Condemning the terrorist bombing attack that occurred on February 14, 2005, in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and killed and wounded others.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 96, I call up the Senate bill (S. 5) to amend the procedures that apply to consideration of interstate class actions to assure fairer outcomes for class members and defendants, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 5.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Today marks the culmination of nearly a decade of legislative efforts to end systematic abuse of our Nation's class action system. We stand on the cusp of sending landmark legislation on civil-justice reform to the President that has been approved by increasing majorities each time it has been considered by the House in each of the last three Congresses and which passed the other body last week with an overwhelming majority of 72 votes.

Since these reforms were first proposed, the magnitude of the class action crisis, the need to address it has become more and more urgent. The crisis now threatens the integrity of our civil justice system and undermines the economic vitality upon which job creation depends.

A major element of the worsening crisis is the exponential increase in State class action cases in a handful of ``magnet'' or ``magic'' jurisdictions, many of which deal with national issues in classes. In the last 10 years, State court class actions filings nationwide have increased over 1,315 percent. The infamous handful of magnet courts known for certifying even the most speculative class action suits, the increase in filings now exceeds 5,000 percent. 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.

A second major feature 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 the large fees to a small number of trial lawyers, with little benefit to the plaintiffs.

The present rules encourage a race to any available State courthouse in the hopes of a rubber-stamped nationwide settlement that produces millions in attorney's fees for the winning plaintiff's attorney. The race to settle produces outcomes that favor expediency and profits for lawyers over justice and fairness for consumers. The losers in this race are the victims who often gain little or nothing through the settlement, yet are bound by it in perpetuity. And all Americans bear the cost of these settlements through increased prices for goods and services.

The bill before the House today offers commonsense procedural changes that will end the most serious abuses by allowing more interstate class actions to be heard in Federal courts while keeping truly local cases in State courts. Its core provisions are similar to those passed by this body in the last three Congresses. S. 5 also implements a consumer bill of rights that will keep class members from being used by the lawyers they never hired to engage in litigation they do not know about or to extort money they will never see.

Madam Speaker, when the House considered this important reform in the last Congress, I remarked that, ``The class action judicial system has become a joke, and no one is laughing except the trial lawyers . . . all the way to the bank.''

I imagine that laughter turned to nervous chuckles when S. 5 emerged unscathed from the gauntlet in the other body with 72 votes last week. Today, as the House prepares to pass this bill, I suspect you could hear a pin drop in the halls of infamous courthouses located in Madison County, Illinois and Jefferson County, Texas, where for so long the good times have rolled for forum-shopping plaintiffs' attorneys and the judges who enable them. And when this legislation is signed by the President one day soon, those same halls may echo with sobs and curses because this time justice and fairness and the American people will have the last laugh.

Madam Speaker, after years of toil, the moment has arrived. The opportunity to restore common sense, rationality, and dignity to our class action system is now before us, and the need for reform has never been more certain. I urge my colleagues to support the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) to show the breadth of the bipartisan support of this legislation.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, first, I have a lengthy additional statement explaining how this bill is to work. We do not have the time in general debate for me to give this statement on the floor, so I will insert the statement relative to the intent of the managers of the bill in the Record at this point.

Madam Speaker, I would like to provide a brief summary of the provisions in Sections 4 and 5 of S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Section 4 gives Federal courts jurisdiction over class action lawsuits in which the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and at least one plaintiff and one defendant are diverse. Overall, new section 1332(d) is intended to expand substantially Federal court jurisdiction over class actions. Its provisions should be read broadly, with a strong preference that interstate class actions should be heard in a Federal court if removed by any defendant. If a purported class action is removed under these jurisdictional provisions, the named plaintiff(s) should bear the burden of demonstrating that the removal was improper. And if a Federal court is uncertain about whether the $5 million threshold is satisfied, the court should err in favor of exercising jurisdiction over the case.

The Sponsors intend that in a case seeking injunctive relief, a matter be subject to Federal jurisdiction under this provision if the value of the matter in litigation exceeds $5 million either from the viewpoint of the plaintiff or the defendant, and regardless of the type of relief sought (e.g., damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief). Similarly, in assessing the jurisdictional amount in declaratory relief cases, the Federal court should include in its assessment the value of all relief and benefits that would logically flow from granting the declaratory relief sought by the claimants. For example, a declaration that a defendant's conduct is unlawful or fraudulent will carry certain consequences, such as the need to cease and desist from that conduct, that will often ``cost''

the defendant in excess of $5 million. In addition, the law is clear that, once a Federal court properly has jurisdiction over a case removed to Federal court, subsequent events cannot ``oust'' the Federal court of jurisdiction. While plaintiffs can seek to avoid Federal jurisdiction by defining a proposed class in particular ways, they lose that power once the case was properly removed.

New subsections 1332( d)(3) and (d)(4)(B) address the jurisdictional principles that will apply to class actions filed against a defendant in its home State, dividing such cases into three categories. First, for cases in which two-thirds or more of the members of the plaintiff class and the primary defendants are citizens of the State in which the suit was filed, subsection 1332(d)(4)(B) states that such cases will remain in State court. Second, cases in which more than two-thirds of the members of the plaintiff class or one or more of the primary defendants are not citizens of the forum State will be subject to Federal jurisdiction since such cases are predominantly interstate in nature. Finally, there is a middle category of class actions in which more than one-third but fewer than two-thirds of the members of the plaintiff class and the primary defendants are all citizens of the State in which the action was filed. In such cases, the numbers alone may not always confirm that the litigation is more fairly characterized as predominantly interstate in character. New subsection 1332(d)(3) therefore gives Federal courts discretion, in the ``interests of justice,'' to decline to exercise jurisdiction over such cases based on the consideration of five factors.

First, the court should consider whether the claims asserted are of ``significant national or interstate interest.'' Under this factor, if a case presents issues of national or interstate significance, that argues in favor of the matter being handled in Federal court. Second, the court should consider whether the claims asserted will be governed by laws other than those of the forum State. Under this factor, if the Federal court determines that multiple State laws will apply to aspects of the class action, that determination would favor having the matter heard in the Federal court system, which has a record of being more respectful of the laws of the various States in the class action context. The third factor is whether the class action has been pleaded in a manner that seeks to avoid Federal jurisdiction. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether the plaintiffs have proposed a ``natural'' class that encompasses all of the people and claims that one would expect to include in a class action, as opposed to proposing a class that appears to be gerrymandered solely to avoid Federal jurisdiction by leaving out certain potential class members or claims. If the Federal court concludes evasive pleading is involved, that factor would favor the exercise of Federal jurisdiction. The fourth factor considers whether there is a ``distinct'' nexus between: (a) The forum where the action was brought, and (b) the class members, the alleged harm, or the defendants. This factor is intended to take account of a major concern that led to this legislation--the filing of lawsuits in out-of-the-way ``magnet'' State courts that have no real relationship to the controversy at hand. Thus, for example, if the majority of proposed class members and the defendant reside in the county where the suit is brought, the court might find a distinct nexus exists.

The fifth factor asks whether the number of citizens of the forum State in the proposed plaintiff class(es) is substantially larger than the number of citizens from any other State, and the citizenship of the other members of the proposed class(es) is dispersed among a substantial number of States. If all of the class members who do not reside in the State where the action was filed are widely dispersed among many other States, that point would suggest that the interests of the forum State in litigating the controversy are preeminent. However, if a court finds that the citizenship of the other class members is not widely dispersed, the opposite balance would be indicated and a Federal forum would be favored. Finally, the sixth factor is whether one or more class actions asserting the same or similar claims on behalf of the same or other persons have been filed in the last three years. The purpose of this factor is efficiency and fairness: To determine whether a matter should be subject to Federal jurisdiction so that it can be coordinated with other overlapping or parallel class actions. If other class actions on the same subject have been (or are likely to be) filed elsewhere, the Sponsors intend that this consideration would strongly favor the exercise of Federal jurisdiction. It is the Sponsors' intention that this factor be interpreted liberally and that plaintiffs not be able to plead around it with creative legal theories. If a plaintiff brings a product liability suit alleging consumer fraud or unjust enrichment, and another suit was previously brought against some of the same defendants alleging negligence with regard to the same product, this factor would favor the exercise of Federal jurisdiction over the later-filed claim.

New subsection 1332(d)(4)(A) is the ``Local Controversy Exception.'' This subsection prohibits Federal courts from exercising diversity jurisdiction over a class action under the foregoing provisions if the plaintiffs clearly demonstrate that each and every one of the following criteria are satisfied in the case at issue. First, more than two- thirds of class members are citizens of the forum State. Second, there is at least one in-State defendant from whom significant relief is sought by members of the class and whose conduct forms a significant basis of plaintiffs' claims. Third, the principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct, or related conduct, of each defendant were incurred in the State where the action was originally filed. And fourth, no other class action asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons has been filed during the preceding three years.

This provision is intended to respond to concerns that class actions with a truly local focus should not be moved to Federal court under this legislation because State courts have a strong interest in adjudicating such disputes. At the same time, this is a narrow exception that was carefully drafted to ensure that it does not become a jurisdictional loophole. Thus, in assessing whether each of these criteria is satisfied by a particular case, a Federal court should bear in mind that the purpose of each of these criteria is to identify a truly local controversy--a controversy that uniquely affects a particular locality to the exclusion of all others. For example, under the second criterion, there must be at least one real local defendant. By that, the Sponsors intend that the local defendant must be a primary focus of the plaintiffs' claims--not just a peripheral defendant. The local defendant must be a target from whom significant relief is sought by the class (as opposed to just a subset of the class membership), as well as being a defendant whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the class. Similarly, the third criterion is that the principal injuries resulting from the actions of all the defendants must have occurred in the State where the suit was filed. By this criterion, the Sponsors mean that all or almost all of the damage caused by defendants' alleged conduct occurred in the State where the suit was brought. The purpose of this criterion is to ensure that this exception is used only where the impact of the misconduct alleged by the purported class is localized. For example, a class action in which local residents seek compensation for property damage resulting from a chemical leak at a manufacturing plant in that community would fit this criterion, provided that the property damage was limited to residents in the vicinity of the plant. However, if the defendants engaged in conduct that could be alleged to have injured consumers throughout the country or broadly throughout several States (such as an insurance or product case), the case would not qualify for this exception, even if it were brought only as a single-State class action.

The fourth and final criterion is that no other class action involving similar allegations has been filed against any of the defendants over the last three years on behalf of the same or other persons. Once again, the Sponsors wish to stress that the inquiry under this criterion should not be whether identical (or nearly identical) class actions have been filed. Rather, the inquiry is whether similar factual allegations have been made against the defendant in multiple class actions, regardless of whether the same causes of actions were asserted or whether the purported plaintiff classes were the same (or even overlapped in significant respects).

