THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, March 15, 1995 TAG: 9503150404
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A5 EDITION: FINAL
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long : 158 lines
Here's how area members of Congress were recorded on major roll call votes in the week ending March 10. HOUSE
Legal costs: By a vote of 232 for and 193 against, the House passed a bill (HR 988) requiring one side in a civil suit to pay the other's legal costs under certain circumstances. The bill applies to claims of at least $50,000 that end up in federal court because litigants are from different states. About 50,000 civil cases would be affected in a typical year.
Under the bill, a party who refuses to settle a case, then receives a jury award that is lower than the rejected settlement offer, must pay the other side's attorney and court costs. Supporters called the bill an incentive to settlement. But opponents, including Robert C. Scott, D-Va., said it could close the legal system to people with valid claims but limited finances.
A yes vote was to pass the Legal costs bill.
Herbert H. Bateman, R-Va. No
Owen B. Pickett, D-Va. No
Robert C. Scott, D-Va. No
Norman Sisisky, D-Va. No
Eva Clayton, D-N.C. No
Walter Jones Jr., R-N.C. Yes
Lawyers' fees: The House rejected, 347 to 71, an amendment to HR 988 (above) to restrict lawyers' contingency fees. The measure provided a mechanism for settlement within 60 days of tort suits such as personal injury claims. The plaintiff's lawyer could charge only hourly fees during that period. He could then apply a contingency fee if the bid for quick settlement failed. But the fee could be calculated only on the portion of the eventual judgment that exceeds the rejected settlement.
A yes vote was to limit contingency fees.
Bateman No
Pickett No
Scott No
Sisisky No
Clayton No
Jones No
Shareholder suits: Voting 325 for and 99 against, the House passed a bill (HR 1058) to curb the growth of class-action suits in which shareholders blame poor returns on fraud by management or stockbrokers. In part, the bill sets a tougher standard for proving fraud and makes it possible for plaintiffs who lose to pay the defendant's legal fees. Supporters said companies often settle ``strike suits'' to avoid high litigation fees, thus enriching lawyers and ``professional plaintiffs'' but squandering capital. Opponents said the bill takes away important tools that shareholders need to protect their equity against inside fraud and manipulation.
A yes vote was to pass the shareholder suits bill.
BatemanYes
PickettYes
SisiskyYes
PayneYes
GoodlatteYes
BlileyYes
MoranYes
WolfYes
DavisYes
FunderburkYes
JonesYes
HeinemanYes
BurrYes
CobleYes
RoseYes
HefnerYes
MyrickYes
BallengerYes
TaylorNo
ClaytonNo
WattNo
ScottNo
Boucher.No
RICO cases: By a vote of 292 to 124, the House adopted an amendment to HR 1058 (above) to prevent the filing of securities fraud lawsuits under the 1970 Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act. With its provisions against telephone and wire fraud, RICO was enacted to snare mobsters. But because it requires losers to pay treble damages, plaintiffs' attorneys use it to force settlements in shareholder suits. Critics say this undermines federal securities laws.
A yes vote was to ban use of RICO in securities suits.
BatemanYes
PickettYes
SisiskyYes
PayneYes
GoodlatteYes
BlileyYes
MoranYes
BoucherYes
WolfYes
DavisYes
FunderburkYes
JonesYes
HeinemanYes
BurrYes
CobleYes
MyrickYes
BallengerYes
TaylorYes
Scott:No
ClaytonNo
HefnerNo
WattNo
Not voting: Rose.
Product liability: Voting 265 to 161, the House passed a bill (HR 956) to cap damage awards in American courts and federalize many key areas of state product liability laws. Punitive damages would be limited in state and federal courts to $250,000 or three times the amount of actual damages, whichever is higher. Medical malpractice awards are among those to be capped. The changes in product liability laws would make it harder to sue companies for allegedly defective products.
A yes vote was to pass the product liability bill.
SisiskyYes
PayneYes
GoodlatteYes
BlileyYes
MoranYes
BoucherYes
WolfYes
DavisYes
BatemanNo
PickettNo
ScottNo
FunderburkYes
JonesYes
HeinemanYes
BurrYes
HefnerYes
MyrickYes
BallengerYes
TaylorYes
ClaytonNo
CobleNo
RoseNo
WattNo SENATE
``Striker replacement'': By a vote of 42 to 57, the Senate let stand a new executive order by President Clinton which bans federal contracts with companies that permanently replace striking workers. The vote turned back a GOP attempt to prevent spending of money in a pending defense bill (HR 889) to enforce the order. In the last Congress, the House but not the Senate passed a ``striker replacement'' bill (S 55) advocated by the AFL-CIO.
A yes vote supported President Clinton's order.
John W. Warner, R-Va. No
Charles S. Robb, D-Va. Yes
Jesse A. Helms, R-N.C. No
Lauch Faircloth, R-N.C. No
Copyright 1995, Thomas Reports Inc. by CNB