Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3626, which would reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act for 10 years. This statute's current authorization lasts only through December 9, and we must--at a minimum--extend the current protections.

It is critical that we maintain the prohibition against the manufacture and possession of firearms that would escape detection by metal detectors or x-ray machines.

We must take necessary steps to help protect ourselves from violent criminals and terrorists who may plan to target secure facilities such as airports, courthouses, government buildings, stadiums, schools, and hospitals, which use firearms detection equipment.

While we must ensure the protections of the Undetectable Firearms Act do not lapse, we must also take up legislation as soon as possible to address a critical shortcoming in the statute. The law, as it currently exists, would allow the production of firearms whose detectability is provided by metal parts which may be easily removed without compromising the ability to fire.

I support the efforts of Representative Steve Israel to modernize the statute to address this problem, and I urge consideration of his proposal as soon as possible.

Because of the crisis of gun violence in our country, we must consider other important bills designed to protect public safety. We urgently need to expand the Brady background check system to guns sold at gun shows and through commercial advertisements. To do this, I call upon the House to pass H.R. 1565, the ``Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.'' We should do that at a minimum, but we also need to consider other bills such as those to help curb illegal gun trafficking and ban the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

We should also consider bills such as H.R. 1318, the Youth PROMISE Act, designed to promote proven crime prevention strategies. Instead, this House has ignored the daily toll of gun violence and refused to take action on this issue.

While I urge my colleagues to vote today to extend the Undetectable Firearms Act, I also urge the House to not shrink from its responsibility to take on the other issues related to gun violence prevention.

Members of the House, I rise to speak about the negotiations under way in Geneva today between the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany.

Mr. Speaker, those negotiations have the potential to lead to a peaceful resolution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program. If successful, these negotiations could put in place the restrictions and intrusive inspections needed to ensure that Iran's nuclear program is used exclusively for peaceful purposes.

With a significant diplomatic breakthrough within reach, now is not the time to consider new sanctions which could derail the negotiations and strengthen the position of those in Iran who oppose a settlement with the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the healthcare benefits low-income residents of Michigan can now access because of the state's expansion of Medicaid. I strongly encourage my colleagues to ask their respective governors to take similar measures to expand Medicaid.

In Michigan, this expansion will provide health insurance for thousands of Michiganders who need it most, while saving money and improving care for all of our citizens.

In 2014 alone, 320,000 individuals will be able to access Medicaid benefits, and by 2021, 470,000 Michiganders will be covered--dropping Michigan's uninsured population by nearly 50 percent.

Perhaps most beneficial is the fact that the state will actually save money since federal funds will cover 100 percent of the costs of this expansion for the first 3 years. Next year, the savings will be $206 million and much of these savings will be put in a fund to cover Michigan's future health care liabilities, meaning there will be no net cost to the state for the next 21 years. Further, this expansion will save the state $320 million in uncompensated care by 2022.

This means tax savings for every single tax-paying Michigander, as they will no longer be responsible for paying the medical bill of uninsured individuals who used to seek services at expensive emergency room facilities.

While many states are recognizing the irresistible benefits of Medicaid expansion, 25 states have yet to do so--apparently for ideological reasons. This summer, the Kaiser Family Foundation calculated that the Medicaid expansion would have twice the impact in the states that are leaning against expansion than those embracing it, exhibiting how incredibly positive it would be for those states to adopt expansion. If a state like my home of Michigan can recognize the benefits, I know others can as well. This is a common sense decision that will benefit every person, and even small businesses, in the states that have not yet expanded coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage the 25 governors to see past the ideology and recognize the overwhelming benefit their constituents will reap by their actions to expand Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today is opposition to H.R. 3350, the so-called ``Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013.'' This bill is not a fix to the problems that have arisen because insurance companies are canceling plans that are insufficient to qualify under the new Affordable Care Act standards or are not viewed as economically viable and worth offering.

Instead, this bill will raise premiums in insurance marketplaces and undermine the overall market reforms that Obamacare is designed to remedy. Yesterday, President Obama offered a better solution than this bill, to address these issues.

As one of the few members that were here during the creation of Medicare, I remember first-hand the tactics used by those opposed to its creation. While this is a very different time and context in history, the vehemence of the opposition has its parallels.

Let me remind you that Medicare was once described by George H.W. Bush as ``socialized medicine'' and Ronald Reagan once stated that, ``one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.''