New subsections 1332(d)(5)(A) and (B) specify that S. 5 does not extend Federal diversity jurisdiction to class actions in which (a) the primary defendants are States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief, or (b) the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is fewer than 100 class members. The purpose of the ``State action'' cases provision is to prevent States, State officials, or other governmental entities from dodging legitimate claims by removing class actions to Federal court and then arguing that the Federal courts are constitutionally prohibited from granting the requested relief. However, Federal courts should proceed cautiously before declining Federal jurisdiction under the ``State action'' case exception, and do so only when it is clear that the primary defendants are indeed States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the ``court may be foreclosed from ordering relief.'' The Sponsors wish to stress that this provision should not become a subterfuge for avoiding Federal jurisdiction. In particular, plaintiffs should not be permitted to name State entities as defendants as a mechanism to avoid Federal jurisdiction over class actions that largely target non-governmental defendants. The Sponsors intend that ``primary defendants'' be interpreted

to reach those defendants who are the real ``targets'' of the lawsuit-- i.e., the defendants that would be expected to incur most of the loss if liability is found. It is the Sponsors' intention with regard to each of these exceptions that the party opposing Federal jurisdiction shall have the burden of demonstrating the applicability of an exemption.

The Sponsors understand that in assessing the various criteria established in all of these new jurisdictional provisions, a Federal court may have to engage in some fact-finding, not unlike what is necessitated by the existing jurisdictional statutes. The Sponsors further understand that in some instances, limited discovery may be necessary to make these determinations. However, the Sponsors caution that these jurisdictional determinations should be made largely on the basis of readily available information. Allowing substantial, burdensome discovery on jurisdictional issues would be contrary to the intent of these provisions to encourage the exercise of Federal jurisdiction over class actions.

Under new subsection 1332(d)(9), the Act excludes from its jurisdictional provisions class actions that solely involve claims that relate to matters of corporate governance arising out of State law. The purpose of this provision is to avoid disturbing in any way the Federal vs. State court jurisdictional lines already drawn in the securities litigation class action context by the enactment of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. The Sponsors intend that this exemption be narrowly construed. By corporate governance litigation, the Sponsors mean only litigation based solely on (a) State statutory law regulating the organization and governance of business enterprises such as corporations, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships, and business trusts; (b) State common law regarding the duties owed between and among owners and managers of business enterprises; and (c) the rights arising out of the terms of the securities issued by business enterprises.

New subsection 1332(d)(11) expands Federal jurisdiction over mass actions--suits that are brought on behalf of numerous named plaintiffs who claim that their suits present common questions of law or fact that should be tried together even though they do not seek class certification status. Mass action cases function very much like class actions and are subject to many of the same abuses. Under subsection 1332(d)(11), any civil action in which 100 or more named parties seek to try their claims for monetary relief together will be treated as a class action for jurisdictional purposes. The Sponsors wish to stress that a complaint in which 100 or more plaintiffs are named fits the criteria of seeking to try their claims together, because there would be no other apparent reason to include all of those claimants in a single action unless the intent was to secure a joint trial of the claims asserted in the action. The Sponsors also wish to stress that this provision is intended to mean a situation in which it is proposed or ordered that claims be tried jointly in any respect--that is, if only certain issues are to be tried jointly and the case otherwise meets the criteria set forth in this provision, the matter will be subject to Federal jurisdiction. However, it also should be noted that a mass action would not be eligible for Federal jurisdiction under this provision if any of several criteria are satisfied by the action, including (1) when all the claims asserted in the action arise out of an event or occurrence in the State where, the suit is filed and the injuries were incurred in that State and contiguous States (e.g., a toxic spill case) and (2) when the claims are asserted on behalf of the general public (and not on behalf of individual claimants or members of a purported class) pursuant to a State statute specifically authorizing such an action.

The first exception would apply only to a truly local single event with no substantial interstate effects. The purpose of this exception is to allow cases involving environmental torts such as a chemical spill to remain in State court if both the event and the injuries were truly local, even though there are some out-of-State defendants. By contrast, this exception would not apply to a product liability or insurance case. The second exception also addresses a very narrow situation, specifically a law like the California Unfair Competition Law, which allows individuals to bring a suit on behalf of the general public.

Subsection 1332(d)(11)(B)(i) includes a statement indicating that jurisdiction exists only over those plaintiffs whose claims in a mass action satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirements under section 1332(a). It is the Sponsors' intent that although remands of individual claims not meeting the section 1332 jurisdictional amount requirement may take the action below the 100-plaintiff jurisdictional threshold or the $5 million jurisdictional amount requirement, those subsequent remands should not extinguish Federal diversity jurisdiction over the action as long as the mass action met the various jurisdictional requirements at the time of removal.

Under subsection 1332(d)(11)(C), a mass action removed to a Federal court under this provision may not be transferred to another Federal court under the MDL statute (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407) unless a majority of the plaintiffs request such a transfer. The Sponsors wish to make clear that this restriction on MDL transfers applies only to mass actions as defined in subsection 1332(d)(11); the legislation does not more broadly restrict the authority of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer class actions removed to Federal court under this legislation. Under subsection 1332(d)(11)(D), the statute of limitations for any claims that are part of a mass action will be tolled while the mass action is pending in Federal court.

The removal provisions in Section 5 of the legislation are self- explanatory and attempt to put an end to the type of gaming engaged in by plaintiffs' lawyers to keep cases in State court. They should thus be interpreted with this intent in mind. In addition, new subsection 1453(c) provides that an order remanding a class action to State court is reviewable by appeal at the discretion of the reviewing court. The Sponsors note that the current prohibition on remand order review was added to section 1447 after the Federal diversity jurisdictional statutes and the related removal statutes had been subject to appellate review for many years and were the subject of considerable appellate level interpretive law. The Sponsors believe it is important to create a similar body of clear and consistent guidance for district courts that will be interpreting this legislation and would particularly encourage appellate courts to review cases that raise jurisdictional issues likely to arise in future cases.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to provide an explanation of these jurisdictional provisions.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the two gentlemen from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and (Mr. Boucher), I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's question.

Section 4 of the bill gives Federal courts jurisdiction over class action lawsuits in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, excluding interests and costs and at least one proposed class member and one defendant are citizens of different States or countries.

For purposes of the citizenship element of this analysis, S. 5 does not alter current law. Thus, a corporation will continue to be deemed a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business. However, the bill provides that for purposes of this new section, and section 1453 of title 28, 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 organized. This provision is added to ensure that unincorporated associations receive the same treatment as corporations for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. New subsection 1332(d)(10) corrects this anomaly.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, under new subsection 1332(d)(6), the claims of the individual class members in any class action shall be aggregated to determine whether the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million. The sponsors intend this subsection to be interpreted broadly, and if a purported class action is removed under this provision, the plaintiff shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the $5 million threshold is not satisfied. By the same token, if a Federal court is uncertain about whether a case puts $5 million or more in controversy, the court should favor exercising jurisdiction over the case.

This principle applies to class actions seeking injunctive relief as well. The sponsors intend that a matter be subject to Federal jurisdiction under this provision if the value of the matter in litigation exceeds the $5 million, either from the viewpoint of the plaintiff or the viewpoint of the defendant, regardless of the type of relief sought, such as damages, injunctive relief or declaratory relief.

The sponsors are aware that some courts, especially in the class action context, have declined to exercise Federal jurisdiction over cases on the grounds that the amount in controversy in those cases exceeded the jurisdictional threshold only when assessed from the viewpoint of the defendant.

For example, a class action seeking injunctive relief that would require a defendant to restructure its business in some fundamental way might cost a defendant well in excess of $75,000 under current law, but might have substantially less value to each plaintiff or even to the class of plaintiffs as a whole. Because S. 5 explicitly allows aggregation for the purposes of determining the amount of controversy in class actions, that concern is no longer relevant.

To the extent plaintiffs seek to avoid this rule by framing their cases as individual actions for injunctive relief, most Federal courts have properly held that in an individual case the cost of injunctive relief is viewed from the defendant's perspective. This legislation extends that principle to class actions as well.

The same approach would apply in a case involving declaratory relief. In determining how much money a declaratory relief case puts in controversy, the Federal court should include in its assessment the value of all relief and benefits that would logically flow from the granting of the declaratory relief sought by the plaintiffs.

For example, a declaration that a defendant's conduct is unlawful or fraudulent will carry certain consequences, such as the need to cease and desist from that conduct that will often cost the defendant in excess of $5 million; or a declaration that a standardized product sold throughout the Nation is defective might well put a case over the $5 million threshold, even if the class complaint did not affirmatively seek a determination that each class member was injured by the product.

The bottom line is that new section 1332(d) is intended to substantially expand Federal court jurisdiction over class actions, not to create loopholes. This provision should be read broadly, with a strong preference that interstate class actions should be heard in a Federal court if properly removed by a defendant.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer the gentleman.

The first factor is whether the claims asserted are of significant national or interstate interest. Under this factor, if a case presents issues of national or interstate significance that argues in favor of the matter being handled in Federal Court, for example, if a class action alleges a nationally distributed pharmaceutical product caused side effects, those cases presumably should be heard in Federal court because of the nationwide ramifications of the dispute and the potential interface with Federal drug laws.

Under this factor, the Federal court should inquire whether the case does present issues of national or interstate significance of this sort. If such issues are identified, that point favors the exercise of the Federal jurisdiction.

The second factor is whether the claims asserted will be governed by laws other than those of the forum State. The sponsors believe that one of the significant problems posed by multistate class actions in State court is the tendency of some State courts to be less than respectful of the laws of other jurisdictions, applying the law of one State to an entire nationwide controversy and thereby ignoring the distinct and varying State laws that should apply to various claims included in the class, depending upon where they arose.

Under this factor, if the Federal court determines that multiple State laws will apply to aspects of the class action, the determination would favor having the matter handled in the Federal court system, which has a record of being more respectful of the laws of various States in the class action controversy. Conversely, if the court concludes that the laws of the State to which the action was filed will apply to the entire controversy, that factor will favor keeping the case in State court.

The third factor is whether the class action has been pleaded in a manner that seeks to avoid Federal jurisdiction. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether the plaintiffs have proposed a natural class, a class that encompasses all the people and claims that one would expect to include in a class action, as opposed to proposing a class that appears to be gerrymandered solely to avoid Federal jurisdiction by leaving out certain potential class members or claims.

If the Federal court concludes that evasive pleading is involved, that factor would favor the exercise of Federal jurisdiction. On the other hand, if the class definition and claims appear to follow a natural pattern, that consideration would favor allowing the matter to be handled by a State court.

The fourth factor is whether there is a distinct nexus between, A, the forum where the action was brought, and, B, the class members, the alleged harm or the defendants. This factor is intended to take account of a major concern that led to this legislation, the filing of lawsuits in the out-of-the-way magnet State courts that have no real relationship to the controversy at hand.

Thus, if a majority of the proposed class action members and the defendants reside in the county where the suit is brought, the court might find a distinct nexus exists. The key to this factor is the notion of there being a distinct nexus. If the allegedly injured parties live in many other localities, the nexus is not distinct, and this factor would weigh heavily in favor of the exercise of Federal jurisdiction over the matter.

