.
Feinstein does not apply to joinder or consolidated cases or attorney
general actions. Sensenbrenner does. Feinstein does not apply
retroactively to pending cases such as ongoing actions against Enron
and WorldCom. Sensenbrenner does. We know who they are protecting. We
know what they are doing.
Feinstein does not allow defendants to remove cases into a Federal
settlement and give those same defendants the right to delay
proceedings, appeal intelocutory orders, and stay discovery.
Sensenbrenner does.
It is time to tell the truth about the Sensenbrenner amendment. We
know what it does. We know what it says. We know who it protects. We
have read the thing.
In closing, I have brought a chart to explain this amendment. If my
colleagues can understand it, they are wasting their time in the House.
They should be confirmed as the Chief Justice of the United States
Supreme Court if they can go over the Sensenbrenner amendment and the
Feinstein wording and make any sense whatsoever of it. It is poorly
drafted, it does not have definitions, it does not allow one to remain
in Federal court or State court. It bumps a person back and forth on a
jurisdictional merry-go-round that never ends, that protects corporate
wrongdoers. It is bad for America.
The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 108-148.
{time} 1330
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
In section 1332(d) of title 28, United States Code, as
proposed to be inserted by section 4(a)(2) of the bill--
(1) in paragraph (9), strike the quotation marks and second
period at the end; and
(2) add after paragraph (9) the following:
``(10)(A) For purposes of this subsection and section 1453
of this title, a foreign corporation which acquires a
domestic corporation in a corporate repatriation transaction
shall be treated as being incorporated in the State under
whose laws the acquired domestic corporation was organized.
``(B) In this paragraph, the term `corporate repatriation
transaction' means any transaction in which--
``(i) a foreign corporation acquires substantially all of
the properties held by a domestic corporation;
``(ii) shareholders of the domestic corporation, upon such
acquisition, are the beneficial owners of securities in the
foreign corporation that are entitled to 50 percent or more
of the votes on any issue requiring shareholder approval; and
``(iii) the foreign corporation does not have substantial
business activities (when compared to the total business
activities of the corporate affiliated group) in the foreign
country in which the foreign corporation is organized.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 269, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rose earlier today and said this is a personal
conflict. This is a personal issue. This is the issue of some powerful
lawyers who have lost cases in the courts of America against those who
have stood for those individuals who could find no way to enter into
the court of justice except to join together as many plaintiffs on
behalf of their issue.
The issue today is whether or not we can ensure that whatever happens
in this legislation, if a corporation that has a class action against
them decides to abscond by being purchased by a foreign corporation,
that that class action lawsuit will not be null and void.
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the language says ``a foreign corporation
which acquires a domestic corporation in a corporate repatriation
transaction shall be treated as being incorporated in the State under
whose laws the acquired domestic corporation was organized.''
Let me give an example, Mr. Chairman. The example is as follows. Just
remember the case that dealt with the parent company of Jack-in-the-Box
restaurants that agreed to pay $14 million in a class action
settlement. The class involved 500 people, mostly children. They had to
come in a class represented by an attorney. They became sick in 1993
after eating undercooked hamburgers tainted with E. coli bacteria. The
children did not go to Jack-in-the-Box to fake injury or to fake
sickness. They did not go to the place they enjoyed to eat a hamburger
that was tainted. Just imagine that Jack-in-the-Box subsequently had
been bought by a foreign corporation. That would have quashed or could
have quashed both the settlement and the judgment that was obtained on
behalf of sick children.
So this is an amendment that protects consumers, it protects the
innocent, it is not a personal amendment; it is an amendment that rids
itself of a personal conflict between allegedly defense lawyers who
have lost and those plaintiff attorneys who may have won a class action
case once in awhile. If we pass this class action litigation, it will
inhibit those individuals from being heard.
Mr Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 1115, to prevent
domestic corporations from escaping liability from class action
lawsuits by incorporating abroad. I ask the Rules Committee to make my
amendment in order.
Under this amendment, ``a foreign corporation which acquires a
domestic corporation in a corporate repatriation transaction shall be
treated as being incorporated in the State under whose laws the
acquired domestic corporation was organized.''
Simply put, this amendment ensures that U.S. corporations cannot
escape class action
[[Page H5297]]
liability or the jurisdiction of U.S. courts by repatriating or merging
with a foreign-based corporation. Under this amendment if an American
corporation is guilty of corporate crimes or malfeasance, and
thereafter the corporation merges with a foreign corporation, the
corporation will be deemed incorporated in the State where the
corporation was domiciled before the merger.
This amendment prevents American companies from fleeing abroad to
avoid liability in a class action lawsuit.
To see the benefit of this amendment one need only consider the
hypothetical impact on Enron employees without this amendment. In the
Enron collapse, corporate executives criminally failed to disclose
corporate decision-making in pension plans, and in other financial
decisions. In the Enron case, executives and senior management staff
were fraudulently encouraging employees to buy company stock. At the
same time, those same executives and senior managers were cashing out
millions of dollars shortly before the company declared bankruptcy in
December of 2001. As a result of the corporate executives crimes, 4,500
Enron employees lost their jobs in my home district alone.
Without my amendment, it would be possible for the bankrupt Enron
corporation to agree to be acquired by a foreign company, relinquish
their status as a company incorporated in the United States, avoid the
jurisdiction of Federal courts, and avoid liability for their corporate
crimes.
A result of this egregious would be a slap in the face to the 4,500
Enron employees who lost their jobs because of corporate wrongdoing and
are undoubtedly entitled to damages. It would also be a slap in the
face to the victims of tobacco companies, negligent automobile
manufacturers, asbestos litigation clients, and any number of other
class action plaintiffs who are opposed by well-finance, business and
legal savvy defendants. This amendment would ensure that potential
corporate defendants are unable to avoid liability.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to protect
victimized class action plaintiffs form runaway corporations.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the problem that is presented in the bill
that the Jackson-Lee amendment attempt to correct is the incredible
ability of corporations doing business in this country to move
offshore, Bermuda as an example, to do business and then escape coming
into State court on class action by claiming they are a foreign
corporation.