Today, Republicans have done little but resist and fear-monger in opposition to Obamacare's implementation. These conservatives see H.R. 3350 as ``a metaphorical bullet to the gut of Obamacare.'' James Capretta, a conservative health care policy expert at the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, described it as having an ``end result that would be one more step toward fully reversing'' what he describes as the ``catastrophic mistake of Obamacare.'' And even Leader John Boehner has argued that it is part of a larger strategy to ``stop this law.''

Although, Medicare has issues that need to be addressed, it has dramatically improved access to health care for America's seniors, leading to longer and healthier lives, reducing poverty, desegregating southern hospitals, and becoming one of the most popular government programs. From my own political experience, I can safely say that once in place and allowed to operate as designed, Obamacare will have a similarly positive affect.

Allowing H.R. 3350 to pass would be a step backward in the advances we have made in

curbing healthcare costs and expanding access. The increase in grandfathered plans this bill allows would open the door to the cherry- picking by health insurance companies that Obamacare is designed to eliminate. Encouraging younger, healthier, and cheaper-to-cover-adults to withdrawal from the Marketplaces will cause premiums within the Marketplaces to substantially increase.

The bill would also allow insurers to continue to offer plans that don't include essential health benefits, don't comply with the requirement banning annual caps on coverage, aren't subject to premium rate reviews to determine whether their premiums are reasonable, allow discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, and force women to pay more than men for the same coverage. These are many of the past problems of the private insurance industry that Obamacare was specifically designed to correct.

Further, it would cause major delays in the start of coverage because insurers would need to establish and file new rates to state insurance departments for review. This would impose major delays to Obamacare's implementation, which is the ultimate goal of this bill and the Republican agenda.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 46th attempt by Republicans to vote to undermine and effectively repeal the Affordable Care Act. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3350, but in support of Rep. Millers' Motion to Recommit which legislates the President's position. I encourage all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, on November 1st, thousands of families in my congressional district saw a cut to their SNAP (food stamps) benefits. A family of four saw a loss of up to $36 a month. Over the course of the next 12 months, many families across my district will lose more than 24 million meals. Michigan families are already struggling to put food on the table, and the last thing we should do is take food away from those who need it most. Unfortunately, this has already happened.

There's no sugarcoating it: we have a hunger problem in Michigan and across the United States. The majority of households receiving SNAP are those with children. It is our responsibility to protect--not cut-- critical programs like SNAP for the families and kids who rely on them. That's why I introduced H.R. 3353, the ``Extend Not Cut SNAP Benefits Act'' which would extend the Recovery Act's 13.6% increase in SNAP for an additional year.

This extraordinarily low level of SNAP benefits under the new levels will force families to find ways to stretch their already limited benefits even further at the grocery store in order to put healthy, nutritious food on the table for their kids. With less money to spend on groceries each month, the importance of nutrition education becomes even more real.

Yet the House and Senate proposed deep cuts within the Farm Bill could cut SNAP by as much as an additional $40 billion (on top of the cut we just saw on November 1st) and would cut funding for SNAP Education (SNAP-Ed). Keeping SNAP and SNAP-Ed strong isn't just the right thing to do--it's also the smart thing to do. Children who get enough of the healthy food they need, as a rule, face fewer health problems, do better in school and grow up to lead stronger, more productive lives.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2655. I suggest that what we are doing here this afternoon will turn the clock back to a time when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discouraged civil rights cases, limited judicial discretion, and permitted satellite litigation to run wild. I repeat, we may turn the clock back to a time when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discouraged civil rights cases, limited judicial discretion, and permitted satellite litigation to run wild.

And here is how it accomplishes it, by undoing the 1993 amendments to rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by: one, restricting judicial discretion; two, requiring mandatory sanctions for even unintentional violations; and three, eliminating the current rule's 21- day safe harbor provision, which has been so beneficial to our Federal court system.

And so to put it as simply as possible, H.R. 2655 will have a disastrous impact on the administration of justice.

Now, how would this bill chill legitimate civil rights litigation?

Civil rights cases often concern novel issues which made them particularly susceptible to rule 11 before the 1993 amendments. I hope all the Members of this body appreciate how significant this is and the important history that was made during that earlier period of time.

For example, a 1991 Federal Judicial Center study found that the incidence of rule 11 motions was ``higher in civil rights cases than in some other types of cases.''

Another study showed that, while civil rights cases comprised about 11 percent of Federal cases filed, more than 22 percent of the cases in which sanctions had been imposed were civil rights cases.

This legislation will also substantially increase the amount, cost, and intensity of civil litigation and create more grounds for unnecessary delay and harassment in the courtroom. Experts in civil procedure are virtually unanimous on this point.

By allowing rule 11 to be used as a tool to impose court costs on the other side, the 1983 version spawned a virtual cottage industry of rule 11 litigation. Each party had a financial incentive to tie up the other in rule 11 proceedings.

