Class Action Fairness Act of 2004

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
July 8, 2004

CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2004

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Mr. HATCH. What is the parliamentary situation?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the second-degree amendment to the motion to commit.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to address a few remarks made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle during yesterday's debate on the class action bill. First, they repeatedly accused the leader of jeopardizing the chances of getting this bill passed by filling in the amendment tree. Give me a break. That is the phoniest argument I have ever heard. The fact is, they are trying to kill this bill, and they are probably going to be effective in doing so.

I hate to give up-and I haven't given up yet-but that is what is happening. I have been through it so many times around here that I know when there is a real desire to kill a bill. The way you do it is with nongermane amendments that are called killer amendments or poison pills, because they are political amendments one side or the other does not want. The leader filled the tree because he wanted to protect the bill from extraneous amendments that would eliminate any chances of this measure becoming law. Anybody who argues otherwise is being deceptive.

Everyone here knows the class action bill was an extremely attractive vehicle for extraneous amendments, especially those amendments that were sure to be offered for the sole purpose of scoring political points during an election year. But what my Democratic colleagues conveniently overlook is this bill will find itself in the recycle bin if it is saddled with a host of irrelevant amendments. While this is certainly a win/win situation for those on the other side of the aisle who oppose this bill, apparently including some of the Democratic leadership, I find it a truly puzzling outcome for those who say they support class action reform. Not only does a loaded bill risk peeling away Senate votes from the underlying class action measure, it will, in all certainty, undergo changes when it goes through the House. And what happens then? Do we have a conference to resolve our differences? I think the answer is a resounding no. I don't think the other side is going to permit this because this bill flies in the face of the demands of one of their greatest hard money constituent givers, and that is the trial lawyers of America.

We all know there is little time left in this Congress to go through the motion of doing a conference. I think the chances of getting a conference done in this election year with two conventions and with all the problems we have to address. The appointment of conferees is further cast into doubt by virtue of the minority leader's threat earlier in the year to the appointment of conferees for the rest of the year. So if you add these poison amendments to this bill, these extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with the bill, you are basically killing the bill. Everybody knows that. The majority leader had no choice other than to do what he did.

I certainly did not hear any assurances from the minority leader yesterday on whether he would consent to the appointment of conferees to this bill. As such, I am led to believe his position remains unchanged. But even if he did consent, I don't think there would be enough time to do a conference. We have 62 people who said they would support this bill. That means all 62 should vote for cloture so we can actually pass this bill. But unfortunately, we have some who agreed they would vote for cloture-that was the whole reason for the agreement last November-and are now changing their minds and saying, well, this is something I can't support because we want our colleagues to have their right to put poison pills on this bill.

(Mr. TALENT assumed the Chair.)

Mr. HATCH. Well, they cannot have it both ways. Let me be clear. It is because of the potential feeding frenzy that the leader moved to safeguard the bill from an open season on nongermane, nonrelevant, extraneous amendments. He did it to advance the ball on this legislation so it can be considered without the same initiatives we saw with other measures that were considered by the Senate this year. He did it with the hope of reaching a time agreement on amendments. He was not being unreasonable. He even allowed one nongermane amendment the Democrats have tried to get an up or down vote on all year, which members on this side feel is a terrible amendment. But probably it would pass, who knows. At least some think it would probably pass. I think there needs to be a substitute amendment to it that would probably pass.

I want to remind my Democratic colleagues the majority leader made three extremely generous offers regarding the consideration of germane and nongermane amendments.

First, he asked unanimous consent that amendments be limited to five related amendments to be offered by each side. So nobody would be foreclosed from offering the amendments they might think are important. When the minority leader objected to the offer, he expanded the request to include 10 related amendments on each side. I don't know how he could have been more fair. When the minority leader rejected this even more generous counterproposal, the majority leader yet again expanded the agreement to include an unlimited number of related amendments. In other words, amendments that are pertinent to the bill, that are at least germane. Again, the minority leader rejected this third offer. Of course, let us not forget each offer included an up-or-down vote on a nongermane amendment that the Democrats demanded, which is an amendment by Senator Kennedy on the minimum wage.

