mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. speaker , we have listened carefully to the discussion here , and it is very clear that one thing is for sure : this is not a simple procedural fix to class actions in our courts . 
another thing , it is clear that all of the totally unsatisfactory provisions have not been removed . 
first , the bill , as the gentlewoman from texas has said , harms working americans and victims of discrimination who are in no position to bring individual actions of wage-and-hour cases or civil rights discrimination claims . 
moving the cases to federal court will result in many never being ever heard at all . 
many state laws provide better protection than federal statutes . 
for example , 20 states provide protection for marital status and federal law does not . 
twenty-one states extend federal definitions of national origin discrimination by including ancestry , place of birth , and citizenship status ; and 31 states prohibit genetic discrimination in the workplace , not provided under federal law . 
secondly , this bill closes the door on victims of large-scale personal injury cases resulting from accidents , environmental disasters , or dangerous drugs that are widely sold . 
although these cases are filed in state courts under state law , the bill will treat them as class actions and throw them willy-nilly into the federal court . 
while harming victims of personal injury , this provision greatly helps the companies , like merck , the company that manufactured the deadly drug vioxx . 
since the discovery of the dangers of vioxx , hundreds of cases from all over the country have been filed against merck , and we can anticipate likely thousands more . 
however , under this proposal before us today , those who suffered harm from the drug will be denied their day in court and their ability to seek justice . 
finally , this bill makes it difficult for consumers to pursue claims against defendants who violated consumer protection laws . 
the bill will force many of these cases filed in state courts into the federal system . 
but some federal courts will not certify class actions involving the laws of multiple states because they deem the case too complex and unmanageable . 
result : harmed consumers will never have their cases adjudicated in the courts . 
it also makes it impossible for states to pursue actions against defendants who have caused harm to the state 's citizens . 
state attorneys general often pursue these claims under state consumer protection statutes , antitrust laws , often with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the state . 
under this bill , would we want these cases to be thrown into federal court and severely impede the state 's ability to enforce its own laws for its own citizens ? 
that is what will happen . 
that is what will take place . 
so i am very pleased to put in the record the letter from the states attorneys general opposing this legislation , those attorneys general from california , illinois , iowa , kentucky , maine , maryland , massachusetts , minnesota , new jersey , new mexico , new york , oklahoma , oregon , vermont , and west virginia . 
i would also like to add the letter from the environmental organizations which have made their case as to why this would be a very harmful measure . 
the signatories of this letter include the united states public interest research group , pirg ; the wilderness society ; the sierra club ; the national environment trust ; greenpeace ; friends of the earth ; and the national audubon society , and many others . 
finally , mr. speaker , i include in this debate from the leadership conference and the afl-cio , and the alliance for justice , all writing on one letter , and they plead with us in the house of representatives to protect working men and women and civil rights litigants by opposing the measure that is before us . 
washington , dc , february 15 , 2005 . 
dear representative : on behalf of the undersigned civil rights and labor organizations , we write to urge you to vote against the class action fairness act ( s. 5 ) , which passed the senate last week . 
while the bill was pending before the senate , we pushed for an amendment offered by senator kennedy that would have exempted civil rights and wage and hour state law cases . 
because the amendment was not adopted , we ask you to reject s. 5 in order to ensure that the class action fairness act does not adversely impact the workplace and civil rights of ordinary americans by making it extremely difficult to enforce civil rights and labor rights . 
during congress ' extensive examination into the merits of class action lawsuits , nowhere has a case been made that abuses exist in anti-discrimination and wage and hour class-action litigation . 
by allowing dozens of employees to bring one lawsuit together , the class-action device is frequently the only means for low wage workers who have been denied mere dollars a day to recover their lost wages . 
moreover , class actions also are often the only means to effectively change a policy of discrimination . 
these suits level the playing field between individuals and those with more power and resources , and permit courts to decide cases more efficiently . 
wage and hour class actions are most often brought in state courts under the law of the state in which the claims arise . 