Professor Theodore Eisenberg of Cornell University has demonstrated that roughly one-third of all Federal lawsuits were burdened by satellite litigation during the period when this prior version of the rule was in effect. Attorneys had a double duty, he argued: ``one to try the case, and the other to try the opposing counsel.''

In recognition of these problems, the Judicial Conference amended the rule in 1993 to its present form. And so we should realize that we have the support and appreciate the constructive assistance of many of these organizations: the American Bar Association, the Alliance for Justice, the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, the National Consumers League, Public Citizen, and the United States Public Interest Research Group, among others.

In addition, the legislation is opposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the principal policymaking body for the judicial branch charged with proposing amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the careful, deliberate process outlined in the Rules Enabling Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the

Judicial Conference of the United States,

Washington, DC, July 23, 2013.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Conyers: We write to present the views

of the Judicial Conference Rules Committees on H.R. 2655, the

Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013.

As the current chairs of the Judicial Conference's

Committee on the Rules of Practice and Procedure (the

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

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the ``Advisory

Committee''), we oppose H.R. 2655, 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 that was adopted in 1983 and

eliminated in 1993. The bill would also eliminate a provision

adopted in 1993 to allow a party to withdraw challenged

pleadings on a voluntary basis, without the costs and delay

to the challenging party of seeking and obtaining a court

order. The concerns we express are the same concerns

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

the Standing Rules Committee and Advisory Committee in 2011,

when similar legislation was introduced.

We greatly appreciate, and share, the desire to improve the

civil justice system in our federal courts, including by

reducing frivolous filings. But legislation that would

restore the 1983 version of Rule 11 by undoing the 1993

amendments would create a ``cure'' far 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 instead of

through the careful, deliberate process Congress established

in the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2071-2077.

The 1993 changes followed years of examination and were

made on the Judicial Conference's strong recommendation, with

the Supreme Court's approval, and after congressional review.

The 1983 provision for mandatory sanctions was eliminated

because it did not 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 and that added to the time and costs

of litigation.

The 1983 version of Rule 11 required sanctions for every

violation of the rule. This mandatory sanctions provision

quickly became a tool of abuse in civil litigation. Seeking

to use mandatory sanctions to their advantage, aggressive

lawyers filed motions for Rule 11 sanctions in response to

virtually every filing in a civil case. Much time and money

was spent in Rule 11 battles that had everything to do with

strategic gamesmanship and little to do with underlying

claims. Rule 11 motions came to be met with counter-motions

that sought Rule 11 sanctions for making the original Rule 11

motion.

The 1983 version of Rule 11 spawned thousands of court

decisions unrelated to the merits of the cases, sowed discord

in the bar, and generated widespread criticism. As letters

from the Judicial Conference commenting on proposed

legislation similar to H.R. 2655 pointed out, some of the

serious problems caused by the 1983 amendments to Rule 11

included:

1. creating a significant incentive to file unmeritorious

Rule 11 motions by providing a greater possibility of

receiving money;

2. engendering potential conflicts of interest between

clients and their lawyers;

3. exacerbating tensions between lawyers; and

4. providing a disincentive to abandon or withdraw a

pleading or claim that lacked merit--thereby admitting error

and risking sanctions--even after determining that it no

longer was supportable in law or fact.

The 1993 amendments to Rule 11 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 rather than on Rule 11

motions. Since 1993, the rule has established 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 the 21 days, a court may impose sanctions,

including assessing reasonable attorney fees. The 1983

version of Rule 11 authorized a court to sanction discovery-

related abuse under Rule 11, Rule 26(g), or Rule 37, which

created confusion. Under the 1993 amendments to Rule 11,

sanctioning of discovery-related abuse is limited to Rules 26

and 37, which provide for sanctions that include awards of

reasonable attorney fees.

The 1993 amendments to Rule 11 culminated a long, critical

examination of the rule begun four years earlier. The

Advisory Committee reviewed a significant number of empirical

studies of the 1983 version of Rule 11, including three

separate studies conducted by the Federal Judicial Center in

1985, 1988, and 1991, a Third Circuit Task Force report on

Rule 11 in 1989, and a New York State Bar Committee report in

1987.

After reviewing the literature and empirical studies of

problems caused by the 1983 amendments to Rule 11, the

Advisory Committee issued in 1990 a preliminary call for

general comment on the operation and effect of the rule. The

response was substantial and

clearly called for a change in the rule. The Advisory

Committee concluded that the cost-shifting in Rule 11 created

an incentive for too many unnecessary Rule 11 motions.

