mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  let me close by saying , this bill is not about lawyers .  it is about people , and it is about state governments and attorney generals being able to pass laws in their own states to better protect their people .  and it is ironic and it is almost kind of laughable that the majority , which has made it a point to argue on behalf of states right , is basically turning its back on what states have done to protect their people .  the previous speaker talked about making sure that the plaintiffs got what they deserved .  well , we are concerned about making sure that the plaintiffs get their day in court .  and under this bill it makes it more difficult , especially for low-wage workers , for people who are battling discrimination to be able to have their day in court .  the system clearly can be improved .  nobody is arguing that .  what i am saying here is that the bill before us does not provide the justice and the fairness that i think is appropriate .  so i would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill .  of state legislatures , february 2 , 2005 .  dear senator : on behalf of the national conference of state legislatures ( ncsl ) , i am urging you to oppose passage of s. 5 , the `` class action fairness act of 2005. '' this legislation will federalize class actions involving only state law claims .  s. 5 undermines our system of federalism , disrespects our state court system , and clearly preempts carefully crafted state judicial processes which have been in place for decades regarding the treatment of class action lawsuits .  the overall tenor of s. 5 sends a disturbing message to the american people that state court systems are somehow inferior or untrustworthy .  s. 5 amends the federal rules of civil procedure to grant federal district courts original diversity jurisdiction over any class action lawsuit where the amount in controversy exceeds $ 5 , 000 , 000 or where any plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than any defendant , or in other words , any class action lawsuit .  the effect of s. 5 on state legislatures is that state laws in the areas of consumer protection and antitrust which were passed to protect the citizens of a particular state against fraudulent or illegal activities will almost never be heard in state courts .  ironically , state courts , whose sole purpose is to interpret state laws , will be bypassed and the federal judiciary will be asked to render judgment in these cases .  the impact of s. 5 is that state processes will be preempted by federal ones which are n't necessarily better .  ncsl opposes the passage of federal legislation , such as s. 5 which preempts established state authority .  state courts have traditionally and correcdy been the repository for most class action lawsuits because state laws , not federal ones , are at issue .  congress should proceed cautiously before permitting the federal government to interfere with the authority of states to set their own laws and procedures in their own courts .  ncsl urges congress to remember that state policy choices should not be overridden without a showing of compelling national need .  we should await evidence demonstrating that states have broadly overreached or are unable to address the problems themselves .  there must be evidence of harm to interests of national scope that require a federal response , and even with such evidence , federal preemption should be limited to remedying specific problems with tailored solutions , something that s. 5 does not do .  i urge you to oppose this legislation .  please contact susan parnas frederickat the national conference of statelegislatures at 202-624-3566 or susan.frederick @ ncsl.org for further information .  sincerely , new york state senator ; and chair , 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 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 u.s. 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 .  