On the recordMay 10, 2011
The gentleman's opposition to this amendment is premised on a very interesting, and I would respectfully suggest dangerous, interpretation of what is our responsibility as Members of this House. The gentleman spoke of the need to have uniformity of decisionmaking. Uniformity of decisionmaking. As I understand the role of the Federal judiciary, the role of our court system is to provide justice. The role is not to ensure that we have the same decision in every court. My amendment simply says that if you are a judge in the State of Florida or a judge in the State of Alabama, that you are in a position just as well as a judge in Texas or these other Gulf States to make a determination about how the law should be interpreted--the idea that judges have to have a sufficient background, and that if courts throughout the country were able to hear these, we would not be able to reach a logical conclusion. The fact is we're not asking courts throughout the country to hear these cases, Madam Chairman. We're asking the judges within the States whose coastlines would be dramatically affected and have been affected in the case of spills like the Deepwater Horizon. Madam Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that if our goal here is to seek justice, then we must seek justice in those courts in the States that have seen the damage. I ask for the adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
