Mark Udall: “the House has considered similar legislation in 1999, 2002, and 2003. On each of those occasions, I voted ``no''--not…”

“the House has considered similar legislation in 1999, 2002, and 2003. On each of those occasions, I voted ``no''--not because I was unalterably opposed to Congress acting on this subject, but because in my judgment the defects of those bills outweighed their potential benefits. When it was announced that this bill would be considered, I hoped that the pattern would be broken and that this time I would be able to support the legislation. And if the Conyers substitute had been adopted, that would have been the case. Adoption of the substitute would have greatly improved the legislation. It would have reaffirmed the authority and ability of each State's Attorney General to carry out his or her duties under State law. It would have made sure that the bill would not prejudice people with complaints about violations of their civil rights. It would have properly focused the legislation on class actions unrelated to personal injuries. It would have added important protections for the public's right to know about the proceedings in our courts. And it would have made other changes that would have improved the bill. Unfortunately, the substitute was not adopted--and I have come to the reluctant conclusion that I must vote against the bill. That conclusion is reluctant because in several ways this bill is better--or, more accurately, less bad--than its predecessors. Unlike earlier versions, S. 5 would not have a retroactive effect, so it would not affect pending cases.”