We also heard yesterday that filling the amendment tree was unprecedented, and we are somehow committing a terrible wrong against the institution of the Senate. How soon we forget the past. I remind my colleagues that the minority leader filled the tree in October of 2002 on the homeland security bill, which was even a more important bill than this one, although this is an extremely important bill for this country. Mind you, he filled the tree after promising at the beginning of his tenure as then-majority leader he would never fill the tree. But he did so, anyway. To be sure, we even saw Senator Byrd do it when he was the majority leader. Unprecedented? Come on, give me a break. Terrible wrong?

Let us not hide behind Senate process in order to play both sides of the fence on class action reform. I said it yesterday, and I will say it again today: S. 2062 represents a bipartisan agreement we reached in good faith with key Democrats who say they support class action reform. We agreed to a number of their amendments in order to get them to agree to vote for cloture. That was the agreement. And implied in that agreement was to vote down poison pill amendments that would kill the bill. Otherwise, they weren't sincere; we know they must have been at the time, but they would not have been sincere in the bipartisan agreement we reached. We reached a compromise because I thought the ultimate goal was to get class action enacted into law.

Let me be clear when I say my agreement to further moderate this bill was in no way predicated on letting this legislation become a "Christmas tree" for unrelated measures. This is never the way we have done business around here. Our agreement was about getting class action reform enacted, and that is the very direction our leader is moving us toward. I can only hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say they support this bill can see that. A deal is a deal. They should not break it because politically it might be in their best interest to do so. That works both ways. We should not break it because politically it might be in our best interest to bring up extraneous, nongermane amendments and make them vote on them.

Another argument my colleagues on the other side raised repeatedly yesterday was the Judicial Conference and the Chief Justice of the United States are somehow opposed to this bill. I have heard this point made over and over. I think it is about time to set the record straight.

Let me start by saying Chief Justice Rehnquist has never written a letter, issued a statement, nor published an opinion that comes out in opposition to this bill. Rather, my colleagues who make this claim rely on outdated letters from the Federal Judicial Conference espousing opinions on prior iterations of this bill-prior iterations, not the same language of this bill.

On two prior occasions, the Judicial Conference expressed opposition to earlier bills, as offered in the 106th and 107th Congresses that would have expanded Federal diversity jurisdictions over purported class actions. But in March of last year, a substantial shift in position occurred. In a March 26, 2003, letter to the Judiciary Committee, the Judicial Conference expressed its position on the bill by stating:

That Congress may decide to base a statutory approach to remedy current problems with class action litigation by using minimal diversity litigation. The Conference position recognizes that the use of minimal diversity may be appropriate to the maintenance of significant multi-State class action litigation in the Federal courts.

The Judicial Conference also suggested employing provisions to raise the jurisdictional threshold and fashioning exceptions that would preserve a role for the State courts in the handling of in-State class actions.

Senator Feinstein offered an amendment during the ensuing markup that was directly responsive to these suggestions. Those changes were reflected in the version of the bill reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee in early April 2003.

Perhaps more important than what was said is what was not said. Nowhere in the letter does the Judicial Conference express opposition to the bill now in consideration. I think this silence is deafening and speaks for itself on where the Judicial Conference stands.

I ask unanimous consent that the March 26 Judicial Conference letter be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, DC, March 26, 2003.

Hon. ORRIN G. HATCH,
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN HATCH: I write to provide you with the recently adopted views of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body for the federal judiciary, on class action legislation, including S. 274, the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2003," introduced by you and other co-sponsors.

