Jim Sensenbrenner: “Mr. Chairman, the reason there is an exemption for State attorneys general in this bill is because the State attorney…”

“Mr. Chairman, the reason there is an exemption for State attorneys general in this bill is because the State attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of the State. In most States, the attorney general is an elected official. Now, if the attorney general is not doing his job, then it is up to the voters to choose a new attorney general in the next election. But just because attorneys general might not be able to do their job is no reason why we should empower a whole host of other people to file pseudo class actions, which is what the amendment of the gentlewoman from California seeks to do. Now, again, diversity jurisdiction interprets State law. Federal questions are automatically removable to Federal court. The reason the Framers put diversity jurisdiction into the Constitution was to prevent a State judge from being a hometown umpire to the prejudice against citizens of other States who happen to be litigants. So very simply, what we do in this bill is to provide a better way of protecting litigants who come from other States. For that reason, I would urge that this amendment be rejected.”