The fifth factor is whether the number of citizens in the forum State in the proposed plaintiff class is substantially larger than the number of citizens from any other State, and the citizens of the other members of the proposed class is dispersed among a substantial number of States.

This factor is intended to look at the geographic distribution of class members in an effort to determine the forum State's interest in handling the litigation. If all of the out-of-State class members are widely dispersed among many other States, that point would suggest that the interest of the forum State in litigating the controversy are preeminent.

The sponsors intend that such a conclusion would favor allowing the State court in which the action was originally filed to handle the litigation. However, if a court finds that the citizenship of the other class members is not widely dispersed, then a Federal forum would be more appropriate because several States other than the forum State would have a strong interest in the controversy.

The final factor is whether one or more class actions asserting the same or similar claims on behalf of the same or other persons have been filed in the last 3 years. The purpose of this factor is to determine whether a matter should be subject to Federal jurisdiction so that it can be coordinated with other overlapping or parallel class actions.

If the other class actions on the same subject have been or are likely to be filed elsewhere, the sponsors intend that this consideration would strongly favor the exercise of Federal jurisdiction. It is the sponsors' intention that this factor be broadly interpreted and that plaintiffs not be able to plead around it with creative legal theories.

If a plaintiff brings a product liability suit alleging consumer fraud or unjust enrichment, and another suit was previously brought against some of the same defendants alleging negligence with regard to the same product, this factor would favor the exercise of Federal jurisdiction over the later-filed claim.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), to provide some examples that illustrate how these six factors would work in litigation.

I yield to the other gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, yes, this provision is intended to respond to concerns that class actions with a truly local focus should not be moved to Federal court under this legislation because State courts have a strong interest in adjudicating such disputes. At the same time, this is a narrow exception that was carefully drafted to ensure that it does not become a jurisdictional loophole. Thus, each of the criteria is intended to identify a truly local class action.

First, there must be a primarily local class. Secondly, there must be at least one real local defendant. And by that the drafters meant that the local defendant must be a primary focus of the plaintiffs' claims, not just a retailer or other peripheral defendant. The defendant must be a target from whom significant relief is sought by the class, as opposed to just a subset of the class membership, as well as being a defendant whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the class.

For example, in a consumer fraud case, alleging that an insurance company incorporated and based in another State misrepresented its policies, the local agent of the company named as a defendant presumably would not fit this criteria. He or she probably would have had contact with only some of the purported class members and, thus, would not be a person from whom significant relief would be sought by the plaintiff class viewed as a whole. And, from a relief standpoint, the real demand of the full class in terms of seeking significant relief would be on the insurance company itself.

Third, the principal injuries resulting from the actions of all the defendants must have occurred in the State where the suit was filed. This criterion means that all or almost all of the damage caused by the defendants' conduct occurred in the State where the suit was brought. If defendants engaged in conduct that allegedly injured consumers throughout the country, the case would not qualify for the local controversy exception, even if it was only brought as a single State class action.

And, fourth, no other class action involving similar allegations has been filed against any of the defendants over the last 3 years. In other words, if we are talking about a situation that results in multiple class actions, those are not the types of cases that this exception is intended to address. I would like to stress that the inquiry under this criterion should not be whether identical or nearly identical class actions have been filed. Rather, the inquiry is whether similar factual allegations have been made against the defendant in multiple class actions, regardless of whether the same causes of action were asserted or whether the proposed plaintiff classes in the prior case was the same.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will be happy to explain.

The mass action provision was included in the bill because mass actions are really class actions in disguise. They involve an element of people who want their claims adjudicated together, and they often result in the same abuses as class actions. In fact, sometimes the abuses are even worse because the lawyers seek to join claims that have little to do with each other and confuse a jury into awarding millions of dollars to individuals who have suffered no real injury.

Here is how the mass action provision and the current amount-in- controversy provision would work in tandem: suppose 200 people file a mass action in Mississippi against a New Jersey drug manufacturer and also name a local drug store. Three of them assert claims for a million dollars apiece, and the rest assert claims of $20,000.

The Federal Court would have jurisdiction over the mass action because there are more than 100 plaintiffs, there is minimal diversity, and the total amount of controversy exceeds $5 million, and a product liability case does not qualify for the local occurrence exception in the provision.

Then the question becomes, which claims would, in the mass action, the Federal judge keep in Federal Court, and which would be remanded? At this point the judge would have to look at each of the claims very carefully and determine whether or not they meet the $75,000 minimum.

In this regard, I would note that the plaintiffs often seek to minimize what they are seeking in the complaint so that they can stay in State court. For example, sometimes plaintiffs leave their claim for punitive damages off the original complaint to make it seem like their claims are smaller than they really are.

It is our expectation that a Federal judge would read a complaint very carefully and only remand claims that clearly do not meet the $75,000 threshold. If it is likely that a plaintiff is going to turn around in a month and add an additional claim for punitive damages, the Federal court should obviously assert jurisdiction over that individual's claims.

Finally, I would like to stress that this provision in no way is intended to abrogate 8 United States Code 3867 to narrow current jurisdictional rules. Thus, if a Federal court believed it to be appropriate, the court could apply supplemental jurisdiction in the mass action context as well.

With regard to the exceptions, it is our intent that they be interpreted strictly by a court so that they do not become loopholes for an important jurisdictional provision. Thus, the first exception would apply only in a situation where we are talking about a truly local single event with no substantial interstate effects.

The purpose of this exception is to allow cases involving environmental torts, such as a chemical spill, to remain in State court if both the event and the injuries were truly local, even though there are some out-of-state defendants.

By contrast, this exception would not apply to a product liability or insurance case. The sale of a product to different people does not qualify as an event, and the alleged injuries in such a case would be spread out over more than one State or contiguous States even if all of the plaintiffs in a particular case came from one single State.

The third exception addresses a very narrow situation, specifically a law like the California Unfair Competition Law, which allows individuals to bring a suit on behalf of the general public. Such a suit would not qualify as a mass action. However, the vast majority of cases brought under other States' consumer fraud laws which do not have a parallel provision could qualify as removable class actions.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, once again, critics of the legislation have it backwards. This legislation will streamline jurisdictional inquiries by putting an end to all of the gaming that takes place under the current system, and the so-called delay refers to procedural rules that already exist under the current system.

Under existing law, diversity of citizenship between the parties must exist, both at the time a complaint is filed and at the time a complaint is removed to Federal court. However, if the plaintiff files an amended complaint in State court that creates jurisdiction,

or if subsequent events create jurisdiction, the defendant can then remove the case to Federal court.

Current law is also clear that once a complaint is properly removed to Federal court, the Federal court's jurisdiction cannot be ousted by later events. Thus, for example, changes in the amount of controversy after the complaint has been removed would not subject a lawsuit to be remanded to State court.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always thought that Federal judges protected the rights of everybody.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what we have heard from opponents of this legislation, its passage would not extinguish the legal right of any injured party, whether it be a class action, a mass action, or an individual lawsuit from proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction in the United States. What the bill does do is it puts some sense into the class action system so that the members of the plaintiff's class will be fairly and adequately compensated rather than seeing all of their gains go to attorneys and them just getting coupon settlements from the people who have allegedly done them wrong.

I was particularly perturbed listening to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who said that the kids who start smoking at 13 and 14 years old are going to be denied their day in court, and that the tobacco companies are going to end up cashing in on a big bonanza.

Well, I had my staff, while this was going on, look at what has happened to Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris. Since the other body passed this bill, Altria stock has gone down by at least $1.50, or 2 percent. And today, the Reuters story that came out less than an hour ago says that the Dow has been dragged down by Altria.

Now, if this was the bonanza to investors in Altria, the stock would not be going down. It is not. That is a fallacious argument. Reject the substitute and pass the bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Democratic substitute amendment and urge my colleagues to reject it. The new math behind the substitute amendment rests on the following arithmetic: if you add a number of amendments rejected by large bipartisan majorities in the other body last week and combine them with the amendment ideas overwhelmingly rejected on the House floor by a bipartisan vote last year, the sum will somehow equal a credible solution. Funny math.

Mr. Speaker, this formula simply does not add up. The American consumers and businesses will be left with change in their pockets if the amendment passes. The Democratic substitute is less than the sum of its parts and represents a quotient that renders Senate Bill 5's core reform elements meaningless.

The individual elements of this proposal deserve some comment and explanation. First, I note with some amusement that the substitute totally recycles the findings of S. 5. The pages of findings discuss abusive class action windfall settlements for trial attorneys, forum shopping, and the need for more of these large interstate class action cases to be in Federal court.

While the minority substitute reargues the compelling case for reform of the class action system, it is followed by text that will only perpetuate the crisis the findings identify. Their admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, and we appreciate that admission; but the minority sponsors clearly are not ready for step two.

One element of the substitute amendment is the State attorney general provision allowing any class action to be brought by or on behalf of the State attorney general to be in State court. This provision is unnecessary because when State attorneys general sue on behalf of their citizens, those actions are almost always ``parens patriae'' actions, and not class actions; and the former will be in no way affected by this bill.

Also, the provision could produce troubling associations between attorneys general and plaintiffs' lawyers. For these reasons, the Pryor amendment in the other body that this provision copies verbatim failed to garner even 40 votes on the Senate floor last week.

A second element of the substitute is the ``choice of law'' provision. This provision would not only eviscerate the bill, but also would overturn 70 years of established Supreme Court precedent and would export to Federal courts a primary expedient of class action abuse we seek to remedy: the reckless application by local courts of the law of one State to the entire Nation in large interstate cases.

This provision is reprinted from a Senate amendment by Senator Feinstein and Senator Bingaman. It was also soundly defeated.

The third element of the substitute is the so-called labor and civility rights carveout. This provision seeks to keep all class actions involving alleged civil rights and labor law violations in State court, despite the fact that the most generous racial discrimination and employment class action settlements in recent years have been in the Federal courts. The language was also offered in the other body and rejected.

Other major elements of the substitute include one our colleagues might remember as the Jackson-Lee House floor amendment to the bill in the last Congress. That amendment makes companies that incorporate abroad for tax purposes a citizen of a State and punishes them by keeping them out of Federal court. This is at least an admission that going into certain State courts as a defendant is indeed punishment, and that amendment was defeated in this House by the last Congress by a vote of 183 to 238. There is also a loophole creating a provision on mass actions and a completely unnecessary public disclosure provision, both based on Senate amendments in the other body that were offered and withdrawn.

What the minority has chosen as a substitute package certainly belies any grumblings about the lack of regular order this year. Since there is not a single original idea among the provisions that has not already been debated and defeated either in this House or the other body, it is hard to give credence to such complaints. This is a package of oldies but not goodies; oldies that have been rejected and should not be resurrected.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, a vote on this substitute is clearly just a vote to further deny or delay meaningful class action reform, and a vote on the substitute could not in any way be construed as reform of any kind but, rather, support for the trial-lawyer-dominated status quo.

I urge my colleagues to reject this recycled package of recycled amendments. The time for reform of a class action system which is out of control is now.

