Providing for Consideration of H.R. Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 581 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 581

Resolved, That at any time after 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. 1927) to amend title 28, United States Code, to improve fairness in class action litigation. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 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. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-38. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 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.

Sec. 2. Further proceedings on any question on a motion relating to the disposition of the veto message and the bill, H.R. 3762, may be postponed through the legislative day of January 25, 2016, as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this rule today on behalf of the Committee on Rules. It is a structured rule that provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Given the House's schedule this month, the rule also provides that a vote on any motion relating to disposition of the veto message for reconciliation measure passed yesterday by the House may be postponed through January 25.

Consistent with the vision of Speaker Ryan and Chairman Sessions, I am pleased that the robust majority of amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules were made in order. Of the 13 amendments submitted, 10 amendments will be considered on the House floor.

Yesterday the House Committee on Rules received testimony from the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, in addition to receiving amendment testimony from several Members.

Mr. Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania brought forward an important amendment regarding FDA-approved medical devices. Although his amendment was not germane to this particular piece of legislation, he is a champion for his constituents, and I appreciate the testimony that he shared with the committee. His constituent suffered unimaginable pain, heartbreak, and ultimately her child because of Essure. It is my understanding that the FDA will release their Essure safety review next month. Once we assess the FDA's findings and conclusion, I hope Congress will take any appropriate action needed to protect the health of women and their unborn babies.

This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 1927, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2015, introduced by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Bob Goodlatte, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Trent Franks.

Subcommittee hearings were held on this legislation. It was also marked up and reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Although this bill went through regular order and enjoyed lively and meaningful discussion at the subcommittee and full committee levels, some misperceptions remain.

This legislation provides a targeted solution to a targeted problem. The core issue it presents is whether the injury suffered by named plaintiffs in a class action suit matches the injuries suffered by the class. Additionally, and this is the point to clarify, the civil rights class actions such as Brown v. Board of Education would not--and I repeat, would not--be impacted by H.R. 1927.

Let me be clear. This legislation does not kill class action. Virtually every time this body or the courts attempt to reform class action lawsuits after clear abuses, opponents claim the reforms, whatever they may be, will mean the demise of class action.

When Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995 to limit frivolous securities lawsuits, opponents claimed it would kill securities class action. It did not. In fact, President Clinton vetoed the legislation, Congress overrode the veto, and our legal system is the better for it.

When Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act, CAFA, in 2005, opponents once again claimed that the passage would mean the end of class actions. CAFA had two targeted goals: reducing abusive forum shopping by plaintiffs and requiring greater Federal scrutiny procedures for the review of class action settlements in certain circumstances.

You may recall an infamous Alabama class action involving Bank of Boston, where the attorneys' fees exceeded the relief to the class members, and the class members lost money paying attorneys for the victory. It doesn't sound like much of a victory. Yet at the time, the opponents of reform made virtually identical arguments against that legislation that they are making today against H.R. 1927. They are baseless and unsupported by history.

Researchers at the Federal Judicial Center conducted a study on the impact of CAFA and concluded that post-enactment there was an increase in the number of class actions filed in or removed to the Federal courts based on diversity jurisdiction, consistent with congressional intent.

The class action is alive and well and is an important part of our legal system, and it will remain that way. Claims to the contrary are overused and inaccurate.

H.R. 1927 is a targeted solution that says a Federal court may not certify a proposed class unless the party seeking the class action demonstrates through admissible evidentiary proof that each proposed class member suffered an injury of the same type and the extent of the injury of the named class representative or representatives.

This requirement already exists in rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unfortunately, not all courts appropriately interpret and apply these standards. If my colleagues across the aisle disagree with rule 23 standards, then we can certainly debate the merits of that standard.

But to claim that codifying an existing standard to ensure consistent and appropriate application by the courts will kill the class action and discourage victims from seeking redress is simply not supported by the facts.

Class actions exist--and rightly so--to allow a group of individuals similarly harmed to seek monetary compensation for their injuries. Today, however, there are far too many cases in which a named plaintiff with an injury brings a lawsuit seeking to represent a class. No problem here. This is how the system was designed to work.

The abuse of the system arises when the class includes countless others that have suffered no injury at all. These no-injury class actions are designed simply to exploit companies and achieve a quick payday because either no genuine injury has occurred yet or because it never will.