On March 18, 2003, the Judicial Conference unanimously adopted the following recommendation:

That the Judicial Conference recognize that the use of minimal diversity of citizenship may be appropriate to the maintenance of significant multi-state class action litigation in the federal courts, while continuing to oppose class action legislation that contains jurisdictional provisions that are similar to those in the bills introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses. If Congress determines that certain class actions should be brought within the original and removal jurisdiction of the federal courts on the basis of minimal diversity of citizenship and an aggregation of claims, Congress should be encouraged to include sufficient limitations and threshold requirements so that federal courts are not unduly burdened and states' jurisdiction over in-state class actions is left undisturbed, such as by employing provisions to raise the jurisdictional threshold and to fashion exceptions to such jurisdiction that would preserve a role for the state courts in the handling of in-state class actions. Such exceptions for in-state class actions may appropriately include such factors as whether substantially all members of the class are citizens of a single state, the relationship of the defendants to the forum state, or whether the claims arise from death, personal injury, or physical property damage within the state. Further, the Conference should continue to explore additional approaches to the consolidation and coordination of overlapping or duplicative class actions that do not unduly intrude on state courts or burden federal courts.

The Conference in 1999 opposed the class action provisions in legislation then pending (s. 353; H.R. 1875, 106th Cong.). That opposition was based on concerns that the provisions would add substantially to the workload of the federal courts and are inconsistent with principles of federalism. The March 2003 position makes clear that such opposition continues to apply to similar jurisdictional provisions.

The Conference recognizes, however, that Congress may decide to base a statutory approach to remedy current problems with class action litigation by using minimal diversity jurisdiction. The Conference position recognizes that the use of minimal diversity may be appropriate to the maintenance of significant multi-state class action litigation in the federal courts. The use of the term "significant multi-state class action litigation" focuses on the possibility of multi-state membership within the plaintiff class. The actions to which this term applies are nationwide class actions, as well as class actions whose members include claimants from states within a smaller region or section of the country. Minimal diversity in these cases would facilitate the disposition of litigation that affects the interests of citizens of many states and, through their citizens, affects the many states themselves.

Parallel in-state class actions in which the plaintiff class is defined as limited to the citizens of the forum state are not included within the term "significant multi-state class action litigation." Parallel in-state class actions might share common questions of law and fact with similar in-state actions in other states, but would not, as suggested herein, typically seek relief in one state on behalf of citizens living in another state. Accordingly, parallel in-state class actions would not present, on a broad or national scale, the problems of state projection of law beyond its borders and would present few of the choice of law problems associated with nationwide class action litigation. In addition, to the extent problems arise as a result of overlapping and duplicative in-state class actions within a particular state, the state legislative and judicial branches could address the problem if they were to create or utilize an entity similar to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, as some states have done.

Further, the position seeks to encourage Congress to include sufficient limitations and threshold requirements so as not to unduly burden the federal courts and to fashion exceptions to the minimal diversity regime that would preserve a role for the state courts in the handling of in-state class actions. The position identifies three such factors that may be appropriately considered in crafting exceptions to minimal diversity jurisdiction for class actions. These factors are intended to identify those class actions in which the forum state has a considerable interest, and would not likely threaten the coordination of significant multi-state class action litigation through minimal diversity. (The factors do recognize certain situations where plaintiffs from another state may be included in an otherwise in-state action.)

The first factor would apply to class actions in which citizens of the forum state make up substantially all of the members of the plaintiff class. Such an in-state class action exception could include consumer class action claims, such as fraud and breach of warranty claims. The second factor would apply to a class action in which plaintiff class members suffered personal injury or physical property damage within the state, as in the case of a serious environmental disaster. It would apply to all individuals who suffered personal injuries or losses to physical property, whether or not they were citizens of the state in question. The third factor recognizes that it may be appropriate to consider the relationship of the defendants to the forum state. Such consideration is not intended to embrace the term "primary defendants" (or a similar term), which language has been used in past and present class action bills as part of an exception to minimal diversity. Such a reading could extend minimal diversity jurisdiction to cases in which a single important defendant lacked in-state citizenship. While the relationship of the defendant to the forum may have some bearing on state adjudicatory power, an insistence that all primary defendants maintain formal in-state citizenship is too limiting and may preclude in-state class actions where a defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state, regardless of citizenship.