I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on the substitute, and ``yes'' on

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished majority Whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Mr. Speaker, the amendment in the nature of a substitute completely guts this bill. Every crippling amendment that was rejected either in this House or the other body in this Congress or the previous Congress is incorporated in this amendment. They do not have any new ideas over there. They just repackage and try to regurgitate the old ideas that have been found lacking.

The issue in this bill is very clear, and that is that we have to restore some sanity to the civil justice system by dealing with the abuses that a small group of lawyers have turned the class action system into.

When the framers of the Constitution wrote that inspired document, they gave Congress the power to regulate interstate Congress. What has happened as a result of the abuse of the class action system is that judges in small out-of-the-way counties, like Madison County, Illinois and Jefferson County, Texas end up being the ultimate arbiters of interstate commerce.

This bill puts some balance back into the system. The amendment perpetuates the existing system. Vote ``no'' on the amendments, vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, and pass the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if neither gentlemen is opposed to the bill, I request the time in opposition.

I am opposed to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time in opposition to this resolution because I very sincerely believe that resolutions of this sort actually do more harm than good. I know that it is very good to condemn the violence, and I certainly do agree with that.

But I am convinced that when we get involved and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, that it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately it comes back to haunt us.

Generally speaking, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called noninterventionism. It is not generally acceptable in this current time that we do this, but I think there is every reason to consider it. It certainly was something that the founders talked about.

The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world. And for this reason, we should talk about it. And that is why I take this opportunity to do so, with the sincere belief that we would be better off with less intervention overseas.

The founders talked about that, about rejecting entangling alliances. And we have been involved in a lot of entangling alliances since World War I, especially after World War II, and we have been doing a lot of things, losing a lot of men and women and costing a lot of money; and too often, these events have come back to haunt us. There is blow-back from our policy.

The policy of interventionism, which I object to, really doesn't work. It is well intended, and we have these grandiose plans and schemes to solve the problems of the world, but if you are really honest with yourself and you look at the success and failure, it doesn't have a good record. I mean, are you going to defend the great victory in Korea, the great victory in Vietnam? And on and on. The great victory in Iraq?

And I see resolutions like this step in the wrong direction. Actually, I believe it is going to expand the war in the Middle East.

The other reason why I strongly object to interventionism is it costs a lot of money. And someday we will have to deal with that. Supplemental bills come up now to the tune of tens of billions, and next year, already, they are planning to come up with another $100 billion for our intervention overseas. But it is off the regular budgetary process, so it doesn't meet the budgetary restraints that we are supposed to follow. So it becomes emergency funding, although we have been in Iraq for 3 years, and with plans to stay endlessly. We are building permanent bases in Iraq. So there is a lot of cost, and eventually that will come home to haunt us, and it already has.

And then there is the problem of unintended consequences. We went into Iraq for all kinds of reasons, some disproven, and all well intended, and who knows what the real motivations were. But one thing was that we would gain access to oil, and oil would be produced and would help pay the bills. Yet oil, when we went into Iraq was $28 a barrel. Now it is $75 a barrel. That is an unintended consequence.

We have done more to fall into the trap of what Osama bin Laden wanted in Iraq than anything else. And actually we have helped Iran. Iran is stronger. They have probably already more influence with the grass roots, the democratic process in Iraq, than we do. Those are the kind of unintended consequences that, on principle, I strongly object to.

I believe that the founders were correct in advocating avoiding entangling alliances, to have a strong national defense, to defend this country, I believe that is just plain common sense. Most Americans, if you just flat-out put it to them, think we should not be the policemen of the world. Do you think we should be involved in the internal affairs of other nations? People say no. We shouldn't do this. The Constitution doesn't give us the authority to do it.

And we now are in the business of maintaining an empire. A noninterventionist foreign policy concedes up front that is not our goal. We are not supposed to be going overseas and building permanent bases and staying there endlessly. Even the election campaign of 2000 was won partially on the foreign policy issue that, you know, it was said that we shouldn't be the policemen of the world and we shouldn't be in nation building.

I think those are good ideas and the American people agree. They didn't object to it. But each step along the way we dig a deeper hole for ourselves. And that is the general philosophic reasons why I believe nonintervention is beneficial. Intervention is very, very dangerous. Later there will be a lot of specifics that I would like to mention.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment just briefly on the comments made by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), because I think his point is well taken about the emphasis on this legislation, and to deny that would be just trying to fool one's self.

It is very clear that if one were objective and read this resolution, all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side, which I, quite frankly, find unfair, especially coming from the position that I want to advocate, neutrality, rather than picking sides.

But he also mentioned the fact about trying to change the resolution. I would like to emphasize also that being on the International Relations Committee, I was anxious to see the resolution, but characteristically it was very difficult to get. We didn't hold hearings and we didn't debate it and we didn't get a chance to have amendments to it, and even last night I couldn't receive it. There were some news articles very early this morning. Lo and behold, they had copies of it. It took me until about 9 o'clock this morning to get it.

So I think it would be fairer within this Congress to allow us to have a chance to debate these in the committee, to bring them to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) derogatorily said there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if it were a crime. I would suggest there is room for an open mind to another type of policy that may save American lives.

I was in the Congress in the early 1980s, and then I left Congress, and I just come back recently. But I was here when the Marines were sent in to Lebanon, and I strenuously came to the floor before they went, when they went, and before they were killed, arguing my case. And then they were killed. Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run.

Then, after the marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this.

He says, ``Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.''

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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

I just want to make a couple of comments before yielding. It has been well advertised about the three prisoners that have been taken, the three Israeli prisoners. Everybody in the country knows about it. What I find a bit interesting is that some people estimate between 8,000 and 10,000 Palestinians and Lebanese are in prisons and under the authority of the Israeli police and government.

It is also known that one-third of the Cabinet of Palestine have been arrested and held hostage by the Israeli Government, and once again, I think this is a distortion of what is going on. It is hard to get the information out to find out exactly what is happening in this area.

Also, I would like to make one additional point that it is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to everything Hezbollah does because I am a strong opponent to all violence on both sides. So I object, too, but I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel was there for 18 years, and Hezbollah did not get any weaker, and they are stronger than ever. So I think, again, a little bit of balance is worth considering.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of accusations made about who precipitated the crisis, the charges made that it all occurred because three prisoners were taken, and that Hezbollah and Hamas deliberately provoked the situation. And it may well be true. I have no idea exactly what is true.

But there are others who have indicated that they believe that it was precipitated mainly with the intent of our foreign policy, along with Israel's foreign policy, as an initial step to go into Iran. We have talked about Iran around the House and around Washington, and there are a lot of people very, very concerned. Our administration talks about it all the time; taking out Iran, taking out the nuclear sites. But to do that, the theory is that these missiles had to be removed and, in a practical military sense, that seems very reasonable. So there could be the deliberateness of Hamas and Hezbollah precipitating the crisis for whatever gain they think, or deliberately precipitated by both the United States and Israel with the intent to follow up with bombing in Iran. And I am frightened about that. I think that may well occur.

I have talked to a lot of military people, a lot of CIA people, who actually believe this is a possibility within months. And this is the reason I have such great concern about what is happening in this area of the country, because if us going into Iraq didn't go so well, can anybody imagine what is going to happen when the bombs start to fall on Iran? I think it is going to be catastrophic. And there has been talk on television this past weekend, the beginning of World War III. And this war is about to spread, and this is the reason that I oppose this resolution, because, deep down in my heart, I believe that what we do here helps to provoke things and agitate things and bring us closer to a greater conflict. And I am just arguing that there is an alternative other than violence to settle some of these problems.

Now, a lot of bombs have fallen on both sides, and of course, if they are coming from Lebanon, Syria and Iran are blamed, and they may well deserve the blame. But we haven't talked about who gets the blame for the other side. More people are getting killed on the other side. And as we mentioned before, innocent people are killed, and a lot of nonmilitary targets have been hit, farms and buildings and electrical plants and airports that have nothing to do with the military.

And yet the reason I believe this is going to be worse is because we see it in this country the way we want to see it. And we have no willingness to think about how it might be seen elsewhere, like how is it going to be seen by 1 billion Muslims around the world? And you know, quite frankly, every single bomb that is dropped by Israel, by their calculation, and they have reason to believe so, those are U.S. bombs. Those are our airplanes. We paid for them. And they get the money to buy these weapons. So whether it is deliberate or whatever, it doesn't matter. It is the perception by the Muslims who are radicalized by this.

You can't deny it. There are more radicals today than there were 2 or 3 years ago. And the reason why I am worried about this is we are now getting the information about the reaction to 9/11. 9/11 occurred, and the immediate response by many of our leaders and the administration said, let's go to Iraq. People would say, well, why Iraq? Well, we have been planning on it all along. This is the opportunity.

As soon as this crisis built, we heard very similar comments. Let's go to Iran, you know, to go forward.

There are others who suggest that this crisis has come about not out of our strength, but out of our weakness. If Hezbollah and Hamas has deliberately done this, they might have calculated we have been stretched fairly thin around the world and with Iraq, and know that a lot of the American people and the taxpayers are getting tired of the war, so they may have seen this as a sign of weakness on our part. But then the ``neocons'' say, yeah, that may well be true, that is why we have to be tougher than ever. We have got to unleash the bombs. We have got to consider nuclear weapons, and back and forth and back and forth, until one day we are going to get ourselves in such a fix that World War III will be here and it will be irrevocable.

And there are some people who sort of like this idea. There are some ``neocons'' who thrive on chaos, because their theory is they want regime change. They want regime change in Syria, and they want regime change in Iran. They wanted it in Iraq. And we are, by gosh, we are going to have regime change, and they are going to be our friends and they are going to be democrats. We are going to have democratic elections.

So we go to war and our men and women die. We spend all this money, and we have elections. And then sometimes we don't like the results of the elections, so we ignore them.

What if we had elections in Saudi Arabia? What if we had elections in Egypt? And then what if their radicals were elected?

So we are fighting and dying to spread democracy. And it is probably one of the most dangerous things for us with our current foreign policy, is that when they do vote and elect Hezbollah and Hamas, then we have to reject the principle of democracy.

Self-determination is a great principle, and we should permit it and encourage self-determination. But encouraging elections under these circumstances, and by force, in hopes that we get our man in charge just doesn't work.

I think we are going to have regime changes, a lot more regime changes than most people want around here. I think the regime changes are coming in Saudi Arabia, and I think there will be a regime change maybe in Egypt. Who knows? In Libya. And you are going to be very unhappy with those regime changes.

So, yes, it was well intended to have regime change in Iraq. But what has it gotten us?

And now we want to spread that philosophy and have more regime changes, and who knows what the results are going to be? They are not going to be good. They are going to backfire on us.

You know, when Osama bin Laden responded to why, he had a list of reasons on why he encouraged or directed the attack on 9/11. And the one thing that he listed we shouldn't ignore, because as bad as that individual is, and as violent as he is, nobody has ever proven he tells lies. Nobody has ever proven this. Nobody says he is a liar. So we ought to listen to what he says.

