On the recordMarch 9, 2017
Mr. Chairman, the Soto amendment is an excellent amendment and I can't see why anybody would oppose it. I can't see, in the first instance, why anyone would want to keep the people's cases out of the people's courts in their own States. It seems as if there is a move somewhere in this Congress that is so intent on protecting polluters and the manufacturers of auto defects that they are willing to trample our basic principles of federalism and invade the proper province of the courts. The Soto amendment would exempt from this bill all cases in which the plaintiff seeks compensation for public health risks like fracking or any other kind of water contamination. Water contamination is devastating to our communities regardless of the source, as demonstrated by the ongoing Flint water crisis in Michigan. This bill makes it easier for large corporations to remove State law claims to Federal court, where they think they have got a better chance of beating the claims of the small guy. The Soto amendment at least would carve out cases where there are public health risks at stake, such as those caused by fracking, which has been proven to generate earthquakes, well contamination, and the poisoning of local water supplies.





