mr. speaker , the house has considered similar legislation in 1999 , 2002 , and 2003 . 
on each of those occasions , i voted `` no '' -- not because i was unalterably opposed to congress acting on this subject , but because in my judgment the defects of those bills outweighed their potential benefits . 
when it was announced that this bill would be considered , i hoped that the pattern would be broken and that this time i would be able to support the legislation . 
and if the conyers substitute had been adopted , that would have been the case . 
adoption of the substitute would have greatly improved the legislation . 
it would have reaffirmed the authority and ability of each state 's attorney general to carry out his or her duties under state law . 
it would have made sure that the bill would not prejudice people with complaints about violations of their civil rights . 
it would have properly focused the legislation on class actions unrelated to personal injuries . 
it would have added important protections for the public 's right to know about the proceedings in our courts . 
and it would have made other changes that would have improved the bill . 
unfortunately , the substitute was not adopted -- and i have come to the reluctant conclusion that i must vote against the bill . 
that conclusion is reluctant because in several ways this bill is better -- or , more accurately , less bad -- than its predecessors . 
unlike earlier versions , s. 5 would not have a retroactive effect , so it would not affect pending cases . 
it also does not include a provision for immediate interlocutory appeals of denials of class action certification , or for a stay of all discovery while the appeal was pending . 
and in several other ways , it differs for the better from previous versions . 
however , while the bill is less bad , in my opinion it still is not good enough . 
i remain unconvinced that the problem the bill purports to address is so great as to require such a sweeping remedy , and i am still concerned that in too many cases the side-effects of this treatment will be more severe than the disease . 
mr. speaker , one of the most important rights we have as americans is the ability to seek redress from the courts when we believe our rights have been abridged or we have been improperly treated . 
and , when a complaint arises under a state law , it is both appropriate and desirable that it be heard in state court because those are the most convenient and with the best understanding of state laws and local conditions . 
of course , it is appropriate to provide for removing some state cases to federal courts . 
but i think that should be more the exception than the rule , and i think this bill tends to reverse that . 
i think it excessively tilts the balance between the states and the federal government so as to throw too many cases into already-overburdened federal courts -- with the predictable result that too many will be dismissed without adequate consideration of their merits . 
so , while i respect those who have urged the house to pass this bill , i can not vote for it . 