And one of the reasons that he listed for this was back in 1982, back to the problems we had in Lebanon, there were 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinians killed. And who knows whose bombs and who was doing it? But you know, we were in there, although our troops weren't fighting and we left, but Israel was involved, 18,000. But regardless of whether or not we directed it or wanted it is irrelevant. The conclusion was that we were participants, and it rallied his troops and helped him organize to get people so hateful that they were willing to commit suicide terrorism and come here.

Now, we can ignore it and say, well, he is a liar. That is not the reason they did it. But we do that at our own peril.

Now, one of the reasons why I believe that it wouldn't be difficult to put the label USA on these weapons, obviously the airplanes have been built here. But what about the money? How much money have we given for weapons?

Between 1997 and 2004, and that doesn't even count the last 2 years, we gave over $7 billion in weapons grants. It wasn't a loan. It was a weapons grant.

Now, the neat thing about this, this was an economic deal because it was beneficial because under the foreign military financing program that we have, Israel is required to spend 74 percent of that back here. So you are talking about a military-industrial complex, a pretty good deal. You know, we subsidize them, send the money over here, it comes over here, and our arms manufacturers make even more money and then dig a bigger hole for us in foreign policy and contribute to the many problems that we have. And that amount of money, they get $2.3 billion of these military grants, and they automatically increase it $60 million per year. So it is locked in place.

Now, you say, well, that is money for our ally. And fine, if it was used for defense, maybe. But if it is used to antagonize 1 billion Muslims and there is no willingness to even consider the fact that we should look at it in a balanced way, and instead it is ridiculed and said, oh, this is ridiculous to think of neutrality or balance and think about both sides, and the innocent people dying on both sides should be considered.

So we are moving toward a major crisis, a major crisis financially and a major crisis in our foreign policy. I don't believe we can maintain this.

So even if you totally disagree with our aggressive empire building and policing the world, let me tell you, I am going to win the argument, because we are running out of money. We are in big debt, and we are borrowing it. We borrowed $3 billion a day from countries like China and Japan and Saudi Arabia to finance this horrendous debt. And it won't be, it can't be continued. The dollar will eventually weaken. You are going to have horrendous inflation. Interest rates are going to go up, and it is going to be worse than the stagflation of the 1970s.

And domestic spending is never curtailed. We have been in charge of the Congress and the Presidency for several years now, and the government gets bigger, probably faster than it was getting before.

So we are facing a crisis that is liable to escalate and get out of control in the Middle East. At the same time, it has a bearing on our finances, because when it contributes to the deficit, there is a limit to how much foreigners will loan to us. We have to print the money. We have to go to the Fed, create new money. That is the inflation.

And what does it do to the cost of oil? Inflation pushes the cost of oil up. That should be a concern to everybody. And at the same time, the production of the oil didn't work. I mean, the oil production went down in Iraq.

What happens if this happens to be true? I actually pray that I am completely wrong about this. And you can say, well, you are, so don't sweat it. But what if I am right? It is frightening, because if this leads to bombing in Iran, look for oil at $150 a barrel. Then the American people will wake up. They will say, hey, what's going on here? Why is gasoline so expensive? It is expensive because we have less production out of Iraq, and it is expensive because the value of the dollar is going down. And it is expensive because they are anticipating that this crisis is not going away, and what we do are antagonizing the world.

So, once again, I come to this from a slightly different viewpoint than those who like to pick sides. There is nothing wrong with considering the fact that we don't have to be involved in every single fight. That was the conclusion that Ronald Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of Israel. He was a friend of Israel. But he concluded that that is a mess over there. Let me just repeat those words that he used. He said, he came to the conclusion, ``The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.''

I would like you to rethink our policy, not only there, but the kind of policy that led to 60,000 people dying in Vietnam and then walking away. And what happened after we walked away? We are better off than ever. We had a naval ship going into Vietnam just recently. We trade with them. We do

deals with them. Yet it was a total fiasco and a total loss because of the way we went to war.

And this is also the reason that I am determined to persist that if we take our country to war, that we ought to be responsible. We should never send these kids and young people to war without a declaration, win the war, and get it over with. When we don't declare it, it goes on and on and on. We don't win them.

And literally, this Persian Gulf War, and this Iraqi war, it has been going on since 1990. We never stopped bombing Iraq, never stopped bugging them, and antagonizing them and inciting them.

So it is not a sign of weakness to talk about neutrality. It is a sign of strength that you have a little bit of courage and you believe in your own system. If we want to spread our values, it is a good way to do it. Set a good example. Put our financial house in order. Treat people evenly, and trade with people, and talk to people and travel.

But don't think that we can force our values at the point of a gun, and think they are all going to be democratic elected governments that we are going to be pleased with. It is not going to happen.

So there is reason to reconsider the total policy that has been followed in this country essentially for 100 years. And it hasn't been productive for us. Essentially, Woodrow Wilson started it. We are going to make the world safe for democracy. And look how safe the world has been since Woodrow Wilson introduced that. We are less safe than ever. And our financial condition is worse than ever.

And we are running our program, whether it is our domestic welfare program or our foreign policy, it is being run on borrowed money. It is borrowed money from overseas, and it is also from inflated currency. And we can get away with it for a while longer, but let me tell you, there is a crisis coming, and it is going to be dealing with the dollar and it is going to involve our foreign policy. And then we will, as a sign of weakness, we will have to come home. We will have to come home because we can't afford the empire. It is not wise to have it, and we should have more confidence and more belief that what we have in this country, and what America used to stand for, that we should spread that message more by setting an example and through a voluntary approach. And when that time comes, I think that maybe more people will reconsider it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield 3 minutes to Mr. Rahall, but first I would ask how much time I have left after I yield the 3 minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, with the consideration of this legislation, the majority begins their assault on our Nation's civil justice system. Today we will attempt to preempt State class actions. Next month we will take up a bankruptcy bill that massively tilts the playing field in favor of credit card companies and against ordinary consumers and workers alike. On deck and pending are equally one-sided medical malpractice bills and asbestos bills that both cap damages and eliminate liability to protect some of the most egregious wrongdoers in America.

The majority's assault on victims and consumers is unprecedented in its scope and stunning in its breadth. Collectively, these measures will close the courthouse doors on millions of Americans harmed by intentional wrongdoing, negligence, and fraud. And so, long after the 109th Congress has forgotten, American consumers and workers will be paying the price for these special interest bills through needless injuries and uncompensated harm.

This legislation will remove class actions involving State law issues from State courts, the forum most convenient for victims of wrongdoing and with the judges most familiar with the substantive law, and this legislation will move it to the Federal courts where the case will take far longer to resolve and is far less likely to be certified.

Now, you do not need to take my word for it. Let us just ask big business itself. The Nation's largest bank, Citicorp admits ``the practical effect (of the bill will) be that many cases will never be heard. Federal judges facing overburdened dockets and ambiguities about applying State laws in a Federal court, often refuse to grant standing to class action plaintiffs.''

Forbes Magazine writes, ``The legislation will . . . make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail, since . . . federal courts are . . . less open to considering . . . class action claims.''

Passage of this legislation would be particularly devastating for civil rights cases and labor law cases. As the Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under The Law explained, ``The consequences of the legislation for civil rights class actions . . . will be astounding and, in our view, disastrous. Redirecting State law class actions to the Federal courts will choke Federal court dockets and delay or foreclose the timely and effective determination of Federal (civil rights) cases.''

Since the November election we have heard a lot of talk about values, and that is fine; but will someone during this discourse today tell me where the value is in denying senior citizens who suffered heart attacks because they took Vioxx for their arthritis? Where is the morality in preventing poor workers from joining together to obtain compensation when unscrupulous employers pay them slave-labor wages?

Where is the righteousness in telling victims of discrimination that they will have to wait years for a Federal court to consider violations of their own State laws?

If we have learned anything from the Enron, TYCO, Firestone, and other legal debacles, it is that our citizens need more protection against wrongdoers in our society, not less. And yet the class action bill before us takes us in precisely the opposite direction.

The House should reject this one-sided, anti-consumer and anti-civil rights legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) is a dear friend of mine, and I merely want to take one observation that he made, that this is just a procedural process and that there is no substantive changes, but I say to him, if the legal system is rigged and the rules are stacked against you, you never have to get to the substance; you do not even get your day in court.

That is the problem with this bill. It is a procedural process that prevents people from bringing actions in State courts, and we are sending it to the Federal courts when both the Federal judiciary has spoken against this measure and the State judges have spoken against this measure as well. I think that that should be a very instructive criticism against this bill.

The proposal before us is opposed by both State and Federal judiciaries. It is opposed by the National Council of State Legislatures; consumers and public interest groups, including Public Citizen, the Consumers Federation of America, the Consumers Union, the United States PIRG; a coalition of environmental advocates; health advocates, including the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids; civil rights groups such as the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and labor such as the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations,

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) from the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He has worked with us on many of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

First of all, I think the NAACP and the civil rights groups will be eager to find out that his wisdom is superior to their experience in the civil rights movement. What the gentleman was suggesting may have been correct a number of years ago, but I would point out to the gentleman that the Federal courts more recently have not been as desirable a forum for civil rights activities.

The Bank of Boston case, that was 10 years ago and an anomaly. There are not other examples of class actions where class members lost money. No other court has made the same mistake. I would urge that neither the gentleman nor any of us rewrite class action rules because of one mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a ranking subcommittee member.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

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

Mr. Speaker, we have listened carefully to the discussion here, and it is very clear that one thing is for sure: this is not a simple procedural fix to class actions in our courts.

Another thing, it is clear that all of the totally unsatisfactory provisions have not been removed.

First, the bill, as the gentlewoman from Texas has said, harms working Americans and victims of discrimination who are in no position to bring individual actions of wage-and-hour cases or civil rights discrimination claims. Moving the cases to Federal court will result in many never being ever heard at all.

Many State laws provide better protection than Federal statutes. For example, 20 States provide protection for marital status and Federal law does not. Twenty-one States extend Federal definitions of national origin discrimination by including ancestry, place of birth, and citizenship status; and 31 States prohibit genetic discrimination in the workplace, not provided under Federal law.

Secondly, this bill closes the door on victims of large-scale personal injury cases resulting from accidents, environmental disasters, or dangerous drugs that are widely sold. Although these cases are filed in State courts under State law, the bill will treat them as class actions and throw them willy-nilly into the Federal court.

While harming victims of personal injury, this provision greatly helps the companies, like Merck, the company that manufactured the deadly drug Vioxx. Since the discovery of the dangers of Vioxx, hundreds of cases from all over the country have been filed against Merck, and we can anticipate likely thousands more. However, under this proposal before us today, those who suffered harm from the drug will be denied their day in court and their ability to seek justice.

Finally, this bill makes it difficult for consumers to pursue claims against defendants who violated consumer protection laws. The bill will force many of these cases filed in State courts into the Federal system. But some Federal courts will not certify class actions involving the laws of multiple States because they deem the case too complex and unmanageable. Result: harmed consumers will never have their cases adjudicated in the courts.

