Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 12, 1995 TAG: 9503130072
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DWAYNE YANCEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
It was easy to spot one of the hottest Republican congressmen in Washington last week.
There he was, managing the floor debate on legal reform, one of the most controversial parts of the GOP's ``Contract With America,'' beating back Democratic assaults while crafting a compromise designed to bring along Republicans uneasy with too much reform.
And there he was, making the rounds of the interview programs - answering questions on ``Good Morning, America,'' debating the senior House Democrat on legal issues on the ``Fox Morning News,'' taking on the trial lawyers' top lobbyist on Cal Thomas' show on CNBC, following the White House counsel on a C-Span news show.
And there he was, quoted in The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, sought after by the Boston Globe and The Washington Post, in demand by radio talk shows from New York to San Francisco.
He even got into a tiff with the Girl Scouts - the Girl Scouts! - over whether he had the facts straight in the main anecdote he kept retelling at every stop.
Here's a hint: His last name starts with ``G'' and he's from a Southern state.
And no, he's not Newt Gingrich.
\ Not since Caldwell Butler voted to impeach President Nixon in 1974 has a congressman from Roanoke come so close to center stage as Bob Goodlatte did last week.
``A star is born,'' gushed Rep. Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, after he watched Goodlatte shepherd the most contentious part of legal reform - the so-called ``loser pays'' provision - through the House.
Even Democrats, who grumbled that Goodlatte was doing a good job with what they consider a bad bill, acknowledged that he had arrived. ``He's one of the leaders in the committee,'' said Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Newport News. ``His work has clearly favorably impressed the leadership of his party, and he was rewarded for it,'' said Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Abingdon.
In the past, it would have been unheard of for a second-termer to achieve such prominence, especially on such a high-profile piece of legislation.
But Gingrich has bypassed the seniority system and often tapped younger, more aggressive - and more conservative - members for important assignments. At the same time, fully half of the GOP's ``Contract With America'' has moved through just one committee - Judiciary.
``Judiciary has been totally overwhelmed,'' says David Masci, who covers legal issues for Congressional Quarterly. ``They have been so heavily involved, it's not surprising that important issues would filter down to the younger members.''
That's how one of those younger Judiciary members - Goodlatte - became the Republicans' point man on legal reform.
Conservatives for years have bemoaned what they consider a tide of ``frivolous'' lawsuits, which they contend run up costs to businesses - and ultimately, consumers. Looking for ways to discourage such suits, the GOP had inked into its campaign ``contract'' the concept that the loser in many civil cases in federal courts should have to pay the winner's attorney's fees.
It was a provision that instantly drew the opposition of some of Washington's most powerful lobbies - the legal profession, along with various consumer groups who claimed that ``loser pays'' would make it virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to sue big corporations because they would be afraid they would get stuck with huge bills.
Even many Republicans didn't like it.
``Frankly, the `loser pays' concept was not all that popular with most of us,'' Hyde says. ``We were all troubled by the fact that this was part of the contract.''
So last month, Goodlatte - with the blessing of Hyde and subcommittee Chairman Carlos Moorhead of California - took it on himself to design a compromise bill. ``He pretty much drafted it on his own,'' says Tom Mooney, chief counsel to the subcommittee that handled the bill. ``The whole thing came out of his office.''
Goodlatte's version limited the amount of money a loser would have to pay and established a mechanism to encourage parties to settle out of court.
``It ticked off some people on the conservative side who wanted a straight 'loser pays' system and thought it was too watered down,'' says Masci, the Congressional Quarterly legal expert. Party leaders, meanwhile, didn't know what to make of it at first.
``He's smart enough to have a grasp of what essentially is a very complicated issue,'' Masci says. ``Without naming names, there are folks on that committee who couldn't grapple with something like that. I'm a lawyer, and when he explained it the first time, I had difficulty understanding it. But he was very effective at explaining it. He was very patient in explaining again and again and giving hypothetical explanations of how it would work in the real world.''
