[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25496-25497]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2003

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Class Action 
Fairness Act of 2003. Today we are going to have a cloture vote to 
determine whether or not we move forward with this bill. I hope we 
obtain the 60 votes to move forward.
  To a great extent, the bulk of the tort reform--that is needed in 
this country needs to be handled at the State level. States have their 
own ideas about what kind of tort reform ought to take place. I hope 
that is where tort reform--that each State decides it needs in and of 
itself--does take place. However, as the tort system now stands, there 
are about a handful of State court jurisdictions in the United States 
where a tremendously disproportionate number of class action lawsuits 
are filed. That is just not right. People have referred to these 
jurisdictions as ``magnet courts'' because they draw in class action 
suits with their soft juries and pro-plaintiff judges.
  Under the Class Action Fairness Act, businesses can break loose from 
these magnet State courts and get a fair trial in Federal court.
  Over the last 2 days of debate on class action reform, my colleagues 
have been dispelling a lot of myths about the Class Action Fairness Act 
that have been spread around by the opponents of the bill. I would like 
to take some time to address one of these myths about which I feel very 
strongly; that is, that some critics of the Class Action Fairness Act 
have argued that the bill is an affront to federalism because it would 
move more cases involving State law claims to Federal court.
  But when it comes to federalism, this bill is actually the solution 
and not the problem. Right now, magnet State courts are trampling over 
the laws of other States in their zeal to certify nationwide class 
actions and help enrich, frankly, the plaintiffs' trial bar. The Class 
Action Fairness Act actually promotes federalism concerns by helping 
ensure that magnet State court judges stop dictating national policies 
from their local courthouse steps. It will allow those cases that are 
truly justified class action lawsuits filed by trial lawyers who are 
filing them with the right intention to move forward and to obtain 
justice for their clients.
  This is why, when it comes to federalism, critics of this bill have 
it backwards.
  First, the bill does not change State substantive law. If an 
interstate class action based on violations of State law is removed to 
Federal court, the Federal court will simply apply the State law to 
resolve the case, just as the Federal courts do today in all 
``diversity'' cases in the Federal court system. Critics attempting to 
argue that the bill is an affront to federalism are doing nothing more 
than attacking the fundamental concept of diversity jurisdiction, a 
concept enshrined in article II of the Constitution.
  Second, the cases that would be affected by the legislation are truly 
interstate in nature. They have a real Federal implication. When the 
Framers of the Constitution created the Federal courts, they thought 
that large interstate cases should be heard in Federal court. 
Interstate class actions often involve thousands of plaintiffs 
nationwide and multiple defendants from many States. They require the 
application of the laws of several States and seek hundreds of millions 
or even billions of dollars. It is hard to imagine a better case for 
diversity jurisdiction.
  Third, this legislation has a narrow scope. Smaller cases that are 
truly local and cases involving State government defendants will all 
remain in State court.
  Fourth, the bill will stop magnet State courts from trampling on 
federalism principles by trying to dictate the substantive laws of 
other States in nationwide class actions. Too often magnet State courts 
take it upon themselves to decide important commercial issues for the 
entire country regardless of whether other States have reached 
different conclusions on the same issue. By allowing these cases to be 
heard in Federal court where the judges have been much more sensitive 
to differences in State laws and the need to balance various States' 
interests in a controversy, the Class Action Fairness Act will put an 
end to this troubling practice.
  Is this a perfect bill? It certainly isn't. It is not perfect but it 
does deal with a very complex issue. That is why it is difficult to 
reach out and obtain a perfect bill.
  However, by allowing this to move forward, the amendments that have 
now been filed, and other amendments that are being contemplated--and I 
have a couple of amendments myself that I may file to try to improve 
this bill--at the end of the day we need to make sure that lawyers 
representing individuals who have been damaged and are part of a class 
have the opportunity to seek justice; they have the opportunity to seek 
a fair result in their particular claim, whatever that claim may have 
arisen from.
  By the same token, the business community should have the opportunity 
also to expect fairness and to expect that at the end of the day their 
particular defense to the cause that has been filed will be justly 
dealt with.
  In sum, we have a bill with bipartisan support. Despite the 
misinformation being spread around, actually this bill will promote the 
proper assignment of class action cases between State court and Federal 
court dockets as was originally intended by the Framers.

[[Page 25497]]

  There is one other issue that has been raised that needs to be 
addressed. That is the issue relative to the potential this bill has to 
clog the Federal judicial system. That may be the case in some 
jurisdictions. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, if we see that 
does happen, it is our obligation as legislators to remove that backlog 
and to make sure we have enough judges in place to handle any volume of 
cases that may be filed in respective jurisdictions. We have always 
done that. We will continue to do that.
  I ask my colleagues to review this bill very carefully and to allow 
us to move forward today by voting in favor of the cloture motion, 
which will allow us to get the bill on the floor and have the debate, 
talk about the issues of fairness, and talk about the issues necessary 
to ensure that plaintiffs do get justice in cases where justice is 
deserved; but, by the same token, that there is some stability on the 
part of the business community where unjust cases are being filed 
against them.
  I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the cloture motion. Let's 
move forward, have the debate. I will be one who agrees with a lot that 
is in the act and will probably have some questions about the act. I 
look forward to the debate and look forward to moving forward and to 
coming out with a good, fair, and just class action reform bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, how much time is available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 9 minutes.
  Mr. CORZINE. If the Chair would notify me when I have used 8 minutes 
please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, sir.

                          ____________________