I rise in strong opposition to this egregious legislation and in support of the Conyers/Nadler/Jackson-Lee substitute amendment.

This substitute amendment amends this bill in several ways to ensure that consumers, workers and victims in personal injury cases are not precluded from having a fair opportunity to present their cases in court. I know the distinguished minority leader and others have mentioned some of these instances.

My good friend Eliot Spitzer, the distinguished attorney general of New York State, has joined 46 State attorneys general in expressing their concern that this legislation could limit their power to investigate and bring actions in their State courts against defendants who have caused harm to their citizen. Our amendment clarifies that cases brought by States attorneys general will not be subject to the provision of this bill and would not be forced into Federal court.

The substitute also includes a provision which I have advocated for many years, which actually was supported by the distinguished chairman and passed the Committee on the Judiciary a couple of times, to limit the ability of corporations settling lawsuits to demand that records that may indicate threats to public health and safety be sealed, unless it is necessary to protect trade confidentiality.

The substitute provides that when such a gag order is requested, and it is normally requested by both the plaintiff and the defendant because in the settlement the defendant insists on this as a condition of the settlement, the court then rubber stamps it. This substitute provides that if such a gag order is requested, the court must make a finding as to whether the defendant's interest in confidentiality outweighs the public interest in knowing of the threat to its health or safety.

If the court finds that the privacy interest outweighs the public interest, the court will issue the gag order. If the court finds the public interest in health and safety outweighs the privacy interest claimed in the specific case, the court must prohibit the sealing of the information.

Too often, critical information is sealed from the public and people are harmed as a result. How many people were killed or injured because the court sealed records relating to exploding Firestone tires, for one example. This provision will allow the public to learn of threats to this health and safety so as to take proper action to protect the public, while protecting legitimate confidential information.

The Conyers/Nadler/Jackson-Lee substitute amendment also deals with a major catch-22 created by the bill for victims of large and complex multistate court torts. On the one hand, the bill provides State courts cannot hear such cases; but when these cases are removed to Federal court, plaintiffs will find that the Federal courts routinely refuse to hear them. Federal courts are very reluctant to certify a multistate consumer class action suit, and six circuit courts and 26 district courts have expressly refused to consider certifying cases where several State laws apply.

Our substitute protects victims from facing this catch-22 and having the courtroom door completely closed to them by providing that if these cases are removed to Federal court by this bill, the Federal courts cannot refuse to certify a class action simply because more than one State law applies.

I urge my colleagues not to allow this bill to completely deny victims their day in court, either in State court or in Federal court. That would render this bill completely hypocritical. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Conyers/Nadler/Jackson-Lee substitute and ``no'' on the main bill.