the reason is that state wage and hour laws typically provide more complete remedies for victims of wage and hour violations than the federal wage and hour statute . 
for instance , the federal fair labor standards act ( flsa ) offers no protection for a worker who works 30 hours and is paid for 20 , so long as the worker 's total pay for the 30 hours worked exceeds the federal minimum wage . 
however , many states have `` payment of wage '' laws that would require that the worker be fully paid for those additional 10 hours of work . 
also , federal law provides no remedy for part-time workers who often work 10-16 hour days , yet earn no overtime because they work less than 40 hours per week . 
at least six states and territories , however , including california and alaska , require payment of overtime after a prescribed number of hours are worked in a single day . 
likewise , state laws increasingly provide greater civil rights protection than federal law . 
for example , every state has passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability . 
some of these state statutes provide a broader definition of disability and a greater range of protection in comparison to the federal americans with disabilities act including california , minnesota , new jersey , new york , rhode island , washington , and west virginia . 
in addition , every state has enacted a law prohibiting age discrimination in employment , and some of these state laws -- including those of california , michigan , ohio and the district of columbia -- contain provisions affording greater protection to older workers than comparable provisions of the federal age discrimination in employment act ( adea ) . 
in addition , many state laws provide protections to classifications not covered by federal law . 
for example , the following states provide protection for marital status : alaska , california , connecticut , delaware , florida , hawaii , illinois , maryland , michigan , minnesota , montana , nebraska , new hampshire , new jersey , new york , north dakota , oregon , virginia , washington , and wisconsin . 
moreover , several states have expanded title vii 's ban on national origin discrimination to prohibit discrimination on the basis of ancestry , or place of birth , or citizenship status . 
these states include arkansas , california , colorado , connecticut , hawaii , illinois , indiana , kansas , maine , massachusetts , missouri , new jersey , new mexico , ohio , pennsylvania , south dakota , vermont , west virginia , wisconsin , wyoming , and the virgin islands . 
finally , 31 states have enacted legislation prohibiting genetic discrimination in the workplace -- an important protection given the rapid increase in the ability to gather this type of information . 
the 31 states are arizona , arkansas , california , connecticut , delaware , hawaii , iowa , kansas , louisiana , maine , maryland , massachusetts , michigan , minnesota , missouri , nebraska , nevada , new hampshire , new jersey , new york , north carolina , oklahoma , oregon , rhode island , south dakota , texas , utah , vermont , virginia , washington , and wisconsin . 
in addition , florida and illinois have enacted more limited protections against genetic discrimination . 
under s. 5 , citizens are denied the right to use their own state courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate these state wage and hour and state civil rights laws , even where that corporation has hundreds of employees in that state . 
moving these state law cases into federal court will delay and likely deny justice for working men and women and victims of discrimination . 
the federal courts are already overburdened . 
additionally , federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of state law . 
in light of the lack of any compelling need to sweep state wage and hour and civil rights claims into the scope of the bill , which is done in the current bill , we urge you to vote against s. 5 . 
in the event that amendments are offered , we support any amendment that , like the kennedy amendment and others offered in the senate , preserves the right of individuals to bring class actions in an effective , efficient manner . 
if you have any questions , or need further information , please call nancy zirkin , deputy director of the leadership conference on civil rights ( 202-263-2880 ) ; sandy brantley , legislative counsel , alliance for justice ( 202-822-6070 ) ; or bill samuel , legislative director , afl-cio ( 202-637-5320 ) . 
sincerely , aarp ; afl-cio ; alliance for justice ; american-arab anti-discrimination committee ; american association of people with disabilities ; american association of university women ; american civil liberties union ; american federation for the blind ; american federation of government employees ; american federation of school administrators ; american federation of state , county & amp ; municipal employees ; american federation of teachers ; american jewish committee ; americans for democratic action . 
