Innocent Party Protection Act

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary for his distinguished service and my good friend from Texas for his managing of this bill on which we have a vigorous and active disagreement, but realize that the role of the Committee on the Judiciary is to enhance justice for all Americans, no matter what size business, what ethnicity, racial background, what issue they bring, whether they bring a commercial issue or whether they are for criminal justice.

That is why I rise to oppose this legislation, for it is important that we monitor, promote, coddle, and respect justice. I oppose the legislation that aims to restore a long-discredited version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, in effect from 1983 to 1993. I use as a premise of my argument a letter from the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, in particular written by two distinguished Federal judges from Arizona, the chair of the Committee on Rules and the chair of the Advisory Committee on Rules, both Federal district court judges. But more importantly, my luck was to meet with a series of judges in the past week, Federal judges, Republican appointees and some Democratic appointees, and there was a vocal outcry of the outrage of this legislation, asking and begging that this legislation not be put in place.

Let me give you a description from the Federal courts, recognizing: ``We of course share the desire of the sponsors of LARA to improve the civil justice system''--and that is the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act-- ``in our Federal courts, including the desire to reduce frivolous filings. But LARA creates a cure worse than the problem it is meant to solve.''

``Moreover, as we are both Federal trial judges, our perspective is informed by our ongoing daily experience with the practical operation of the rules.''

I, too, am concerned about small businesses. That is why we need to proceed as we are proceeding. It gives thoughtful judges the ability to protect those entities. The facts do not, according to the letter, support any assumption that mandatory sanctions deter frivolous filings.

``A decade of experience with the 1983 mandatory sanctions provision,'' they go on to say, ``demonstrated that it failed to provide meaningful relief from

the litigation behavior it was meant to address, and instead generated wasteful satellite litigation that had little to do with the merits of cases.''

What good is that for the small litigant? What good will they have when they might be subject to satellite litigation? And so, Mr. Chairman, why would we want to return to the failed, discredited sanction regime rightly abandoned in 1993? H.R. 720 would require courts to impose monetary sanctions for any rule 11 violation, eliminating the safe harbor provision that currently allows attorneys to correct or withdraw a filing before rule 11 proceedings commence. That is justice: I made a mistake, I want to withdraw it. I am suing a small business, I have a different perspective. I know the facts, let me withdraw it.

The cost-shifting provision was eliminated by the courts because it encouraged satellite litigation, and many cases required parallel proceedings. Here is the worst of it: Suppose we were back in 1954. Would Brown v. Board of Education be a frivolous lawsuit subject to sanctions, a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared State laws establishing separate public schools for Black and White students unconstitutional? What about Griswold in 1965? It would also be judged as a frivolous lawsuit.

Mr. Chairman, Griswold was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that we had a right to privacy. Or what about the famous case that was made into a movie, Loving v. Virginia? I think for almost 25 years this mixed-marriage couple could not live in their own State. A lawsuit would have been considered frivolous. Loving was a landmark case which decided Virginia's antimiscegenation statute was unconstitutional.

New York Times Co. v. United States in 1971, the question was on the constitutional freedom of the press. It reinforced the First Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to go back to the old days. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, to come up and to oppose the underlying bill in the name of justice for all.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a list of seven notable cases the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act may have barred from a courtroom.

seven notable cases the ``lawsuit abuse reduction act'' may have barred

from a courtroom

Contrary to proponents' claims, LARA does not deter

frivolous lawsuits. Rather it deters meritorious cases by

imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate for federal judges.

Mandatory sanctions inevitably chill meritorious claims

particularly in cases of first impression or involving new

legal theories, including cases to protect civil rights, the

right to privacy, the environment, collective bargaining and

the First Amendment. Our system of justice is a moving body

of law, and novel legal theories have the ability to shift

public policy and law.

Below are seven notable cases that LARA may have prevented

because the cases presented what--at the time they were

presented to the court--would have been considered novel

legal theories:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954):

Brown was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme

Court that declared state laws establishing separate public

schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The

decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896

which allowed state-sponsored segregation. The Court's

unanimous decision stated that ``separate educational

facilities are inherently unequal.'' As a result, de jure

racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United

States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for

integration and the civil rights movement.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965): Griswold was

a landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the

Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved

a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives.

By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on

the grounds that it violated the ``right to marital

privacy.''

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003): In Lawrence, the

Supreme Court considered the issue of whether adult

consensual sexual activity is protected by the Fourteenth

Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law. The

Court found that the petitioners were free as adults to

engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their

liberty under the Due Process Clause. The decision

decriminalized the Texas law that made it illegal for two

persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual

conduct.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S.

497 (2007): In this case, twelve states and several cities of

the United States brought suit against the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force the federal

agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases

as pollutants. The Supreme Court found that Massachusetts,

due to its ``stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign

interests'' as a state, had standing to sue the EPA over

potential damage caused to its territory by global warming.

The Court rejected the EPA's argument that the Clean Air Act

was not meant to refer to carbon emissions in the section

giving the EPA authority to regulate ``air pollution

agent[s].''

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967): Loving was a

landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme

Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation

statute, the ``Racial Integrity Act of 1924,''

unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal

restrictions on marriage in the United States.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971):

This case considered whether the New York Times and

Washington Post newspapers could publish the then-classified

Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure. The

question before the Court was whether the constitutional

freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was

subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of

government to maintain the secrecy of information. The

Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the

right of the New York Times to print the materials.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978)

(The Snail Darter Case): In TVA, the Supreme Court affirmed a

court of appeals' judgment, which agreed with the Secretary

of Interior that operation of the federal Tellico Dam would

eradicate an endangered species. The Court held that a prima

facie violation of Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16

U.S.C. Sec. 1536, occurred, and ruled that an injunction

requested by respondents should have been issued.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 720, the ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2017,'' because it is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

I oppose this legislation that aims to restore a long-discredited version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, in effect from 1983 to 1993.

The current Rule 11 allows federal courts, in their discretion, to impose sanctions for frivolous filings and it encourages litigants to resolve such issues without court intervention.

As written, H.R. 720 would change the sanctions for a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 to a cost-shifting sanction payable to the opposing party, an antiquated version of the Rule in effect from 1983 until 1993.

Why, Mr. Chair would we return to the failed and discredited sanction regime rightly abandoned in 1993?

H.R. 720 would require courts to impose monetary sanctions for any Rule 11 violation, eliminating the safe harbor provision that currently allows attorneys to correct or withdraw a filing before Rule 11 proceedings commence.

That cost-shifting provision was eliminated by the courts because it encouraged satellite litigation; many cases required parallel proceedings--one on the merits of the lawsuit and one on the Rule 11 motion.

The 1983 rule had a particularly negative disproportionate impact on plaintiffs, especially plaintiffs in civil rights cases, because plaintiffs in such cases often raise novel legal arguments, leaving them vulnerable to a Rule 11 motion by a defendant.

Reinstating this mandatory fee shifting rule, as H.R. 720 does, will again have a chilling effect on plaintiffs' claims, especially individual plaintiffs taking on large corporate interests.

Sanctions were more often imposed against plaintiffs than defendants and more often imposed against plaintiffs in certain kinds of cases, primarily in civil rights and certain kinds of discrimination cases.

A leading study on this issue showed that although civil rights cases made up 11.4% of federal cases filed, 22.7% of the cases in which sanctions had been imposed were civil rights cases.

The imposition of mandatory fees and costs ultimately shifts the purpose of the Rule from deterrence to compensation, encouraging parties to always file Rule 11 motions in the hopes of gaining additional compensation.

Both the Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. Supreme Court support preservation of the current version of Rule 11(c) and restoring the true balance between punishing unwarranted conduct and deterring unnecessary litigation.

Given the highly problematic experience under the 1983 rule, which sparked extensive and costly litigation, the rule burdened already strained federal court system, adversely affecting cases of all types, including civil litigation among businesses.

Congress should be looking for ways to decrease, not increase wasteful burdens on

courts, and should avoid rule changes that have a discriminatory impact on civil rights, employment, environmental, and consumer cases.

For these reasons and more, I oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, let me again emphasize our mutual commitment to justice and why I think the underlying bill skews justice and tips the scale of justice on Lady Justice.

I again refer you to the sitting experts, and that is the Judicial Conference of the United States, comprised of Federal judges all across America. I can't help but recite this sentence that strikes me as one as strong as possible to have been cited in a letter.