We would appreciate your consideration of these comments and the position of the Judicial Conference. Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact Michael W. Blommer, Assistant Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, at (202) 502-1700.

Sincerely,

LEONIDAS RALPH MECHAM,
Secretary.

Mr. HATCH. To be sure, on the very day the bill was reported from committee, the ranking member sent letters to the Judicial Conference requesting comments on the revised version of S. 274 as reported out of committee and further urging that the Judicial Conference propose alternative legislative language reflecting its views on how the jurisdictional provisions should be structured.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of April 11, 2003, from Senator Leahy be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, DC, April 11, 2003.

LEONIDAS RALPH MECHAM,
Secretary, Judicial Conference of the United States, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. MECHAM: Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved S. 274; the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2003," with several amendments. The bill, as amended, would determine whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a class action based on the fraction of the plaintiff class members that are citizens of the same state as the primary defendant.

I value the unique perspective of the Judicial Conference regarding class action litigation. Therefore, I request that the Judicial Conference provide Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with its views on S. 274, the "Class Action Fairness Act," as reported out of the Committee today, by April 25, 2003.

If you have any questions about this request, please do not hesitate to contact Ed Pagano or Susan Davies of my staff. They can both be reached at 202-224-7703. Thank you for your assistance and continued insight on class action litigation.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY,
United States Senator.

Mr. HATCH. In its April 25 response, the Judicial Conference noted that the markup changes to S. 274 were responsive to its previous comments about changing the jurisdictional threshold and preserving the role of the State courts in handling State class actions. Indeed, the Judicial Conference expressed no opposition to the revised version of S. 274 reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee.

The Judicial Conference explicitly declined Senator Leahy's invitation to propose alternative language. The Judicial Conference's resolution deliberately avoided specific legislative language out of deference to Congress' judgment and the political process. The letter further noted that:

[T]hese issues implicate fundamental interests and relationships that are political in nature and are peculiarly within Congress' province.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of April 25, the Judicial Conference response, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, DC, April 25, 2003.

Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you for your letters of April 9, 2003, and April 11, 2003. In those letters, you requested that the Judicial Conference provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with legislative language implementing the Judicial Conference's March 2003 recommendations on class-action litigation and the views of the Conference on S. 274, the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2003," as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 11, 2003.

As you know, at its March 18, 2003, session, the Judicial Conference adopted the following resolution:

That the Judicial Conference recognize that the use of minimal diversity of citizenship may be appropriate to the maintenance of significant multi-state class action litigation in the federal courts, while continuing to oppose class action legislation that contains jurisdictional provisions that are similar to those in the bills introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses. If Congress determines that certain class actions should be brought within the original and removal jurisdiction of the federal courts on the basis of minimal diversity of citizenship and an aggregation of claims, Congress should be encouraged to include sufficient limitations and threshold requirements so that the federal courts are not unduly burdened and states' jurisdiction over in-state class actions is left undisturbed, such as by employing provisions to raise the jurisdictional threshold and to fashion exceptions to such jurisdiction that would preserve a role for the state courts in the handling of in-state class actions. Such exceptions for in-state class actions may appropriately include such factors as whether substantially all members of the class are citizens of a single state, the relationship of the defendants to the forum state, or whether the claims arise from death, personal injury, or physical property damage within the state. Further, the Conference should continue to explore additional approaches to the consolidation and coordination of overlapping or duplicative class actions that do not unduly intrude on state courts or burden federal courts.

