Melvin Watt: “the section that the motion to recommit would strike is section 3(b) of the bill, which reads as follows: ``A qualified…”

“the section that the motion to recommit would strike is section 3(b) of the bill, which reads as follows: ``A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of the enactment of this act shall be dismissed immediately by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.'' The effect of that language is to make this bill not only applicable to what happens from today forward or from the passage and enactment of the bill forward, but to make it have retrospective impact. We estimate that there are upwards of 300 pending lawsuits in various stages throughout the country. Those lawsuits were filed by plaintiffs thinking that the state of the law was as it existed prior to this bill being enacted, if in fact it is. So the effect of the bill would be to an ex post facto law, which we think would make the bill unconstitutional; but even if it did not make it unconstitutional, would certainly make it unfair to people who have filed their lawsuits in court and, in some cases, have proceeded with trial.”