It also makes it impossible for States to pursue actions against defendants who have caused harm to the State's citizens. State attorneys general often pursue these claims under State consumer protection statutes, antitrust laws, often with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the State.

Under this bill, would we want these cases to be thrown into Federal court and severely impede the State's ability to enforce its own laws for its own citizens? That is what will happen. That is what will take place.

So I am very pleased to put in the Record the letter from the States attorneys general opposing this legislation, those attorneys general from California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia.

I would also like to add the letter from the environmental organizations which have made their case as to why this would be a very harmful measure. The signatories of this letter include the United States Public Interest Research Group, PIRG; the Wilderness Society; the Sierra Club; the National Environment Trust; Greenpeace; Friends of the Earth; and the National Audubon Society, and many others.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I include in this debate from the Leadership Conference and the AFL-CIO, and the Alliance For Justice, all writing on one letter, and they plead with us in the House of Representatives to protect working men and women and civil rights litigants by opposing the measure that is before us.

Washington, DC, February 15, 2005.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned civil

rights and labor organizations, we write to urge you to vote

against the Class Action Fairness Act (S. 5), which passed

the Senate last week. While the bill was pending before the

Senate, we pushed for an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy

that would have exempted civil rights and wage and hour state

law cases. Because the amendment was not adopted, we ask you

to reject S. 5 in order to ensure that the Class Action

Fairness Act does not adversely impact the workplace and

civil rights of ordinary Americans by making it extremely

difficult to enforce civil rights and labor rights.

During Congress' extensive examination into the merits of

class action lawsuits, nowhere has a case been made that

abuses exist in anti-discrimination and wage and hour class-

action litigation. By allowing dozens of employees to bring

one lawsuit together, the class-action device is frequently

the only means for low wage workers who have been denied mere

dollars a day to recover their lost wages. Moreover, class

actions also are often the only means to effectively change a

policy of discrimination. These suits level the playing field

between individuals and those with more power and resources,

and permit courts to decide cases more efficiently.

Wage and hour class actions are most often brought in state

courts under the law of the state in which the claims arise.

The reason is that state wage and hour laws typically provide

more complete remedies for victims of wage and hour

violations than the federal wage and hour statute. For

instance, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) offers

no protection for a worker who works 30 hours and is paid for

20, so long as the worker's total pay for the 30 hours worked

exceeds the federal minimum wage. However, many states have

``payment of wage'' laws that would require that the worker

be fully paid for those additional 10 hours of work. Also,

federal law provides no remedy for part-time workers who

often work 10-16 hour days, yet earn no overtime because they

work less than 40 hours per week. At least six states and

territories, however, including California and Alaska,

require payment of overtime after a prescribed number of

hours are worked in a single day.

Likewise, state laws increasingly provide greater civil

rights protection than federal law. For example, every state

has passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of

disability. Some of these state statutes provide a broader

definition of disability and a greater range of protection in

comparison to the federal Americans with Disabilities Act

including California, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode

Island, Washington, and West Virginia. In addition, every

state has enacted a law prohibiting age discrimination in

employment, and some of these state laws--including those of

California, Michigan, Ohio and the District of Columbia--

contain provisions affording greater protection to older

workers than comparable provisions of the federal Age

Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

In addition, many state laws provide protections to

classifications not covered by federal law. For example, the

following states provide protection for marital status:

Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,

Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska,

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon,

Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Moreover, several states

have expanded Title VII's ban on national origin

discrimination to prohibit discrimination on the basis of

ancestry, or place of birth, or citizenship status. These

states include Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,

Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,

Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South

Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the

Virgin Islands.

Finally, 31 states have enacted legislation prohibiting

genetic discrimination in the workplace--an important

protection given the rapid increase in the ability to gather

this type of information. The 31 states are Arizona,

Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa,

Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New York, North

Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota,

Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. In

addition, Florida and Illinois have enacted more limited

protections against genetic discrimination.

Under S. 5, citizens are denied the right to use their own

state courts to bring class actions against corporations that

violate these state wage and hour and state civil rights

laws, even where that corporation has hundreds of employees

in that state. Moving these state law cases into federal

court will delay and likely deny justice for working men and

women and victims of discrimination. The federal courts are

already overburdened. Additionally, federal courts are less

likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of

state law.

In light of the lack of any compelling need to sweep state

wage and hour and civil rights claims into the scope of the

bill, which is done in the current bill, we urge you to vote

against S. 5. In the event that amendments are offered, we

support any amendment that, like the Kennedy amendment and

others offered in the Senate, preserves the right of

individuals to bring class actions in an effective, efficient

manner.

If you have any questions, or need further information,

please call Nancy Zirkin, Deputy Director of the Leadership

Conference on Civil Rights (202-263-2880); Sandy Brantley,

Legislative Counsel, Alliance for Justice (202-822-6070); or

Bill Samuel, Legislative Director, AFL-CIO (202-637-5320).

Sincerely,

AARP; AFL-CIO; Alliance for Justice; American-Arab Anti-

Discrimination Committee; American Association of People with

Disabilities; American Association of University Women;

American Civil Liberties Union; American Federation for the

Blind; American Federation of Government Employees; American

Federation of School Administrators; American Federation of

State, County & Municipal Employees; American Federation of

Teachers; American Jewish Committee; Americans for Democratic

Action.

The Arc of the United States; Association of Flight

Attendants; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Center for

Justice and Democracy; Coalition of Black Trade Unionists;

Communications Workers of America; Consortium for Citizens

with Disabilities Civil Rights Task Force; Department for

Professional Employees, AFL-CIO; Disability Rights Education

and Defense Fund; Epilepsy Foundation; Federally Employed

Women; Federally Employed Women's Legal & Education Fund,

Inc.; Food & Allied Service Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Human

Rights Campaign.

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship

Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers; International

Brotherhood of Electrlcal Workers; International Brotherhood

of Teamsters; International Federation of Professional &

Technical Engineers; International Union of Bricklayers and

Allied Craftworkers; International Union of Painters and

Allied Trades of the United States and Canada; International

Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Workers of

America; Jewish Labor Committee; Lawyers' Committee for Civil

Rights Under Law; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the

San Francisco Bay Area; Leadership Conference on Civil

Rights; Legal Momentum; Mexican American Legal Defense and

Educational Fund.

NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.;

National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees; National

Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium; National Association

for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education; National

Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems; National

Association of Social Workers; National Employment Lawyers

Association; National Fair Housing Alliance; National

Organization for Women; National Partnership for Women and

Families; National Women's Law Center; Paper, Allied-

Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union;

Paralyzed Veterans of America.

People For the American Way; Pride At Work, AFL-CIO;

Service Employees International Union; Transport Workers

Union of America; Transportation Communications International

Union; UAW; Unitarian Universalist Association of

Congregations; UNITE!; United Cerebral Palsy; United Food and

Commercial Workers International Union; United Steelworkers

of America; Utility Worker Union of America; and Women

Employed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly describe why this substitute is the superior piece of legislation before us today. The substitute is much better for the following reasons: civil rights carve-out. The substitute would carve out State civil rights claims in order to make sure that civil rights plaintiffs, especially those seeking immediate injunctive relief, can have their grievances addressed in a timely manner.

Believe me, this is an issue of great moment to those of us who are still prosecuting for a fair day in our Nation and have civil rights laws to back us up, but we now are pleading to keep the proper forums. For example, every State in the Union has passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. The language does not affect the Federal jurisdiction over Federal claims.

The second consideration for this is the wage-and-hour carve-out. Wage-and-hour class actions are often brought in State courts because State wage-and-hour remedies are often, I am sorry to say, more complete than the Federal wage-and-hour statute; and we have examples of that.

The third reason: we exclude non-class action cases involving physical injuries. The measure before us applies not only to class actions, but also to mass torts. The Democratic substitute removes the mass tort language. And then, of course, the attorney general carve-out which clarifies cases brought by State attorneys general are excluded from the provisions of the class action bill and would not be forced into Federal court.

These are the major reasons why we encourage a supportive vote for the substitute to the measure that is being debated today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader of our caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a cosponsor of the substitute amendment.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the general principles behind S. 5 and many of the provisions in the legislation are similar to those in H.R. 1115, which the House passed in 2003, and S. 274, which was voted out of committee in the Senate in 2003 but did not ultimately pass.

To the extent these provisions are the same, the House Committee on the Judiciary's report on H.R. 1115 and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary's report on S. 274 reflect the intent and understanding of the committee and the sponsors as to the import of these provisions. However, there are several new provisions in S. 5 regarding Federal jurisdiction over class actions that were not included in prior versions of the legislation.

I would like to ask my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, to provide an overview of the jurisdictional provisions in the legislation, and I would like to discuss the various exceptions included in the legislation and the intent of the sponsors with regard to these exceptions.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I would also like to discuss the home State exception in the legislation.

New subsections 1332(d)(3) and (d)(4)(B) address the jurisdictional principles that will apply to class actions filed against the defendant in its home State, dividing such cases into three categories.

First, for cases in which two-thirds or more of the members of the plaintiff class and the primary defendants are citizens of the State in which the suit was filed, section 1332(d)(4)(B) states that Federal jurisdiction will not be extended by S. 5. Such cases will remain in State courts.

Second, cases in which more than two-thirds of the members of the plaintiff class are not citizens of the State in which the action was filed will be subject to Federal jurisdiction. Federal courts should be able to hear such lawsuits because they have a predominantly interstate component. They affect people in many jurisdictions, and the laws of many States will be at issue.

Finally, there is a middle category of class actions in which more than one-third, but fewer than two-thirds, of the members of the plaintiff class and the primary defendants are all citizens of the State in which the action was filed. In such cases, the numbers alone may not always confirm that the litigation is more fairly characterized as predominantly interstate in character. New subsection 1332(d)(3), therefore, gives Federal courts discretion in the interests of justice to decline to exercise jurisdiction over such cases based on the consideration of five factors.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the chairman to explain these factors.

Madam Speaker, if the chairman would continue to yield.

I thank the chairman for yielding to me. I think those examples really reflect the intent of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, the legislation also includes a local controversy exception which is intended to ensure that truly local class actions can remain in State court under the legislation. Under this provision, Federal courts are instructed not to exercise jurisdiction over cases that meet all of the following four criteria:

First, more than two-thirds of the class members must be the citizens of the State where the suit is brought; second, there must be at least one in-State defendant from whom significant relief is sought by members of the class and whose conduct forms a significant basis of plaintiffs' claims; third, the principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or related conduct of each defendant must have occurred in the State where the action was originally filed; and, fourth, no other class action has been filed during the preceding 3 years asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that the chairman elaborate on these criteria.

I thank the chairman for yielding once again.

Madam Speaker, in this regard I think it is important to note that the exceptions in this legislation are just that, exceptions, and they should not be interpreted in ways that turn them into loopholes. For example, the legislation excludes actions against States. Obviously, this does not mean that plaintiffs can simply name a State in every consumer class action and stay out of Federal court. To the contrary, Federal courts should proceed cautiously before declining Federal jurisdiction under the subsection 1332(d)(5)(a) ``state action'' case exception, and do so only when it is clear that the primary defendants are indeed States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the court may be foreclosed from ordering relief.