Amendments to Rule 11 were drafted by the Advisory Committee,

approved by the Standing Rules Committee, and approved by the

Judicial Conference. The Supreme Court promulgated and

transmitted the amendments to Congress in May 1993 after

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

in accordance with the Rules Enabling Act process.

Experience with the amended rule since 1993 has

demonstrated 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 Rule 11

amendments. About 580 attorneys and 120 judges responded. The

Center found general satisfaction with the amended rule. It

also found that a majority of the judges and lawyers did not

favor a provision that would require 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 11--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), with 12 percent noting

that such litigation has not been a problem, 19 percent

noting that such litigation decreased during their tenure on

the federal bench, and 54 percent noting that such litigation

has remained relatively constant; 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. In 2005, the American Bar

Association issued a resolution opposing a proposed bill

similar to H.R. 2655.

Minimizing frivolous filings is, of course, vital. But

there is no need to reinstate the 1983 version of Rule 11 to

work toward this goal. Judges have many tools available to

respond to, and deter, frivolous pleadings. Those tools

include 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e), which requires courts to

dismiss cases brought in forma pauperis that the court

determines are frivolous or 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. Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes courts to dismiss

pleadings that fail to state a claim on which relief can be

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

authorizes sanctions against lawyers for ``unreasonably and

vexatiously'' multiplying the proceedings in any case. And

the present version of Rule 11 itself provides an effective,

balanced tool, without the problems and satellite litigation

the 1983 version created.

In May 2010, the Advisory Committee held a major conference

on civil litigation, examining the problems of costs and

delay--which encompass frivolous filings--and potential ways

to improve the system. The Conference encouraged, and

generated, a broad spectrum of criticisms by lawyers,

litigants (including businesses and governmental entities),

judges, and academics of the current approaches to federal

civil cases, including the rules, and proposals for change.

Conspicuous in their absence were any criticism of Rule 11 or

any proposal to restore the 1983 version of the rule. Three

years after the Conference, the Advisory Committee and

Standing Rules Committee have approved publication of rules

amendments designed to respond to suggestions made at the

Conference on new means of reducing cost and delay in civil

litigation and enhancing practical access to the federal

courts. These three years of intense work did not find any

reason to consider Rule 11 amendments.

Undoing the 1993 Rule 11 amendments would frustrate the

purpose and intent of the Rules Enabling Act. Congress

designed the Rules Enabling Act process in 1934 and reformed

it in 1988 to produce the best rules possible by ensuring

broad public participation and thorough review by the bench,

the bar, and the academy. The Act charges the judiciary with

the task of neutral, independent, and thorough analysis of

the rules and their operation. The Rules Committees are

dedicated to extensive study and analysis of the rules,

including empirical research, so that they can propose rules

that will best serve the American justice system and will not

produce unintended consequences. Experience has shown that

this process works well.

In summary, experience, research, and thoughtful

deliberation have shown that there is no need to reinstate

the 1983 version of Rule 11 that proved contentious and

costly to litigants and diverted so much time and energy of

the bar and bench. Doing so would add to, not improve, the

problems of costs and delay that we are working to address.

We urge you on behalf of the Rules Committees to not adopt

the proposed legislation amending Rule 11.

Thank you for considering the Rules Committees' views. We

look forward to continuing to work together to ensure that

our civil justice system is working well to fulfill its vital

role. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact

Benjamin Robinson, Deputy Rules Officer and Counsel, at 202-

502-1820.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey S. Sutton,

U.S. Circuit Judge, Chair, Committee on Rules of Practice

and Procedure.

David G. Campbell,

U.S. District Judge, Chair, Advisory Committee on Civil

Rules.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a

senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior active member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Ted Deutch, a very effective member of the House Judiciary Committee.

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

Ladies and gentlemen, as we see now, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act will turn back the clock to a time when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discouraged civil rights cases and permitted satellite litigation to run wild.

I want to point out, in closing, that this is now the second day this week that the House is considering legislation aimed at solving a nonexistent problem that has little or no chance of seeing the light of day in the other body and is solely aimed at limiting access to justice for victims of egregious harms.

Just as I asked yesterday, who actually supports this legislation? Why are we putting their interests ahead of victims'? And why are we engaged in this charade when there are real problems facing our Nation that our constituents are still waiting for us to address?

With just 13 legislative days left this year, we still haven't considered immigration reform. We haven't passed a budget. We haven't considered a single piece of legislation that will create jobs and put America back to work. So really, whose interest is this House concerned with today? I urge my colleagues, oppose this legislation.