S. 274, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, generally provides for federal jurisdiction of a class action based on minimal diversity of citizenship if the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. (S. 274 as introduced established a $2 million minimum amount in controversy.) The bill also now permits a federal district court, in the interests of justice, to decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action in which greater than one-third but less than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed. The court would be required to consider five specified factors when exercising this discretion. (This discretionary provision was not included in the bill as introduced.)

In addition, S. 274 as reported provides that the federal district courts shall not have original jurisdiction over any class action in which: (A) two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed; (B) the primary defendants are states, state officials, or other governmental entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief; or (C) the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is less than one hundred. As introduced, the second and third exceptions were the same, but the first one originally precluded federal jurisdiction where "the substantial majority of the members of the proposed plaintiff class and the primary defendants are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed" and "the claims asserted therein will be governed primarily by the laws of" that state. The replacement language in essence substitutes a numerical ratio for "substantial majority" and eliminates the choice-of-law requirement.

We are grateful that Congress is working to resolve the serious problems generated by overlapping and competing class actions. The Judicial Conference "recognizes that the use of minimal diversity of citizenship may be appropriate to the maintenance of significant multi-state class action litigation in the federal courts." At the same time, the Judicial Conference does not support the removal of all state law class actions into federal court. Appropriate legislation should "include sufficient limitations and threshold requirements so that federal courts are not unduly burdened and states' jurisdiction over in-state class actions is left undisturbed." Finding the right balance between these objectives and articulating that balance in legislative language implicate important policy choices.

Any minimal-diversity bill will result in certain cases being litigated in federal court that would not previously have been subject to federal jurisdiction. The effects of this transfer should be assessed in determining the appropriateness of various limitations on the availability of minimal diversity jurisdiction.

Mr. HATCH. The Judicial Conference concluded its letter by stating:

We are grateful that Congress is working to resolve the serious problems generated by overlapping and competing class actions.

Finally, another piece of evidence that counters the Judicial Conference's purported opposition to the class action bill is Chief Justice Rehnquist's 2003 year-end report on the Federal judiciary. While this report criticizes various legislative measures considered by the Congress, absolutely no mention is made of class action reform efforts.

I suppose this begs the question then, if the Judicial Conference and Chief Justice Rehnquist stand opposed to this bill, why is there no reference to such a measure in their year-end report?

Again, I think the silence speaks for itself. I ask my colleagues to refer to the 2003 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary which can be found easily enough on the Supreme Court's website.

Mr. HATCH. With all of this said, is it credible to suggest that the Judicial Conference, much less the Chief Justice of the United States, stands somehow opposed to the class action bill? I think not.

I will refer to this "myth" chart. The myth is that the Federal Judicial Conference opposes the Class Action Fairness Act.

These are the facts: The Conference's opposition was directed at class action bills in previous Congresses. In March 2003, the Conference strongly criticized the current class action system and suggested several areas to modify the Class Action Fairness Act.

After the Class Action Fairness Act was modified during markup, the Conference declined an invitation to criticize or revise the version favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee and thanked the Senate for its efforts to clean up the State court class action mess.

That certainly rebuts everything that was said on the floor yesterday and today by those who are looking for any excuse they can to scuttle this bill. Unfortunately, some of them are people who have agreed to support the bill. That seems apparent to me. I hope it is apparent to all of those in the various States who have relied on these agreements, and at least this agreement made last November, that we would at least vote for cloture. That was the whole issue. Then, of course, they could still have any amendment they wanted to bring up that would be germane, and they might even be able to bring up nongermane amendments if they could get a supermajority vote on them. So nothing would stop them from at least an attempt to bring up nongermane amendments.

I would like to also reply to comments made yesterday in defense-can anyone believe it?-of Madison County, IL. I heard suggestions that the Madison County court is not as renegade as we have portrayed it. After all, the number of certifications has not escalated at the same rate as the number of cases brought.