These are the same companies that are eager to put ``Made in the
U.S.A.'' on their products, while they at the same time avoid United
States taxes and attempt to minimize their legal liability by merely
shuffling corporate documents. Support the Jackson-Lee amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Think of
the children playing on playgrounds and broken equipment with a class
action lawsuit and ultimately the company is bought by a foreign
corporation. This amendment makes this litigation better on behalf of
the consumers and the people who need justice in America.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This is the ``if you cannot win the argument, try to change the
subject'' amendment. This amendment would preclude companies opened by
foreign or offshore companies from using the jurisdictional provisions
in H.R. 1115. The amendment would make for bad policy, and I urge my
colleagues to reject it.
Apparently the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) believes that
the State class action abuse problem is so bad that companies forced to
litigate in State court will move back onshore. Well, I think that
belief tells us a lot about how unfair some of these select magnet
State courts are around the country where these abuses occur to
defendants and to consumers in this country.
Nonetheless, this bill is not the proper vehicle for debating tax
policy. Our goal today is to curb class action abuse, to stop coupon
settlements that rip off consumers, and to make sure that county courts
do not dictate our Nation's economic policies. If this body wants to
debate the problems regarding foreign ownership of companies, let us do
that in the appropriate context.
Let me add that one of the important things that we need to
understand and that the other side of the aisle keeps trying to target
here is that somehow there are certain companies that are bad actors,
and that we should write Federal policy based on that rather than
having one fair, across-the-board treatment of one type of lawsuit.
That is exactly what this legislation is attacking and why they are
objecting to it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment I think can probably be referred to as
the ``back-door erosion of the 14th amendment to the Constitution
amendment'' to this bill because it erodes the concept of equal
protection under the law, meaning everybody gets treated equally in
court.
What the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is trying to do is
to say for certain types of corporations, they would be treated under a
different law than other types of corporations. That poses some really
profound problems as far as I am concerned.
The crux of this whole matter is that this is an attempt to establish
tax policy in a civil litigation procedure bill. It mixes up apples and
oranges. It is not going to have the effect that the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is stating, and that is preventing corporations
that wish to go offshore from going offshore. The amendment is not
wrong, it just does not make any sense. It should be rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 108-148.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Lofgren
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Lofgren:
In section 1332(d)(9) of title 28, United States Code, as
proposed to be inserted by section 4(a)(2) of the bill--
(1) in the first sentence, strike ``if--'' and all that
follows through ``(B) monetary relief'' and insert ``if
monetary relief--'';
(2) strike ``The provisions of paragraphs (3) and (6)'' and
all that follows through ``subparagraph (A).''; and
(3) in the last sentence, strike ``subparagraph (B)'' and
insert ``this paragraph''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 269, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, the question is not whether there have
been problems with coupon-award cases; there have been. The question is
whether this bill is the remedy for those problems. I have two concerns
about the bill. One, it goes too far; and secondly, I do not see how
the bill really addresses and solves the coupon settlement problem.
But what is really offensive to me is the scorched-earth approach of
the bill does not just stop at class actions, it also targets
California's prosecutors.
California has strong consumer protection, section 17200 of the
Business and Professions Code, and it provides that not just AGs, but
district attorneys, can sue in the public interest. District attorneys
are not bringing abusive class actions to collect attorneys' fees; they
are trying to protect their constituents.
[[Page H5298]]
For example, in People v. National Travel, two California DAs shut
down an unscrupulous Florida travel agency. In People v. Providian
Bank, the San Francisco district attorney stopped predatory credit card
practices and recovered $300 million for California consumers. In
People v. Rite-Aid, DAs stopped the sale of expired baby formula. In
People v. Cook Brothers, DAs stopped an Illinois company from selling
illegal weapons through a mail-order catalog. These are a few examples
of how local DAs use consumer protection actions to safeguard
Californians. Their ability to bring these cases in State court would
be eliminated under this bill.
Put simply, if my amendment is not passed, this will have a chilling
effect on local DAs, and that is why it is opposed by the California
District Attorneys Association. I want to read from a letter I received
from the California District Attorneys Association. They say, As
currently written, H.R. 1115 would severely limit our ability to
protect the public. Under the definition of class action, our consumer
protection cases would be eligible for removal.
They wrote, That if these offenders remove our cases to Federal
court, the cost of prosecution and inconvenience to the victims will
make pursuit of many such cases a practical impossibility.
So the question is not whether there are problems with class actions,
but whether this bill is the remedy. I say it is not.
California District
Attorneys Association,
Sacramento, CA, June 11, 2003.
Re HR 1115, oppose unless amended.
Hon. Zoe Lofgren,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Lofgren: The California District
Attorneys Association (CDAA) has taken an Oppose Unless
Amended position on HR 1115 (Goodlatte), the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2003.
As you may know, District Attorneys in California and many
other states are charged with protecting the public from
unfair, unlawful, and predatory practices used by
unscrupulous businesses. In California, our Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200 allows District Attorneys to
bring civil actions against such businesses in the name of
the People of the State of California, and thereby seek civil
penalties, restitution, and injunctions on the People's
behalf. This law has been successfully used by California's
District Attorneys to protect the public from false
advertising, predatory lending, fake cures for cancer, and
other shameful scams perpetrated by out-of-state businesses.
As currently written, HR 1115 would severely limit our
ability to protect the public from these wrongs. Under the
definition of class action currently used by HR 1115, our
consumer protection cases would be eligible for removal to
Federal court. If these offenders remove our cases to Federal
court, the cost of prosecution and the inconvenience to the
victims will make pursuit of many such cases a practical
impossibility.
We appreciate that HR 1115 currently exempts actions
brought by Attorneys General from its provisions. For this
reason, we are hopeful that the supporters of HR 1115 did not
intend to extend its provisions to actions brought by
District Attorneys and other public prosecutors. Therefore,
we ask that the author considers amending page 15, line 20 to
read ``. . . attorney general, state or local district
attorney, other governmental prosecutor, or group thereof . .
.'' We would also ask that the following text be inserted at
page 13, between lines 6 and 7; ``(D) the action is brought
by a State attorney general, state or local district
attorney, other governmental prosecutor, or group thereof.''