The sponsors intend that primary defendants be intended to reach those defendants who are the real targets of the lawsuit, i.e. the defendants who would be expected to incur most of the loss if liability is found. Thus, the term ``primary defendant'' should include any person who has substantial exposure to significant portions of the proposed class in the action, particularly any defendant that is allegedly liable to the vast majority of the members of the proposed classes, as opposed to simply a few individual class members.

It is the sponsors' intention with regard to each of these exceptions that the party opposing Federal jurisdiction shall have the burden of demonstrating the applicability of an exemption. Thus, if a plaintiff seeks to have a class action remanded on the ground that the primary defendants and two-thirds or more of the class members are citizens of the home State, that plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that these criteria are met.

Similarly, if a plaintiff seeks to have a purported class action remanded because a primary defendant is a State, that plaintiff should have the burden of demonstrating that the exception should apply.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, some critics have complained that the legislation removal provisions will result in delay. Can the gentleman explain why that is simply not the case?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in moving this legislation forward and in working with the Senate to accomplish that as well.

I hope this colloquy will provide guidance on the very important jurisdictional provisions in S. 5 and the sponsor's intent.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time and for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor and for working with the Senate to achieve the compromise that we need.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader, called this an extreme Republican measure. Apparently, she has not spoken to her own fellow San Franciscan and senior Senator from her State, Dianne Feinstein, who negotiated the compromise that has brought this legislation to the floor of the House, or to Senator Chuck Schumer, also a member of the Committee on the Judiciary on the Democratic side in the Senate, or 16 other Democratic Senators who voted for this legislation.

She also apparently has not spoken to members of her own Democratic Caucus, many of whom have voted for this legislation in each of the last three Congresses that have passed the House of Representatives and many more of whom will vote for the legislation today.

A number of the folks who have spoken on the other side of the aisle criticizing the legislation have cited total inaccuracies about what the legislation will do.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) would not yield to me, but he said that the Amerada Hess case in New Hampshire, with gasoline leaking into groundwater, would not be heard in the State court; but if you live in New Hampshire and you have gasoline leaking in your groundwater and virtually all of the plaintiffs are New Hampshire residents, the case, under this bill, would be heard in the State courts.

Some have mentioned the Vioxx case against Merck would be affected by this, and they have argued that Senate 5 should be rejected because it will hurt consumers bringing Vioxx cases against Merck. The truth, however, is that this legislation will have absolutely no effect on Vioxx suits. Here is why: the majority of personal injury cases brought against Merck are individual cases that would not be affected by the bill in any manner whatsoever. These include more than 400 personal injury cases that are part of a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey State court. None of these cases will be affected by the bill because they are neither class actions nor mass actions.

Now, what kind of cases would be affected by this legislation? Well, let me show my colleagues how a select number of class action trial lawyers play the class action wheel of fortune.

How about the Kay Bee Toys case where the lawyers got $1 million in attorneys fees and the consumers got 30 percent off selected products of an advertised sale at Kay Bee Toys for one week.

Or the Poland Spring Water case where the lawyers got $1.35 million in the wheel of fortune and the consumers got coupons to buy more of the water that the lawyers were alleging was defective.

How about the Ameritech case. The price goes up, $16 million for those lawyers; the consumers, $5 phone cards.

How about the Premier Cruise line case. The lawyers got nearly $900,000. The consumers got $30 to $40 off of their next thousand dollar cruise, with a coupon to buy more of the product the lawyers were alleging was defective.

Or the computer monitor litigation, $6 million in attorneys fees in a case alleging that the size of the computer screen was slightly off, and therefore, they were entitled to something. What did the consumers get? A $13 rebate to purchase their next purchase.

How about the register.com case, $642,500 to the lawyers. The consumers, $5-off coupons.

My favorite case, the case against Chase Manhattan Bank, the lawyers got $4 million in attorneys fees, but the plaintiffs that allegedly the opponents of this bill are protecting, they got 33 cents. Here is one of the actual checks. The catch was that at the time, to accept this 33-cent magnanimous check, they had to use a 34-cent postage stamp to send in the acceptance to get their 33-cent fee.

How about the case that President Bush cited last week when he highlighted problems with this of the woman who had a defective television set against Thompson Electronics, found she had been made a member of a class action seeking redress of her grievances and many others against Thompson Electronics. What did the lawyers get? $22 million in attorneys fees. What did she get? A coupon for $25 to $50 off her next purchase of exactly what she did not want, another Thompson Electronics television set.

Now, the gentlewoman from California, the minority leader, also cited the Washington Post. Let me tell my colleagues, the Washington Post has repeatedly endorsed this legislation, along with over a hundred other major newspapers, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Christian Science Monitor, on and on the list goes. And here is what the Washington Post said, and that is why we need to pass this legislation today. The clients get token payments while the lawyers get enormous fees. This is not justice. It is an extortion racket that only Congress can fix.

I urge my colleagues to pass the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for raising the points on those cases on the class action wheel of fortune because he makes a good point. In not one of those cases was there any wrongdoing found on the part of any of those defendants because all of those were settlements. They were extortionate settlements because they are in the jurisdiction of a court where they know they are facing a hanging judge and a hanging jury.

The gentleman also raised another good point, and we should not leave plaintiffs in the situation where they get a 33-cent check or a coupon for a box of Cheerios, like in another case, and that is what this bill does. It requires extra-special scrutiny for coupon settlement cases so the courts will no longer let the manufacturers' attorneys and the defendants' attorneys come in with a settlement that simply gets out of the case, that gives the plaintiffs' attorney a huge sum of money and everyone else walks away and the plaintiffs get left holding the bag.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman ought to talk to his colleague, the senior Senator from New York, the predecessor of his seat, who supported this legislation.

In addition, when the gentleman talks about abuse of plaintiffs in these cases, take into consideration the nationwide class action lawsuit filed in Alabama against the Bank of Boston, headquartered in Massachusetts, over mortgage escrow accounts. The class members won the case but actually lost money. Amazing.

Under the settlement agreement, the 700,000 class members received small payments of just a couple of dollars or no money at all. About a year later, they found out that anywhere from $90 to $140 had been deducted from their escrow accounts. For what? To pay their lawyers' legal fees, of what? $8.5 million. And when some of those class members, some of those beleaguered plaintiffs, that I am glad the gentleman from New York is standing up for, sued their class action lawyers for malpractice, the lawyers countersued them for $25 million saying that their former clients were trying to harass them.

This is an extortionate practice. A small cartel of class action lawyers around the country are abusing the system and we need to change it.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership in bringing us to this historic point. He and I have been working on this for over 6 years. It has passed the House of Representatives three times before.

Due to his good work, it has now passed the Senate and we have the opportunity to send it to the President. He is waiting to sign it and we shouldn't waste any more time.

Now the truth about class action fairness and Vioxx. Critics have been arguing in the press that S. 5 should be rejected because it will hurt consumers bringing Vioxx cases against Merck. The truth is, however, that this legislation will have absolutely no effect on Vioxx suits, and here is why. The majority of personal injury cases brought against Merck are individual cases that would not be affected by the bill in any manner whatsoever. These include more than 400 personal injury cases that are part of a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey State Court. None of these cases will be affected by the bill because they are neither class actions nor mass actions.

Merck has been named in more than 75 statewide and nationwide class actions involving Vioxx, but only a small percentage are personal injury class actions. To the extent these cases do involve personal injury, most were already brought in or removed to Federal Court because each potential class member's claims exceeds $75,000. Thus, these cases are removable to Federal Court under the old rules.

There are a few cases which plaintiffs have joined together in mass action-type cases against Merck. However, not a single Vioxx case has been brought against Merck in State court by more than 100 plaintiffs, one of the requirements for removal to Federal Court under the class action legislation. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the mass action provision would affect any Vioxx-related cases whatsoever.

Most of the class actions have been brought against Merck. Since the legislation is not retroactive, it would absolutely have no effect on the 75 class actions already filed against Merck in the wake of the Vioxx withdrawal.

Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.

Mr. Speaker, given the large number of suits already filed and the fact that every former Vioxx taker in America is already a proposed class member in numerous class actions, it is unlikely there will be many more class actions after the legislation is enacted.

It is bad legislation to have something pass that covers all class actions in the country for all time and name one specific product or one specific company in the legislation. It is irrelevant anyway.

Now, let me tell you the kinds of cases that are affected by this legislation. Take a look at the ``Class Action Wheel of Fortune'' on this chart. It will tell you what we are doing here today.

You have got the case against Ameritech. Ameritech, the attorneys for the plaintiffs got $16 million in attorneys fees. What did the plaintiffs they represent get? Five-dollar phone cards.

The Premier Cruise Line case, the lawyers got almost $1 million; the consumers got a $30- to $40-off coupon for their next cruise.

The computer monitor litigation case, the lawyers, $6 million in fees; the consumers, a $13 rebate against your next future purchase of the alleged defective product.

Register.com, $650,000 for the lawyers; $5 for the consumers.

KB Toys, $1 million for the lawyers; 30 percent off your selected product in a unadvertised 1-week sale at KB Toys.

Poland Spring Water, $1.35 million for the lawyers; a coupon for more of the allegedly defective water for the consumers.

My favorite case, however, is this one, the Chase Manhattan Bank case, where the lawyers got $4 million in attorneys fees; the plaintiffs, a check, we have got one right here, for 33 cents. But there was a catch, because if you wanted to accept the 33 cents, you had to use a 34-cent postage stamp to send in your acceptance notice. How is that for a bargain for you?

And how about the $22 million case that President Bush cited last week against Thompson Electronics? The lawyers got $22 million in attorneys fees; the plaintiffs, one of whom was there, got a $25- to $50-off coupon to buy more of what? The very television set that she was complaining was defective in the first place.

It is a racket, it is extortionate. The people of the country know it. When they are asked the question, who benefits from our class action industry today, 47 percent say it is the plaintiffs' lawyers; 20 percent say it is the lawyers for the companies; 67 percent of our public recognizes it is the lawyers who benefit from this system.

It is time we change it. This bill does just that. It protects American consumers and makes sure that they get justice by examining these ridiculous coupon settlements.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, defeat the motion to commit, and send the bill to the President, and starting very soon, we will have justice for American consumers.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 81) expressing the sense of Congress regarding the two-year anniversary of the human rights crackdown in Cuba.

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

Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, with the world's attention riveted on Iraq, Fidel Castro ordered his feared state security apparatus to round up at least 75 of Cuba's best and bravest and brightest, prominent and even lesser-known dissidents. Among these are 28 independent journalists and 40 Varela project workers. With sickening speed, these men and women were paraded before kangaroo courts and given prison sentences ranging from 6 to 28 years; 61 remain in prison.