Their referral to LARA, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, in this one sentence, recognizing the concern about frivolous lawsuits or filings, they say:

But LARA creates a curse worse than the problem it is meant

to solve.

I think that that one sentence says it all. We are not here solving a problem. We are here creating a problem.

I am particularly struck by the comments regarding small businesses. My amendment improves H.R. 720 by preserving the current law and practice of courts awarding attorneys' fees when justice requires.

As written, H.R. 720 would change the sanctions for violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 to a cost-shifting sanction, payable to the opposing party, an antiquated version of the rule in effect from 1983 until 1993. That cost-shifting provision was eliminated by the courts because it encouraged satellite litigation.

The Jackson Lee amendment would preserve the sanctions currently available under rule 11, which provide the correct balance in punishing unwarranted conduct--this is under the present status of rule 11-- without encouraging unnecessary litigation.

Specifically, my amendment will strike a provision of the legislation that mandates the award of reasonable attorney fees and costs. Instead, it restores judicial discretion to award such fees and costs when warranted.

Take small business A, who is mad at big bank XYZ. They mishandled my account, and they filed a lawsuit. Unfortunately, the bookkeeper--not accountant--bookkeeper that the small business used really made the mistake, but the judge, recognizing the small business had good intentions, would not have to mandatorily force them to be sanctioned and to pay attorneys' fees but might then have discretion. That is how you help small business A.

I ask my colleagues to support the reasonable Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 720.

My amendment improves H.R. 720 by preserving the current law and practice of courts awarding attorney fees when justice so requires.

As written, H.R. 720 would change the sanctions for a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 11 to a cost-shifting sanction payable to the opposing party, an antiquated version of the Rule in effect from 1983 until 1993.

That cost-shifting provision was eliminated by the courts because it encouraged satellite litigation.

The Jackson Lee Amendment would preserve the sanctions currently available under Rule 11, which provide the correct balance in punishing unwarranted conduct, without encouraging unnecessary litigation.

Specifically, my amendment will strike a provision of the legislation that mandates the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and instead restores judicial discretion to award such fees and costs when warranted.

The Jackson Lee Amendment preserves the balance found in the current version of Rule 11, which gives the court discretion to determine an appropriate sanction.

H.R. 720 seeks a return to the failed and discredited sanction regime rightly abandoned in 1993.

By eliminating the mandatory fee-shifting provision, the 1993 Rule discouraged satellite litigation and encouraged parties to move forward with the merits of the case.

Under the prior Rule 11, during the 1983-1993 time, mandatory fee- shifting was used to discourage plaintiffs from bringing meritorious claims using novel legal theories in civil rights and employment rights cases.

Reinstating this mandatory fee shifting rule, as H.R. 720 does, will again have a chilling effect on plaintiffs claims, especially individual plaintiffs taking on large corporate interests.

The Jackson Lee Amendment would preserve the current version of Rule 11(c) and restore the true balance between punishing unwarranted conduct and deterring unnecessary litigation.

The old rule disproportionately affected plaintiffs, especially plaintiffs in civil rights cases.

Sanctions were more often imposed against plaintiffs than defendants and more often imposed against plaintiffs in certain kinds of cases, primarily in civil rights and certain kinds of discrimination cases.

A leading study on this issue showed that although civil rights cases made up 11.4% of federal cases filed, 22.7% of the cases in which sanctions had been imposed were civil rights cases.

The imposition of mandatory fees and costs shifts the purpose of the Rule from deterrence to compensation, encouraging parties to always file Rule 11 motions in the hopes of gaining additional compensation.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Jackson Lee Amendment.

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the

Judicial Conference of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 13, 2015.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We write to present the views of the

Judicial Conference Rules Committees on H.R. 758, the Lawsuit

Abuse Reduction Act of 2015.

As the current chairs of the Judicial Conference's

Committee on the Rules of Practice and Procedure (the

``Standing Committee'') and the Advisory Committee on the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the ``Advisory

Committee''), we oppose H.R. 758, which seeks to reduce

lawsuit abuse by amending Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. The bill would reinstate a mandatory

sanctions provision of Rule 11 adopted in 1983 and removed as

counterproductive in 1993. The bill would also eliminate a

provision adopted in 1993 that allows a party to withdraw

challenged pleadings. Our concerns mirror the views expressed

by the Judicial Conference in 2004 and 2005, and by the

Standing Committee and Advisory Committee in 2011 and 2013,

in response to similar legislation, and reflect our ongoing

daily experience with the practical operation of the rules.

We share the desire of the sponsors of H.R. 758 to improve

the civil justice system in our federal courts, including the

desire to reduce frivolous filings. But legislation that

would restore the 1983 version of Rule 11 would create a cure

worse than the problem it is meant to solve. Such legislation

also contravenes the longstanding Judicial Conference policy

opposing direct amendment of the federal rules by legislation

rather than through the deliberative process Congress

established in the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C.

Sec. Sec. 2071-2077.

A decade of experience with the 1983 mandatory sanctions

provision demonstrated that it failed to provide meaningful

relief from the litigation behavior it was meant to address,

and instead generated wasteful satellite litigation that had

little to do with the merits of cases. The 1983 version of

Rule 11 required sanctions for every violation of the rule,

and quickly became a tool of abuse. Aggressive filings of

Rule 11 sanctions motions required expenditure of tremendous

resources on Rule 11 battles having nothing to do with the

merits of the case and everything to do with strategic

gamesmanship. Many Rule 11 motions in turn triggered counter-

motions seeking Rule 11 sanctions as a penalty for filing of

the original Rule 11 motion.

The 1993 changes to Rule 11 followed years of examination

and were made on the Judicial Conference's strong

recommendation, with the Supreme Court's approval, and

effective only following a period of congressional review.

The 1993 amendments were designed to remedy the major

problems with the rule, strike a fair balance between

competing interests, and allow parties and courts to focus on

the merits of the underlying cases. Since 1993, the rule has

included a safe harbor, providing a party 21 days within

which to withdraw a particular claim or defense before

sanctions can be imposed. If the party fails to withdraw an

allegedly frivolous claim or defense within that time, a

court may impose sanctions, including assessing reasonable

attorney fees. Under the 1993 amendments, sanctioning of

discovery-related abuse remains available under Rules 26 and

37, which provide for sanctions that include awards of

reasonable attorney fees.

Minimizing frivolous filings is vital. The current rules

give judges tools to deal with frivolous pleadings, including

the imposition of sanctions where warranted. Rule 12(b)(6)

authorizes courts to dismiss pleadings that fail to state a

claim. Section 1927 of Title 28 of the United States Code

authorizes sanctions against lawyers for ``unreasonably and

vexatiously'' multiplying the proceedings in any case. Other

tools to address frivolous filings include 28 U.S.C.

Sec. 1915(e), which requires courts to dismiss cases brought

in forma pauperis that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to

state a claim, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A, which requires

courts to dismiss prisoner complaints against governmental

entities, officers, or employees that are frivolous,

malicious, or fail to state a claim.

Some may ask, why not give courts another tool to deter

frivolous filings by reinstating the 1983 version of Rule 11?

The answer is that the very process Congress established to

consider rule proposals exposed the 1983 version of Rule 11

as superficially appealing, but replete with unintended

consequences, chiefly an explosion of satellite litigation.

Congress designed the Rules Enabling Act process in 1934, and

reformed it in 1988, to produce the best rules possible

through broad public participation and review by the bench,

the bar, and the academy. The Enabling Act charges the

judiciary with the task of neutral, independent, and thorough

analysis of the rules and their operation. The Rules

Committees undertake extensive study of the rules, including

empirical research, so that they can propose rules that will

best serve the American justice system while avoiding

unintended consequences. Experience has shown that this

process works well. Direct amendment of Rule 11 will not only

circumvent the effective Rules Enabling Act process Congress

implemented, but as the careful study of Rule 11 undertaken

by the Rules Committees over many years demonstrates, direct

amendment of Rule 11 as envisioned by H.R. 758 would work

against the laudable purpose of improving the administration

of justice.