the arc of the united states ; association of flight attendants ; bazelon center for mental health law ; center for justice and democracy ; coalition of black trade unionists ; communications workers of america ; consortium for citizens with disabilities civil rights task force ; department for professional employees , afl-cio ; disability rights education and defense fund ; epilepsy foundation ; federally employed women ; federally employed women 's legal & amp ; education fund , inc. ; food & amp ; allied service trades department , afl-cio ; human rights campaign . 
international association of machinists and aerospace workers ; international brotherhood of boilermakers , iron ship builders , blacksmiths , forgers and helpers ; international brotherhood of electrlcal workers ; international brotherhood of teamsters ; international federation of professional & amp ; technical engineers ; international union of bricklayers and allied craftworkers ; international union of painters and allied trades of the united states and canada ; international union , united automobile , aerospace naacp ; naacp legal defense & amp ; educational fund , inc. ; national alliance of postal and federal employees ; national asian pacific american legal consortium ; national association for equal opportunity in higher education ; national association of protection and advocacy systems ; national association of social workers ; national employment lawyers association ; national fair housing alliance ; national organization for women ; national partnership for women and families ; national women 's law center ; paper , allied-industrial , chemical and energy workers international union ; paralyzed veterans of america . 
people for the american way ; pride at work , afl-cio ; service employees international union ; transport workers union of america ; transportation communications international union ; uaw ; unitarian universalist association of congregations ; unite ! 
; united cerebral palsy ; united food and commercial workers international union ; united steelworkers of america ; utility worker union of america ; and women employed . 
february 7 , 2005 . 
dear senator : our organizations are opposed to the sweepingly-drawn and misleadingly named `` class action fairness act of 2005. '' this bill is patently unfair to citizens harmed by toxic spills , contaminated drinking water , polluted air and other environmental hazards involved in class action cases based on state environmental or public health laws . 
s. 5 would allow corporate defendants in many pollution class actions and `` mass tort '' environmental cases to remove these kinds of state environmental matters from state court to federal court , placing the cases in a forum that could be more costly , more time-consuming , and disadvantageous to your constituents harmed by toxic pollution . 
state law environmental harm cases do not belong in this legislation and we urge you to exclude such pollution cases from the class action bill . 
class actions protect the public 's health and the environment by allowing people with similar injuries to join together for more efficient and cost-effective adjudication of their cases . 
all too often , hazardous spills , water pollution , or other toxic contamination from a single source affects large numbers of people , not all of whom may be citizens or residents of the same state as that of the defendants who caused the harm . 
in such cases , a class action lawsuit in state court based on state common law doctrines of negligence , nuisance or trespass , or upon rights and duties created by state statutes in the state where the injuries occur , is often the best way of fairly resolving these claims . 
for example , thousands of families around the country are now suffering because of widespread groundwater contamination caused by the gasoline additive mtbe , which the u.s. government considers a potential human carcinogen . 
according to a may , 2002 gao report , 35 states reported that they find mtbe in groundwater at least 20 percent of the time they sample for it , and 24 states said that they find it at least 60 percent of the time . 
some communities and individuals have brought or soon will bring suits to recover damages for mtbe contamination and hold the polluters accountable , but under this bill , mtbe class actions or `` mass actions '' based on state law could be removed to federal court by the oil and gas companies in many of these cases . 
this could not only make these cases more expensive , more time-consuming and more difficult for injured parties , but could also result in the dismissal of legitimate cases by federal judges who are unfamiliar with , or less respectful of , state-law claims . 
for example , in at least one mtbe class action , a federal court dismissed the case based on oil companies ' claims that the action was barred by the federal clean air act ( even though that law contains no tort liability waiver for mtbe ) . 
yet a california state court rejected a similar federal preemption argument and let the case go to . 
a jury , which found oil refineries , fuel distributors , and others liable for damages . 
these cases highlight how a state court may be more willing to uphold legitimate state law claims . 
other examples of state-law cases that would be weakened by this bill include lead contamination cases , mercury contamination , perchlorate pollution and other `` toxic tort '' cases . 
in a letter to the senate last year , the u.s. judicial conference expressed their continued opposition to such broadly written class action removal legislation . 