Now, this fact may have some appeal on its surface but when one looks at why the certifications are so low, I think they will find themselves right back to the inescapable conclusion that this court is a downright embarrassment to our civil justice system. Any attempt to defend Madison County's record on class certification must account for the number of class actions that were not certified because the defendants, knowing that the judicial deck was stacked against them, simply conceded defeat and settled rather than go through the motion of defending their lawsuit in this court.

As I said yesterday, the plaintiffs' lawyers who descend on this small rural courthouse in southwestern Illinois know class certification is a sure thing and that all they need to do is come up with a complaint in order to extort a settlement from the unfortunate defendants. These settlements come well before the class certification phase of the lawsuit and is exactly why this court is so attractive to greedy, dishonest lawyers-greedy, flagrantly dishonest lawyers-looking to make a quick buck, money hungry lawyers looking to buy their next Gulfstream at the expense of everyday Americans such as Hilda Bankston, dishonorable lawyers looking to pay off their next multimillion-dollar mansion in Palm Beach, FL, at the expense of shattering public confidence in our civil justice system, and unscrupulous lawyers seeking to fund the next campaign of a State court judge who can tilt the playing field for them in yet another magnet jurisdiction.

There is something clearly rotten in middle America, and when it comes to Madison County, there is only one way to describe it: If you go there, they will pay. If someone is brought in as a defendant there, even though they do minimal business in that State, they are going to pay.

Finally, I would like to respond to the wild accusations from the other side of the aisle that the Republicans are trying to kill this bill because the measure does not go far enough to achieve class action reform. Give me a break. I do not think this accusation merits a real response, other than to observe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will resort to just about anything in order to justify their vote against this bill, in order to justify this filibuster against this bill.

Despite all the rhetoric we have heard from the other side about how they support class action reform, about how terrible this system has become and about how we have a modest bill that fixes the problem, we will know their true colors when we vote on cloture either tonight or tomorrow.

It makes absolutely no difference whether Senators vote no because they oppose the bill or because they want to preserve the sanctity of the Senate process. A vote against cloture is a vote against class action reform. It does not get any simpler than that.

By the way, how can they make that argument when they have a right to bring up any amendment they want to after cloture is invoked? True, nongermane amendments will have to have a supermajority vote to pass, but all germane amendments only have to have a majority vote to pass. How can they make these types of clownish arguments?

To make a long story short, it is apparent that sometimes money does count around here, and the only reason this thing is fought so hard is because the major funding institution in this country happens to be the trial lawyers for those on the other side of the aisle.

Now, what galls me is that last November, when we had 59 votes for cloture, 1 less than was necessary to end the debate, we then made all kinds of concessions to three more Democrats-and I think the business community knows who they are-that are now in this bill to get their agreement that they would vote for cloture when the time came. There was no misunderstanding. Everybody knew there would be an attempt to load this bill up with poison pill amendments or killer amendments, if one wants to call them that. It meant that we at least go to cloture and get 62 votes for cloture, and I believe it meant more than that.

I think when we make a deal, those who enter into that deal agree to support the bill, against all amendments, unless we can agree otherwise. Unfortunately, that is not the interpretation of some who agreed to the deal last November. But there could be no misunderstanding. Their agreement last November was to vote for cloture. The whole issue was we lacked one vote in putting this bill before the Senate as a whole and letting it have its day in court, so to speak, in a court that is much more fair, much more balanced, and much more considerate than the courts in Madison County, IL.

There is no excuse for the arguments that have been made by the other side. If this bill goes down because we cannot get 60 votes for cloture, then shame on those who entered into the agreement with us. It was not an easy agreement for some of us because we had to make changes that literally some of us would not have made otherwise. So anybody who says this side does not want this bill to go forward is being less than candid, and I will put it in those terms, although I think probably more stark terms would be acceptable.

This is an important bill. This bill will correct some of the major wrongs in our society from a litigation standpoint. This bill is fair. It is not going to stop truly in-State lawsuits from being tried, even in Madison County, but this bill does correct some tremendously rotten situations in our country. It also would be supported by decent, honest lawyers throughout the country, at least lawyers who do not always think of the almighty dollar as the only reason they are practicing law.