Before proposing the 1993 amendments, the Advisory

Committee reviewed several empirical studies of the 1983

version of Rule 11, including studies conducted by the

Federal Judicial Center in 1985 and 1988, a Third Circuit

Task Force report on Rule 11 in 1989, and a New York State

Bar Committee report in 1987. In 1990, the Advisory Committee

issued a call for general comments on the rule. The response

was substantial and clearly called for a change. The Advisory

Committee concluded that Rule 11's cost-shifting provision

created an incentive for too many unnecessary Rule 11

motions. Amendments to Rule 11 were drafted by the Advisory

Committee and approved by the Standing Committee and Judicial

Conference. The Supreme Court approved the amendments and

transmitted them to Congress in May 1993 after extensive

scrutiny and debate by the bench, bar, and public in

accordance with the Rules Enabling Act process.

The amended rule has produced a marked decline in Rule 11

satellite litigation without any noticeable increase in

frivolous filings. In June 1995, the Federal Judicial Center

conducted a survey of 1,130 lawyers and 148 judges on the

effects of the 1993 amendments. The Center found general

satisfaction with the amended rule, and that a majority of

the responding judges and lawyers did not favor a return to

mandatory sanctions when the rule is violated.

In 2005, the Federal Judicial Center surveyed federal trial

judges to get a clearer picture of how the revised Rule 11

was operating. A copy of the study is enclosed. The study

showed that judges on the front lines--those who must contend

with frivolous litigation and apply Rule II--strongly believe

that the current rule works well. The study's findings

include the following highlights:

More than 80 percent of the 278 district judges surveyed

indicated that ``Rule 11 is needed and it is just right as it

now stands'';

87 percent prefer the existing Rule 11 to the 1983 version

or the version proposed by legislation (e.g., H.R. 4571 (the

Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004) or H.R. 420 (the Lawsuit

Abuse Reduction Act of 2005));

85 percent strongly or moderately support Rule 11's safe

harbor provisions;

91 percent oppose the proposed requirement that sanctions

be imposed for every Rule 11 violation;

84 percent disagree with the proposition that an award of

attorney fees should be mandatory for every Rule 11

violation;

85 percent believe that the amount of groundless civil

litigation has not grown since the promulgation of the 1993

rule (for judges commissioned before 1992) or since their

first year as a federal district judge (for judges

commissioned after January 1, 1992); and

72 percent believe that addressing sanctions for discovery

abuse in Rules 26(g) and 37 is better than in Rule 11.

The findings of the Federal Judicial Center underscore the

judiciary's united opposition to legislation amending Rule

11. Lawyers share this view. The American Bar Association has

opposed H.R. 758. Indeed, of the 200 lawyers, litigants,

judges, and academics who participated in the 2010 conference

at Duke University Law School convened by the Advisory

Committee to search for ways to address the problems of costs

and delay in civil litigation, nobody proposed a return to

the 1983 version of Rule 11.

Thank you for considering the views of the Standing

Committee and Advisory Committee. We look forward to

continuing to work with you to ensure that our civil justice

system fulfills its vital role. If you or your staff have any

questions, please contact Rebecca Womeldorf, Secretary to the

Standing Committee.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey S. Sutton,

United States Circuit Judge Sixth Circuit,Chair, Committee

on Rules of Practice and Procedure.

David G. Campbell,

United States District Judge District of Arizona, Chair,

Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, reading again from the Judicial Conference letter, it says: The facts do not support any assumption that mandatory sanctions under H.R. 720--that is what the bill is about--deter frivolous filings. All it does, after a decade of experience, is that it demonstrates that it failed to provide meaningful relief from the litigation behavior it was supposed to address.

What it will do is it will punish the small business. By eliminating the mandatory fee-shifting provision, the 1993 rule discouraged satellite litigation. Reinstating this mandatory fee-shifting rule, as H.R. 720 does, will again have a chilling effect.

The Jackson Lee amendment would give the courts discretion to protect against the mom-and-pop business from having to pay because they mistakenly thought big bank XYZ did them in, and it really was a mistake on their part.

Sanctions are more often imposed against plaintiffs than defendants, more often imposed against plaintiffs in certain kind of cases, primarily civil rights and certain kinds of discrimination cases.

The Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka might have been perceived to be outrageous--how dare you try to strike down the separate but equal--and yet it has had an amazing impact and a case of moment in history.

Or the Loving v. Virginia, when two individuals who loved each other still were kept out of Virginia because they were of different races, it was absurd to file that lawsuit at that time. Yet, if they had not, or if these kinds of penalties were in place, they might be suffering mandatory sanctions and kept out of the courthouse.

A leading study on this issue showed that, although civil rights cases make up 11.4 percent, 22.7 percent of the cases in which sanctions have been imposed are civil rights cases.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. In order to foster justice, support the Jackson Lee amendment, which restores to the courts judicial discretion on penalties and sanctions, if you will, and listen to the Judicial Conference: this is a curse worse than the problem.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I support Representative Conyers' amendment.

I include in the Record in support of our amendment a Judicial Conference letter dated April 13, 2015, and letters from a number of organizations, including the Alliance for Justice and the American Association for Justice.

I also include in the Record a letter from the American Bar Association, who begins their message:

``On behalf of the American Bar Association, ABA, and its over 400,000 members, I am writing to urge you to vote against H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act . . . which is scheduled for a floor vote this week.''

Re Groups Strongly Oppose Attacks on Civil Justice.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: On

February 2, the House Committee on the Judiciary is scheduled

to mark up several bills that collectively would make it more

difficult for Americans to enforce their legal rights, and

would place unreasonable burdens on the federal judiciary and

federal enforcement officials. The undersigned organizations

strongly oppose these bills as harmful and unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader and my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

The gentleman mentions the Defense Appropriations bill is going to be brought forward. It is my understanding that the text was just introduced this morning. Is that accurate?

Do you know when it will be marked up?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Is the majority leader not aware of whether there will be a markup on the bill or will it come directly to the floor through the Rules Committee?

The gentleman just indicated that this will be the bill that we passed last year.

So I am correct, then, that the bill will be the same bill that we passed last year? Is that accurate?

The majority leader may not know, and I certainly understand that. We will see what differences might exist. If there are any substantive changes in the bill, we would hope that it would be subjected to a hearing or at least a markup.

But the gentleman believes there is no substantive change. Is that accurate?

I thank the majority leader for that observation.

I agree with the majority leader that subjecting the Defense Appropriations or any other appropriation is not a tenable or appropriate policy to pursue.

The gentleman knows we were for an omnibus being passed in 2016, as an omnibus was passed in 2015, which, therefore, gives the administrators of any agency or Secretaries of any agency the opportunity to have the ability to plan over a period of time longer than months.

So I certainly agree. But very frankly, I want to tell the majority leader, on our side of the aisle we are very, very concerned that privilege will be accorded to the defense bill.

Can the majority leader tell me whether or not we intend to adopt and pass, in the regular order, individual bills--the Labor-Health bill, the Interior bill, the Agriculture bill, et cetera, et cetera--in a similar manner? That means considering them on their merits discretely, separately, individually.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I appreciate that, Mr. Leader, if that is your goal; and I hope that, in fact, we can pursue that goal. Very frankly, we believe that the scenario is being set up to take care of the defense bill.

I voted for the defense bill. I was one of those people. I intend to vote for the defense bill next week when it comes to the floor, if, in fact, as the gentleman represents, it is substantively the same as the bill that we have already adopted.

What I am concerned about and what Members on my side of the aisle are very concerned about is that the remaining nondefense discretionary spending bills will be substantially altered from that which we would have passed in December of last year in the 2017.

Of course, we were 4 months late doing that--or 3 months late, at least: October, November, and December. But I am hopeful, Mr. Leader, that those bills will, in fact, be considered discretely so that the American public can see us vote on those bills and on the priorities that are incorporated in those bills.

Mr. Leader, it appears that the majority has stalled somewhat in their efforts in a path forward on repeal of the ACA. President Trump's address on Tuesday, it seems to me, didn't offer many details. He does say, however, that everybody is going to be covered--everybody--with better health care,

cheaper. If that bill comes to the floor, I am going to vote for it, Mr. Leader. I want you to know that. Health care for everybody-- quality, accessible, affordable, and cheaper.

Now, as the majority leader knows, the budget resolution that was passed this year set a deadline of January 27 for committees to report legislation repealing the law. It is now March 2, and there are reports, Mr. Leader, that Republicans have a draft bill that perhaps is located in H-157, that it is not being posted, and that Republicans have been told they can view it in H-157.