notably , their letter states that , even if congress determines that some `` significant multi-state class actions '' should be brought within the removal jurisdiction of the federal courts , congress should include certain limitations and exceptions , including for class actions `` in which plaintiff class members suffered personal injury or personal property damage within the state , as in the case of a serious environmental disaster. '' the judicial conference 's letter explains that this `` environmental harm '' exception should apply `` to all individuals who suffered personal injuries or losses to physical property , whether or not they were citizens of the state in question. '' we agree with the judicial conference that cases involving environmental harm are not even close to the type of cases that proponents of s. 5 cite when they call for reforms to the class action system . 
including such cases in the bill penalizes injured parties in those cases for no reason other than to benefit the polluters . 
no rationale has been offered by the bill 's supporters for including environmental cases in s. 5 's provisions . 
we are unaware of any examples offered by bill supporters of environmental harm cases that represent alleged abuses of the state class actions . 
more proof of the overreaching of this bill is that the so-called `` class action fairness act '' is not even limited to class action cases . 
the bill contains a provision that would allow defendants to remove to federal court all environmental `` mass action '' cases involving more than 100 people -- even though these cases are not even filed as class actions . 
for example , the bill would apply to cases similar to the recently concluded state-court trial in anniston , alabama , where a jury awarded damages to be paid by monsanto and solutia for injuring more than 3 , 500 people that the jury -- found had been exposed over many years -- with the companies ' knowledge -- to cancer-causing pcbs . 
there is little doubt in the anniston case that , had s. 5 been law , the defendants would have tried to remove the case from the state court that serves the community that suffered this devastating harm . 
even in the best-case scenario , s. 5 would put plaintiffs like those in anniston in the position of having to fight costly and time-consuming court battles in order to preserve their chosen forum for litigating their claims . 
in any case , it would reward the kind of reckless corporate misbehavior demonstrated by monsanto and solutia by giving defendants in such cases the right to remove state-law cases to federal court over the objections of those they have injured . 
the so-called `` class action fairness act '' would allow corporate polluters who harm the public 's health and welfare to exploit the availability of a federal forum whenever they perceive an advantage to doing so . 
it is nothing more than an attempt to take legitimate state-court claims by injured parties out of state court at the whim of those who have committed the injury . 
cases involving environmental harm and injury to the public from toxic exposure should not be subject to the bill 's provisions ; if these environmental harm cases are not excluded , we strongly urge you to vote against s. 5 . 
sincerely , s. elizabeth birnbaum , vice president for government affairs , american rivers . 
doug kendall , executive director , community rights counsel . 
mary beth beetham , director of legislative affairs , defenders of wildlife . 
sara zdeb , legislative director , friends of the earth . 
anne georges , acting director of public policy , national audubon society . 
karen wayland , legislative director , natural resources defense council . 
tom z. collina , executive director , 20/20 vision . 
linda lance , vice president for public policy , the wilderness society . 
paul schwartz , national campaigns director , clean water action . 
james cox , legislative counsel , earthjustice . 
ken cook , executive director , environmental working group . 
rick hind , legislative director , toxics campaign , greenpeace us . 
kevin s. curtis , vice president , national environmental trust . 
ed hopkins , director , environmental quality programs , sierra club . 
julia hathaway , legislative director , the ocean conservancy . 
anna aurilio , legislative director , u.s. public interest research group . 
of attorneys general , washington , dc , february 7 , 2005 . 
dear senate majority leader frist and senate minority leader reid : we , the undersigned state attorneys general , write to express our concern regarding one limited aspect of pending senate bill 5 , the `` class action fairness act , '' or any similar legislation . 
we take no position on the act as a general matter and , indeed , there are differing views among us on the policy judgments reflected in the act . 
we join together , however , in a bipartisan request for support of senator mark pryor 's potential amendment to s. 5 , or any similar legislation , clarifying that the act does not apply to , and would have no effect on , actions brought by any state attorney general on behalf of his or her respective state or its citizens . 
as attorneys general , we frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to our citizens . 