When the Committee on International Relations met on April 16, 2003 to decry this vile abrogation of justice, I stated at that time that ``Even some of the most outspoken leftists who once saw in Fidel Castro something to admire now admit that Castro's unbridled cruelty, his thirst for blood, and extreme paranoia are indefensible.'' I regret to report that Castro has not given me and, frankly, he has given no one else as well, any reason to reassess that statement or those sentiments.

What were the so-called crimes that these brave men and women committed? They were advocating democracy, writing as independent journalists, and being men and women of faith.

Their real offense was to dare to question the authority of a single man: Fidel Castro. The Cuban Revolution is really about Castro's vanity and pursuit of personal power. From the beginning, Castro has shot and jailed anyone, even close friends, who have dared to get in the way of his personal ambitions.

Dictatorships, reflecting the whims of a despot, always subject their people to deprivations and absurdities. The Castro regime recently let a handful of its political prisoners out on parole, citing health reasons. The regime's callousness toward ailing political prisoners is well documented.

Now, independent Cuban journalists are reporting that Cuba's prisons have been virtually emptied of medical personnel. Why? Mr. Castro decided to send them to Venezuela and other places to advance his personal expansionist agenda.

Mr. Speaker, writing in the Spanish newspaper, El Pais, Nobel Prize winner Jose Saramago, a Portuguese Communist and close friend of Castro, commented after 3 alleged Havana ferry hijackers were killed by a firing squad in Cuba in May of 2003, ``Cuba has won no heroic victory by executing these three men, but it has lost my confidence, damaged my hopes, and robbed me of illusions.''

Illusions, as Castro-lover Jose Saramago has only now begun to acknowledge, often persist despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the case of Castro's Cuba.

Despite decades of credible reports of widespread egregious violations of human rights, including the pervasive use of torture and vicious beatings of political prisoners by the Cuban Government, some have clung to indefensibly foolish illusions of Castro's revolution.

Despite the fact that the Cuban Government systematically denies its people freedom of speech, press freedom, assembly and association, and severely restricts workers' rights, including the right to form independent trade unions, some have nevertheless clung to illusion.

Despite the fact that Cuba and Castro maintain an unimaginably vast network of surveillance by the thugs in his secret police and the committees for the defense of the revolution, or CDRs, neighbors spying on neighbors, some continue to embrace bogus perceptions, illusions about Castro and about Cuba.

In his book ``Against All Hope,'' the book that I have actually read twice now, a memoir of life in Castro's gulags, Armando Valladares, a courageous and amazing man who spent 22 years in Cuban prisons wrote: ``The government of Cuba and its defenders of the Cuban revolution denied that the incidents that I recount in the book ever happened.'' He says, ``Castro sympathizers who were more subtle said the incidents that he described were exaggerations. And there were others, well meaning who simply could not bring themselves to believe that such horrors, crimes and torture existed in the political prisons of Cuba.

``My response,'' Armando Valladares goes on to say, ``to those who still try to justify Castro's tyranny with the excuse that he built schools and hospitals, is this: Stalin and Hitler and Pinochet all built schools and hospitals, and like Castro, they all tortured and assassinated opponents. They built concentration and extermination camps and eradicated all liberties, committing the worst crimes against humanity.''

Armando Valladares goes on to say: ``Unbelievably while many NGOs like Amnesty International and America's Watch have denounced the human rights situation in Cuba, there has been a continuing love affair on the part of the media and many intellectuals with Fidel Castro.''

Mr. Speaker, that love affair, that illusion seemed to crash and burn with the onset of the current crackdown on dissidents. The EU for its part took action in June of 2003 by limiting high-level EU governmental visits and inviting Cuban dissidents to National Day celebrations. But, sadly, their memories are short. In January of this year, at the initiative of the Spanish Government, the EU temporarily suspended these measures for a 6-month period.

Mr. Speaker, at the 61st session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, which was held this past month, the United States, I am very proud to say the United States offered a resolution on the human rights situation in Cuba. The resolution recalled the resolutions of the previous 15 years; and I would just say, parenthetically, I was there 15 years ago when Armando Valladares led the U.S. delegation, having been sent out of the government or out of Cuba by Castro, and got that body, which is dysfunctional in many ways, to finally focus on these ongoing and persistent violations of human rights in Cuba, and that was the first time.

I am glad to say that we just, at U.S. insistence, were able to get another statement by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights focused on the ongoing abuses by Cuba. The resolution passed by a vote of 21 to 17 with 15 abstentions, but only after a full court press by the U.S. delegation led by Rudy Boschwitz, which included personal pleas from President Bush to the presidents of Ukraine and Mexico.

I am sad to point out that China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, South Africa, Sudan and Zimbabwe all voted against the resolution, in effect putting their stamp of approval on Castro's actions.

Let me just say finally, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution we have today is a reiteration. It is a bipartisan resolution offered by my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). And I hope that every member will vote in favor of it.

Two years ago, with the world's attention riveted on Iraq, Fidel Castro ordered his feared State Security apparatus to round up at least 75 of Cuba's bravest and brightest, prominent and lesser-known dissidents. Among these are 28 independent journalists and 40 Varela project workers. With sickening speed, these men and women were paraded before kangaroo courts and given prison sentences ranging from 6 to 28 years. Sixty-one remain in jail.

When the Committee on International Relations met April 16, 2003 to decry this vile abrogation of justice, I stated at that time: ``Even some of the most outspoken leftists, who once saw in Fidel Castro something to admire, now admit that Castro's unbridled cruelty, thirst for blood and extreme paranoia are indefensible.''

I regret to report that Castro has given me no cause to reassess that statement.

What were the so-called crimes of these brave men and women? Advocating democracy . . . writing as independent journalists . . . being men and women of faith.

Their real offense was to dare to question the authority of a single man, Mr. Castro. The Cuban Revolution is really about Castro's vanity and pursuit of personal power. From the beginning, Castro has shot and jailed anyone--even his close friends--who has dared get in the way of his personal ambition.

Dictatorships, reflecting the whims of a despot, always subject their people to deprivations and absurdities. The Castro regime recently let a handful of its political prisoners out on ``parole,'' citing health reasons. The regime's callousness towards ailing political prisoners is well documented.

Now, independent Cuban journalists are reporting that Cuba's prisons have been virtually emptied of medical personnel. Why? Mr. Castro decided to send them to Venezuela and other places to advance his personal expansionist agenda.

Writing in the Spanish newspaper, El Pais, Noble prize winner Jose Saramago, a Portuguese communist and close friend of Castro commented after three alleged Havana ferry hijackers were killed by firing squad in Cuba in May 2003, ``Cuba has won no heroic victory by executing these three men, but it has lost my confidence, damaged my hopes and robbed me of illusions.''

Illusions, as Castro lover Jose Saramago has only now begun to acknowledge, often persist despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Nowhere has this been more evident than in the case of Castro's Cuba.

Despite decades of credible reports of widespread egregious violations of human rights, including the pervasive use of torture and vicious beatings of political prisoners by the Cuban government, some have clung to indefensibly foolish illusions of Castro's revolution.

Despite the fact that the Cuban government systematically denies its people the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association, and severely restricts workers' rights, including the right to form independent trade unions, some have, nevertheless, clung to illusion.

Despite the fact that Castro maintains an unimaginably vast network of surveillance by the thugs in his secret police and Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDRs)--neighbors spying on neighbors-- some continue to embrace bogus perceptions--illusions about Cuba.

In his book, ``Against All Hope, a Memoir of Life in Castro's Gulags'' Armando Valladares, a courageous and amazing man who spent 22 years in Cuban prisons wrote:

The government of Cuba and defenders of the Cuban

Revolution denied that incidents that I recount (in the book)

ever happened. Castro sympathizers, who were more subtle,

said the incidents I described were exaggerations. And there

were others, well meaning, who simply could not bring

themselves to believe that such horrors, crimes and torture

existed in the political prisons of Cuba.

My response to those who still try to justify Castro's

tyranny with the excuse that he has built schools and

hospitals is this: Stalin, Hitler and Pinochet also built

schools and hospitals, and like Castro, they also tortured

and assassinated opponents. They built concentration and

extermination camps and eradicated all liberties, committing

the worst crimes against humanity.

Unbelievably, while many non-governmental organizations

like Amnesty International and America's Watch have denounced

the human rights situation in Cuba, there has been a

continuing love affair on the part of the media and many

intellectuals with Fidel Castro.

That love affair--that illusion--seemed to crash and burn with the onset of the current crackdown on dissidents. The EU took action in June 2003 by limiting high-level EU governmental visits and inviting Cuban dissidents to national day celebrations. But their memories are short. In January of this year, at the initiative of the Spanish government, the EU temporarily suspended these measures for a six-month period.

At the 61st session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva this past month, the United States offered a resolution on the human rights situation in Cuba. The resolution recalled the resolutions of the previous 15 years which the Commission had passed on Cuba, and asked that the mandate of the Personal Representative of the High Commissioner be continued. The resolution passed by a vote of 21- 17, with 15 abstentions, but only after a fullcourt lobbying press by the U.S. delegation which included personal pleas from President Bush to the Presidents of Ukraine and Mexico. China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, South Africa, Sudan and Zimbabwe all voted against the resolution, in effect putting their stamp of approval on Castro's actions.

Let me mention a few of the ones who were summarily sentenced and remain in prison. Omar Rodriguez Saludes, an independent journalist known to ride his bicycle to news conferences: 27 years. Hector Palacios, one of the key figures promoting the Varela Project: 25 years. Oscar Espinosa Chepe, who wrote critical articles about the Cuban economy for the Internet: 25 years. The President of the Independent United Confederation of Cuban Workers (CUTC), Pedro Pablo Alvarez, 25 years. Journalist Raul Rivero and Ricardo Gonzalez Afonso, an editor at ``De Cuba'' magazine, each got 20 years. The list goes on and on.

For its part, the Bush Administration has made its deep and abiding concern for the political prisoners and the protection of elemental human rights in Cuba abundantly clear. At the time of the crackdown, former Secretary of State Colin Powell declared:

In recent days the Cuban government has undertaken the most

significant act of political repression in decades. We call

on Castro to end this despicable repression and free these

prisoners of conscience. The United States and the

international community will be unrelenting in our insistence

that Cubans who seek peaceful change be permitted to do so.

In like manner, the Congress has consistently demanded the immediate release of all the prisoners and support of the right of the Cuban people to exercise fundamental political and civil liberties. H. Res. 179, a resolution offered by Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen in April 2003, passed by a vote of 414-0, 11 present. In April of 2001, I sponsored a resolution, H. Res. 91, calling on the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva to condemn Cuba's human rights abuse and appoint a Special Rapporteur for Cuba. While it passed, there were a disturbing number of negative votes. That vote was 347-44 with 22 voting present.

We have another opportunity today to move forward a resolution offered by my Colleague, Mr. Menendez, to show that these prisoners are not forgotten. Fidel Castro, his brother Raul, and numerous leaders of Cuba's dictatorship, are directly responsible for crimes against humanity past--and present. Some day these oppressors will be held to account and the people of Cuba will live in freedom.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time.

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