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

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

Members of the House, we are confronted with a very simple proposition today. What we have here is a piece of legislation that seeks to address a nonexistent problem and is strongly opposed by asbestos victims, the trusts charged with administering compensation to victims, privacy advocates, consumer groups, labor organizations, and legal representatives of future claimants.

I will point out that I have one of the longest lists of organizational opposition that I have seen in a long time, more than 11 organizations, starting with the Asbestos Cancer Victims' Rights Campaign and then going to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, the AFL-CIO, the United Steelworkers, AFSCME, Public Citizen, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Environmental Working Group, the Alliance for Justice, the American Association for Justice, and many others.

What we are doing here is beginning this debate by asking who actually supports this bill and why are their interests being put ahead of asbestos victims.

To begin with, the bill's reporting and disclosure requirements are an assault against asbestos victims' privacy interests. The bill mandates that the trusts publicly report information on the claimants that could include their name, address, work history, income, medical information, exposure history, as well as the basis of any payment that the trust made to the claimant.

Given the fact that all this information would potentially be available on the Internet, just imagine what insurance companies, potential employers, prospective lenders, and data collectors could do with this private information.

Essentially, what this bill does is allow asbestos victims to be re- victimized by exposing their health information to the public, including those who seek information for illegal purposes.

And so I ask all of the thoughtful Members of this body to join me in strongly and vigorously opposing the measure before us today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to thank my good friend, Spencer Bachus, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, for participating here on the floor with me. I want him to know that the privacy part of his remarks are not too relevant at this point because this bill allows the name, the disease, and all related facts to be published. It can be picked up by the Internet; and so assurances of privacy are of little usefulness here.

I am so glad to know that Mrs. Sue Vento, the widow of our former colleague, Bruce Vento, is here with us in the gallery. She has been working along with us in strongly opposing H.R. 982.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a distinguished member of the committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Houston, Texas, (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia, Hank Johnson, and I would indicate his very deep concern for asbestos cancer victims.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Steve Cohen, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the leader of the Democratic Caucus, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. Eric Swalwell.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close. I think the case has been made that the asbestos victims do not benefit from this bill, that there is no widespread fraud or abuse, that all of the victims and their organizations are, in fact, strongly opposed to H.R. 982, and so are we. It is for that reason that I urge Members of the House to soundly reject this measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the Cohen amendment to limit the bill to asbestos trusts that do not have an internal fraud detection system is very appropriate. That is because, according to the Government Accountability Office, which has studied this and filed a report, they have found that in every trust that had an existing internal quality control to detect fraud, there was no evidence of systematic fraud found, and so I want to compliment the gentleman from Tennessee for bringing this to our attention. We think that it makes a better attempt at regulating and protecting victims of asbestos, and so I am very pleased to support it, and I hope that it becomes part of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Nadler, for your very important amendment.

As has been reported by the Fifth Circuit in the First Appellate opinion upholding the product liability against a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products, the Government Accountability Office reported:

In the course of the first successful personal injury

lawsuits against asbestos manufacturers, the plaintiffs'

attorney introduced evidence that these manufacturers had

known but concealed information about the dangers of asbestos

exposure, or that such dangers were reasonably foreseeable.

And in the nearly four decades since, litigation over

personal injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos has

resulted in hundreds of thousands of claims filed and

billions of dollars of compensation paid.

I urge support of the Nadler amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to commend the creative inquiry of the gentlelady from Texas in examining this measure to make it clear to us, through her amendment, that this places disclosure burdens on trusts and asbestos victims but not on the corporations, and that is what she seeks to deal with. So this bill helps this be accomplished. And what is so critical about it is that we now have a more balanced approach than is currently in the bill. So please support the Jackson Lee amendment.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank George Miller for the work he has done, along with the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

The Miller-Conyers amendment simply encourages the Department of Labor to issue a rule that requires investment advisers to provide advice in a fiduciary capacity and protect access to investment education, ensure reasonable compensation to advisers, and ensure the availability of ESOP appraisals.

This is what we are seeking so badly, and this is the comment that has been made about the inaccurate drafting of the bill. The Department of Labor should issue a proposed rule that seeks to protect workers, provide access to investment education, and ensure that advisers are reasonably paid.

Under current rules, investment advisers may hold themselves out as acting in workers' best interests even though they are not. I repeat: under current rules, investment advisers may hold themselves out as acting in workers' best interests even though they are not.

