mr. speaker , i include for the record a letter signed by 14 attorneys general , including darrell mcgraw , the attorney general of the state of west virginia , in opposition to this bill . 
state of new york , office of the attorney general , albany , ny , february 7 , 2005 . 
dear mr . 
majority leader and mr . 
minority leader : on behalf of the attorneys general of california , illinois , iowa , kentucky , maine , maryland , massachusetts , minnesota , new jersey , new mexico , new york , oklahoma , oregon , vermont and west virginia , we are writing in opposition to s. 5 , the so-called `` class action fairness act , '' which will be debated today and is scheduled to be voted on this week . 
despite improvements over similar legislation considered in prior years , we believe s. 5 still unduly limits the right of individuals to seek redress for corporate wrongdoing in their state courts . 
we therefore strongly recommend that this legislation not be enacted in its present form . 
as you know , under s. 5 , almost all class actions brought by private individuals in state court based on state law claims would be removed to federal court , and , as explained below , many of these cases may not be able to continue as class actions . 
we are concerned with such a limitation on the availability of the class action device because , particularly in these times of tightening state budgets , class actions provide an important `` private attorney general '' supplement to the efforts of state attorneys general to prosecute violations of state consumer protection , civil rights , labor , public health and environmental laws . 
we recognize that some class action lawsuits in both state and federal courts have resulted in only minimal benefits to class members , despite the award of substantial attorneys ' fees . 
while we support targeted efforts to prevent such abuses and preserve the integrity of the class action mechanism , we believe s. 5 goes too far . 
by fundamentally altering the basic principles of federalism , s. 5 , if enacted in its present form , would result in far greater harm than good . 
it therefore is not surprising that organizations such as aarp , afl-cio , consumer federation of america , consumers union , leadership conference on civil rights , naacp and public citizen all oppose this legislation in its present form . 
1 . 
class actions should not be `` federalized '' s. 5 would vastly expand federal diversity jurisdiction , and thereby would result in most class actions being filed in or removed to federal court . 
this transfer of jurisdiction in cases raising questions of state law will inappropriately usurp the primary role of state courts in developing their own state tort and contract laws , and will impair their ability to establish consistent interpretations of those laws . 
there is no compelling need or empirical support for such a sweeping change in our long-established system for adjudicating state law issues . 
in fact , by transferring most state court class actions to an already overburdened federal court system , this bill will delay ( if not deny ) justice to substantial numbers of injured citizens . 
moreover , s. 5 is fundamentally 2 . 
clarification is needed that s. 5 does not apply to state attorney general actions state attorneys general frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to our citizens , usually pursuant to the attorney general 's parens patriae authority under our respective state 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 . 
we are concerned that certain provisions of s. 5 might be misinterpreted to impede the ability of the attorneys general to bring such actions , thereby interfering with one means of protecting our citizens from unlawful activity and its resulting harm . 
that attorney general enforcement actions should proceed unimpeded is important to all our constituents , but most significantly to our senior citizens living on 3 . 
many multi-state class actions cannot be brought in federal court another significant problem with s. 5 is that many federal courts have refused to certify multi-state class actions because the court would be required to apply the laws of different jurisdictions to different plaintiffs -- even if the laws of those jurisdictions are very similar . 
thus , cases commenced as state class actions and then removed to federal court may not be able to be continued as class actions in federal court . 
in theory , injured plaintiffs in each state could bring a separate class action lawsuit in federal court , but that defeats one of the main purposes of class actions , which is to conserve judicial resources . 
moreover , while the population of some states may be large enough to warrant a separate class action involving only residents of those states , it is very unlikely tbat similar lawsuits will be brought on behalf of the residents of many smaller states . 
this problem should be addressed by allowing federal courts to certify nationwide class actions to the full extent of their constitutional power -- either by applying one state 's law with sufficient ties to the underlying claims in the case , or by ensuring that a federal judge does not deny certification on the sole ground that the laws of more than one state would apply to the action . 
we understand that senator jeff bingaman will be proposing an amendment to address this problem , and that amendment should be adopted . 
4 . 
civil rights and labor cases should be exempted proponents of s. 5 point to allegedly `` collusive '' consumer class action settlements in which plaintiffs ' attorneys received substantial fee awards , while the class members merely received `` coupons '' towards the purchase of other goods sold by defendants . 
accordingly , this `` reform '' should apply only to consumer class actions . 
class action treatment provides a particularly important mechanism for adjudicating the claims of low-wage workers and victims of discrimination , and there is no apparent need to place limitations on these types of actions . 
senator kennedy reportedly will offer an amendment on this issue , which also should be adopted . 
5 . 
the notification provisions are misguided s. 5 requires that federal and state regulators , and in many cases state attorneys general , be notified of proposed class action settlements , and be provided with copies of the complaint , class notice , proposed settlement and other materials . 
apparently this provision is intended to protect against `` collusive '' settlements between defendants and plaintiffs ' counsel , but those materials would be unlikely to reveal evidence of collusion , and thus would provide little or no basis for objecting to the settlement . 
without clear authority in the legislation to more closely examine defendants on issues bearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement ( particularly out-of-state defendants over whom subpoena authority may in some circumstances be limited ) , the notification provision equal access to the american system of justice is a foundation of our democracy . 
s. 5 would effect a sweeping reordering of our nation 's system of justice that will disenfranchise individual citizens from obtaining redress for harm , and thereby impede efforts against egregious corporate wrongdoing . 
although we ful1y support the goal of preventing abusive class action settlements , and would be willing to provide assistance in your effort to implement necessary reforms , we are likewise committed to maintaining our federal system of justice and safeguarding the interests of the public . 
for these reasons , we oppose s. 5 in its present form . 
sincerely , mr. speaker , i yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. markey ) xz4002530 , the dean of our delegation . 