I don't know that I have the room number correct, and I am not sure that the information that I have is correct, but I will tell you that Michael Burgess, or Dr. Burgess, on your side of the aisle said this. He said it yesterday: People need to have access to this document-- apparently his presumption was he did not have access to the document or he believed others should; not only Members of our side of the aisle, but also the public--and if there are problems, let's talk through them. It's been a long time in the works. Most of the pieces that are in there, people have seen in the past, but it does need to be an open process.

Mr. Leader, let me repeat that. It does need to be an open process, according to Dr. Burgess.

Gus Bilirakis says: We're not having a hearing or anything. We're not having a hearing or anything. But there'll be a place for us to view it, the draft.

Paul Ryan, the Speaker, said, 3 days ago: We're going through the committee process. We're doing this step by step. We're having public hearings. We're having committee work on legislation. This is how the legislative process is supposed to be designed. We are not hatching some bill in a back room--perhaps H-157; he didn't say that, I said it--and plopping it on the American people's front door.

Mr. Leader, you and I both were here when the Affordable Care Act was passed. There was a lot of talk about the Affordable Care Act and how it was passed in the dark of night. That was baloney, of course. We had 79 bipartisan hearings and markups over the 2 years that we considered the Affordable Care Act. House Members spent nearly 100 hours in hearings, heard from 181 witnesses from both sides of the aisle, considered 239 amendments--both Democratic and Republican--and accepted 121 amendments.

The original House bill was posted online 30 days before the first committee began their markup and more than 100 days before the committee introduced their merged bill in the House. House Democrats posted the House bill--that was the final process--online 72 hours before the bill was brought to the floor, consistent with our rules.

Now, to my understanding, the Ways and Means Committee has been told this bill is going to be marked up on Wednesday. There will not have been a single hearing, there will not have been a single witness, and Members cannot, on our side of the aisle--as I understand it--see the bill today.

I don't know where all my Tea Party friends are who demanded full consideration and that everybody read the bill. I don't see them out on the lawn. I don't see them out on the plaza. I don't see them out on the sidewalk as they were when we were considering the bill and we had those 181 witnesses, the 100 hours of hearings that they thought weren't sufficient.

I don't know whether they will think that having a markup next Wednesday when the bill has not even been made available to Democratic Members of the House. Apparently, Republican Members have to go to a room to see it, and the public clearly has no idea of what that bill is.

Mr. Leader, I hope you will tell me that I am wrong, that there will be hearings consistent with what Speaker Ryan said 3 days ago. I hope you will tell me, yes, we are going to honor what Speaker Ryan said, that we are going to have those hearings, we are going to have witnesses, and we are going to consider amendments.

All of us understand that this is one of the biggest issues confronting the American people. We have had hundreds of thousands of people showing up at town meetings saying how concerned they are, yet, if my information is correct, Mr. Leader, they will have no opportunity to talk to the Committee on Ways and Means.

I am further informed, and I hope the majority leader says this is wrong, that the markup will occur before the Congressional Budget Office has the opportunity to say how much it is going to cost. All this weeping and gnashing of teeth about balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, a bill that affects 18 percent of the gross domestic product, and the critical need for people to have access to affordable, quality health care, not one of them will have an opportunity to know how much this repeal will cost.

Again, Mr. Leader, I hope you are going to be able to tell me, no, Mr. Whip, we are going to have hearings, we understand how important this issue is, how much interest there is in this country, and we are going to give time for serious consideration, and we are going to have witnesses come before those hearings; and then after the witnesses, we are going to have a markup after substantial debate and consideration is allowed on both sides of the aisle.

I now yield to the majority leader with the hopes that he will be able to give me some degree of confidence that Paul Ryan, our Speaker, was correct, that we are going to follow regular order and make a transparent consideration of this piece of legislation.

I yield to my friend.

I have some more.

I thank the gentleman for his comment. It is, therefore, extraordinarily sad that we have spent 6 years with only one option that the majority would pursue: repeal. Not fix, not make it work better, not ensure that people can afford their care, not make sure that insurance companies had the competence to stay in the market because the market was destabilized for all of its lifetime to date by the Republicans saying all we are going to do is repeal.

The gentleman talks about the cost. The gentleman cannot tell me some 4

days before he suggests passing a piece of legislation that will affect 18 percent of our gross domestic product what it will cost. Why? Because he has no score from the CBO. He can tell me all he wants about 6 years of waiting and listening. He has no score on this bill. My judgment is he will have no score when he marks it up. By the way, he will give no access, contrary to Speaker Ryan saying that we are going to go regular order. I reject, with all due respect, Mr. Majority Leader, the fact that we had a hearing a year ago or 2 years ago or 3 years ago, that the opinion that was given at those times by various witnesses who differed on their conclusions, that we can apply that to the bill that you have introduced now.

I don't know what the bill you have introduced is. I don't know whether you have introduced it or somebody else has introduced it. I don't even know whether it exists. I told the gentleman what I am told. He has not disabused me of any of the assertions I made. He has not disabused me that it is not available publicly. He has not disabused me of the fact that we can't see it. He has not disabused me of Dr. Burgess saying it ought to be seen by everybody and considered, it should not be in a secret room someplace that people have to go to, like it is a secret document. We have to go down to the Capitol Visitor Center in the secure facilities of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to see secret documents. Surely that is not the standard that we are giving to a bill that will have such, in my view, catastrophic effect on individuals, on jobs, and on businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the majority leader that I do not accept the proposition that a hearing over 6 years about repeal only--and I am not sure how many hearings there were. Maybe the majority leader knows. But I know for a fact that proponents of the bill were very difficult to get on the list of witnesses that we wanted to testify at some of those hearings. The American people, the Tea Party, all those people for and against who came to these town meetings should really lament. And, frankly, I think that the Speaker's representation is not being followed. The assertion that it was done last year, the year before, we have a lot of new Members in this Congress who weren't here. Frankly, when we have bills introduced in Congress, we usually have hearings on them. That is the regular order.

Now, we haven't been following regular order on all these congressional review acts, Mr. Leader, so maybe the precedent nowadays is forget about hearings because most of the bills that we have considered during this Congress have not had hearings. The ramifications of the repeal of these rules no one knows. There were no hearings on those. Frankly, we didn't have hearings on those year after year after year in the past. So, Mr. Leader, it appears that the representation you are making is we know all about this, we don't need hearings, we have been talking about this stuff forever, we are just going to act. The courage, I would suggest to my friend, the courage would be to expose these to full and fair and open debate. That would be the courage.

Now, Mr. Leader, unless you want to respond to that, I will move on to a different subject.

Mr. Leader, you can be assured that history will show that. Can I see the bill today?

In other words, they will mark it up before anybody in the public, including a Member of the House of Representatives----

Before then, we cannot see it.

Is that what the gentleman is telling me?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Leader, reclaiming my time, that is not regular order. I have been here a long time. You have been here a long time. That is not regular order. Regular order is you introduce a bill, you go up to this desk, and you put a bill in. We don't follow that very much, but that is regular order. It is then printed. It is referred to a committee. The public can see it as soon as it is printed. It goes to the committee. They establish a hearing. The witnesses then come before the committee and testify as to its positive and negative aspects. The committee then schedules a markup. It may even be the same day after the hearing, I get that. And then they mark it up. But the bill has been given to the public and to Members, invariably under regular order, substantially before that happens.

You are telling me, as I understand it, Mr. Leader, I cannot see the bill today, 5 days before it is scheduled to be marked up. Is that accurate?

I yield to my friend.

Is the leader telling me that he does not know personally whether a markup is scheduled on the Affordable Care Act repeal next week?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman, but that was not my question, whether the chairman of the committee knows. Maybe the gentleman does not know, in which case he can say no.

My question is: Does the gentleman know whether a markup is scheduled for next week in the Ways and Means Committee on the repeal of the Affordable Care Act?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether that is a ``yes'' or a ``no'' or ``I don't intend to tell you,'' but it certainly does not tell me whether the majority leader knows that.

I would suggest to the chairman of the committee, though, Mr. Speaker, that the majority leader ought to be informed of what the committee is doing on such an important issue.

I am just informed that while the majority leader may not know, The Hill newspaper knows and says: ObamaCare reconciliation markup on track for next week.

They, perhaps, heard the same rumor I have heard, Mr. Leader.

I ask you: Do you expect the Budget Committee to have a hearing on it?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

I will close on this subject, unless the majority leader would like to make a comment. He does know I like quotes.

Mr. Leader, you said the following:

This bill is being pushed through because the majority in

the Congress refuse to listen to the people.