Workers in these types of plans often are required to choose between dozens of investment choices and need the advice on their investment options from people who do not have secret conflicts. Over 70 million workers and retirees depend upon 401(k) retirement plans and IRAs for their retirement savings. If there is any hope for this measure at all, H.R. 2374, it would have to have this amendment on it. I plead with those who enthusiastically support this measure to please support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3080, the ``Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013,'' better known as ``WRRDA.'' This legislation is long overdue, and although it is a good down-payment, this body needs to take far more drastic steps to repair and replace our nation's aging and increasingly uncompetitive water infrastructure--which will require more than $1 trillion in investment over the next couple of decades.

Americans across the country will benefit commercially and economically from the improvements to infrastructure and the jobs provided by those projects. The competitive benefits and the economic jolt provided by WRRDA is an important investment in our future. It means that manufacturers can ship more cheaply and more quickly, and can more easily return jobs to our shores than if they had to struggle to bring their goods to the market. It also means that well-trained and hard-working men and women will go back to work, which will provide needed inertia to an economy that has been heavily battered by the last few weeks of brinksmanship.

I will be supporting this bill because I believe that our current infrastructure backlog is desperately in need of legislative action. However, I have a number of misgivings about this bill, which I hope my colleagues will address during a conference between the chambers. Though my concerns are many, I can sum them up simply: H.R. 3080 does not do enough to eliminate the infrastructure deficit or to ensure that we do so in the most responsible way.

One problem I have is that H.R. 3080 makes across the board cuts to previously authorized projects--$12 billion out of a roughly $60 billion backlog. This ``Sequester'' style cut is a bad legislative approach. The solution to a problem often requires a more deft touch than simply lopping off whatever portion seems right. Americans are already fed up with this sort of austerity from the across the board cuts that went into effect at the beginning of 2013, which has wreaked havoc upon important programs and on the American economy. I urge my colleagues to make their decisions based on a more thorough review of the merits of individual projects, instead of just demanding $12 billion in cuts and turning the scissors over to the Army Corps of Engineers.

Another problem I have lies with the ``streamlining approach'' found in this legislation which does little to actually eliminate the delays that keep important projects in limbo. I am especially concerned about the portions of H.R. 3080 which dramatically alter the environmental safeguards built into existing law. One of those changes, which would cut the time that communities have to review final agency approval of water infrastructure projects from six years to 150 days--a cut of nearly 95 percent--could undermine the rights of citizens to hold their government accountable for the impact that projects may have on their community. However, even after the environmental review process is completed, these projects still face potentially endless delays because of how the appropriations process leads to grossly inadequate funding levels. That is why I support and I urge my colleagues to support the DeFazio Amendment, which will require the tremendous backlog of projects to be reduced before the environmental safeguards are touched.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3080, because although its flaws are many, it will put the shovel in the ground to dig us out of the ditch we are in. Americans are passing trillions in debt--in the form of outdated roads and water resources--on to the next generation. This may not be everything we need, but it is a good start.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to rise and address my colleagues.

On November 1, households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, popularly referred to as SNAP, will see their monthly benefits sharply reduced. The temporary benefit boost provided for in the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act is scheduled to expire next month, leaving many Americans unsure of how they will put food on the table. The November 1 cut will exacerbate the problem of hunger in our Nation and make it much harder for millions of Americans--fathers, mothers, children, veterans, and Active Duty military even--to provide for their loved ones.

The benefit increase passed in the depths of the Great Recession has provided Americans, both directly and indirectly, with substantial benefits. Low-income families who face unemployment and underemployment are provided a critical way to bridge the financial barriers they face. Americans who are employed in adequate-paying jobs are able to remain so because of the boost to the economy; $9 is added to the GDP for every $5 in SNAP benefits that the program provides. These cuts will come at a moment when Americans are ill prepared to afford them. The loss of SNAP will not just mean empty tables for Thanksgiving for millions. It will mean, as well, a weaker economy, now even as the effects of our prolonged shutdown and debt ceiling brinksmanship are beginning to erode economic progress. This cut in benefits will simply push the American economy into a vicious cycle which we simply cannot afford at this time.

So I am urging my colleagues to avoid exacerbating the effects of this government shutdown and the potential default of government debts, and I am calling on them to support my bill, H.R. 3108, the Extend Not Cut SNAP Benefits Act, which provides for a 1-year extension of the 13 percent benefits increase contained in the ARRA through the 2014 fiscal year.

I am proud to proclaim 43 cosponsors so far.

In 2011, SNAP lifted 4.7 million Americans above the poverty line, including 2.1 million children. Without an extension of the 2009 Recovery Act's temporary boost to SNAP, our economy will be the worse, and our children will face a hunger they do not deserve to confront alone. So I urge my colleagues to continue the support of H.R. 3108 and ensure that Americans are not cut off at the worst possible time.

