mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for his excellent work on this very important piece of legislation . 
i rise in opposition to this rule and i rise in opposition to the underlying legislation . 
in the 1960s , president kennedy used to say , `` ask not what your country can do for you , but what you can do for your country. '' today , republican leaders in washington have issued a new challenge : `` ask not what your country can do for you , but what you can do for the country club. '' that is what this bill is all about . 
it is protecting the country club members from the responsibility for the harm which they potentially inflict from their corporate perspectives on ordinary citizens within our society . 
the class-action bill is part of an overall strategy which the republican party has put in place in order to harm consumers all across our country , to repeal the protections that have been placed upon the books for two generations that ensure that the individual in our society is given the protection which they need . 
here is their strategy . 
it is a simple , four-part strategy . 
number one , first is the `` borrow and spend '' strategy . 
that is all part of this idea that paul o'neill mentioned , the former secretary of treasury for george bush , when he said that dick cheney said to him , `` reagan proved that deficits do n't matter. '' of course , the reason they do not matter is that , as grover norquist has pointed out quite clearly , the architect of this republican strategy , the key goal has to be to starve the beast ; the beast , of course , being the federal government 's ability to help ordinary people , to help ordinary citizens , to help ordinary consumers in our country when they are being harmed . 
so this idea that there is less and less money then starves the federal agencies given the responsibility for protecting the public , the federal drug administration , the consumer product safety commission ; agency after agency left with not enough resources to protect the consumer , which they were intended to do . 
secondly , there is the grim reaper of regulatory relief , where the office of management and budget inside of the bush administration ensures that any regulation that is meant to protect the consumer is tied up in endless rounds of peer review and cost-benefit analysis , weighing the lives of ordinary consumers against the money that corporations might have to spend in order to make sure that their products are not defective , that they do not harm ordinary citizens across our country . 
then there is stage three , the fox in the hen house . 
this is where the bush administration then appoints somebody from the industry that is meant to be regulated as the head of the agency , knowing that that individual has no likelihood of actually putting on the books the kinds of protections which are needed . 
then , finally , after the federal government is not capable of really protecting ordinary citizens , their safety , their health , then what they say to the citizen is , by the way , now we are going to make it almost impossible for you to go to court to protect yourself , to bring a case . 
that is what this bill is all about , that final step . 
you can not even as an individual partner with other people to go to court . 
and here is what it says . 
it says that all of these cases are going to federal court , unless a significant defendant is in fact a citizen of the state . 
well , think about this . 
let us go to new hampshire . 
new hampshire is a perfect example . 
new hampshire has a suit which it has brought against 22 oil and chemical companies because of the pollution in the state 's waterways with mtbe , a deadly , dangerous material which has harmed people all across our country , but new hampshire is the best example . 
under this new law , because the principal defendant in the case is amerada hess and because it is headquartered in new york and it is the principal defendant , not only amerada hess but the other 22 companies , not only is amerada hess , this big company , and the other 22 companies who have arrived in new hampshire , polluting the state , given the relief of not having the case be held in the state of new hampshire , with new hampshire judges and new hampshire citizens , instead it is removed to the federal court , so the republicans can name judges who they know are going to be sympathetic to the companies , not the state of new hampshire , not their judges , not their people . 
that is what this is all about . 
it is making sure that ordinary citizens in new hampshire , whose families have been harmed , whose health is permanently ruined , can not bring a case against large corporations . 
who gets the benefit of this ? 
the defendant . 
the defendant . 
they come in from out-of-state , they pollute , they harm , they ruin the lives of people , and then the defendant says , `` i do n't want to be tried in new hampshire . 
i do n't want to be tried in texas . 
i do n't want to be tried in that state . 
i want to go some other place. '' what about the plaintiffs ? 
what about the people who have been harmed ? 
what about the mothers ? 
what about the children ? 
what about the people who have lost their health ? 
this is the final nail that the republicans are putting in the coffin of the rights of ordinary citizens to be able to protect themselves . 
all of these cases should be brought in the state courts where the large corporation caused the harm , not in a federal court away from the closest people who know what is right and wrong inside of that state . 
mr. speaker , vote no on this critical bill . 
vote no on the rule . 
vote to protect the consumers , the families , the children , the seniors in our country who the republicans are going to allow to be jeopardized by moving the cases from where they live to places where the defendants , the largest corporations , will be able to protect their own selfish self-interests . 
