Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

June 28, 2000

I would like to begin my remarks by thanking all of our witnesses for coming today, especially those of you who were taken prisoner during the Second World War. All Americans should honor your sacrifice, and should be made aware of the inhuman conditions you were forced to endure. For that reason alone, I think it is valuable that we have this hearing today.

I am very sympathetic to the claims being advanced by the former prisoners of war appearing before us today. They were treated with utter contempt and in violation of the laws of war. Having said that, I am aware that the litigation raises complex issues involving our foreign policy powers and obligations that our courts are in the process of resolving. As such, it would be inappropriate for me or for this Committee to prejudge the merits of those legal issues. So I will simply say that you have my sympathy and my attention.

I do fear that the majority's concern about this litigation does not extend to litigation brought by other Americans looking to redress wrongs through our States' civil justice systems. We hold this hearing in the midst of our Committee's consideration of the so-called Class Action Fairness Act, which would drastically reduce plaintiffs' access to State courts, instead forcing them into federal court. It is therefore somewhat surprising that the majority has called representatives of the Justice and State Departments here this morning to answer for their legal opinion that the plaintiffs in these prisoner of war lawsuits belong not in State courts but in federal court.

I also find it somewhat ironic that we are holding this hearing so soon after the majority fought so hard against the nomination of Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of Judge Paez's most influential detractors, based its opposition to Judge Paez solely on a preliminary ruling he authored in the case of John Doe I v. Unocal. In that ruling, Judge Paez merely turned down Unocal's motion to dismiss a case brought against it based on its activities in Burma, a notorious abuser of human rights. Even this early ruling – which still left open the possibility that Unocal would win summary judgment in the case – was seen as too "anti-business" and "pro-human rights" by the same majority that today holds this hearing to show support for the litigation brought by plaintiffs protesting human rights abuses by Japanese corporations.

As legitimate as these concerns are, however, I do not believe that they should overshadow the testimony and the experiences of the witnesses who are here before us today. I simply hope that we show consistent solicitude for others who seek access to our courts.