With these amendments, HR 1115 would preserve the ability of
California's District Attorneys, and those of many other
states, to protect the public from unlawful, unfair, and
predatory practices disguised as legitimate businesses.
We also appreciate the recent efforts of Senators Feinstein
and Specter to address our identical concerns with S 274
(Grassley). We look forward to continuing to work with the
Senators, and any other interested party, to resolve this
issue. Please feel free to contact us if we can be of any
further assistance.
Very truly your,
Gilbert G. Otero,
President.
District Attorney, Imperial County.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has spent
a lot of time referring to suits by local district attorneys being
removed to Federal court under this bill because she believes they
would not be covered by the exemption contained in the bill for State
attorney generals.
I would say to the gentlewoman that we believe that suits by local
elected district attorneys do fall within that exempted category, and
are not covered by the bill. It is clearly the intent of the bill to
exclude elected law enforcement officials like district attorneys.
If we need to work further with the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) as this bill moves forward to clarify that intent with regard
to suits by local officials, I would offer her to do that. However, I
do want to make it quite clear that private attorney general actions
are another matter. If the gentlewoman will withdraw her amendment, we
can work on clarification of this. Otherwise, I would urge the
membership to vote against the amendment since the gentlewoman has
rejected my offer.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), my colleague on the Committee on the
Judiciary and a cosponsor of this amendment.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in
support of this amendment. I agree that there are some problems with
our class action system, but the so-called Class Action Fairness Act is
not the solution.
I am particularly concerned because the bill intrudes on a specific
provision of California law, one which allows State laws to be enforced
by district and city attorneys as well as private attorneys general.
This California law has been used successfully to protect the public
from false advertising, predatory lending, fake cures for cancer and
other shameful scams perpetrated by out-of-State business.
For example, in People v. Life Alert, California's district attorney
stopped Life Alert, the purveyors of the ``I have fallen and cannot get
up'' advertisements from aggressive door-to-door sales tactics. Those
tactics included refusing to leave elderly people's homes until they
bought the product, and refusing to issue refunds to consumers who
complained about such tactics.
{time} 1345
Unfortunately, the Class Action Fairness Act takes away California's
ability to protect consumers in this way. It does so by defining
private attorney general actions as class actions and removing them to
Federal court. Why does this matter? Because private attorney general
lawsuits are less likely to proceed if they are deemed class action
lawsuits. That would force the private attorney general to certify a
class when in fact he or she is bringing the suit to protect consumers
from harm. In addition, Federal court is more expensive and time
consuming for plaintiffs, especially when it involves greater travel.
This bill is also an insult to States' rights. It usurps decisions
made by States regarding their court system and their class action
system. Some members of Congress talk about the importance of States'
rights, but in the end it appears that that is only true when it is
convenient for their purposes. Apparently federalism is not as
important when consumer protections are at stake.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to oppose the
underlying bill. Voting for H.R. 1115 is like trying to address
automobile fatalities by dumping gasoline into the ocean. It fails to
do anything about the first problem while creating a second one. If we
are going to fix the class action system, then let us do it right. This
bill is not the way to do it.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I wanted to quote from a letter I received from Senator Feinstein.
This amendment is identical to what Senator Feinstein wrought in the
Senate, and she has pointed out that she will not support this bill
unless this amendment is adopted and that is to protect section 17200
of California's Business and Professions Code in its entirety. There is
no rationale, no reason, there have been no problems with section
17200; and I would urge all members of
[[Page H5299]]
the House, and especially the Californians, to stand up for federalism
and protect California State law.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, I really regret that the gentlewoman from California
was not interested in the compromise and clarification that I proposed,
where we would allow elected district attorneys to continue to utilize
the State court, but not private citizens with private attorney general
actions which are authorized only in California and no place else. One
of these private attorney general actions should not set national legal
and economic policy. When you have an elected official like a district
attorney or a State attorney general, that is one thing, because these
people represent the public and it is their job to do this. When you
have a private citizen in a procedure that has not been adopted by 49
out of the 50 States, they should not get a carve-out under this bill.
Because there was no compromise that was agreed to, I would urge the
rejection of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren)
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment in the nature of a
substitute No. 4 printed in House Report 108-148.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sandlin
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 4 offered by
Mr. Sandlin:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Class
Action Improvement Act of 2003''.
(b) Reference.--Whenever in this Act reference is made to
an amendment to a section or other provision, the reference
shall be considered to be made to a section or other
provision of title 28, United States Code.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; reference; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Improved procedures for certain interstate class actions.
Sec. 3. Establishment of State Court Multidistrict Litigation Panel.
Sec. 4.Establishment of procedure for transferring certain actions to
Federal court.
Sec. 5. Best practices study.
SEC. 2. IMPROVED PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN CLASS ACTIONS.
(a) In General.--Part V is amended by inserting after
chapter 113 the following:
``CHAPTER 114--CLASS ACTIONS
``Sec.
``1711. Coupons and other noncash settlements.
``1712. Protection against loss by class member.
``1713. Protection against discrimination based on geographic location.
``1714. Additional requirements.
``1715. Protecting the integrity of the courts.
``1716. Interlocutory appeals.
``1717. Definitions.''.
``Sec. 1711. Coupons and other noncash settlements
``(a) Contingent Fees.--If a proposed settlement in a class
action provides for an award of a noncash benefit to a class
member, and the attorney's fee to be paid to class counsel is
based upon a portion of the recovery, then the attorney's fee
shall be based on the value of the noncash benefit that is
redeemed.
``(b) Other Attorney's Fee Awards.--If a proposed
settlement in a class action includes a noncash benefit to a
class member, and a portion of the recovery is not used to
determine the attorney's fee to be paid to class counsel,
then the attorney's fee shall be based upon the actual amount
of time class counsel expended working on the action. Any
attorney's fee under this subsection shall be subject to
approval by the court. Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to prohibit application of a lodestar with a
multiplier method of determining attorney's fees whenever
appropriate under applicable law.