You said that on March 2, 2010. You were referring, of course, to us Democrats who refused to listen to the American people, because your presumption was the American people was not for the proposition we were promoting.

There were two candidates for President who got major votes in this election. One was Hillary Clinton, who said: I want to keep the Affordable Care Act. And one was Donald Trump, who said: I want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Although, he has said then and now that he wants to have everybody covered at a cheaper price with assured benefits. As I said, we would support a bill like that.

Of those two candidates that were running, one got 65 million votes and one got 62 million votes. Now, the one who got 62 million votes won the election. Why? Because of the electoral college. He is the legitimate elected President of the United States. I do not question that at all. But it ought to give some degree of humility that he got 3 million less votes than the person that espoused policies other than those espoused by President Trump. It ought to give some pause to let the American people into the process and testify.

I will tell the gentleman that what the Republican Party is recommending in repeal of the ACA will have very substantial consequences. You may think they are positive, I may think they are negative, but I hope neither one of us think that that won't have very substantial consequences for our country. In that context, we ought to have allowed, and we ought to allow, the people of this country to testify on those consequences.

Again, I will move on, unless the gentleman wants to make an additional comment.

I yield to my friend.

There are so many comments I could make in response to that.

No one today on this floor is questioning the legitimacy of President Trump's Presidency--period. What I said was that more people voted for the candidate who wanted to keep the ACA than voted for the candidate who wanted to repeal the ACA.

Secondly, if the gentleman refers to the polls of his quote in 2010, then I can refer to the polls today, which show that the majority of respondents believe that the ACA should be retained until and unless an acceptable replacement is provided.

The gentleman talks about 6 years. Not once in those 6 years, not once, has the majority party offered a comprehensive replacement for the Affordable Care Act. They have talked about it.

By the way, on the 26-year-olds and on the preexisting conditions, the repeal bills didn't say we were going to keep the preexisting conditions or the 26 age or the lifetime limits or the annual limits or the drug discounts for senior citizens. It didn't say any of that. It said repeal the ACA.

So the polling data today, Mr. Speaker, is that more people want to keep the ACA prior to the consideration and adoption of a replacement than want to repeal it. I agree with you, that is a change from 2010. And the reason it is a change is because they are now looking at it very carefully. They are figuring out what, in fact, it has done for them and their families and for their children who had preexisting conditions and for their access to affordable health care, and they are saying: We are taking a second look.

They do not now reflect that poll to which the gentleman referred that is now 7 years old and, very frankly, last year's poll. Now they look at it differently.

I yield to my friend.

Well, I think that is some degree of clarity in terms of the markup, and no hearing, no witnesses, and I presume no CBO score to tell us how much that legislation is going to cost.

Now, Mr. Leader, two things. One is certainly less global and impactful,

but, nevertheless, important. I am sure the gentleman met with the Governors when they were in town, as I did. They met on a bipartisan basis. I met with a lot of the Republican Governors and Democratic Governors together.

They are very concerned, as you know, not only about the ACA--which we talked about, which they have great concerns of the impact on their States, Republicans and Democrats, of the repeal of the Medicaid expansion, in particular, the impact it will have on them and their people--but they also are very concerned about the Marketplace Fairness Act.

That is simply, frankly, trying to protect small businesses so that they can compete, the local mom and pop store can compete with the online vendors so that everybody would have to pay the sales tax, whatever the State sales tax is. That bill, I believe, enjoys the majority support in this House. I think it has enjoyed the majority support since it passed the Senate pretty handedly.

Does the gentleman know whether or not that bill is going to be considered at any point in time in the near term?

I yield to my friend.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend, the majority leader, that I look forward to working with him. I see that he recently observed that the attorney general ought to recuse himself in dealing with issues of the relationship between the administration during the course of the campaign and Russia, which the intelligence community has said interfered in America's election.

All of us ought to be concerned about that--a foreign government interfering in our democracy; particularly, a government that is hostile to our interests; particularly, a government led by Mr. Putin, who has committed international crimes, who, contrary to international law, invaded Crimea, still holds Crimea inconsistent with international law, and has been sanctioned. Hopefully, those sanctions will stay in place.

I agree with the gentleman that, at the very least, the attorney general ought to recuse himself. I have asked him to step down.

But we need to have, Mr. Speaker, an independent bipartisan commission with subpoena power, similar to the 9/11 Commission, for the security of our country and, yes, for the confidence building for our President to see what, in fact, were the relationships between his campaign and Russia and to what extent Russia involved itself in trying to impact on the elections of the United States.

I don't have anything further to say. Unless the gentleman wants to say something, I will yield back.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the majority leader for his comments.

Let me say that I was very disappointed to learn that Mr. Nunes, at the request of the administration, talked to members of the press before the investigations have occurred, before they have heard a single witness, to say that he really thought this was not a matter that really needed careful consideration. That is not a quote. I characterized what I read his comment to mean to the press.

In addition, I understand the Department of Homeland Security was also requested, and the FBI, to talk to the press to tamp down interest in those. The American people need to be very concerned about these issues. Every Member of this Congress, a separate and coequal branch of the Government of the United States, ought to be very concerned about that.

The Bible says that the truth will set us free. And the truth will give us confidence. And the truth should be known by the American people.

The problem I have with the Intelligence Committee is that the Intelligence Committee--most of the information they gather is not available to the public. I don't know what they will do moving forward.

But we found in the 9/11 Commission a perfect example of a commission equally divided with two extraordinarily respected co-chairs that got to the bottom and made significant recommendations, most of which-- almost all of which--were adopted in a bipartisan fashion by this Congress.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would pursue that not in lieu of the Intelligence Committee--not in lieu of the Intelligence Committee--but in addition to.

Benghazi, we had seven committees, and you thought on your side of the aisle that wasn't enough, so you spent some $4 million on an additional special committee to find exactly the same conclusion.

So, in this case I do not oppose the work of the Intelligence Committee, but I certainly believe the American people would expect and would want a similar bipartisan commission as they saw work on the 9/11 tragedy to give them the confidence that Russia is not in any way undermining the independence of our government or undermining the democracy that we hold so dear.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, known as LARA, is just over one-page long, but it would prevent the filing of thousands of frivolous lawsuits in Federal courts. These absurd lawsuits cost many innocent families their savings and often ruin their reputations.

Frivolous lawsuits have been filed against a weather channel for failing to accurately predict storms, against television shows people claimed were too scary, against a university that awarded a low grade, and against a high school that dropped a member from the track team.

Lawyers who bring these cases have everything to gain and nothing to lose under current rules, which allow plaintiffs' lawyers to file frivolous suits without any penalty. Meanwhile, defendants are often faced with years of litigation and substantial attorneys' fees.

Prior to 1993, it was mandatory for judges to impose sanctions, such as orders to pay for the other side's legal expenses, when lawyers filed frivolous lawsuits. Then, the Civil Rules Advisory Committee, an obscure branch of the courts, made penalties optional. This needs to be reversed by Congress.

LARA requires lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits to pay attorneys' fees and court costs of innocent defendants. This will serve as a disincentive to file junk lawsuits.

Further, LARA specifically requires that no changes ``shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, including civil rights laws, or under the Constitution of the United States.''

So civil rights law would not be affected in any way by LARA, and that might go a long way to reassuring the ranking member's concerns about its impact on civil rights.

Opponents argue that reinstating mandatory sanctions for frivolous lawsuits impedes judicial discretion, but this is false. Under LARA, judges retain the discretion to determine whether or not a claim is frivolous. If a judge determines that a claim is frivolous, then they must award sanctions. This ensures that victims of frivolous lawsuits obtain compensation. But the decision to determine whether a claim is frivolous or not remains with the judge.

The American people are looking for solutions to obvious lawsuit abuse. LARA restores accountability to our legal system by reinstating sanctions for attorneys who are found by a judge to have filed frivolous lawsuits. Though it will not stop all lawsuit abuse, LARA encourages attorneys to think twice before making an innocent party's life miserable.

These attorneys engage in legalized extortion and try to force individuals to settle out of court instead of paying huge legal costs. There is currently no disincentive to deter attorneys from filing frivolous claims. By requiring attorneys who file junk lawsuits to pay the court costs of those they sue, such lawsuits will be discouraged.