Rep. Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [GU]--9/18/2013

Rep. Brown, Corrine [FL-5]--9/18/2013

Rep. Capuano, Michael E. [MA-7]--9/27/2013

Rep. Cicilline, David N. [RI-1]--9/20/2013

Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-9]--9/18/2013

Rep. Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1]--9/18/2013

Rep. Cohen, Steve [TN-9]--9/20/2013

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [VA-11]--9/18/2013

Rep. Davis, Danny K. [IL-7]--10/3/2013

Rep. Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14]--9/20/2013

Rep. Ellison, Keith [MN-5]--9/18/2013

Rep. Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11]--9/18/2013

Rep. Green, Al [TX-9]--10/8/2013

Rep. Green, Gene [TX-29]--9/18/2013

Rep. Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-3]--9/18/2013

Rep. Honda, Michael M. [CA-17]--9/20/2013

Rep. Huffman, Jared [CA-2]--9/20/2013

Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [TX-18]--9/18/2013

Rep. Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30]--9/18/2013

Rep. Langevin, James R. [RI-2]--9/20/2013

Rep. Lee, Barbara [CA-13]--9/17/2013

Rep. Lewis, John [GA-5]--9/18/2013

Rep. McGovern, James P. [MA-2]--9/18/2013

Rep. Moore, Gwen [WI-4]--9/18/2013

Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [NY-1]--9/18/2013

Rep. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC]--9/18/2013

Rep. Pingree, Chellie [ME-1]--9/18/2013

Rep. Pocan, Mark [WI-2]--10/8/2013

Rep. Rangel, Charles B. [NY-13]--9/18/2013

Rep. Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1]--9/18/2013

Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9]--9/27/2013

Rep. Serrano, Jose E. [NY-15]--9/18/2013

Rep. Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1]--10/3/2013

Rep. Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-25]--9/27/2013

Rep. Smith, Adam [WA-9]--9/20/2013

Rep. Takano, Mark [CA-41]--10/8/2013

Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2]--10/8/2013

Rep. Titus, Dina [NV-1]--9/18/2013

Rep. Vargas, Juan [CA-51]--9/18/2013

Rep. Vela, Filemon [TX-34]--10/10/2013

Rep. Waters, Maxine [CA-43]--9/20/2013

Rep. Welch, Peter [VT]--10/4/2013

Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [FL-24]--10/8/2013

Mr. Speaker, today, October 10, Taiwan celebrates their National Day. This is Taiwan's 102nd anniversary and it is known as Double Ten day because it occurs on the tenth day of the tenth month. Their national birthday, they celebrate it with the same passion and pride with which Americans mark the Fourth of July.

Taiwan has many reasons to celebrate their nation's history. Our friends in Southeast Asia excel in a number of areas, one of the most important being their national healthcare system. Taiwan has an effective single payer system, the National Health Insurance Program (NHI), which provides healthcare for virtually all Taiwanese citizens.

I have been fighting for a similar program in the United States of America for the last 10 years. In February, I reintroduced H.R. 676, ``The Expanded and Improved Medicare For All Act,'' which would create a similar program of high quality coverage for all Americans.

Taiwan also has a leading education system, which reflects the important investments that the nation has made in their children's futures. I too hope that Americans can learn from their example, and begin to invest similarly in the talents and capacity of our next generation.

I congratulate my friends across the Pacific, and I wish them a very happy 102nd Double Ten Day. May they have as much to celebrate next year as they have today.

Mr. Speaker, we rise to commemorate and celebrate the life and contributions of Herman Wallace, one of the bravest champions for justice and human rights whom we have ever met. Nicknamed, ``The Muhammad Ali of Justice'', Mr. Wallace was a member of Louisiana's ``Angola 3'' who spent 41 years in solitary confinement. Mr. Richmond and I had the opportunity to visit Mr. Wallace at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, justifiably called ``the Alcatraz of the South'' several years ago. I was impressed by his courage, determination, and dignity. We received word that Mr. Wallace passed away earlier this morning, only three days after he was freed pursuant to a federal judge's ruling that he had not received a fair trial in 1974.

Mr. Wallace began his struggle for justice back in the 1970s, when he, along with Robert King and Albert Woodfox, organized a prison chapter of the Black Panther Party at the Angola prison. He worked to desegregate the prison, to end systematic rape and violence, and for better living conditions for the inmates.

Mr. Wallace, Albert Woodfox, and Robert King spent decades in solitary confinement--confined in cells no bigger than a parking space for 23 hours a day--for murders they say they did not commit. No physical evidence links them to these crimes. Potentially exculpatory DNA evidence has been lost, and the testimony of the main eyewitness has been discredited.

