[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25488-25489]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      CLOTURE VOTE ON CLASS ACTION

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what we are being asked to do on this 
class action bill is a travesty. We are not only being asked to throw 
the baby out with the bathwater; we are being asked to throw out the 
bathtub and buy a new one that no sensible parents would even want to 
put the baby in.
  We all know what is going on here. Corporate giants and giant 
insurance companies do not want to be held accountable in class action 
cases, and they want to make it as hard as possible for injured 
citizens to obtain relief. They are powerful special interests. They 
know that the heavier the burden they impose on the courts, on 
consumers, and on those with legitimate civil rights and environmental 
claims, the less likely they are to be held accountable.
  All of us agree that class action procedures are far from 
satisfactory, especially in large nationwide cases, and reasonable 
reforms are long overdue.
  If we vote for cloture today we are giving a blank check to those who 
would like class actions to disappear entirely, so that injured 
citizens do not have to be paid at all. If we vote against cloture, we 
will give new leverage and needed time to those who are serious about 
reforming class actions and just as serious about protecting citizens' 
rights.
  Today we are presented, virtually on a take it or leave it basis, 
with what

[[Page 25489]]

can only be called a radical shift in Federal law, a bill that calls 
itself the Class Action Reform Act. If we want truth in labeling, we 
should call it the Class Action Destruction and Federal Court 
Disruption Act.
  In its present form, this bill is a shoddy patchwork of different 
ideas and different approaches grafted together with no concern for its 
overall impact, as long as it shields defendants. Key provisions have 
never been the subject of any hearings or any careful analysis by 
impartial experts in the field.
  Yet the bill makes massive changes in the basic rules of the road on 
jurisdiction of the courts.
  It suddenly abandons 200 years of evolutionary change in Federal 
jurisdiction and substitutes a totally new road that no one has 
traveled and no one can map. It does so in the interest of purported 
problems that, if they exist at all, are not emergencies and certainly 
are not so urgent that we need to move ahead so blindly.
  If we enact this bill, we will have confusion and conflict in the 
Nation's courts for years, as they wrestle to untangle the mess which 
this law produces. Its most visible initial impact will be to add an 
entire new layer of legal jousting, litigation burden and higher costs 
to already complex cases.
  If the hopes of its sponsors are realized at all, the law will force 
a very large number of complex and important cases off the dockets of 
tens of thousands of State judges and onto the dockets of less than 
2,000 Federal judges, who already face massive backlogs.
  We can also expect that the law as now proposed will do serious harm 
to the ability of citizens in civil rights cases to obtain the relief 
they are entitled to under State law.
  There are no legitimate complaints about class actions on civil 
rights. Yet this bill would severely and adversely affect such cases.
  The bill will make the most pressing and legitimate class action 
cases more burdensome and more expensive. It will reduce the ability of 
courts to improve the efficiency of justice by dealing with large 
numbers of small but similar cases in groups, instead of one at a time.
  To the extent that plaintiffs need additional safeguards for the 
class plaintiffs in class actions, this legislation promises a ``Bill 
of Rights,'' but it does not produce what it promises. It does not 
seriously address the problem of worthless and collusive settlements, 
which produce substantial benefits for attorneys and defendants, but 
little or nothing for injured plaintiffs.
  The basic purpose of court actions in general, and class actions in 
particular, is to enable injured people to get relief--sometimes 
monetary relief and sometimes other relief such as injunctions against 
discrimination or restoration of employment.
  If citizens know that reliable relief is possible at reasonable 
expense and within a reasonable time, they will initiate the court 
actions that our judicial system allows them to bring.
  That kind of relief tells those who might discriminate: don't 
discriminate. It tells those who might bring hazardous products to 
markets: don't hurt consumers. It tells those who might harm the 
environment: even if no individual person is harmed enough to be able 
to sue, you will be brought to justice, so stop polluting.
  The Chief Justice of the United States has told us not to pass this 
bill. The National Association of State Chief Justices has told us not 
to pass this bill. Dozens of organizations with no interest to protect 
except the right of people to obtain a remedy when they are wronged, 
have pleaded with us not to pass this bill.
  A vote for cloture is a vote to deprive our constituents of an 
important and realistic remedy for the vindication of their rights. 
When we deprive the people of remedies, we deprive them of their 
rights.
  That is not what they sent us here to do. That is not what the 
founders created the Senate to do. We offend our people and we offend 
our history if we fail them today.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from the great State of 
Utah.

                          ____________________