The key, Goodlatte says, is the provision encouraging parties to settle out of court. ``When I practiced law, I always had an interest in mediation to encourage settlement. Every lawsuit has a reasonable answer to it. Cases wind up in court only because the two parties couldn't find what that reasonable answer is.''
Once party leaders understood how Goodlatte's settlement mechanism would work, Hyde says, ``it was a relief to everybody. It helped us retain a workable and acceptable and benign 'loser pays.' It was one of those insights that smart people get.''
In the end, even some Democrats came on board, and the House Judiciary Committee passed Goodlatte's version 27-7 on Feb. 23. When the bill came before the full House on Monday, the Republican leadership tapped him to manage their side of the floor debate.
``Moorhead [the subcommittee chairman] sought Goodlatte out on every amendment that was offered; and if Goodlatte said it was OK, it was OK,'' says Mooney, the subcommittee's lawyer. ``They sat together the entire time. It always those two, with a dozen Democrats blasting away. If you watched it, you'd think the Judiciary Committee had only two members. But it was really complicated, and a lot of people didn't want to wade in. So those two guys carried the debate for two days. It was certainly fun to watch, but it was certainly stressful.''
The most unexpected attack, though, came not from Democrats, but from Girl Scouts.
In early February, Goodlatte and other Republicans had met with the leaders of several nonprofit groups to talk about what legal reform would mean for them. The executive director of the Washington-area Girl Scout council mentioned that her Scouts had to sell 87,000 boxes of cookies each year to pay their $120,000 bill for liability insurance.
``Please help!,'' she wrote in a follow-up letter to Goodlatte.
It was a vivid example that Goodlatte and other Republicans seized to make the case that their bill wouldn't just benefit big corporations.
But other Girl Scout executives were embarrassed to find Goodlatte's bill dubbed the ``Girl Scout bill'' and began disassociating themselves with the legislation - with interviews on National Public Radio and front-page stories in the Wall Street Journal.
``Both sides are battling over our little green bodies,'' Girl Scout spokeswoman Sandra Jordan said in one quip that reverberated around the Capitol.
Yes, the 87,000 boxes figure is true, she says, but that only amounts to 1 percent of the council's $6 million budget. It's simply no big deal, she says. Jordan asked Goodlatte's office to quit citing the Girl Scout example, but says his staffers politely declined.
``He hears someone say something for 45 seconds and uses that as the basis for a floor debate,'' Jordan says. ``We're concerned about legislation by sound bite. No one called to investigate further.''
Goodlatte was undeterred. ``The facts were adequately presented,'' he says. ``The point is, insurance is awfully expensive, even for Girl Scouts,'' and he believes his version of legal reform would help lower it.
If there is legal reform.
The House passed Goodlatte's bill 232-193, but it faces uncertain prospects. ``This legislation has zero chance of becoming law,'' Boucher says. ``It's very doubtful the Senate will pass this; and it's certain that if the Senate passes it, the president will veto it - and there aren't enough votes to override a presidential veto.''
Goodlatte is more optimistic, noting that the White House has passed up chances to threaten a veto.
No matter what happens, though, Goodlatte has made a name for himself on Capitol Hill - and a good one, at that.
``He's quiet, sort of an intellectual,'' says John Motley, a lobbyist for the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which backs the bill. ``Frankly, I didn't know he was as good a debater as he is.''
Even liberal Democrats who serve with Goodlatte on Judiciary give him high marks for his performance, if not his politics. ``At least he's thought about what he's doing, in stark contrast to what some of his colleagues are doing,'' Bobby Scott says. ``A lot of members of the majority are just voting for things in the contract by title.''
Democrats at home in the 6th District, though, say Goodlatte's work on legal reform won't make much difference. ``This issue probably escapes the average voter,'' says Del. Richard Cranwell of Roanoke County. ``It's inside baseball for lawyers.''
He's also betting that even voters in the conservative 6th will eventually sour on the Republican ``revolution'' in Congress. ``Over the long haul,'' Cranwell predicts, ``being tied to Newt Gingrich is not going to be a plus.''
Keywords:
PROFILE
by CNB