John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the bipartisan ``Terrorist Apprehension Record Retention Act of 2005'' or ``TARR Act,'' legislation designed to make it much easier for State and Federal counterterrorism officials to track known or suspected members of a terrorist organization who attempt to purchase dangerous firearms here in the U.S. I am joined by Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut. According to a recently released Government Accountability Office (``GAO'') report, over the course of a nine-month span last year, a total of fifty-six (56) firearm purchase attempts were made by individuals designated as known or suspected terrorists by the Federal Government. In forty-seven (47) of those cases, State and Federal authorities were forced to permit such transactions to proceed because officials were unable to find any disqualifying information (such as a prior felony conviction or court-determined `mental defect') in the individual applicant's background. Under current law, neither suspected nor actual membership in a terrorist organization is a sufficient ground, in and of itself, to prevent such a purchase from taking place. Even more troubling than this apparent loophole in our current system of gun laws is the confusion which ensued after such transactions occurred. The GAO specifically determined that, in such instances, the Department of Justice's information-sharing procedures failed to adequately ``address the specific types of information from NICS transactions that can or should be provided to Federal counterterrorism officials or the sources from which such information can be obtained.'' The TARR Act seeks to correct this problem by making two simple, yet important, changes in current law. First, the bill would require all information regarding such transactions to be shared with all appropriate counterterrorism officials at the State and Federal level. Secondly, it would impose a ten year retention requirement on any records related to those transactions. In sum, the bill proposes two modest changes which--in the long run--will go along way towards keeping our homeland truly secure. I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding me this time, and I want to commend him and the ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), for their excellent work in rebutting the notion offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) about protecting the rental car industry and the leasing industry. That is what this is. Because what is wrong with requiring that the rental and leasing car companies assume responsibility when uninsured drivers they rent to cause injury and cannot compensate the victim? This is another one of a long line of issues, legal, in which we reduce the supports of the citizen and make them more open and more vulnerable. If a driver harms an individual and cannot compensate for their injury, the rental company should do so. What is wrong with that? Vicarious liability guarantees that the victims are not left to shoulder the costs of injuries caused by negligent rental car drivers and companies. Take the case of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). New York City, I have been in cabs where we have wrecks downtown in Manhattan. Car rental is a very dangerous activity. For us not to require this backup from the car rental industry would be a travesty. And so I am hoping that we will just do something for the consumers. By the way, Members, that is what you have in your district, consumers of a product that need a little insurance backup when necessary. And to knock that out in the cavalier manner that is being proposed is preposterous. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Graves of Missouri. This provision is nothing more than a special interest sham designed to unfairly and unjustifiably protect the very profitable car rental and leasing industry and harm innocent bystanders. Vicarious liability protects innocent bystanders from injuries caused by irresponsible drivers of rented cars. In exchange for the right to rent or lease to whomever the car companies chooses, fifteen states, including my own state of Michigan, require that rental and leasing car companies assume the responsibility when uninsured drivers cause injury and cannot compensate the victim. Thus, when a car rental company allows an uninsured driver to drive a rental vehicle, they do so, understanding the risk created by that action. If a driver harms an individual and cannot compensate for the injury, the rental company should do so. Vicarious liability guarantees that victims are not left to shoulder the cost of their injuries caused by negligent rental car drivers and companies that put these uninsured drivers on the road. New York City is a case in point. It has one of the most active car rental markets in the country and a huge number of uninsured drivers that rent cars due to the car ownership rates in NYC. New York has forbidden car rental companies to ask their customers if they own auto insurance, in order to allow the largest number of people access to rented cars. Since New York has made the policy decision to mandate car rental companies to rent to uninsured drivers, New York needs vicarious liability to protect innocent bystanders who are injured by these uninsured drivers. Eliminating vicarious liability would be disastrous for the citizens of New York, leaving injured people to shoulder their own costs of injuries unforeseen and prevent. It is also important to note that the issue of preempting state liability is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am the Ranking Member, and no hearings have been held to examine the appropriateness of the language which would be included in the legislation should the amendment pass. It is irresponsible to allow this provision to be debated on the House floor without a committee of jurisdiction's careful review. I also object to the retroactive and unfair nature of the amendment. As a matter of equity, it is unfair to change the rules of litigation in the middle of the game. If a victim brings a lawsuit based on a particular set of laws and principles, it is simply