Date: 2011-02-28
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of the amendment to H.R. 368. "The Removal Clarification Act of 2011." "The Removal Clarification Act of 2011" clarifies when a case involving a federal official can be removed from a state court into a federal court. It states that a federal official can remove cases to federal court in accordance with the spirit and intent of the federal officer removal statute. It is also makes clear that the federal officer removal statute applies to all federal officials. including officials of the legislative and executive branch of the Federal government. The purpose of the law is to take from state courts the indefeasible power to hold a federal officer or agent criminally or civilly liable for an act allegedly performed in the execution of their federal duties. This does not mean federal officers can break the law. it just means that these cases are transferred to U.S. district court for consideration. Federal officers or agents. including congressmen. should not be forced to answer for conduct asserted within their federal duties in a state forum that invites local interests or prejudice to color outcomes. In the absence of this constitutional protection. federal officers. including congressmen and women. would be subject to political harassment and federal operations generally would be needlessly hampered. H.R. 368. introduced by my colleague Rep. HANK JOHNSON of Georgia. is a noncontroversial. bipartisan bill that was passed by the House and passed in the Senate with an amendment at the end if the 111th Congress. Just about a month ago. we considered this bill in the House Judiciary Committee. and it received support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Currently under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a). federal officials are able to remove a case out of state court and into federal court. However under state persuit discovery laws. federal officials may be unable to remove the case because a "civil action" has not yet been filed. H.R 368 does not make any changes to the underlying removal law. It simply clarifies 28 U.S.C. 1442(a) by including any proceeding to the extent that in such a proceeding. a judicial order. including a subpoena for testimony or documents. is sought or issued. In my home state of Texas. there was a recent high profile case. Price v. Johnson. involving a Texas state legal action taken against Rep. JOHNSON. where the removal to federal court was denied by the U.S. District Court. The Fifth Circuit illustrated the importance of better clarity needed in 28 U.S.C. 1442(a). In the 111th Congress. the Judiciary Committees Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy found that case law interpreting the removal statue is not just split among the circuits. but within them as well. Therefore. H.R. 368 is a much needed measure to once and for all settle the confusion amongst rulings in the Federal District Courts. Currently. there are 47 states that have enacted precivil suit discovery statues. H.R. 368 would take into account the operation of these state precivil suit discovery statues and provide clarification to prevent more cases like Price v. Johnson from occurring. H.R. 368 is essential to the integrity and preeminence of the federal government within its realm of authority. This bill will also allow for appeal to the federal court if the district court remands the matter. back to the state court and that the federal defense is also still needed for removal. I ask my colleagues to please join me in supporting H.R. 368. "the Removal Clarification Act of 2011."