[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 17, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. TOM UDALL

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 12, 2003

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 1115) to 
     amend the procedures that apply to consideration of 
     interstate class actions to assure fairer outcomes for class 
     members and defendants, to outlaw certain practices that 
     provide inadequate settlements for class members, to assure 
     that attorneys do not receive a disproportionate amount of 
     settlements at the expense of class members, to provide for 
     clearer and simpler information in class action settlement 
     notices, to assure prompt consideration of interstate class 
     actions, to amend title 28, United States Code, to allow the 
     application of the principles of Federal diversity 
     jurisdiction to interstate class actions, and for other 
     purposes.

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. This 
bill is the third piece of legislation in a succession of tort reform 
vehicles offered by the majority this Congress. In offering H.R. 1115 
today, the majority again seeks to manipulate our judicial system for 
the benefit of corporate America.
  The Administration also strongly supports this bill. Yet, while both 
the Administration and the majority espouse the virtues of federalism 
and states' rights, this bill would severely limit, if not 
automatically remove, state court jurisdiction in the majority of class 
action cases. The anticipated result of this reduction caused Supreme 
Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, long-time a devout Federalist, 
and the Judicial Conference of the United States, to openly denounce 
this bill because it would increase the caseload of the already 
overcrowded federal courts. And, because federal courts must expedite 
criminal matters over civil matters, this bill would make a plaintiff's 
remedy more costly due to the increased amount of time their case is 
kept pending on the federal docket.
  Furthermore, besides giving jurisdiction over most class action 
lawsuits to federal district courts, this bill would also be applied 
retroactively so that pending cases would be subjected to its 
provisions. This would effectively include cases pending against Enron 
Corp., Worldcom Inc., and Tyco International Ltd. At a time of 
heightened concern over corporate wrongdoing, now is not the time for 
Congress to make it more difficult for injured consumers to bring 
class-action lawsuits.
  Considering the above, this legislation further illuminates the 
majority's willingness to erode an individual's protections from 
corporate wrongdoing through the manipulation of our judiciary systems. 
As a result, I oppose passage of this bill and urge my colleagues to do 
so as well.




                          ____________________