THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
[Page: H8563] GPO's PDF---
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 295 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 295
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1875) to amend title 28, United States Code, to allow the application of the principles of Federal diversity jurisdiction to interstate class actions. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. LINDER) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. FROST), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 295 a modified, open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 295 provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
House Resolution 295 also provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be open to amendment by section. The resolution provides for the consideration of pro forma amendments and those amendments printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD which may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, and shall be considered as read.
The rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone recorded votes and to reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on any postponed question, provided voting time on the first in the series of questions is not less than 15 minutes.
[Page: H8564] GPO's PDF
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to eliminate the abuse of the current class action rules. Today, an attorney can devise a theoretical case, write it as a class action , and argue that he is pursuing the claim on behalf of millions of people, none of which solicited that attorney's assistance. Using this practice, hundreds of frivolous lawsuits are filed in favorable State courts and used as high-stakes, court-endorsed blackmail devices against companies which usually settle rather than face a long and arduous court battle.
The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Federal Judicial Conference has reported that class actions have increased 300 to 1,000 percent per company in the last 3 years. This explosion of class actions, done in the name of the consumer, has cost businesses and consumers billions of dollars in legal fees and higher prices.
Even worse, legitimate legal claims have been collusively resolved by lawyers in back rooms while the real victims have gotten, at best, a handful of coupons for their favorite laundry detergent.
One of the rules that allows the attorneys to abuse the class action process is the ``diversity'' requirement. Foreseeing the possibility that attorneys that would seek the most favorable State court to hear their case, the Founding Fathers included a provision in article III of the Constitution that cites numerous situations in which Federal courts would have jurisdiction when a case included different parties from different States.
Since that time, however, the threshold for removal of a Federal case to Federal court has been significantly raised to require that the claim by each member of the class exceed $75,000 and members of the class are of different States. These new standards have promoted ``venue shopping'' by attorneys, who go looking for States that would be particularly favorable to their claim.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1875 would end this abuse. Under new rules included in the bill, interstate class actions could be returned to the proper venue, the Federal courts, where both plaintiff and defendant have an equal standing. Either a plaintiff or a defendant could have the right to remove the case to the Federal level. Further, attorneys would have less of an incentive to file frivolous claims when the venue could be changed from their favorable State courtroom to a more balanced Federal bench.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1875 also protects the jurisdictions of State courts by ensuring that class actions involving less than $1 million in claims or fewer than 100 people could still be heard at the State level. Cases in which State officials or agencies are the primary defendants would also be left to State courts.
Unfortunately, some will argue today that this bill will prevent Americans from getting justice. Do not be fooled. What they really mean is that trial lawyers will not be able to fill their coffers in State courts at the expense of both the businesses they sue and the citizens that they supposedly represent. Under current rules, if two lawyers have entered competing class actions in court, the first to be decided gets all of the relief and the other action is moot, which leaves the members of the other action without any recourse in court. H.R. 1875 would allow plaintiffs to remove their case to Federal court, where these similar actions would be coordinated into a single action , benefiting the people seeking redress and not the trial lawyers.
H.R. 1875 also includes provisions to ensure that these new rules will not place unreasonable burdens on the Federal judiciary. While CBO estimates that H.R. 1875 would have only a minimal impact on the Federal bench, the bill requires the GAO to complete a study on the effect that the changes in diversity rules would have on the Federal judiciary and report to Congress no later than 1 year after the bill's enactment.
I applaud my friend from Virginia (Mr. GOODLATTE) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for their good work on this action , which returns our class action system to the fundamental principles intended by our founders when they created the Federal judiciary. This bill is fair to all parties and restores the impartial venue of the Federal courts to class actions. I encourage every Member to support this fair rule and the underlying rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. H.R. 1875 has an innocuous title, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act, but its content is destructive.
Mr. Speaker, this bill makes it harder for the little guy to have his day in court. It seriously limits the ability of Americans to seek redress for injuries caused by large corporations. This legislation also represents an unwarranted incursion into State court prerogatives and by doing so will further clog the already backlogged and overloaded Federal court system. This legislation does nothing to curb abuses of the class action system, but it will ensure that legitimate claims will be harder to pursue, will be more expensive to pursue, and will take far longer in the courts than they already are.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a very bad bill, and it deserves to be defeated.
H.R. 1875 flies directly in the face of the notion of States' rights that my Republican colleagues are so often heard to extol. The bill removes every class action from State court, unless all of the primary defendants are incorporated, or have their principal place of business in the State where the case is filed, or unless virtually all of the plaintiffs are citizens of that State.
[Time: 10:45]
The Attorneys General of New York and Oklahoma have written to the Speaker raising objections to this bill based on the very notion of States' rights. They write, ``Such a radical transfer of jurisdiction in cases that most commonly raise questions of State law would undercut State courts' ability to manage their own court systems and consistently interpret State laws.''
The President of the Conference of Chief Justices wrote to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to say, and again I quote, ``We believe that H.R. 1875 in its present form is an unwarranted incursion on the principles of Federalism underlying our system of government.''
Mr. Speaker, some proponents of this legislation say that it is a simple procedural fix. Others contend that it was designed to fix abuses of the class action system. But Mr. Speaker, there are those of us who ask, how could an unwarranted incursion on the principles of judicial Federalism represent a simple procedural fix?