This is a very important bill. There are a lot of great trial lawyers out there who I believe are embarrassed by some of the arguments that have been made by my Democratic colleagues. There are a lot of great trial lawyers who do not need phony courts, or dishonest courts, or courts that go way beyond reasonability, or courts that favor them, or magnet courts to win their cases. Great lawyers are going to be able to win their cases whether they are in State court or Federal court. In fact, I suggest they probably have an easier chance in Federal court because people automatically think those courts are more august and the cases more serious.

But here we have a case where true advantage is being taken of the class action system by a limited number of lawyers in our society who are getting fabulously wealthy and rich because of forum shopping to courts like the Madison County court that are going to find for the plaintiffs no matter what the law or the facts say. That is wrong. When plaintiffs are right, they ought to recover, but when they are not right, they should not recover. The courts ought to be the bulwark of standing for what is right and not what is wrong. In the political system that exists in Madison County, IL, it is a system that, if it is not corrupt, it is the closest thing to it.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TEXT

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this afternoon, I have listened to my colleagues speak courageously about their family members they have lost to suicide. My heart goes out to all of them, especially, my colleague and dear friend, Senator GORDON SMITH. By speaking openly about the circumstances of his son, Garrett's death, he has raised awareness to the serious matter of youth suicide. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. I believe the Senate will approve this legislation today due primarily to Senator SMITH's courage to speak openly about his own family's experience.

This legislation is necessary because it raises awareness of the alarmingly high rate of youth suicide-it is much higher than most would believe. Suicide is the third leading cause of death for young people aged 15 to 24, and the fourth leading cause of death for children between 10 and 14. My own State of Utah is ranked among the top 10 states in the nation for suicide.

I cosponsored this bill because it provides grant funding to states so each may develop a youth suicide and intervention strategy through the administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in order to prevent teen suicide. This money may be used to develop statewide early prevention and suicide intervention strategies in schools, educational institutions, juvenile justice systems, substance abuse programs, mental health programs, foster care programs and other child and youth support organizations.

The bill also creates a federal Suicide Technical Assistance Center to provide guidance to state and local grantees on establishing standards for data collection and the evaluation of this data. Finally, this legislation provides grant funding to colleges and universities to establish or enhance their mental health outreach and treatment centers and improve their youth suicide prevention and intervention programs.

I became deeply interested in this issue when I found out that my home State of Utah suicide rates for those ages 15 to 19 have increased almost 150 percent in the last 20 years. According to the CDC, in the mid-1990s, Utah had the tenth highest suicide rate in the country and was 30 percent above the U.S. rate. This is one statistical measure on which I want to see my state at the bottom.

Teen suicide is an issue that is rapidly becoming a crisis not only in my State of Utah but throughout the entire country. Young people in the United States are taking their own lives at alarming rates. The trend of teen suicide is seeing suicide at younger ages, with the United States suicide rate for individuals under 15 years of age increasing 121 percent from 1980 to 1992.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death among college students. In a 1997 study, 21 percent of the nation's high school students reported serious thoughts about attempting suicide, with 15.7 percent making a specific plan. Although numerous symptoms, diagnoses, traits, and characteristics have been investigated, no single fact or set of factors has ever come close to predicting suicide with any accuracy.

We need to understand what the barriers are that prevent youth from receiving treatment so that we can facilitate the development of model treatment programs and public education and awareness efforts. This bill provides the funding to get these types of initiatives started.

Again, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and I commend my colleague, Senator GORDON SMITH for his commitment and dedication on this matter. I know it is such a difficult subject for him but his openness today will make a difference tomorrow.

In fact, I believe our floor discussion today on the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act has already made a difference because families who have lost someone to suicide now know that they are not alone. And, if one life is saved because of our consideration of this bill today, we have done our job.