``(c) Settlement Valuation Expertise.--In a class action
involving the awarding of noncash benefits, the court may in
its discretion, upon the motion of a party, receive expert
testimony from a witness qualified to provide information on
the actual value of the settlement.
``Sec. 1712. Protection against loss by class members
``The court may approve a proposed settlement under which
any class member is obligated to pay sums to class counsel
that would result in a net loss to the class member only if
the court first makes a written finding that nonmonetary
benefits to the class member outweigh the monetary loss.
``Sec. 1713. Protection against discrimination based on
geographic location
``The court may not approve a proposed settlement that
provides for the payment of greater sums to some class
members than to others solely on the basis that the class
members to whom the greater sums are to be paid are located
in closer geographic proximity to the court.
``Sec. 1714. Additional requirements
``(a) Settlements.--The court may not approve a proposed
settlement of a class action unless the court determines
that--
``(1) the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to
the plaintiff class; and
``(2) the settlement applies only to claims with respect to
which the plaintiff class was authorized to represent class
members.
``(b) Notice to Defendants.--The court in a class action
shall require that, before the class is certified, defendants
receive notice of the action and be given an opportunity to
respond to the complaint.
``(c) Blocking Removal.--A defendant in a class action may
not elect to block removal of the action to Federal court
that is sought by other defendants if the court finds that
plaintiffs named the defendant solely for purposes of
blocking such removal.
``Sec. 1715. Protecting the integrity of the courts
``(a) Open Records.--No order, opinion, or record of the
court in a class action, including a record obtained through
discovery, whether or not formally filed with the court, may
be sealed or made subject to a protective order unless the
court finds--
``(1) that the sealing or protective order is narrowly
tailored and necessary to protect the confidentiality of a
particular trade or business secret of one or more of the
settling parties and is in the public interest; or
``(2) that--
``(A) the sealing or protective order is narrowly tailored,
consistent with the protection of public health and safety,
and is in the public interest; and
``(B) if the action by the court would prevent the
disclosure of information, disclosing the information is
clearly outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in
maintaining the confidentiality of such information.
``(b) Destruction of Documents Prohibited.--All parties
filing or receiving service of a class action shall maintain
all documents, including those in electronic format, related
to the subject matter of the class action. Any person who
knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, or falsifies
any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to
impede, obstruct, or influence the outcome of a class action
shall be fined not more than $5,000 for each record,
document, or object destroyed, imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
``Sec. 1716. Interlocutory appeals
``A court of appeals may in its discretion permit an appeal
from an order of a district court granting or denying class
action certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure if application is made to the court within 10
days after entry of the order. An appeal does not stay
proceedings in the district court unless the district court
or the court of appeals so orders.
``Sec. 1717. Definitions
``In this chapter--
``(1) Class action.--The term `class action' means--
``(A) any civil action filed in a district court of the
United States pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure; and
``(B) any civil action that is removed to a district court
of the United States that was originally filed pursuant to a
State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an
action to be brought by one or more representatives on behalf
of a class;
``(2) Class counsel.--The term `class counsel' means the
persons who serve as the attorneys for the class members in a
proposed or certified class action.
``(3) Class members.--The term `class members' means the
persons who fall within the definition of the proposed or
certified class in a class action.
``(4) Proposed settlement.--The term `proposed settlement'
means an agreement that resolves any or all claims in a class
action, that is subject to court approval, and that, if
approved, would be binding on each class member, except to
the extent that a class member has requested to be excluded
from the class action.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
chapters for part V is amended by inserting after the item
relating to chapter 113 the following:
``114. Class Actions............................................1711''.
[[Page H5300]]
SEC. 3. ENACTMENT OF JUDICIAL CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATIONS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the amendments
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, relating
to notice to members of a class, which are embraced by the
order entered by the Supreme Court of the United States on
March 27, 2003, shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act or on December 1, 2003 (as specified in
that order), whichever occurs first.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE COURT MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
PANEL.
(a) Creation of Multidistrict Litigation Panel.--The
National Center for State Courts is authorized to develop and
implement, in coordination with the Conference of Chief
Judges, a State court multidistrict litigation panel for
class actions, to be called the ``State Court Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation'', in accordance with the following:
(1) Consolidation of class actions.--The SCPML shall allow
State court judges, or parties with class actions pending in
State courts, to seek to consolidate within one State court
for pretrial proceedings related class actions pending in
different States. No pending class action may be consolidated
without the approval of the State court judge handling the
pending action.
(2) For pretrial proceedings.--When class actions involving
one or more common questions of fact are pending in the
courts of different States, such actions may be transferred,
with permission of the court, to any of these State courts
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Such
transfers shall be made by the SCPML upon its determination
that transfers for such proceedings will be for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the
just and efficient conduct of such actions. Each action so
transferred shall be remanded by the SCPML at or before the
conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the State court
from which it was transferred unless it has been previously
terminated, except that the SCPML may separate any claim,
cross-claim, counter-claim, or third-party claim and remand
any such claim before the remainder of the action is
remanded.
(3) Judicial assignments.--Coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings under paragraph (2) shall be conducted
by a judge or judges to whom such actions are assigned by the
SCPML. With the consent of the transferee court or courts,
such actions may be assigned by the SCPML to a judge or
judges from any relevant State court. The judge or judges to
whom such actions are assigned and the members of the SCPML
may exercise the powers of a trial court judge of any of the
relevant State courts for the purpose of conducting pretrial
depositions in such coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
(4) Composition of scpml.--The SCPML shall consist of nine
judges designated from time to time by the CCJ, no two of
whom shall be from the same State. The concurrence of five
members shall be necessary to any action by the SCPML. The
members of the SCPML shall each serve for a term of three
years. The CCJ is urged to develop a system to ensure that
States from varying regions and States of different sizes are
equitably represented on the SCPML.
(5) Establishment of rules.--The SCPML may prescribe
procedural rules for the conduct of its business not
inconsistent with Federal law and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, including rules establishing procedures for
initiating the transfer of a class action under this section,
providing notice to all affected parties, determining whether
such transfer shall be made, issuing orders either directing
or denying such transfer, and providing notice of and
appealing any order of the SCPML under this section.
(b) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the National Center for State Courts for the establishment
and administration of the State Court Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 and thereafter.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Class action.--The term ``class action'' means any
civil action that--
(A) is brought in a State court pursuant to a State statute
or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action be
brought by one or more representatives on behalf of a class;
and
(B) is not removed to a court of the United States.
(2) CCJ.--The term ``CCJ'' means the Conference of Chief
Justices.
(3) NCSC.--The term ``NCSC'' means the National Centers for
State Courts.
(4) SCPML.--The term ``SCPML'' means the State Court Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation established pursuant to
subsection (b).
SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFERRING CERTAIN
ACTIONS TO FEDERAL COURT.
(a) Establishment of Procedure.--The National Center for
State Courts is authorized to develop and implement, in
coordination with the Conference of Chief Judges, a procedure
by which the applicable State court or the SCMPL shall have
the authority to transfer a class action to the appropriate
Federal court if the matter in controversy of the civil
action exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, and is a class action in which--
(1) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a
State different from any defendant;
(2) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign state
or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant
is a citizen of a State; or
(3) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a
State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or
subject of a foreign state.
(b) Discretion to Decline to Transfer Jurisdiction.--The
applicable State court or the SCMPL may, in the interests of
justice, decline to transfer jurisdiction under subsection
(a) over a class action in which greater than one-third but
less than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff
classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are
citizens of the State in which the action was originally
filed, based on consideration of the following factors:
(A) Whether the claims asserted involve matters of national
or interstate interest.
(B) Whether the claims asserted will be governed by laws
other than those of the State in which the action was
originally filed.
(C) Whether the class action has been pleaded in a manner
that seeks to avoid Federal jurisdiction.
(D) Whether the number of citizens of the State in which
the action was originally filed in all proposed plaintiff
classes in the aggregate is substantially larger than the
number of citizens from any other State, and the citizenship
of the other members of the proposed class is dispersed among
a substantial number of States.
(E) Whether one or more class actions asserting the same or
similar claims on behalf of the same or other persons have
been or may be filed.
(c) Cases in Which Jurisdiction May Not be Transferred.--
The applicable State court or the SCMPL shall not transfer
jurisdiction under subsection (a) over a class action in
which--
(A) two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed
plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants
are citizens of the State in which the action was originally
filed;
(B) the primary defendants are States, State officials, or
other governmental entities against whom the district court
may be foreclosed from ordering relief; or
(C) the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes
in the aggregate is less than 100.
(d) Jurisdiction of Federal Courts.--Any Federal court to
which a class action is transferred under subsection (a)
shall have, and exercise, jurisdiction of the case.
(e) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``class
action'' and ``SCMPL'' have the meanings given those terms in
section 4.
SEC. 6. BEST PRACTICES STUDY.
The National Center for State Courts is authorized and
requested to--
(1) conduct a study for the purpose of identifying problems
that arise in the litigation of State class actions;
(2) develop recommendations on ways to address the problems
so identified; and
(3) report to the Congress, within 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, on the results of such study and
recommendations.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 269, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sandlin) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), mentioned earlier that we need fair, across-the-board
reform in the area of class action. I agree with that; it needs to be
fair, reasonable and workable. That is what we should pursue.
In typical fashion, our friends have cited isolated cases over a
number of years that they say cry out for reform. However, they forgot
to mention the case in Georgia at the Tri-State Crematory where they
had been foregoing cremations for bodies received from funeral homes.
Instead, they passed off wood chips and other substances as ashes. They
forgot to mention the Ohio case wherein an Ohio neighborhood was filled
with noxious gases when an 8,500-gallon resin kettle exploded at a
Georgia Pacific plant. An employee was killed, 13 were injured, and 15
houses near the plant were evacuated. They forgot to mention the
Foodmaker case which we heard earlier where the parent company of Jack-
in-the-Box agreed to pay $14 million in a class action settlement in
the State of Washington. That class included 500 people, mostly
children, who became sick in early 1993 after eating undercooked
hamburgers tainted with E coli. They forgot to mention the Indiana
case, TRG Marketing LLC, who sold fraudulent health insurance policies
to more than 5,000 Floridians who were left with several million
dollars in unpaid medical bills.
As you might imagine, we could go on day after day, case by case, a
tit for tat, going forward and comparing our
[[Page H5301]]
cases. But let us look at reasonable reform that protects business and
consumers, that respects State law, that can be supported by both sides
of the aisle. The Democratic alternative, importantly, is reasonable
and, more importantly, it is not retroactive. If we change the law, let
us do it properly. Let us do it from this point forward. There is no
reason to pass a law that is retroactive. The Democratic alternative is
not retroactive. The Democratic alternative does not contain compulsory
appeal requirements to ultimately delay justice by years. Certainly the
appeal is permissible. The appeal is available, just like it is in the
law now. The Democratic alternative does not cede jurisdiction to the
Federal courts. It says that we respect the State courts. The State
courts are the ones where these cases were originally filed.
Class actions were originally founded in State court. Even when you
go to Federal court, there is a requirement of the use and
interpretation of State law. The Democratic substitute respects the
sovereignty of State courts. The Democratic alternative provides
substantial protection to consumers and other class action plaintiffs
that could result in settlements; and we want to make sure that the
settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the injuries
of the parties and their claims. The Democratic alternative provides
specific, reasonable reforms to address concerns about so-called magnet
State adjudication of multistate class actions. This act does not
preempt State attorney general mass tort cases as we mentioned earlier.
We also have protection on fees to make sure that they are reviewed
by the courts to make sure that they are fair and reasonable. Any
coupon settlements that we have heard all about today, which I notice
that the Republicans did not ban, but any coupon settlements can be
examined by a court and expert testimony can be received on the actual
value of the settlement. Attorneys' fees under our bill would be
determined and measured by the amount of the actual noncash benefit
redeemed, not what was awarded, to make sure that that is fair and
equitable.