these cases are usually brought pursuant to the attorney general 's parens patriae authority under our respective consumer protection and antitrust statutes . 
in some instances , such actions have been brought with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the state . 
it is our concern that certain provisions of s. 5 might be misinterpreted to hamper the ability of the attorneys general to bring such actions , thereby impeding one means of protecting our citizens from unlawful activity and its resulting harm . 
the attorneys general have been very successful in litigation initiated to protect the rights of our consumers . 
for example , in the pharmaceutical industry , the states have recently brought enforcement actions on behalf of consumers against large , often foreign-owned , drug companies for overcharges and market manipulations that illegally raised the costs of certain prescription drugs . 
such cases have resulted in recoveries of approximately 235 million dollars , the majority of which is earmarked for consumer restitution . 
in several instances , the states ' recoveries provided one hundred percent reimbursement directly to individual consumers of the overcharges they suffered as a result of the illegal activities of the defendants . 
this often meant several hundred dollars going back into the pockets of those consumers who can least afford to be victimized by illegal trade practices , senior citizens living on fixed incomes and the working poor who can not afford insurance . 
we encourage you to support the aforementioned amendment exempting all actions brought by state attorneys general from the provisions of s. 5 , or any similar legislation . 
it is important to all of our constituents , but especially to the poor , elderly and disabled , that the provisions of the act not be misconstrued and that we maintain the enforcement authority needed to protect them from illegal practices . 
we respectfully submit that the overall purposes of the legislation would not be impaired by such an amendment that merely clarifies the existing authority of our respective states . 
thank you for your consideration of this very important matter . 
please contact any of us if you have questions or comments . 
sincerely , mike beebee , attorney general , arkansas . 
gregg renkes , attorney general , alaska . 
mark shurtleff , attorney general , utah . 
fiti sunia , attorney general , american samoa . 
terry goddard , attorney general , arizona . 
john suthers , attorney general , colorado . 
jane brady , attorney general , delaware . 
charlie crist , attorney general , florida . 
mark bennett , attorney general , hawaii . 
stephen carter , attorney general , indiana . 
bill lockyer , attorney general , california . 
richard blumenthal , attorney general , connecticut . 
robert spagnoletti , attorney general , district of columbia . 
thurbert baker , attorney general , georgia . 
lawrence wasden , attorney general , idaho . 
tom miller , attorney general , iowa . 
greg stumbo , attorney general , kentucky . 
steven rowe , attorney general , maine . 
tom reilly , attorney general , massachusetts . 
mike hatch , attorney general , minnesota . 
jay nixon , attorney general , missouri . 
jon bruning , attorney general , nebraska . 
kelly ayotte , attorney general , new hampshire . 
charles foti , attorney general , louisiana . 
joseph curran , attorney general , maryland . 
mike cox , attorney general , michigan . 
jim hood , attorney general , mississippi . 
mike mcgrath , attorney general , montana . 
brian sandoval , attorney general , nevada . 
peter harvey , attorney general , new jersey . 
eliot spitzer , attorney general , new york . 
wayne stenehjem , attorney general , north dakota . 
jim petro , attorney general , ohio . 
hardy myers , attorney general , oregon . 
roberto sanchez ramos , attorney general , puerto rico . 
henry mcmaster , attorney general , south carolina . 
roy cooper , attorney general , north carolina . 
pamela brown , attorney general , n. mariana islands . 
w.a . 
drew edmondson , attorney general , oklahoma . 
tom corbett , attorney general , pennsylvania . 
patrick lynch , attorney general , rhode island . 
lawrence long , attorney general , south dakota . 
paul summers , attorney general , tennesse . 
darrell mcgraw , attorney general , west virginia . 
patrick crank , attorney general , wyoming . 
rob mckenna , attorney general , washington . 
peg lautenschlager , attorney general , wisconsin . 
mr. speaker , i urge my colleagues to seriously consider the excellent presentations made on our side of the aisle and vote against the measure that is before us today . 
mr. speaker , i yield back the balance of my time . 