Mr. Wallace showed relentless courage and perseverance in fighting the injustice and inhumane treatment that he and his fellow Angola 3 inmates were subjected to. Even from the confines of solitary confinement, he filed lawsuit after lawsuit in an effort to bring attention to the difficult conditions under which he and the others were being held.

The courts finally heard him this week, and some measure of justice was granted with his release. Mr. Wallace's conviction has now been overturned. Mr. King's conviction has been overturned. State and federal judges have overturned Mr. Woodfox's conviction three times, yet Mr. Woodfox remains in prison--in solitary confinement--because of the State's appeals.

On behalf of all who believe in fundamental fairness and justice, we commend Mr. Wallace's courage and determination to keep fighting through 41 long years of solitary confinement. He is an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. Wallace had recently been diagnosed with terminal liver cancer. With his release from prison, it was hoped that he would be able to receive the medical care that his advanced liver cancer required. Prior to his passing, Mr. Wallace's legal team said, however, that his greatest hope was that his case would help ensure that others, especially his fellow Angola 3 member Albert Woodfox, would not continue to suffer the cruel and unusual confinement that he had suffered. Because of Mr. Wallace's work, those of us in Congress who have called for his freedom will dedicate our future efforts to ensuring that no one anywhere in the United States is subjected to the unjust and inhumane treatment that he has endured.

Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that we learned of Mr. Wallace's passing earlier this morning, nine days shy of his 72nd birthday. Mr. Wallace's personal fight against injustice and the inhuman plight that is long term solitary confinement has ended for him. The larger fight against that injustice must go on, however, and his legacy will endure through a civil lawsuit that he filed jointly with his fellow Angola 3 members, Albert Woodfox and Robert King. That lawsuit seeks to define and abolish long term solitary confinement as cruel and unusual punishment.

Mr. Speaker, we ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Wallace for his many-decades-long fight for the humane treatment of prisoners. We, and all of us, owe Mr. Wallace a debt of gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Manufacturing Day, and to encourage our young people to seriously think about what manufacturing entails.

According to recent reports, 55 percent of manufacturers reported business growth in 2012 and 63 percent anticipate growth this year. Meanwhile, most of their employees are at least 45 years old, with retirement on the horizon. Within the next decade, three-quarters of the workforce in this sector will need to come from Generation Y if the industry is to keep growing and evolving at its current rate.

With statistics like these, companies across the nation recognize the need to recruit younger generations. For this reason they are opening their doors and welcoming our young people to tour factories and consider a career in manufacturing. By opening their doors, they want to educate young people on the skills necessary to find manufacturing work, and advise them that this work still pays better than many jobs.

Take Detroit's historic rise in automotive manufacturing and production as an example. Thousands of families found quality good- paying jobs, with benefits secured through collective bargaining at the auto plants. Although many of the manufacturing jobs that built our middle class over the 20th Century were shipped overseas, there is a new focus on bringing them back by recreating what manufacturing in American looks like today.

Right now, manufacturers are adding jobs at the fastest pace it has seen in the last few years, ramping up production of ``Made in America'' products. But while the manufacturing community is currently in the midst of resurgence, they are struggling to find qualified employees to fill these job openings.

Since much of the industry has modernized over the last few decades, these job positions are high tech, working with robots and cutting-edge technologies that require strong math and computer skills. Manufacturing is no longer dangerous, dirty, or backbreaking work--it is a modem, technologically advanced profession. In order to continue the current manufacturing resurgence, we need to focus on preparing our youth with STEM educations to help them garner the skills that will allow them to transition into modern plants that require smart, high- tech employees.

I applaud American manufacturing companies pulling together to highlight the advances across the industry, and I strongly encourage these sorts of educational opportunities for our youth. Manufacturing has long been a source of good-paying jobs that provide economic security for American's middle class and I fully support efforts to ensure it holds this position into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I regret I missed votes on September 27, 2013. Had I been present, my intention was to vote ``yes'' on Senate Amendment to H.R. 1412--Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans Act. Further, I would have also voted ``yes'' on H.R. 3096 to designate a Federal Bureau of Investigation building as the ``Michael D. Resnick Terrorist Screening Center.''

A meeting in Detroit to address the economic situation of the City with senior White House officials, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, and Attorney General Eric Holder and others in the Michigan Congressional Delegation was the reason for my absence. Additionally, Governor Rick Snyder, Mayor Dave Bing, and Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr were in attendance. I felt my participation vital to the interests of my constituents.