Class actions should be preserved as a tool for those harmed to receive compensation. H.R. 1927 will allow the courts to focus their resources on cases where injury has occurred and ensuring those responsible are held accountable.

Not surprisingly, this commonsense approach is supported by the American people. A recent DRI National Poll on the Civil Justice System found that 78 percent of Americans would support a law requiring a person to show that they were actually harmed by a company's products, services, or policies to join a class action rather than just showing potential for harm.

Further illustrating this body's commitment to do right by victims and ensure that they are compensated for their injuries, H.R. 1927 also contains the text of the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, or the FACT Act.

The FACT Act is designed to reduce fraud in compensation claims for asbestos-related diseases so we can ensure that resources exist for true victims. Double-dipping is an all too common occurrence in asbestos claims, and for every dollar inappropriately given, it means $1 less for true victims who face mesothelioma and other asbestos- related illnesses.

True victims are often those to whom our country owes its greatest debt: our veterans. Veterans currently comprise 9 percent of the population; yet, they make up approximately 30 percent of asbestos victims. Veterans are uniquely positioned to benefit from the increased transparency that would result from the enactment of this bill.

Many veterans groups support this legislation, including the American Military Society, Save our Veterans, the Veterans Resource list, and numerous other State and local veterans groups.

Opponents of this bill also claim that it will negatively impact privacy rights for claimants. This is not true. The bill actually requires far less personal information than is currently required by State courts in their current disclosure forms.

This legislation will reduce fraud in the asbestos trust system, which will ultimately protect and maximize assets available to compensate future asbestos victims, veterans or otherwise.

I thank Chairman Goodlatte and his staff for their tireless work to bring forward these pro-victim reforms, and I am pleased we will have robust general and amendment debate on this important topic.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, a lot can be said, and I am so glad for the coming to the floor later. This will be debated, amendments will be offered. The House is in regular order doing what the House is supposed to be doing.

One thing that I would like to share is, as the previous speaker had talked about history--and I am currently, myself, reading a biography outtake on Theodore Roosevelt and his time in the Presidency and the things that he did--there is an amazing balance that he struck for, basically, common people and victims.

I think that is exactly what we are doing here, because one of the things that the underlying bills do not do is they do not close the courthouse. They do not do the things that, if you look in history, as I pointed out in my opening statement, if you look at every time the Congress has taken up the class action issue, there has been the falling-of-the-sky phenomenon, that it is going to tear the courthouse down, nobody is going to get anything done.

The actual truth is the class action has increased and efficiency was found. And for the true victims, they find their compensation.

The courthouse that I have had the wonderful privilege of practicing in is a place where people find justice. It is not a place to be abused. It is not a place to sometimes take advantage of an open system. That is what we are doing here, and that is what I want people who read and understand this opportunity, because these are the same arguments that have been had before.

But, you know, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come before this body, explore the differences between the Republican majority's vision for our country and that of this administration and those who share the President's view.

The Republican majority is fighting for a legal system that is victim-focused; a legal system that supports our veterans and ensures that those injured have their day in court and receive compensation.

A legal system full of fraud, abuse, and waste is a legal system ill- equipped to provide justice to victims.

The Republican majority is committed to making life better for all Americans. We have done that this week through reducing the regulatory burden on families and small businesses so we can jump-start our economy.

We have done that this week by sending to the President's desk a bill that rescinds ObamaCare so that we can get to work on restoring a patient-centered healthcare system, such as the Empowering Patients First Act proposed by my colleague, Dr. Price.

And let it be said, just as has been said over the centuries, doing the right thing over and over is still the right thing. And I believe if it is 62 times, it can be 62 more times, because this Congressman from the Ninth District of Georgia believes, as his constituents have found in the Ninth District, that ObamaCare is not for the people and needs to be gone and replaced with a patient-centered approach that we can do as a Republican majority.

You see, we have also sent to the President's desk a measure to stop Planned Parenthood from destroying our next generation of men and women and directing those funds to organizations that provide mammograms and true women's health care.

And we will continue to fight to keep our Nation safe from enemies, foreign and domestic, while preserving the sacred constitutional rights of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and H.R. 1927.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 581 Offered by Mr. Hastings

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, 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. 1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 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. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 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. 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. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 1076. ____ The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source