mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i would like to briefly describe why this substitute is the superior piece of legislation before us today .  the substitute is much better for the following reasons : civil rights carve-out .  the substitute would carve out state civil rights claims in order to make sure that civil rights plaintiffs , especially those seeking immediate injunctive relief , can have their grievances addressed in a timely manner .  believe me , this is an issue of great moment to those of us who are still prosecuting for a fair day in our nation and have civil rights laws to back us up , but we now are pleading to keep the proper forums .  for example , every state in the union has passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability .  the language does not affect the federal jurisdiction over federal claims .  the second consideration for this is the wage-and-hour carve-out .  wage-and-hour class actions are often brought in state courts because state wage-and-hour remedies are often , i am sorry to say , more complete than the federal wage-and-hour statute ; and we have examples of that .  the third reason : we exclude non-class action cases involving physical injuries .  the measure before us applies not only to class actions , but also to mass torts .  the democratic substitute removes the mass tort language .  and then , of course , the attorney general carve-out which clarifies cases brought by state attorneys general are excluded from the provisions of the class action bill and would not be forced into federal court .  these are the major reasons why we encourage a supportive vote for the substitute to the measure that is being debated today .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  