There are others of us who ask why, if the intent is to address abuse, are there no specific remedies for specific problems embodied in this bill?
Mr. Speaker, this bill faces a certain veto. It is opposed by the Justice Department, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Conference of Chief Justices, the Attorneys General of New York, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Tennessee, and West Virginia. It is opposed by a wide range of consumer groups, health groups, social justice groups, and the trial lawyers.
They are all rightly concerned that H.R. 1875 will remove class actions from forums which are most convenient for victims of wrongdoing. They are all rightly concerned that passage of this legislation would deny class action relief which could remedy fraudulent behavior, discriminatory practices, or negligence.
I share these concerns, Mr. Speaker, and urge the defeat of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, for the great tobacco companies; the health maintenance organizations, for which so many people are asking that this Congress pass a Patients' Bill of Rights, as this Congress sits on its hands in inactivity, about abuses of patients in managed care; for the gun manufacturers and their role in gun violence; for the great insurance companies; for all of those
[Page: H8565] GPO's PDF
It is based on the concept that personal responsibility is for someone else, but for some who engage in wrongdoing, Congress must step in and insulate and protect them from the consequences of that wrongdoing. This bill is based on the concept that if you are big enough and bold enough, and if you lubricate the system of government at campaign time enough, and if you just steal a little bit from everyone, that you are entitled to not be held accountable for the consequences of your wrongdoing.
That is why over 70 public health and consumer organizations, groups like the American Lung Association, the American Women's Medical Association, the National Council of Senior Citizens, have said, well, if personal responsibility is such a basic American concept, how about applying it to these entities in this country that are content to just take a little bit from everyone?
I join them in opposing this misguided legislation. For some reason, our Republican colleagues are always eager to protect State wrongs. If a State neglects its citizens, if it is not meeting their needs, Republicans object to the Federal Government playing any role. That is the position that Republicans took, for example, with reference to the creation of Social Security and Medicare, and with reference to Federal support for education. But if a State has true States' rights, the Republicans are not a bit reluctant to interfere and take away those rights.
This bill would take all class actions filed in State courts and rip them out of the hands of the State judiciary and take them into Federal courts. Of course, these are Federal courts that are already overburdened and clogged and unable to meet the responsibilities they already have.
As my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. FROST) just pointed out, that is why many within the Federal judiciary oppose this legislation. The same is true of our State judges, an independent State judiciary being very fundamental to the organization of our country. Since most of these class action suits are based upon the law of an individual State, Mr. Speaker, it is that State judiciary that is most familiar with the substantive law involved in these various class action suits.
If a health maintenance organization in Texas abuses a Texas citizen, I have confidence in the Texas judiciary within our State to examine State law and determine whether our State deceptive practices act or other provision of our Insurance Code has been violated, not just with regard to one Texan, but with regard to many Texans, rather than shifting that into the Federal judiciary.
I believe that Texas ought to have the right to establish its own law to protect its consumers in health maintenance organizations, as it took the lead in doing, and have those actions disposed of by our Texas judiciary.
This legislation would destroy that right and shift into a crowded and overwhelmed Federal judiciary the job of policing the wrongdoing of the few against the many. It is the taking away of States' rights that, as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, has rightfully noted, has caused the attorneys general of these States, has caused State judges, to say, do not interfere with what we are doing.
There has been no case made that our State courts are abusing their responsibilities, are not fulfilling their responsibilities, to justify this amazing assumption of power by the Federal courts, a right they do not want in the Federal judiciary, and which, at the same time, will cut out the heart of the right of the States to decide cases interpreting State law as it affects the citizens of their State.
The only justification for this legislation is for those who have committed some of the greatest wrongs in this country, the tobacco companies that continue to addict 3,000 children a day to nicotine addiction, the insurance companies and the health maintenance organizations that continue to have a stranglehold on this Congress, to not pass a Patients' Bill of Rights.
Other wrongdoers in our society are now influencing this Congress to take away one of the only effective remedies that our citizens have. That is to come together in an efficient way in the court system, when the Congress will not act, to turn to the courts and seek a remedy there in front of a jury of their peers. If someone has taken a little from the many, not to bar the courthouse door, the way citizens have been blocked out of this Congress, but permitting Americans to join together before a local State judge and proceed in the State judiciary and seek some remedy for wrongdoing that has occurred, which this Congress would not address.
Now that same crowd of special interests, which has encouraged this as an inactive do-nothing Congress, is saying, close off the one remedy the people have to join together in their individual States. It is wrong. This bill should be rejected.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SESSIONS), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for consideration of the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999. The underlying legislation will streamline the ability of courts to deal with class action lawsuits. This is very important for Americans, and as my colleague from Texas has argued, it is important for people who live in States and local jurisdictions.
However, we believe that it is important for us to make sure that people who do need remedy in class action lawsuits are handled properly. Today we offer this change in the law to ensure that multiple litigants who reside outside of a particular State who wish to become a party to a class action lawsuit must file that action within Federal court.
Our Founding Fathers did not intend for one State to judge class action lawsuits involving many other States. The Federal courts are better equipped with not only resources but also the staff to handle class action lawsuits involving citizens of diverse States.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents