mr. speaker , i rise in support of the substitute . 
one of the problems with the substitute is you have to debate all of the different issues all at once . 
if we had the opportunity to introduce individual amendments , we could have discussed them one at a time and had a much more coherent discussion . 
as it has been said , the underlying bill does not extinguish the right to get to court but it does gratuitously complicate the litigation . 
it does not fix coupons , it just moves them from state court to federal courts . 
it adds procedural hurdles , and this substitute removes many of those hurdles . 
the main thing it does is it carves out many of the different cases that belong in state court or at least ought to have the opportunity in the state court . 
it also fixes the yo-yo effect where you start off in state court , get removed to federal court , federal court does not certify the class , and then what happens ? 
i guess you come back to state court or , i do not know , you might not be able to get back to state court . 
you may end up in a procedural trap where you have lost your case just in the time it takes to get over there and try to get back . 
this amendment fixes that quagmire . 
it also carves out , as has been said , the state civil rights cases where some states have civil rights laws that are stronger and cover different people , different classes than the federal laws . 
wage and hour laws , some states have better laws than the federal court . 
mass torts where you have not class actions per se , but a lot of different litigants all in the same state . 
it fixes the problem with attorneys general in bringing a case in state court on behalf of not only members of their state , but if the injury has occurred to a lot of other people , the attorney general might want to bring that case . 
i have a letter , mr. speaker , signed on this specific issue by 47 attorneys general . 
it also denies benefits under the bill for tax traitors , those who move their corporate headquarters off shore to avoid corporate taxes ; and it also provides a limitation on sealed settlements that the gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler ) xz4002890 has been very active in making sure that cases that are settled can not be sealed beyond public view , unless if such a sealing would violate public health or other important considerations . 
this is a well-reasoned substitute . 
it eliminates many but not all of the problems in the underlying bill , and i would hope that the house would adopt the substitute . 
of attorneys general , washington , dc , february 7 , 2005 . 
dear senate majority leader frist and senate minority leader reid : we , the undersigned state attorneys general , write to express our concern regarding one limited aspect of pending senate bill 5 , the `` class action fairness act , '' or any similar legislation . 
we take no position on the act as a general matter and , indeed , there are differing views among us on the policy judgments reflected in the act . 
we join together , however , in a bipartisan request for support of senator mark pryor 's potential amendment to s. 5 , or any similar legislation , clarifying that the act does not apply to , and would have no effect on , actions brought by any state attorney general on behalf of his or her respective state or its citizens . 
as attorneys general , we frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to our citizens . 
these cases are usually brought pursuant to the attorney general 's parens patriae authority under our respective consumer protection and antitrust statutes . 
in some instances , such actions have been brought with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the state . 
it is our concern that certain provisions of s. 5 might be misinterpreted to hamper the ability of the attorneys general to bring such actions , thereby impeding one means of protecting our citizens from unlawful activity and its resulting harm . 
the attorneys general have been very successful in litigation initiated to protect the rights of our consumers . 
for example , in the pharmaceutical industry , the states have recently brought enforcement actions on behalf of consumers against large , often foreign-owned , drug companies for overcharges and market manipulations that illegally raised the costs of certain prescription drugs . 
such cases have resulted in recoveries of approximately 235 million dollars , the majority of which is earmarked for consumer restitution . 
in several instances , the states ' recoveries provided one hundred percent reimbursement directly to individual consumers of the overcharges they suffered as a result of the illegal activities of the defendants . 
this often meant several hundred dollars going back into the pockets of those consumers who can least afford to be victimized by illegal trade practices , senior citizens living on fixed incomes and the working poor who can not afford insurance . 
we encourage you to support the aforementioned amendment exempting all actions brought by state attorneys general from the provisions of s. 5 , or any similar legislation . 
it is important to all of our constituents , but especially to the poor , elderly and disabled , that the provisions of the act not be misconstrued and that we maintain the enforcement authority needed to protect them from illegal practices . 
we respectfully submit that the overall purposes of the legislation would not be impaired by such an amendment that merely clarifies the existing authority of our respective states . 
thank you for your consideration of this very important matter . 
please contact any of us if you have questions or comments . 
sincerely , mike beebee , attorney general , arkansas . 
gregg renkes , attorney general , alaska . 
mark shurtleff , attorney general , utah . 
fiti sunia , attorney general , american samoa . 
terry goddard , attorney general , arizona . 
john suthers , attorney general , colorado . 
jane brady , attorney general , delaware . 
charlie crist , attorney general , florida . 
mark bennett , attorney general , hawaii . 
stephen carter , attorney general , indiana . 
bill lockyer , attorney general , california . 
richard blumenthal , attorney general , connecticut . 
robert spagnoletti , attorney general , district of columbia . 
thurbert baker , attorney general , georgia . 
lawrence wasden , attorney general , idaho . 
tom miller , attorney general , iowa . 
greg stumbo , attorney general , kentucky . 
steven rowe , attorney general , maine . 
tom reilly , attorney general , massachusetts . 
mike hatch , attorney general , minnesota . 
jay nixon , attorney general , missouri . 
jon bruning , attorney general , nebraska . 
kelly ayotte , attorney general , new hampshire . 
charles foti , attorney general , louisiana . 
joseph curran , attorney general , maryland . 
mike cox , attorney general , michigan . 
jim hood , attorney general , mississippi . 
mike mcgrath , attorney general , montana . 
brian sandoval , attorney general , nevada . 
peter harvey , attorney general , new jersey . 
eliot spitzer , attorney general , new york . 
wayne stenehjem , attorney general , north dakota . 
jim petro , attorney general , ohio . 
hardy myers , attorney general , oregon . 
roberto sanchez ramos , attorney general , puerto rico . 
henry mcmaster , attorney general , south carolina . 
roy cooper , attorney general , north carolina . 
pamela brown , attorney general , n. mariana islands . 
w.a . 
drew edmondson , attorney general , oklahoma . 
tom corbett , attorney general , pennsylvania . 
patrick lynch , attorney general , rhode island . 
lawrence long , attorney general , south dakota . 
paul summers , attorney general , tennessee . 
darrell mcgraw , attorney general , west virginia . 
patrick crank , attorney general , wyoming . 
rob mckenna , attorney general , washington . 
peg lautenschlager , attorney general , wisconsin . 
