mr. speaker , i am always amazed to hear the remarks of my colleagues , and i welcome those remarks , because it is well-known that free and open debate lies at the very heart of the democratic process . 
but i wonder if we rephrased the terminology `` greedy lawyers '' and made the american people truly understand what the give and take of the judicial process is all about . 
i wonder , if we said the lawyers that represented the 9/11 families could be considered greedy lawyers , thousands who lost loved ones , and their engagement in seeking to have redress of their grievances done in a class-action manner , is that evidence of greedy lawyers ? 
or maybe the thalidomide families , babies who were born deformed in the 1950s and class actions were utilized , is that a signal of greedy lawyers ? 
frankly , mr. speaker , what we have here is a complete abuse of the democratic process . 
why do we not think about a situation where you are a college student enrolled in a world history class , you enter the first day and the professor says , welcome , it is now time to take the final exam . 
no discussion , no notes , no teaching , no nothing . 
this is what this rule represents . 
it is to walk on this floor and take the final exam . 
it is to close the door of the opportunity for the american people to go into the courthouse and to have a jury of their peers decide whether or not , as a collective class , they have been injured . 
if my friends would tell the truth , they would know that plaintiffs prevail in such a small percentage of times all over america that this is ridiculous and ludicrous legislation . 
they would also refer you to the cato institute in 1983 when they talked about attacking liberal legal opportunities , or liberal bills . 
they said , this is guerilla warfare . 
we are going after tort litigation , we are going after social security , we are going after medicare . 
guerilla warfare . 
the reason why this is guerilla warfare is because we have a process , mr. speaker . 
these actions come to our committee , the committee on the judiciary and a number of other committees ; we have opportunity for amendment , give and take , hearings . 
this legislation has seen no light of day in any committee . 
it did not see the light of day on the senate side , no hearings , no markup ; it did not see the light of day on the house side , no hearings , no markup . 
so the american people are being fooled by the fact that they think we are doing business as the constitution would want us to do , that we are open to the rules of this house , that we understand that we must have the oversight of this house . 
and frankly , mr. speaker , shame on us , for we are shaming the process , and the american people should rightly be ashamed of this and of us . 
i ask my republicans , we know you have the overwhelming majority , you have the two-thirds , in essence , you have the bully pulpit , and you use it . 
but the bad thing about it is that you are using it to overwhelm the rules of this house . 
mr. speaker , you are literally ignoring the rules of the house . 
and some people would say to me , congresswoman jackson-lee , this is inside the ball game , inside the ballpark , inside the beltway . 
the american people are not interested in process . 
i believe they are . 
because the american people know about school boards and process , they know about the parent-teacher meetings and process , they know about their places of faith and process , and they know that process is to be respected . 
here in this house we are not respecting process . 
i argue that the one amendment that we have as the manager 's amendment should be the amendment that should be accepted , and that is the one that includes the idea of protecting civil rights and wage-and-hour carve-outs and prohibits those companies that have formulated their companies in another country , united states companies incorporated elsewhere , in order to be able to participate in this abusive process . 
let me read what the new york times said . 
`` instead of narrowly focusing on real abuses of the system , the measure that is before us today reconfigures the civil justice system to achieve a significant rollback of corporate accountability and people 's rights . 
the main impact of the bill , which has a sort of propagandistic title normally assigned to such laws as the class action fairness act will be to funnel nearly all major class-action lawsuits out of state courts and into all overburdened federal courts . 
that will inevitably make it harder for americans to pursue legitimate claims successfully against companies that violate state consumer , health , civil rights , and environmental protection laws. '' mr. and mrs. america , let me tell you something . 
when this legislation passes on the republican clock , i am going to tell you that the doors of the courthouse will be closed to you ; and if you have johnny jones , the country lawyer , trying to bring justice to rural america , johnny jones will have to take his small-time practice and mortgage his house to get into the federal court . 
and not only that , you might get there 50 years from the time that action occurs . 
this is the greatest abomination and insult to justice that i have ever seen . 
it is an outrage , and i ask my colleagues to vote down the rule , vote for the democratic substitute , and put this terrible bill where it needs to go , packing out of the door . 
mr. speaker , free and open debate lies at the heart of the democratic process . 
without it , true democracy will surely wither away to nothing . 
it is in this light that i rise to support h. res. 96 -- only insofar as it allows consideration of the democratic substitute that was ruled in order by the committee on rules and offered by the distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee , mr. conyers . 
we should have an open rule on this important issue , however . 
for real and honest debate to take place on such an important issue as defining diversity jurisdiction in the federal courts for class actions , we must have available an alternate option to s. 5 , the legislation that is before the committee of the whole house . 
the democratic substitute creates that option . 
i congratulate the rules committee for their foresight in enabling this open debate . 
this bill , despite its name , is not fair to all complainants who come to the courts for relief . 
in addition , it fails to render accountability to parties who are in the best financial position . 
one issue that i planned to address by way of amendment was that of punishing fraudulent parties to class action proceedings by preventing them from removing the matter to federal court . 
i am a co-sponsor of the amendment in nature of a substitute that will be offered by my colleagues . 
with the provisions that it contains , requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction will not be watered down resulting in the removal of nearly all class actions to federal court . 
a wholesale stripping of jurisdiction from the state courts should not be supported by this body . 
therefore , it needs to be made more stringent as to all parties and it needs to contain provisions to protect all claimants and their right to bring suit . 
contained within the amendment in nature of a substitute is a section that i proposed in the context of the terrorist penalties enhancement act that was included in the bill passed into law . 
this section relates to holding `` benedict arnold corporations '' accountable for their terrorist acts . 
with respect to s. 5 , the right to seek removal to federal courts will be precluded for benedict arnold corporations . 
the `` benedict arnold corporation '' refers to a company that , in bad faith , takes advantage of loopholes in our tax code to establish bank accounts or to ship jobs abroad for the main purpose of tax avoidance . 
a tax-exempt group that monitors corporate influence called `` citizen works '' has compiled a list of 25 fortune 500 corporations that have the most offshore tax-haven subsidiaries . 
the percentage of increase in the number of tax havens held by these corporations since 1997 ranges between 85.7 percent and 9 , 650 percent . 
this significant increase in the number of corporate tax havens is no coincidence when we look at the benefits that can be found in doing sham business transactions . 
some of these corporations are `` benedict arnolds '' because they have given up their american citizenship ; however , they still conduct a substantial amount of their business in the united states and enjoy tax deductions of domestic corporations . 
the provision in the substitute amendment will preclude these corporations from enjoying the benefit of removing state class actions to federal court . 
forcing these corporate entities to defend themselves in state courts will ensure that these class action claims will be fairly and fully litigated . 
i support the amendment in nature of a substitute . 
