F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, once again the opponents of this bill are wrong. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is talking about Enron and WorldCom cases being removed to Federal court. They already are there. Both of these corporations have filed for bankruptcy. Once there is a bankruptcy filing by anybody, the cases are heard in Federal court, simple as that. I really would hope that they get their facts straight before they attack the bill the next time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), seems to have forgotten that the civil rights laws that were passed in the 1960s were passed with Republican support because his predecessors in North Carolina would not support civil rights laws, no way, no how. Those laws took away from the States the right to ensure equal treatment of all American citizens. I am proud my party, the party of Lincoln, led the charge on that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I wish the Democrats would get their facts straight before they come to the floor. First, any entity, individual or corporate, that is in bankruptcy is in Federal court and all claims go there: Enron, WorldCom, anybody else that is in bankruptcy. Secondly, page 16 of the bill, which I will send over to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), provides specific exemptions for the removal of class action cases to Federal court for all the types of corporate wrongdoing that he said on the floor. Read the bill, be accurate in your arguments, and support it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, this country has a crisis in manufacturing. Particularly, small- and medium-sized manufacturing jobs are going overseas by the droves, particularly to China, and there are a whole lot of reasons for that; but one of the reasons is a judicial system that is out of control. My colleagues can talk about business, but it is business that creates the jobs that hire our constituents who pay the taxes to make the government run; and by having court reform, which is what this bill does, it is not tort reform because nobody's rights to a jury trial or to get into a court are constricted by one iota. It is where this is done and how class actions get certified and protections for consumers such as the coupon settlements and the deficiency judgments that are entered against class members. This is going to help keep America's economy vibrant. Pass the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment is intended to mirror the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein over in the other body. It is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the bill and would slightly broaden the category of class action cases that would remain in State court in two ways. First, the amendment raises the aggregate amount and controversy required for Federal jurisdiction from $2 million to $5 million. Second, it allows Federal courts discretion to return intrastate class actions in which local law governs the State courts after weighing five factors to determine the case is appropriately of a local character. This discretion would come into play when between one-third and two- thirds of the plaintiffs are citizens of the same State as the primary defendants. If less than one-third are citizens of the same State, the case would automatically be eligible for Federal court jurisdiction under the new diversity rules in the bill. Likewise, if more than two- thirds are citizens of the same State, the case would not be subject to the new rules in this bill and would remain in State court. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment to help speed passage of this important legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, the name of the senior Senator from California, Ms. Feinstein, has been bandied about on both sides of the aisle; and she has sent a letter to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), which says in part: ``It is my understanding that Chairman Sensenbrenner and a number of Democrats plan to offer this as an amendment to H.R. 1115 on the House floor, and of course, I support its inclusion.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment I think can probably be referred to as the ``back-door erosion of the 14th amendment to the Constitution amendment'' to this bill because it erodes the concept of equal protection under the law, meaning everybody gets treated equally in court. What the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is trying to do is to say for certain types of corporations, they would be treated under a different law than other types of corporations. That poses some really profound problems as far as I am concerned. The crux of this whole matter is that this is an attempt to establish tax policy in a civil litigation procedure bill. It mixes up apples and oranges. It is not going to have the effect that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is stating, and that is preventing corporations that wish to go offshore from going offshore. The amendment is not wrong, it just does not make any sense. It should be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has spent a lot of time referring to suits by local district attorneys being removed to Federal court under this bill because she believes they would not be covered by the exemption contained in the bill for State attorney generals. I would say to the gentlewoman that we believe that suits by local elected district attorneys do fall within that exempted category, and are not covered by the bill. It is clearly the intent of the bill to exclude elected law enforcement officials like district attorneys. If we need to work further with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) as this bill moves forward to clarify that intent with regard to suits by local officials, I would offer her to do that. However, I do want to make it quite clear that private attorney general actions are another matter. If the gentlewoman will withdraw her amendment, we can work on clarification of this. Otherwise, I would urge the membership to vote against the amendment since the gentlewoman has rejected my offer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this substitute amendment, I think, can probably be called the Madison County, Illinois, Judicial Protection Act of 2003, because what it does is it goes on for a long, long text, preserving essentially the status quo, and then throws a million dollars a year in for the next 2 fiscal years to have some kind of a study. The most important sentence in the Sandlin amendment that demonstrates the author's true intent is tucked away in the middle of the legislation toward the top of page 8. For those Members who missed it, let me read this sentence to them: ``No pending class action may be consolidated without the approval of the State court judge handling the pending action.'' Let me tell my colleagues what this means. If you are a magnet State court judge and you want to keep running your class action factory, this bill will not affect you, because you do not approve any consolidation. You can continue to certify class action cases without considering the rules. You can continue to approve settlements, even if they do nothing for class members, even coupons. And you can continue to support the trial lawyers who got you elected to the bench. It claims to offer better consumer provisions; but those provisions only apply to Federal court cases, of which there will be very few, if any, if this substitute is adopted. It is just a piece of paper for consumer protections. It claims to offer a proposal for consolidating State court class actions, but even if that proposal were constitutional, which it is not, it is completely discretionary. It claims to offer a proposal for transferring cases to Federal court, but it lets the State court judge where the suit was brought decide whether to take advantage of this procedure. This amendment is not worth the paper it is printed on. The gentleman from Texas has given a few examples, and I think they came from a document that was originally circulated by the American Trial Lawyers Association. Let me respond to three of the examples he gave to show