H.Res. 269

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

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.

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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Everybody has a right to have a lawyer, but you ought to be for court reform.

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. 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.

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).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

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. 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. 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. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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. 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. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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.

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. 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).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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?

I yield with pleasure to the gentleman from Virginia, my friend on the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

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. 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.

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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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. 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. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

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).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

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.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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. 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. 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. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

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.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.

168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.

197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

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. 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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this can be a complicated legal issue, but at its core, this bill that Republicans have given such a misleading name, the Class Action Fairness Act, is very simple. Here is what it does. It protects big corporate wrongdoers like Enron and WorldCom against individuals that they harm. It makes it easier for fraudulent and unethical corporations and their executives to escape accountability for their actions.

That may not be what some of its supporters intend, but that is exactly what this bill would do, and it is exactly the type of thing the Republican House has been doing for the past 8\1/2\ years, turning the American people's government over to a small, elite group of the wealthiest and most powerful. We have seen it for the past week as House Republicans have tried to block tax relief for working and military families who need it the most. They gave millionaires tax breaks totaling $93,000, but they called it welfare when

Democrats tried to give $150 in tax relief to the military families who need it most to feed and clothe their children.

We are seeing it again here today on this class action bill. Believe it or not, the latest version of the Republican bill is even worse for consumers than the versions they have offered in the past two Congresses. That is because this one does not just protect future corporate wrongdoers, it acts retroactively to pull the rug out from under the victims of some of the worst corporate scandals in recent memory. If Members do not think that was intentional, just take a look at the rule the Republican leadership has written for this bill.

In the past two Congresses, the House has been allowed to vote on every amendment offered by a Member. In fact, let me read from the Congressional Record from a year ago when my friend the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) who is handling the rule today was handling the rule at that time.

``I would like to take a moment to clarify for my colleagues that while this is a structured rule, our committee, the Committee on Rules, did make in order every amendment submitted to us on this legislation. The rule simply incorporates some time confines equally applied to all of the amendments in order to provide some level of certainty and order during consideration of the legislation in the House.''

In other words, last year and, in fact, the year before, the Republican majority made in order every amendment that was submitted to the committee. Now, this year they have neglected to make in order two amendments. Which two did they not make in order? The one dealing with retroactivity; that is, one cannot sue somebody for what they did a couple of years ago and suits are already on file, those suits will suddenly go away. Who are we talking about? We are talking about wrongdoers at Enron and WorldCom and other places. But they will not make that amendment in order. That, of course, is the amendment offered by the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

What is the other amendment that they will not make in order this time? That deals with unnecessarily delaying lawsuits by interlocutory appeals and freezing everything in place. What is wrong with that? Well, because as it is written, this class action bill would give Enron the power to unilaterally freeze the case that defrauded retirees in Texas have filed against it. Many of these people have lost their life savings in a massive corporate fraud. Their case has already been delayed more than a year and a half, a delay that allowed Arthur Andersen to shred important documents; and now this bill would give Enron the power to unilaterally delay the case for many more years.

Just to be clear, last year, and 2 years ago, Republicans let all of the amendments be made in order. This year, they cannot do that; no amendment on the question of retroactivity and no amendment on the question of freezing lawsuits pending appeals.

That is not just wrong, it is indefensible, because it is simply welfare for some of the worst corporate wrongdoers, companies like WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, and Enron. But the Republican leadership has used this power to protect corporate criminals, killing the Conyers- Delahunt amendment on retroactivity last night in the Committee on Rules so they would not have to debate it in the light of day on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, there are other major problems with the Republican bill. Its operating principle is: Justice delayed is justice denied. State and Federal judiciaries, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, oppose it. And because the Federal courts are already overburdened, consumers will have to wait for years for their claims to be heard. In the meantime, big corporate wrongdoers like WorldCom and Enron will have new procedural tactics to run up the bills and run out the clock on the consumers they have injured.

At the same time, the so-called consumer protection provisions of the bill are a cynical sham. They do not provide any new protections for consumers, they just codify the ones that already exist, and they do not come close to making up for the fundamental lack on consumer rights that the entire bill represents.

I am sure the Republicans will come to the floor to complain about the so-called coupon settlements which are no more common in State courts than they are in Federal courts that Republicans favor. No matter how many times Republicans talk about this problem, their bill does not do anything about it. Only the Democratic alternative increases consumer protections against coupon settlements.

The truth is the Democratic alternative offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) is the only sensible and workable class action reform on the House floor today. It will help consumers hold corporations accountable for their actions, and it will help courts manage large class action litigation. It tightens the rules on lawyers' fees and coupon settlements. It protects consumers against unfair settlements and enacts other consumer-friendly revisions that have been recommended by the Judicial Conference of the United States. And to protect the rights of out-of- State defendants, it establishes a State level multidistrict litigation panel, like those operating on the Federal level, to manage large class action suits filed in multiple jurisdictions.

So I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative. But first I urge my Republican friends to stand up to the Republican leadership and oppose the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, then the House can consider the Conyers-Delahunt amendment to strike the retroactive provisions of this bill, and it also can consider another very important amendment on the provisions that permit lawsuits to be frozen in place. This is the only way we can block welfare for corporate wrongdoers like Enron and WorldCom.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Of course, I just heard the comments by my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules; and my only point was in the last Congress, both times this came up, the last Congress and the Congress preceding, all amendments that were filed we permitted to be made in order. This time the majority has cherry-picked and said, well, we will have these couple of amendments made in order, but the ones that are really important, we are not going to let those be made in order.

Also, I would like to read from the hometown newspaper of my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio, who is managing the bill. This is an editorial that appeared in the Columbus Dispatch May 8, 2003: ``Courts have the power to police such abuses, and proponents of the bill have not shown that abuses are widespread or that the courts have failed such that the Congress needs to step in. If there are problems that require a legislative solution, the solution should be one that is carefully tailored, not the blunt instrument of this bill.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have one speaker, and then will she close after that?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the great crocodile tears shed on the other side on the issue of coupon settlement proposition. Of course, if they want to change that, they should support the Democratic substitute which is stronger on the issue of coupon settlements than their underlying bill.

Also, it is fascinating to listen to the advocates of States rights on the other side suddenly shift gears and become advocates of a very strong Federal system. I guess there is just a fundamental distrust of our State court system on the part of Republicans, and I find that very curious and very interesting. Also, particularly in light of the fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is opposed to dumping these additional lawsuits into the already overburdened Federal system.

So we just have a peculiar situation in which people on the other side of the aisle are disregarding the Chief Justice of the United States, a member of their own party, and are also suddenly, in this particular instance, advocating for stronger action by the Federal system which would override the State system that they normally support.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. Last night the Committee on Rules broke with its past precedents and refused to make in order two important amendments Democratic Members brought to the committee.

If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will restore fairness in the debate on class action reform that the House has adopted in the previous two Congresses. Under my proposal, the House will be allowed to debate one amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) that will delete the bill's retroactive provisions; and, two, the Delahunt-Scott amendment to prevent corporations from using interlocutory appeals to run out the clock on class action lawsuits.

No matter what their position is on this bill or on these particular amendments, all Members should support bringing fairness back to the process and vote no on the previous question.

I am merely asking that all Members with serious amendments be allowed to bring them to the House floor just as they have been able to on the earlier occasions when we have debated class action reform.

Let me make it very clear. A no vote would not stop the House from taking up the Class Action Fairness Act and would not prevent any of the amendments made in order by the rule from being offered. However, a yes vote will preclude the House from considering these two very important amendments that are critical to the debate on class action lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendments immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, again, vote no on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.