I thank Chairman Goodlatte, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for bringing this much-needed legislation to the House floor. I ask my colleagues who oppose frivolous lawsuits and who want to protect innocent Americans from false charges to support the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Judicial Conference, by its own admission, objects to any amendments to the Federal rules it doesn't propose itself, but Congress has the constitutional authority and responsibility to establish and amend the Federal rules. It also has the duty to address problems with the judicial system that fall within its enumerated powers. Reducing frivolous lawsuits and ensuring that those who face meritless filings are able to receive compensation for losses caused by frivolous claims is a significant improvement to our justice system.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues, does a bill that grants the victims of corporate fraud the right to damages create satellite litigation? Of course it doesn't. What it does is create a means of guaranteed compensation for a wrong suffered. This bill does just that. It creates a means of guaranteed compensation for a wrong suffered; namely, the wrong of a frivolous lawsuit.

It is the job of judges to apply the law. It is the job of Members of Congress to write the law. We are the people's representatives, and all of us have constituents who have been the victims of frivolous lawsuits. We are responsible for the lack of any redress today for the victims of frivolous lawsuits, and we aim to remedy that today by passing this bill on behalf of the constituents who sent us here. If you deny that the victims of frivolous lawsuits are real victims, then vote against this bill, but if you think the victims of frivolous lawsuits should be entitled to compensation, just like anyone else who proves their legal claims in court, you should support this bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago, a judicial poll was mentioned. But I would point out to all of my colleagues that only one survey was done that consisted mostly of judges who had experience under both the stronger rule with mandatory sanctions. That poll showed overwhelming support for mandatory sanctions. When judges who had experience under both the stronger and weaker versions of rule 11 were polled, they overwhelmingly supported mandatory sanctions for frivolous lawsuits.

The survey of 751 Federal judges found that an overwhelming majority of Federal judges believed, based on their experience under both a weaker and stronger rule 11, that a stronger rule 11 did not impede development of the law: 95 percent; the benefits of the rule outweighed any additional requirement of judicial time: 72 percent; the stronger version of rule 11 had a positive effect on litigation in the Federal courts: 81 percent; and the rule should be retained in its then current form: 80 percent. Incredible.

A 2005 survey was also mentioned. In that survey, only 278 judges responded, as opposed to the 751 who responded to the survey done in 1990. Over half of the judges who responded to the 2005 survey had no experience under the stronger rule 11 because they were appointed to the bench after 1992. So that 2005 survey tells us very little about how judges comparatively view the stronger versus the weaker rule 11.

I would also point out that in the 1990 survey, roughly twice as many responded as in the 2005 survey.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first point out that this bill is being key voted by the United States Chamber of Commerce. It has been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business, and also endorsed by the Physicians Insurance Association of America.

Mr. Chairman, let me remind Members what the base bill--which is just a page long--actually does. It makes it mandatory for the victims of frivolous lawsuits filed in Federal Court to be compensated for the harm done to them by the filers of frivolous lawsuits. The bill doesn't change the existing standards for determining what is or is not a frivolous lawsuit. So under the bill, mandatory sanctions would only be awarded to victims of frivolous lawsuits when those lawsuits have no basis in law or fact.

The victims of frivolous lawsuits are real victims. They have to shell out thousands of dollars, endure sleepless nights, and spend time away from their family, work, and customers, just to respond to frivolous pleadings. Few would ever claim that judges should have the discretion to deny damage awards to victims of legal wrongs proved in court.

So why should judges have the discretion to deny damage awards to victims of frivolous lawsuits who prove in court that the case brought against them was, indeed, frivolous?

A vote against LARA, including a vote for the motion to recommit, is a denial of the fact that victims of frivolous lawsuits are real victims. But they are real victims, and they deserve to be guaranteed compensation when they prove in court that the claims against them are frivolous. This bill would do just that, and for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which allows lawyers who file frivolous claims to escape any sanction.

It is essential that LARA reverse the 1993 amendments to rule 11. The current rule allows those who file frivolous lawsuits to avoid sanctions by withdrawing claims within 21 days after a motion for sanctions has been filed. This loophole, which LARA closes, gives unscrupulous lawyers an unlimited number of free passes to file frivolous pleadings with impunity.

Justice Scalia correctly predicted that such amendments would, in fact, encourage frivolous lawsuits. Opposing the 1993 amendments in which the 21-day rule was instated, Justice Scalia wrote:

In my view, those who file frivolous suits in pleadings

should have no safe harbor. The rules should be solicitous of

the abused and not of the abuser. Under the revised rule,

parties will be able to file thoughtless, reckless, and

harassing pleadings, secure in the knowledge that they have

nothing to lose: if objection is raised, they can retreat

without penalty.

LARA would eliminate the free pass lawyers use to file frivolous lawsuits. This amendment would eliminate that free pass that is so costly to innocent Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which would strike the provision for penalties for frivolous lawsuits and, thus, defeat the purpose of the bill.

Today, there is no guarantee that a victim of a frivolous lawsuit will be compensated, even when a court finds that the lawsuit is frivolous. This legislation gives the victims of frivolous lawsuits the ability to receive compensation from those who abuse the legal system. The underlying bill enables innocent Americans to protect

themselves and their families from absolutely absurd lawsuits, which can cost them their reputations and their livelihoods.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just summarize this bill in one sentence, and that is that no reputable attorney is going to have any concerns with this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all, that the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), has been a champion of civil rights all of his life. I recognize and respect that.

For that reason, I would like to try to reassure him that the base bill already says, as I mentioned in my opening statement:

``Nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this Act shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, including civil rights laws, or under the Constitution of the United States.''

This provision clearly preserves the right to assert claims under the civil rights laws or the Constitution. I don't know how this language could be more clear.

This amendment would allow frivolous claims to be brought under civil rights laws without any of the penalties required in the base bill. If this amendment were adopted, the bill would invite the filing of frivolous civil rights claims without any penalty whatsoever.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which regrettably would expose innocent Americans to abusive and frivolous lawsuits.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chair pointing out that it is improper to impugn the integrity or damage the reputation of the President of the United States or others. I thank the Chair for pointing that out.

Mr. Chairman, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act makes three important changes to rule 11 to limit lawsuit abuse by imposing sanctions for bringing frivolous lawsuits. These changes apply to all cases brought in Federal district courts.

However, this amendment would change that. If this amendment is adopted, the changes to rule 11 made by LARA would not apply to lawsuits brought in relation to whistleblower claims. There is no reason to make this or other exceptions.

The changes made by the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act should apply uniformly throughout the Federal courts. Because this amendment excludes certain cases from the bill's coverage and thereby allows frivolous lawsuits to be filed without any of the penalties required by the bill, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, proponents of this amendment want to allow lawsuits with no basis in law or fact to proceed without penalty if the lawsuit relates to whistleblowers. Think about that. The proponents of this amendment support lawsuits that apparently have no basis in law or fact, and they want those frivolous lawsuits to proceed without penalty.

Let me remind Members what the base bill--which is just one page long--actually does. It makes it mandatory for the victims of frivolous lawsuits filed in Federal court to be compensated for the harm done to them by the filers of frivolous lawsuits. The bill doesn't change the existing standards for determining what is or is not a frivolous lawsuit. So under the bill, mandatory sanctions would only be awarded to victims of frivolous lawsuits when those lawsuits, as determined by the judge, have no basis in law or fact, including cases related to whistleblowers that have no basis in law or fact.

This amendment would allow legally frivolous whistleblower cases to go without penalty and leave their victims uncompensated, so I urge all of my colleagues to oppose it.

Once again, I don't know how any reputable attorney would have any concerns with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

In addition, the House will consider several reform bills straight from our Better Way agenda:

First, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Further Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, sponsored by Chairman Bob Goodlatte, which ensures that only similarly injured parties can be in the same class for purposes of a class action suit, as well as requires public disclosure of reports on the receipt and disposition of claims for injuries based on exposure to asbestos.

Next, H.R. 725, the Innocent Party Protection Act, sponsored by Representative Ken Buck, which establishes a uniform standard for determining whether a defendant has been fraudulently joined to a lawsuit.

And third, H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, sponsored by Chairman Lamar Smith, which restores accountability to our legal system by penalizing lawyers for filing baseless lawsuits.

Our Federal litigation system is plagued with broken rules that unnecessarily harm American businesses and consumers. With these measures, we will follow through on our pledge to take on trial lawyers and crack down on lawsuit abuse through meaningful litigation reform.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider the Fiscal Year 2017 Department of Defense Appropriations bill, sponsored by Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen.

