Mr. Chairman, let me make no bones about it. I oppose this bill, and I believe that the premise of this bill is so fundamentally flawed that I do not believe this is a bill that can be fixed with amendments.

Let’s start with that premise, which is two-fold: that class actions filed in state courts are rife with abuses and that these abuses can and will be cured by substituting a federal, for a state, decisionmaker.

In my view, the proponents of this legislation have failed to make the case that there are systemic problems with the way state courts handle class actions brought under state law. At most, we have heard only anecdotal stories about isolated problems that are already being addressed by state courts and state legislatures. The handful of difficulties in Alabama that are frequently cited have been dealt with by that state’s Supreme Court and state legislature.

More importantly, however, to the extent that there are occasional abuses in the class action process, nothing in this bill would solve that problem. I cannot understand what purpose would be served by shipping all these class actions that involve issues of state law to federal courts. There is no evidence that federal judges will be any more adept at ensuring fair class action settlements than their state counterparts. Indeed, some of the very instances of allegedly collusive or corrupt class action settlements that are cited—such as the airline antitrust litigation coupon settlement—were approved by federal, not state, courts.

It is extremely troubling for Congress—both as a matter of policy and as a matter of constitutional law—to deny citizens access to their own state courts to pursue remedies offered under their own state laws. This bill would fundamentally undercut the state courts’ ability to manage their own court systems and consistently interpret their own state law. The consequences are especially serious in cases that are on the “cutting edge” where state, not federal, judges are in the best position to gauge which remedies may be appropriate under state law.

The bill will effectively eliminate state class actions—and let me say that the carve-outs in this bill for class actions with fewer than 100 members; for classes where most of the parties and the claims involve only one state; and for corporate governance disputes will exempt only a negligible number of class actions from the bill’s sweeping scope. And if we effectively eliminate state class actions, it is far less likely that class actions will be brought, far less likely that corporations will be deterred from taking action contrary to the public interest, and far less likely that businesses will redress injuries their products have inflicted. Consumers will suffer the consequences.

Let me repeat: consumers will suffer the consequences. Because in my view, the most important function that class actions serve is to allow private attorneys general to step forward and hold corporations accountable for decisions that affect the public safety. And knowing that private individuals have that ability to marshal collective action to hold them accountable, corporations become much better citizens, making the right decisions that enable them to avoid litigation in the first place. If we undermine the class action as an effective tool of accountability, we undermine the public safety. It is that simple.

For a body allegedly concerned with principles of federalism, especially in the wake of a string of Supreme Court decisions holding that various acts of Congress have infringed on state sovereignty, it is almost bizarre—not to mention bad public policy—for Congress to step in now and federalize virtually all class actions. And this is not a matter of the federal government providing a backstop to state action, as with Senator Kennedy’s hate crimes bill we passed the other day. With the new diversity and removal provisions in place, virtually all class actions will be brought in or removed to federal court.

I also find it ironic that we, in the Congress, have developed this new-found reluctance to entrust state judges with the administration of class actions proceeding under state law when we are only too willing to tout the competency of state judges to make life and death decisions on federal issues before a prisoner may bring a habeas corpus petition in federal court.

What’s more, this bill, if enacted, will overwhelm the federal court dockets. Class actions are extremely complex and time-consuming. To remove them from the state to the federal courts will without doubt substantially increase the federal court workload—at a time when the Chief Justice has repeatedly urged that Congress do more to contract, not expand, federal jurisdiction. Civil cases, most likely these new federal class actions, will encounter extraordinary docket delays, likely years’ long, particularly since the Speedy Trial Act rightly requires that federal courts dispose of their criminal dockets first.

This remarkable expansion of federal jurisdiction comes at a time when we have 63 vacancies on the federal bench, and when the Judicial Conference of the United States has requested that we add 63 new judgeships to accommodate the federal bench’s already expanded caseload. We have not created any new judgeships since 1990, when I was chair of this committee.

For all these reasons, it is hardly surprising that the Administration, federal judges, state judges, and consumer groups all strongly oppose this bill.