Additional requirements on settlements. The courts can only approve
the settlement of a class action if it determines the settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate, and it applies to only the claims that
are currently before the court. We protect the integrity of the courts,
we say that the primary authority should be in the State courts, we
prohibit the destruction of documents. As I mentioned on interlocutory
appeals, they are permissible, not mandatory. We create, much as the
Federal courts have, a State multicourt litigation panel to operate as
a panel in the States just as we do in the Federal. If we have a
concern about Federal versus State and not having a panel, our
legislation takes care of that. We have an establishment of procedure
for transferring actions to Federal court, but it puts the discretion
within the State courts. It says the State courts know best how to
interpret State law for their State citizens.
Also, importantly, we have a best practices study. Let us let the
National Center for State Courts conduct a study to identify problems
that arise in the litigation of State class actions. Let us get them to
recommend things to us that will cause us to pause and to make
corrections. Let us let them report to Congress about problems that
they see and potential corrections.
It just boils down to this: Do you want the States to decide or the
Federal Government to decide? State courts, Federal courts. We feel
like that our substitute and the summary that I have just gone on is a
reasonable, fair way to address the problems.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this substitute amendment, I think, can probably be
called the Madison County, Illinois, Judicial Protection Act of 2003,
because what it does is it goes on for a long, long text, preserving
essentially the status quo, and then throws a million dollars a year in
for the next 2 fiscal years to have some kind of a study.
The most important sentence in the Sandlin amendment that
demonstrates the author's true intent is tucked away in the middle of
the legislation toward the top of page 8. For those Members who missed
it, let me read this sentence to them: ``No pending class action may be
consolidated without the approval of the State court judge handling the
pending action.''
Let me tell my colleagues what this means. If you are a magnet State
court judge and you want to keep running your class action factory,
this bill will not affect you, because you do not approve any
consolidation. You can continue to certify class action cases without
considering the rules. You can continue to approve settlements, even if
they do nothing for class members, even coupons. And you can continue
to support the trial lawyers who got you elected to the bench.
It claims to offer better consumer provisions; but those provisions
only apply to Federal court cases, of which there will be very few, if
any, if this substitute is adopted. It is just a piece of paper for
consumer protections. It claims to offer a proposal for consolidating
State court class actions, but even if that proposal were
constitutional, which it is not, it is completely discretionary. It
claims to offer a proposal for transferring cases to Federal court, but
it lets the State court judge where the suit was brought decide whether
to take advantage of this procedure. This amendment is not worth the
paper it is printed on.
The gentleman from Texas has given a few examples, and I think they
came from a document that was originally circulated by the American
Trial Lawyers Association. Let me respond to three of the examples he
gave to show Members how much his bill misses the mark and ours
addresses the problem. The Dow Chemical case he cited filed by Michigan
residents alleging contamination at a Michigan plant likewise would not
be affected by this bill. Because Dow and the proposed class members
were all Michigan citizens, under our bill that suit would remain in
State court.
The Tri-State Crematory cases actually present a perfect example of
the benefits of our bill. Many Federal and State class actions have
been filed in that matter. The Federal cases were consolidated in a
multidistrict litigation proceeding where a Federal judge certified a
class action in advance of any State court doing so. Finally, the TRG
Marketing case, which is scattered amongst a number of State courts
that are duplicating each other's work. Under our bill, all such cases
would be removed to Federal court and handled by a single Federal
judge. There is no reason to believe that consumers would fare worse
under that scenario. Actually, under the substitute, duplicative
litigation would end up being allowed, and the lawyers' meters are
ticking. Studies show that State courts are much more likely to produce
bad settlements, money for lawyers and no relief for consumers. And the
Federal court would not be slower. Florida State court judges are each
assigned four times the number of new cases annually than each Florida
Federal court judge.
This amendment in the nature of a substitute is having the fox watch
the hen house. The foxes are the plaintiffs' lawyers. They are the ones
that the USA Today poll believes benefit disproportionately under this
bill. It is time to send the fox packing. Defeat the substitute, pass
the bill and the fox can go back to the woods.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I think it is
important that the other side read the Federal rules and be familiar
with Federal procedure. If they would look on page 8, first paragraph,
where it says: ``No pending class action may be consolidated without
the approval of the State court judge handling the pending action.''
That is consistent and completely accurate with Federal practice as it
currently exists.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this substitute and reiterate what
the distinguished gentleman from Texas said.
[[Page H5302]]
{time} 1400
Obviously, adversely affecting pending cases, in my opinion, is
extraordinarily bad policy and precedent that we should not follow.
Have we done it from time to time? We have. Have I opposed it? I have.
I think that is not the way we ought to go.
Now, I think that legislation in this area is appropriate. The
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) I think has offered an appropriate
substitute. Are there abuses in our system of civil justice
specifically regarding class action lawsuits? I want to tell the
gentleman that I believe there are, and we need to write legislation
that addresses and remedies those problems.
However, the bill offered on the floor today, if not amended, in my
opinion, does not do that. Instead, its provisions would apply to
pending class actions, making it more difficult for shareholders,
retirees, and former employees frankly to hold companies such as Enron,
WorldCom and Arthur Andersen accountable for their alleged wrongdoing.
We ought not to, because of our desire to protect those cases,
therefore not address other corporate citizens who are responsible and
who are doing a good job and who want to be ought to be subject,
obviously, to suits, but ought to be subject to suits that are
legitimate.
The addition of this retroactivity provision is a major change. Let
me stress that, Mr. Chairman. This is a major change from the class
action bill considered in the last Congress. I do not know who it is in
there to protect. I do not know who came forward and said we need
protection; it is not a question of reform in the future, but we need
protection.
We have seen a few reports of that, from people who want protection.
Maybe that is what that retroactivity is for. As matter of fact,
invariably in my plus-30 years of service in legislative bodies, when
retroactive provisions are included in the bill, invariably it is there
to protect somebody. And it is very bad policy. Congress should not be
changing the rules that govern this resolution of civil disputes in
midstream.
Furthermore, this legislation would give defendants in class actions
vast new opportunities to delay cases for 2 years or more and stay
discovery during the same period. Again, these rule changes would apply
retroactively to pending cases.