unfair to alter those rules and principles after the fact. In addition to suffering a harm, the plaintiff may have expended significant time and resources in the litigation, and it is inequitable for Congress to unilaterally dismiss that claim without providing the harmed party with his or her day in court. Additionally, the principles of federalism dictate that in all but the most exceptional cases, tort law should be left to the states. Tort law has traditionally been handled by the state legislative and court systems under a framework established by our founders. In fact, there are fifteen states that are ably handling this issue of vicarious liability. Congress should not depart from its long tradition of letting courts decide new cases before considering stepping in to alter the law where it believes the results are contrary to the public interest. This amendment has no other purpose than to protect big rental and leasing companies at the expense of accident victims. I am appalled at the effort to leave innocent bystanders without recourse and believe this amendment has no place in this Transportation Reauthorization legislation that is before us today. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and vote no.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit would simply require that each State provide a minimum required number of functioning and accurate voting machines and poll workers for each precinct on the day of any special election. I do this and offer the amendment so that we can avoid the misallocation of voting machines and poll workers that occurred last year in the Ohio Presidential election that led to lines of sometimes 10 hours and disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters. Consider the following: in Franklin County in that State, 27 of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush while six of the seven wards with the fewest machines delivered the large margins for Kerry. They also found that election officials in Franklin County decided to make due with 2,868 machines even though their analysis showed that 5,000 machines were needed. In Columbus alone it is estimated that the misallocation of machines reduced the number of votes by up to 15,000 votes. There is also an investigation that revealed the Franklin County election officials reduced the number of election voting machines assigned to downtown precincts and added them to suburbs. They used a formula based not on the number of registered voters but on past turnout. In the Columbus area, the result was that suburban precincts that supported Mr. Bush tended to have more machines per registered voter than those in the inner-city precincts that supported Mr. Kerry. The Election Protection Coalition testified that more than half the complaints about the long lines they received came from Columbus and Cleveland where a huge proportion of the State's Democratic voters lived. This should never happen again in an election in our Nation. It is unconscionable to stack the deck so that Americans are forced to wait in the rain in line while others are given the red carpet treatment. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The motion to recommit would fix the problem raised by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), at least for special elections under this bill. I urge the support of the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I introduce this resolution to inquire whether the Justice and Homeland Security Departments were abused in favoring Mr. Guckert, a fake reporter from a fake news organization. I had hoped that the half dozen congressional and Senate requests for information would have been sufficient. However, to date, they have not even merited a response from the White House or its agencies. For nearly 3 years, the White House has been granting Mr. Guckert, a right-wing activist with no press credentials, access to the White House briefing room and presidential press conferences. This appears to violate long standing practices of carefully screening contacts with the President. This special access not only raises security concerns, but calls into question the fundamental fairness of the White House press corps. In fact, the favoritism bestowed on this fake reporter may have violated federal law. Mr. Guckert's efforts as a mouthpiece for the White House likely violated statutes banning the Administration from using appropriated money for propaganda purposes. Finally, Mr. Guckert has claimed that he had access to a classified Central Intelligence Agency document that revealed the undercover status of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife. It's now been over a year and a half since Valerie Plame was maliciously outed, and we appear to be no closer to finding out who in the Administration played with her life for political purposes. I hope this resolution may shed some light on whether Mr. Guckert, the White House's go-to propagandist, also received classified information and from who.

Mr. CONYERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. CONYERS. 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.

Mr. CONYERS. 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, AFL-CIO. This legislation is also opposed by many of the Nation's editorial boards in the newspaper business. A New York Times editorial board just this weekend wrote this about the measure that is before the House today: ``Instead of narrowly focusing on real abuses of the system, the measure reconfigures the civil justice system to achieve a significant rollback of corporate accountability and people's rights. The main impact of the bill, which has the sort of propagandistic title normally assigned to such laws, the Class Action Fairness Act, will be to funnel nearly all major class action lawsuits out of State courts and into already overburdened Federal courts. That will inevitably make it harder for Americans to pursue legitimate claims successfully against companies that violate State consumer, health, civil rights and environmental protection laws.'' Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. 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.)