Members how much his bill misses the mark and ours addresses the problem. The Dow Chemical case he cited filed by Michigan residents alleging contamination at a Michigan plant likewise would not be affected by this bill. Because Dow and the proposed class members were all Michigan citizens, under our bill that suit would remain in State court. The Tri-State Crematory cases actually present a perfect example of the benefits of our bill. Many Federal and State class actions have been filed in that matter. The Federal cases were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation proceeding where a Federal judge certified a class action in advance of any State court doing so. Finally, the TRG Marketing case, which is scattered amongst a number of State courts that are duplicating each other's work. Under our bill, all such cases would be removed to Federal court and handled by a single Federal judge. There is no reason to believe that consumers would fare worse under that scenario. Actually, under the substitute, duplicative litigation would end up being allowed, and the lawyers' meters are ticking. Studies show that State courts are much more likely to produce bad settlements, money for lawyers and no relief for consumers. And the Federal court would not be slower. Florida State court judges are each assigned four times the number of new cases annually than each Florida Federal court judge. This amendment in the nature of a substitute is having the fox watch the hen house. The foxes are the plaintiffs' lawyers. They are the ones that the USA Today poll believes benefit disproportionately under this bill. It is time to send the fox packing. Defeat the substitute, pass the bill and the fox can go back to the woods. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) did not spend more time talking about his motion to recommit. And I can understand why he did not do it. Because it opens up two big loopholes in this bill to allow the minority of the bar that abused the class action laws to continue to be on the gravy train. I will tell you how he proposes to do it. First of all, he changes the effective date of the bill. What the bill says is that any class action where the class has not been certified will go under the new rules. The motion to recommit changes that. It says that the new rules become effective as of the date of enactment of the bill. And this will result in a rush to the courthouse in Madison County, Illinois and the other class action mills to get cases filed so that they will be exempt from the modest civil action court reforms that are contained in H.R. 1115. Now, the other red herring that is in this motion to recommit is that it takes away the so-called interlocutory appeal. This has nothing to do with Enron or WorldCom or any other firm or individual that is in bankruptcy. They are already in the Federal bankruptcy court, and all civil litigation against them in State or Federal courts is stayed and the bankruptcy court decides those claims. But interlocutory appeals are not the bad things that we hear from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner). The average time to decide an appeal for all types of cases nationwide is 10.7 months. The average time for a merits ruling and class certification appeals in the Seventh Circuit, which includes Illinois, is only 3.2 months. So you are not talking about having justice be unduly delayed. These appeals are decided promptly, even in a very busy circuit. This motion is a red herring. It should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 8) expressing the sense of Congress with respect to raising awareness and encouraging prevention of sexual assault in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that has been the subject of much name-calling by the proponents of this bill. I ask the membership to look at the amendment. It strikes the carve-out that the authors of this bill put in to exempt horse racing, dog racing, State lotteries and other forms of gambling from the proposed regulations of this bill. I believe that Internet gambling should be eliminated; but to have a carve-out for horses and dogs and lotteries and jai lai, and Lord knows what else, means that people will be able to use the Internet and use their credit cards to place bets and lose a lot of money. No, if Internet gambling is addictive, we ought to close the loophole, because minors and others can lose just as much money on horses and dogs and lotteries and jai lai as they can lose on other forms of Internet gambling. I strongly urge support of this amendment. This is a loophole that is big enough to drive a truck through. By passing the amendment, we close the loophole. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes of my time be yielded to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and that he may yield blocks of that time as he sees fit.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1086, the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2003. Technical standards play a critical, but sometimes overlooked, role in fostering competition and promoting public health and safety. Without standards, there would be no compatibility among broad categories of alternative products and less confidence in a range of building, fire and safety codes that advance the public welfare. Unlike most other countries, standards development is conducted by private, not-for-profit organizations in the United States. This approach reflects the fact that private organizations are better able to keep pace with the rapid pace of technological change. In 1996, Congress passed the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act to encourage government agencies to assist in the development and adoption of private, voluntary standards wherever possible. While this legislation has encouraged government adoption of privately developed standards, it has also increased the vulnerability of standards- developing organizations to antitrust litigation. The frequency with which standards-developing organizations are named in lawsuits stifles their ability to obtain technical information, hampers their efficiency and effectiveness, and undermines the public benefits which they advance. I introduced H.R. 1086 to address this problem. H.R. 1086 merely codifies the ``rule of reason'' for antitrust scrutiny of standards- development organizations, limits their civil antitrust liability to actual damages, and provides for the recovery of attorneys' fees to substantially prevailing parties in antitrust cases filed against these organizations. However, H.R. 1086 does not automatically accord these protections to all standards-setting. These protections extend only to the standards- development organizations which disclose the nature and scope of their activities to the Department of Justice and to the Federal Trade Commission. In addition, this legislation applies to standards- developing organizations whose standards-setting process adheres to principles of openness, voluntariness, balance, cooperation, transparency, consensus, and due process. Finally, H.R. 1086 contains extensive notification requirements which ensure that all parties who may be affected by standard-developing activities are apprised of the scope and nature of these activities. Mr. Speaker, while several people deserve credit for this legislation, I would like to personally recognize House Science Committee chief counsel Barry Beringer, whose hard work and dedication brought this legislation to the floor and bring credit to this House. Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that this legislation has attracted the cosponsorship of Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Conyers, as well as 12 of its members. In addition, H.R. 1086 continues the Judiciary Committee's bipartisan tradition of striking the proper balance between pro-competitive activity while ensuring the active role of Federal antitrust agencies in the promotion of competition in our market economy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. 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 the bill, H.R. 1086.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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