H.R. 1115 also would force our Federal courts to handle State class
actions, in addition to their large caseload and judicial vacancy rate.
Thus, it is not surprising, I tell my colleagues, that both Federal and
State judges oppose this measure. In fact, the Federal Judicial
Conference, which is headed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, recently wrote
a letter in which it ``strongly cautions Congress to uphold principles
of federalism and to not increase the workload of the already
overburdened Federal courts.''
In sharp contrast to this overreaching GOP bill, Democrats have
offered legislation that, among other things, would base attorneys'
fees on the amount redeemed by class members rather than the amount of
the settlement. I think that is appropriate.
I understand the concerns of corporate leaders when they say the
attorneys get all the money, and the aggrieved parties get a piece of
paper saying that they may get something prospectively if they buy
another product. That is a legitimate concern. This substitute speaks
to it.
Our bill would require courts to determine that a class action
settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to the class. That is a
protection against specious suits and those who would misuse the
system.
This substitute would bar litigants from sealing court records and
documents under protective orders unless a court finds that it is
necessary to protect a trade or business secret and it is in the public
interest.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this substitute and
then support its passage. We need reform. This is the appropriate step
for us to take.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The time of the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) has expired.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend my friend from Maryland and my
friend from Texas for being very consistent on the issue of
retroactivity. Retroactivity is in here to prevent a race to the
courthouse to avoid the new rules that are contained in this bill,
should it be enacted into law. But, then again, they were against the
retroactive tax cut. The tax cut that was enacted into law just a
little while ago is retroactive to the first of January and, as a
result of that retroactivity, there is going to be a reduction in
withholding rates beginning the first of July that would be twice the
amount if it were not retroactive.
So I guess they are against providing benefits of good legislation
retroactively to anybody, because they are against good legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
substitute bill. This substitute bill commissions studies, creates new
advisory panels, and even allows State court judges to voluntarily
consolidate class actions. However, the substitute bill fails to
accomplish one thing: to prevent the current abuses in the class action
system.
Welcome to Madison County, Illinois. It is hard to imagine why the
bizarre system of delegations, panels and transfers in the substitute
system is preferable to a system allowing parties to utilize the
existing Federal removal procedure to have their cases heard in Federal
Court through a process that has existed and served this country well
for over 200 years.
The substitute bill authorizes a group of State court judges to think
about the class action problem and to propose a solution, if they wish.
The bill, however, H.R. 1115, offers real change. It moves large
interstate class actions to Federal courts, which have a better track
record of dealing with these cases and more resources to handle them
efficiently, and it offers real consumer benefits that will apply to
real cases and makes sure that lawyers do not sell their clients short
and take home all the money.
Like the Blockbuster case, where the plaintiffs got $1 coupons and
the plaintiffs' attorneys got $9.2 million in attorneys' fees.
Like the Bank of Boston case, where the lawyers got $8.5 million and
the plaintiffs paid money. They did not get anything.
Like the frequent flier case, where the lawyers got $25 million, and
the plaintiffs got coupons for discount air fares on the same airlines
that the plaintiffs' attorneys alleged had performed some sort of
wrongdoing.
Like the Coca-Cola sweetener case, the lawyers got $1.5 million. That
was a real sweetener for them. The plaintiffs only got 50-cent coupons
for their sweetener.
That is what is wrong. That is what the substitute does not cover.
The transfer provision in the substitute bill is meaningless. The
substitute would also authorize State courts to develop a procedure for
transferring certain cases to Federal courts. But, once again, State
courts that do not want to participate do not have to. It is a safe bet
that the courts, like the ones in Madison County, are not going to
exercise that option. They are giving class actions a bad name, and
they are not going to voluntarily send their class actions to Federal
Court.
Thus, this provision is a sham, and I urge my colleagues to defeat
the substitute and support the underlying bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) will
be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 2
offered
[[Page H5303]]
by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Lofgren of
California, and Amendment No. 4 by offered by Mr. Sandlin of Texas.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote, and
the remaining votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending 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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185,
noes 238, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 268]
AYES--185
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--238
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Ackerman
Cubin
Eshoo
Filner
Flake
Gephardt
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Rothman
Smith (WA)
Solis
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor)(during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1430
Ms. HARRIS and Messrs. NUNES, WELLER, DEAL of Georgia, BOOZMAN,
KINGSTON, WICKER, HYDE, ENGLISH, TURNER of Ohio, EHLERS, and PICKERING
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
Ms. LOFGREN and Messrs. HOLDEN, WAMP and DOGGETT changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye''.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 268, I was caught in
traffic and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 268 on the Jackson-
Lee amendment to H.R. 1115, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the
remainder of this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Lofgren
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186,
noes 234, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 269]
AYES--186
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
[[Page H5304]]
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--234
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Ackerman
Barton (TX)
Boehner
Cubin
Delahunt
Eshoo
Ford
Gephardt
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Marshall
Rothman
Smith (WA)
Solis
{time} 1438
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 269 on the Lofgren/
Sanchez amendment to H.R. 1115 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sandlin
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 255, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 270]
AYES--170
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--255
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Majette
Manzullo
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
[[Page H5305]]
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Ackerman
Berkley
Cubin
Eshoo
Gephardt
Johnson (CT)
Rothman
Smith (WA)
Solis
Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1447
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 270 on the Sandlin
amendment to H.R. 1115 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``yea.''
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that I had
voted on rollcall vote No. 270. In reviewing the record, my vote did
not register. If the vote had registered, I would have voted ``aye'' on
rollcall vote No. 270.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, the question is on the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. Accordingly, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Ose) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Chairman pro tempore of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1115) to
amend the procedures that apply to consideration of interstate class
actions to assure fairer outcomes for class members and defendants, to
outlaw certain practices that provide inadequate settlements for class
members, to assure that attorneys do not receive a disproportionate
amount of settlements at the expense of class members, to provide for
clearer and simpler information in class action settlement notices, to
assure prompt consideration of interstate class actions, to amend title
28, United States Code, to allow the application of the principles of
Federal diversity jurisdiction to interstate class actions, and for
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 269, he reported the bill
back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on 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 Offered by Mr. Weiner
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. WEINER. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Weiner moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1115 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions that the
Committee report the same back to the House forthwith with
the following amendments:
Strike section 8 (EFFECTIVE DATE) and insert the following:
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any civil
action commenced on or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
Strike section 6 (APPEALS OF CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION
ORDERS) and redesignate the succeeding sections accordingly.
Conform the table of contents accordingly.
Mr. WEINER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Weiner) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by offering a word of apology and concern
for the many lawyers in this Chamber. This has been a very bad
afternoon for all of the lawyers who have seen their reputations
dragged through the mud. And those of us who are not lawyers, the seven
or eight of us here, will be meeting later in a phone booth off the
cloakroom to discuss how badly we feel for all of these horrible
lawyers who have been flogging themselves on the floor all afternoon.
I should also express my sorrows to those victims who use the courts
to try to find redress. Now, most Americans are thankfully not lawyers
and they are not victims. And we are grateful and thank God for that.
But for the organizations who do represent victims, this has been a
very bad day, whether it is the American Cancer Society that opposes
this legislation because they represent victims of cancer. A bad day
for them. It has been a bad day for those who advocate against water
pollution like Clean Water Action. It has been a very bad day because
they oppose this bill.
This bill is also a setback for those who advocate for seniors who
have been victims, for those who advocate on behalf of women who have
been victims. All of these groups are against this bill.
This has also been a very bad day for anyone in this Chamber who
calls themselves a conservative. This has been a very bad day for you,
because for all of the efforts that you put in to returning power to
the States, returning power to individuals, this bill does the exact
opposite. It says that the people in our local States, the people in
our State courts are simply not smart enough to handle these cases.
They are simply not sophisticated enough. We trust them to put them in
charge of choosing their Congressman, but we do not trust them on a
jury. No, that is too big a mistake. So we take out of the hands of
about the 50,000 State courts and give them to about 1,500 Federal
judges.
This is a huge setback for all of you who support stronger State
government.
This has also been a very bad day for anyone who wants to be
intellectually consistent. Was it not about 2 weeks ago you voted on
putting a cap on the amount that victims can get, and now you come up
here with your charts saying, oh, it is terrible how little victims are
getting.
There is a reason victims are getting 35 cents, 40 cents, $1, $2.50.
It is because there are millions and hundreds of thousands of victims
in these cases all chopping up the 5-, 6-, 7-, $8 million claims. So it
is a very bad day if you want to be consistent.
Although, any of those who claim about how low the amount that
victims are getting, I look forward to a bill on this floor sometime in
the near future putting a minimum amount that victims have to get in
these cases. By the way, I will vote for that. You can sign me up as a
cosponsor.
While I cannot improve the day for those groups, if there are some of
you in this body who see that this is a terrible power grab, for those
of you who do not mind the power grab against the States, who do not
mind sticking it to victims, who do not mind flogging yourself as a
lawyer, who do not mind being inconsistent conservatives, there are a
couple of ways to improve the bill in case you do not want to be a pig.
If you do not want to be a pig about it, there are two things in this
bill that no one asked for, were not in the original version of the
bill, and really are an affront to our basic elements of fairness. One
is the element that says you can have retroactive effects of this bill,
meaning taking things that are presently going through the process,
even if they are due to be judged tomorrow, and sending them back; and
the second
[[Page H5306]]
is the provision that gives mandatory appeal on the certification of a
class.
What that will have the effect of doing is that at any point in the
process, if someone wanted to challenge the certification of a class,
whether it be Enron or WorldCom, if they are in the case right now,
even if it is in the Federal court, this will allow them to stop
everything in its tracks and go back on appeal.
By the way, for those of you who think that the lower courts get
overturned a lot on appeal, it has never happened. It has never
happened.
So these are two minor ways for those of you who spend so much time
flogging yourself because you are such evil lawyers to be able to vote
for this bill and improve it in a minor way. This does not make this a
good bill. That is too much to hope for in this Congress in this day
and age. But what it will do is make it a little less offensive to
those victims who are now waiting for some redress to that grievance.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Weiner) did not spend more time talking about his motion to
recommit. And I can understand why he did not do it. Because it opens
up two big loopholes in this bill to allow the minority of the bar that
abused the class action laws to continue to be on the gravy train.
I will tell you how he proposes to do it. First of all, he changes
the effective date of the bill. What the bill says is that any class
action where the class has not been certified will go under the new
rules.
The motion to recommit changes that. It says that the new rules
become effective as of the date of enactment of the bill. And this will
result in a rush to the courthouse in Madison County, Illinois and the
other class action mills to get cases filed so that they will be exempt
from the modest civil action court reforms that are contained in H.R.
1115.
Now, the other red herring that is in this motion to recommit is that
it takes away the so-called interlocutory appeal. This has nothing to
do with Enron or WorldCom or any other firm or individual that is in
bankruptcy. They are already in the Federal bankruptcy court, and all
civil litigation against them in State or Federal courts is stayed and
the bankruptcy court decides those claims. But interlocutory appeals
are not the bad things that we hear from the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Weiner).
The average time to decide an appeal for all types of cases
nationwide is 10.7 months. The average time for a merits ruling and
class certification appeals in the Seventh Circuit, which includes
Illinois, is only 3.2 months. So you are not talking about having
justice be unduly delayed. These appeals are decided promptly, even in
a very busy circuit. This motion is a red herring. It should be
defeated.
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. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of final passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185,
noes 240, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 271]
AYES--185
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--240
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Ackerman
Cubin
Eshoo
Gephardt
Johnson (CT)
Markey
Payne
Royce
Smith (WA)
[[Page H5307]]
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1516
Mr. HOEKSTRA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BLUMENAUER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The question is on the passage of
the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 253,
nays 170, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 272]
YEAS--253
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Majette
Manzullo
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--170
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--11
Ackerman
Cubin
Edwards
Eshoo
Gephardt
Johnson (CT)
McDermott
McHugh
Smith (WA)
Tiahrt
Watson
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1523
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, in rollcall No. 272 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 272. Had I been
present, I would have voted, ``nay.''
____________________