Yes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We passed this bill last year, working together with others. You will see the bill reposted, and we will vote on it next week.

It will come straight to the floor.

This bill reflects the 2017 NDAA, which passed with 375 votes in the House and 92 votes in the Senate.

It is not the exact same, but it reflects the work of the NDAA. It is a bipartisan agreement. It is also--you will find as soon as it is posted to read all the way through it--a reflection of the 2017 NDAA bill.

That is very accurate. This is a bipartisan, bicameral agreement based upon the 2017 NDAA bill, which, if you watched, had 375 votes in the House, 92 in the Senate.

As you know as well as I do, and we have talked many times together about this, we cannot continue to have our military continue further with just the CR. If you have a continuing resolution, you now are saying that you have to fund what was last year. You can't go through with what the future needs without putting together the appropriations process. And this is what we are going through right now.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman knows we are working, in part, under the continuing resolution short-term; but it is my intention, once we pass the FY 2017 defense bill, I will keep Members updated on the further floor schedule of appropriations bills. It would be my goal to continue to pass the rest of the appropriations bills.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I always look forward to your quotes.

Now you have gone beyond. You now bring in rumors. I give you credit there. You have been here quite some time, much longer than I. I agree with you, this is a very big issue. That is why, for the last 6 years, we have had hearings because all those hearings you reported, I would have wished you would have listened during those hearings. I would have wished you would have been able to do a healthcare bill that actually works. The essence of what the ACA did, it was about exchanges and the expansion of Medicaid.

So my dear friend here tells me that was a big success. What do you tell all those people across this country? In fact, one-third of every county in this country now only has one health insurer. Humana just announced they are pulling out. Because you love quotes so much, let me read what the CEO of Aetna says: ObamaCare is failing. It has entered a ``death spiral.''

With Humana pulling out, that gives 16 counties in Tennessee that have no one to care for them. The expansion of Medicaid--I know you are concerned about the budget, as am I--says within this 10-year window, in the tenth year, it will cost us $1 trillion. You know as well as I do that that is about the exact amount of money we spend for all discretionary spending in government today. We watched the ACA create 23 CO-OPs. They were provided more than $2 billion. Eighteen of those 23 have collapsed.

So, yes, for the last 6 years, we have been holding hearings, we have been listening to the public, and we have been working on this bill. Yes, we will go regular order. We will have a markup in committee. When the bill comes out of committee, we will take that markup, we will go to the Committee on the Budget because it is reconciliation, and we will bring that bill to the floor, just as the rules state we will do that. We have waited 6 years to do this, just as we moved one last year to the President as well, and he vetoed it.

We cannot sit and wait for this failure to continue any longer. The health of this country deserves something much better. That is why we have been spending our time, that is why we have been working on it, and that is why we have been listening. We have had the wisdom to listen, but now I promise you we will have the courage to lead.

Well, I would only like to end with this: I was here at the same time. I know you have your history, and I have the history that I remember. I remember seeing the Speaker at that time, now your leader, say we need to pass the bill to find out what is in it. I remember being here late that night. I remember a lot of people, citizens around this building complaining. You know what? The saddest part of all that, their fears became true. They didn't get to keep the doctor or the health plan that they were promised. The premiums they were told would go down $2,500, that didn't happen. They now find that they don't have the care that they were promised. We have spent our time.

You did make a statement that there are a lot of new people in this building. I would argue that is a reason why there are a lot of new people in this building, the ACA and the way you carried it out. That is why we did not do that. You stipulated a little earlier, trying to state about a 3-day rule. That wasn't your rule. That is a rule we instituted and changed when we became the majority, Mr. Speaker.

So we will have regular order. We will have regular order. We will take it through committee, we will have it open for debate, and we will bring it to the floor because we promised the American people, and we will keep our promise, just as the President, as you heard just this week, talked about the reform. We will protect preexisting conditions. We will make sure those who are 26 or younger can stay on their parents' plan. The bans or lifetime limits, we will protect those like we have always said we would. We will create a healthcare bill that actually empowers the individual, not more government. We will actually lower the premiums. That is the difference between us. We can have those debates, and I welcome them, because I think history will show your hearings and our hearings. But, at the end of the day, I want the history to show who actually did a better job of providing health care to the American people at a lower cost.

You are not on that committee, so you can look at it when we mark it up.

No.

If the gentleman yields, I will answer his question.

It is similar to every other bill we move. They will post it before they mark it up so everybody can see it and debate it.

Have you seen a scheduled markup? I didn't have it in my list. I don't announce markups, but apparently this is another rumor you may have heard.

I thank the gentleman for asking. That is a question to the chairman. I simply provide you the schedule for next week.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

That is an action of the committees, and they will list as soon as they are prepared to do their markups.

Will the gentleman yield for one moment?

The gentleman understands that this is coming through reconciliation, and reconciliation is created through committee, not by submitting a bill. So this is regular order.

I thank the gentleman for his concern, and I thank the gentleman for the last 6 years that we have had concerns about this. I will provide the gentleman with a number of hearings. In Energy and Commerce this year alone, they have had hearings and they have had votes on markups on improvements and changes to our healthcare system. If the gentleman would like, I will provide those to him at a later date.

But when it comes to reconciliation, committees will move that. When it goes through the committees, it will then go to the Budget Committee, and then it will come to the floor. That is regular order, and that is what we are following.

I expect to follow regular order. When a bill goes through Energy and Commerce and a bill comes through Ways and Means, it will then go for markup inside the Budget Committee, and then come to the floor.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just didn't know that 4 months later we were still going to litigate who won the election. It has always been the electoral college.

I know the gentleman likes to make a lot of quotes, but I think if you take my quote and you look at the date and you want to go back in time and you look at the polling, I think my quote is right. I think the American people were at that exact same position.

You talk about consequences. The ACA has a tremendous amount of consequences on the American public, and, unfortunately, they haven't been positive. Some have, but the majority have not. That is why a number of people today, one-third of this Nation of the counties, 1,022, only have one healthcare provider.

I listened to our President just this week right down this well. I know you haven't commented about that or quoted anything he said there, but I listened to other people who commented about that, people who are on different sides of the aisle who I know did not vote for him.

Mr. Speaker, Van Jones, I know the man well. He and I philosophically disagree. But he said that night, listening to President Trump, that he became America's President.

So I just say to my friend across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that I think 4 months is long enough to decide who won the race, and we don't have to come back to this. If we really want this country to come together, I don't think that type of questioning on this floor is productive. I think it is time to come together as one Nation and start solving these problems, but not try to bring back up and litigate who really won the election.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just tell my friend, when I refer to a poll, I mean the main poll of election day. If I look at what happened on 2010 and I look at what took place in this last election, you are correct, one side campaigned on repealing and replacing ObamaCare. This is only the third time since World War II that the American public entrusted that to a Republican Party who have a majority in the House, a majority in the Senate, and the Presidency.

So, yes, that is the poll I was looking at; the same as what transpired in 2010. That was the cornerstone and the foundation of what people said in that last election.

We are moving forward on that our promise. We have been working on this for more than 6 years with hearings, townhalls, and listening. We are going through reconciliation, the regular order. So the committees will mark up, send it in to the Committee on Budget, where they will do a markup, and then it will come to the floor.

I thank the gentleman for his concern.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did meet with a bipartisan group of Governors, and that was one of the discussions as well. It is not scheduled at this time, but we will continue to work on that in committee. Our hope is to be able to find a solution in committee and be able to move that forward.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is a matter for investigation by the House Intelligence Committee. For years, we have investigated Putin's hostile international actions.

Just so the gentleman does know, Mr. Speaker, this week, Chairman Nunes and Ranking Member Schiff approved the scope of their committee's inquiry into Russia's measures of targeting in the 2016 election. I support this bipartisan investigation. I have great faith that the committee will fully investigate all of the evidence and follow the facts wherever they lead.

I know the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, made comments in regards to the attorney general. Attorney General Sessions stated this morning that whenever it is appropriate, he will recuse himself. I agree with those remarks.

As far as the ongoing investigation into Russia, I would, again, direct my friend to the bipartisan effort that is underway in the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate a rule for a piece of legislation that will, in the final analysis, make it more difficult for hardworking Americans to stand up to corporate malfeasance; a piece of legislation that jettisons a history of legal precedent in the blink of an eye because, well, it helps keep the deep pockets of the ultrawealthy as deep as possible.

