mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to the democratic substitute amendment and urge my colleagues to reject it . 
the new math behind the substitute amendment rests on the following arithmetic : if you add a number of amendments rejected by large bipartisan majorities in the other body last week and combine them with the amendment ideas overwhelmingly rejected on the house floor by a bipartisan vote last year , the sum will somehow equal a credible solution . 
funny math . 
mr. speaker , this formula simply does not add up . 
the american consumers and businesses will be left with change in their pockets if the amendment passes . 
the democratic substitute is less than the sum of its parts and represents a quotient that renders senate bill 5 's core reform elements meaningless . 
the individual elements of this proposal deserve some comment and explanation . 
first , i note with some amusement that the substitute totally recycles the findings of s. 5 . 
the pages of findings discuss abusive class action windfall settlements for trial attorneys , forum shopping , and the need for more of these large interstate class action cases to be in federal court . 
while the minority substitute reargues the compelling case for reform of the class action system , it is followed by text that will only perpetuate the crisis the findings identify . 
their admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery , and we appreciate that admission ; but the minority sponsors clearly are not ready for step two . 
one element of the substitute amendment is the state attorney general provision allowing any class action to be brought by or on behalf of the state attorney general to be in state court . 
this provision is unnecessary because when state attorneys general sue on behalf of their citizens , those actions are almost always `` parens patriae '' actions , and not class actions ; and the former will be in no way affected by this bill . 
also , the provision could produce troubling associations between attorneys general and plaintiffs ' lawyers . 
for these reasons , the pryor amendment in the other body that this provision copies verbatim failed to garner even 40 votes on the senate floor last week . 
a second element of the substitute is the `` choice of law '' provision . 
this provision would not only eviscerate the bill , but also would overturn 70 years of established supreme court precedent and would export to federal courts a primary expedient of class action abuse we seek to remedy : the reckless application by local courts of the law of one state to the entire nation in large interstate cases . 
this provision is reprinted from a senate amendment by senator feinstein and senator bingaman . 
it was also soundly defeated . 
the third element of the substitute is the so-called labor and civility rights carveout . 
this provision seeks to keep all class actions involving alleged civil rights and labor law violations in state court , despite the fact that the most generous racial discrimination and employment class action settlements in recent years have been in the federal courts . 
the language was also offered in the other body and rejected . 
other major elements of the substitute include one our colleagues might remember as the jackson-lee house floor amendment to the bill in the last congress . 
that amendment makes companies that incorporate abroad for tax purposes a citizen of a state and punishes them by keeping them out of federal court . 
this is at least an admission that going into certain state courts as a defendant is indeed punishment , and that amendment was defeated in this house by the last congress by a vote of 183 to 238 . 
there is also a loophole creating a provision on mass actions and a completely unnecessary public disclosure provision , both based on senate amendments in the other body that were offered and withdrawn . 
what the minority has chosen as a substitute package certainly belies any grumblings about the lack of regular order this year . 
since there is not a single original idea among the provisions that has not already been debated and defeated either in this house or the other body , it is hard to give credence to such complaints . 
this is a package of oldies but not goodies ; oldies that have been rejected and should not be resurrected . 
finally , mr. speaker , a vote on this substitute is clearly just a vote to further deny or delay meaningful class action reform , and a vote on the substitute could not in any way be construed as reform of any kind but , rather , support for the trial-lawyer-dominated status quo . 
i urge my colleagues to reject this recycled package of recycled amendments . 
the time for reform of a class action system which is out of control is now . 
i urge my colleague to vote `` no '' on the substitute , and `` yes '' on s. 5 . 
mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time . 