I learned this law in law school in 1959, but it was in existence way before that time, and now my friends across the aisle are going to tell us that this legislation is needed because it will protect small businesses. This is a feint, folks. Small businesses--indeed all of us--have been and continue to be protected by the century-old jurisprudential rule that the Republicans come here today to upend. In reality, all this bill will do is make it more difficult for regular folks across this country to bring lawsuits against massive corporations.

I shudder to think what would have happened in the critically important asbestos case had this particular law been in effect; and there are many more.

This bill will make it more expensive both in time and treasure for our fellow Americans to hold corporations responsible in the courtroom, a need all the more prevalent today as my friends across the aisle have been busy gutting regulations at a dizzying pace.

Let me make it clear, after we finish, my colleague from Colorado and I are going to go back to the Rules Committee to discuss some more judicial reform. A lot of it is stuff that is going to harm little people in the courts and to cause them not to have access to the court system, as have many of the regulations that we have already disapproved.

Let us be clear, the American people didn't vote for dirty water, but that is what they got with this Republican majority when it voted to repeal a rule that barred corporations from dumping mining debris into our drinking water, helping powerful mining companies by hurting all of the rest of the people in their near curtilage.

The American people didn't vote to weaken the Securities and Exchange Commission, but that is what this majority did when it passed a bill adding more hurdles to the SEC rulemaking process, making it more difficult for the agency to protect consumers, helping Wall Street while putting our economy at risk. I will make a prediction

here. It may not happen right away, but just like we saw the Great Depression that we are just coming out of, we are likely to see that same kind of situation again by virtue of lessening the rules against violations in securities.

The American people didn't vote to drug test Americans on unemployment insurance--degrading the hardworking men and women in this country--but that is what this Republican majority did without delay.

Mr. Speaker, the list really does go on and on. In fact, just yesterday, Republicans continued to chant the corporate clarion call with the unveiling of what I now will call their shameful replacement of the Affordable Care Act. Until there is a resolution, I am going to call it TrumpCare.

My colleagues like to tout how short the bill is compared to the Affordable Care Act. Well, the American people will be surprised to find that, in that brevity, Republicans managed to repeal an Affordable Care Act provision that placed a limit on insurance executives' compensation. Let me repeat that. They managed to repeal a provision that placed a limit on insurance executives' compensation. The insurance executives shouldn't be too surprised by this, however. Repeatedly, Republicans have shown they represent corporate interests over the interests of the American people.

But my Republican colleagues didn't stop there. Their so-called replacement, the Trump bill, also claims to have done away with the individual mandate. What they don't tell you is that, instead, their plan calls for funneling money to the insurance companies in the form of a 30 percent surcharge if an individual goes without health insurance.

Let me tell all the older Americans and 80-year-old people like me to get ready because they are going to be able to charge you just exactly what they want to charge you, and all--mine and yours--insurance is going to go up if this particular measure were to become law.

That is right. Under the Republican healthcare proposal, if you, the American worker, goes without healthcare coverage for longer than 2 months--say you couldn't after a new plan between jobs--then Republicans give insurance companies the right to charge you 30 percent higher premiums. That is ridiculous.

Republicans didn't get rid of the individual mandate. They just turned the mandate into a windfall for insurance companies--a windfall that is going to work out great for insurance executives now that Republicans also removed the cap on their compensation tax deductions.

Mr. Speaker, let us not lose sight of the fact that it took Republicans 7 years of undermining the Affordable Care Act to finally come up with this proposal for replacing it.

Their plan would kick millions of Americans off their health insurance and force millions more to pay higher premiums. It would take health care away from the poor, give tax cuts to the rich, and pull the rug out from under seniors, families, and children.

In fact, this plan is so bad that Republicans literally hid not only their horrific proposal, but themselves, from their constituents. Many of their Members are seeing it just in the last 36 hours. They did this by callously brushing off townhall meeting after townhall meeting.

Why all the smoke and mirrors regarding something as simple as this measure is in light of the fact that they ran on replacing it? Why hide it and why rush it and why go through this charade that most of us know and several Senators said yesterday will be dead on arrival?

Actually, let me ask the American people. Who do you think the Republican Party is representing, you or corporate America?

Mr. Speaker, we are not even a full 2 months into the Republican-led government and, in addition to the unconstitutional Muslim bans--and notice I said ``bans,'' because the old one is nothing but the new one, and the new one is the old one, minus one, and that is the country of Iraq--we have the Republican denial of clear Russian influence in our most recent election.

Let me be very clear about this particular aspect. All of the intelligence agencies have indicated that there was Russian interference in this last election. I don't understand why we are not totally outraged and why there is not extraordinary emphasis on this kind of action against our fundamental democracy.

It is ridiculous that we are around here doing things that we know are not likely to pass the United States Senate and that we are disapproving regulations, yet we cannot get an independent commission to make a determination of how this impact occurred. And we do know that it occurred. I am outraged, and I would hope more Americans would be as well.

We have also seen the almost immediate recusal of the Attorney General due to his inability to be forthright with our Senate colleagues; wild and baseless claims emanating from late-night Twitter storms from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Mar-a-Lago; and we have a Republican Party dedicated to ensuring that their corporate benefactors can rest easy, no matter the harm they cause to everyday working Americans.

Are we addressing any of these concerns here today?

I would imagine my colleague, rightly, will come back and argue that all the things that I just talked about are not this particular rule. Well, this rule is not even deserving of that kind of consideration, largely for the reason it is yet another structured rule disallowing Members of this House to have an opportunity to have input into a measure that is getting rid of a century of precedent in our judiciary. No, what we are doing is debating obscure civil procedure rules that date back to the days of President Teddy Roosevelt.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the chairman of the Rules Committee and he knows that.

I just heard him say his insurance went up under ObamaCare. Mine did, too. I also want to remind him that, if this measure as offered yesterday were to become law, his and my insurance is going to go up again.

So we weren't doing all of the things that you said you were going to do by bringing the price down. In addition, we don't even know what CBO's score is with respect to this matter.

You said that you are reading it to understand it now, yet Members are in the Energy and Commerce Committee, as you explained, marking it up, and they don't even know what CBO's score is. I will get back to that in a few minutes about all these people we pay over there to do that work, and then we are not utilizing them.

I also want to address my friend from Colorado and have him understand that I am not precluded from presenting to the American public what legislation we wish to prioritize.

As the gentleman knows, we are currently debating the rule. This is a tool used to set the House agenda and to prioritize consideration of legislation. For that very reason, this is, in fact, the appropriate time for us to explain to the American people what legislation we would like to prioritize and what agenda we would like to pursue in this House. I won't reiterate it, in the interest of time.

I will have a previous question that will demonstrably show what legislation we think we should be addressing. I will do that for as long as I am given the opportunity to manage rules. I will come down here and present the position of the Democratic Party so that they understand our priorities and not necessarily am I hidebound by this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule which would modify the rules of the House to require a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office before any legislation that would amend or repeal the Affordable Care Act may be considered in committee or on the House floor.

The Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce are marking up repeal legislation today. Legislation this significant should not advance through the committee process, let alone the House, without first hearing from our nonpartisan budget experts at the Congressional Budget Office on what the cost and overall impact will be.

Mr. Speaker, we have over 200 employees at the Congressional Budget Office. We pay them collectively--and administrative duties--nearly $50 million a year to advise us at times exactly like this.

House rules already require the Congressional Budget Office cost estimates to be included in committee reports. We are simply trying to improve and strengthen this principle of transparency in order to ensure that we know the cost of this repeal legislation before we vote, and that includes the members in the Committee on Energy and Commerce today who are marking this up so as how they would know the cost before they vote in committee today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, it is not too late for my friends across the aisle to tether themselves to the ideals that have made this country great for generations; ideals that, if we are to be saved from the rushing current we presently find ourselves being dragged down by, will be, as they always have been, those ideals which save us from ourselves.

We are a nation built upon the strength of immigrants, of teachers, of doctors, of mill workers, garbagemen and -women, small-business owners, and farmers. We are a nation of dreamers and innovators, respectful of our individuality and mindful of our unparalleled power once unified in common cause.

At some point, my Republican friends will, I hope, realize that their unabashed and wholesale championing

of corporate interests at the expense of hardworking Americans is a losing cause. For the sake of our environment, our children, our grandchildren, and our unborn children, I hope this day is earlier rather than later.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.