Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security I rise in support of H.R. 1249, the ``DHS Multiyear Acquisition Strategy Act of 2017'', which requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop a multiyear acquisition strategy.

H.R. 1249 seeks to streamline the Department of Homeland Security's acquisition process to promote strategic investment as well as cost savings for taxpayers.

DHS would be required to provide Congress with the new strategy which needs to include:

1. A prioritized list of major acquisition programs

2. An inventory of investments and real estate assets

3. A plan to address funding gaps, prevent wasteful purchases, achieve efficiency, align prices for similar items, and use purchase timing and economies of scale

4. An identification of tests to support the acquisition of technology, leverage emerging trends and incorporate technology into DHS's operating doctrine

5. An assessment of how DHS could encourage appropriate risk-taking and minimize cost overruns, including when the department identifies needs, Develops cost assessments, Secures funding, Demonstrates technology maturity, and establishes its workforce

6. An assessment to improve collaboration with industry, small and disadvantaged businesses, intra-government offices, university centers of excellence, certification organizations, and national laboratories

Although the DHS has taken measures to improve acquisition management, DHS programs still cost taxpayers over $7 billion per year.

In its 2017 list of ``high-risk'' areas, GAO reported DHS needed to improve the affordability of its major acquisition programs and address staffing shortfalls.

DHS acquisition programs may continue to be at high risk for waste, fraud, and abuse.

This bill will assist oversight committees in better preparing men and women on the frontlines securing our borders, protecting our airports, and defending our shores by making sure we know what works and what is needed before taxpayer dollars are spent.

Efficient use of resources within the Department of Homeland Security is crucial to the safety of all Texans, and all Americans especially in regards to border security.

The Texas-Mexico border makes up 1,254 miles of the 1,900-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border.

The more money wasted on unnecessary overhead costs, the less resources the Department has to fulfill its key mission of protecting our border and our homeland.

By passing this bipartisan measure, we can ensure that the DHS operates in a more efficient manner and can better stay ahead of threats to our country.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1249.

Mr. Speaker, in a methodical questioning of Mr. Comey today in the Intelligence Committee, let me recount for you and my colleagues the responses of Mr. Comey.

Mr. Trump's tweet, March 4, 2017: Terrible. Just found out that Obama had my wires tapped in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism.

Mr. Comey said: No, it did not happen.

March 4, 2017: Is it legal for a sitting President to be wiretapping a race for President prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A new low.

Mr. Comey said: No, it did not happen.

Mr. Comey, the FBI director.

Again on March 4, 2017: I bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to election.

Again, Mr. Comey said: No.

And then again on March 4, 2017, Mr. Trump said: How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad, or sick, guy.

Mr. Comey, the FBI director, said: No.

Definitively, Mr. Trump did not tell the truth. More investigations deliberatively to determine the status of the actions of the President of the United States accusing a former President of a criminal felony which did not happen. It did not happen.

Mr. Speaker, just a little bit of history.

Let me, first of all, say happy St. Patrick's Day. Many know that the Irish fled in the 1800s, if my history is correct, because of the potato famine. We welcomed them as immigrants, and as an early member of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, I remember the Irish sitting in our hearing room saying: Remember the Irish as relates to immigration.

We all have come from someplace to do better. This last week, I sat in the Budget Committee listening to debate on the healthcare bill. I stand here today to argue vigorously against the Medicaid changes: $880 billion taken away from Medicaid for low-income, hardworking Americans; the language that was added to the bill to instruct that we should not incentivize or that we should make sure that able-bodied men do not get Medicaid.

Well, let me say this. In the spirit of those who have come to this Nation, this bill cannot stand because it ignores the vulnerable and the people who need health insurance, who are, themselves, either addicted or have families.

I want to stand for what America is right for: its values. Let us vote down a healthcare bill that does not help America become unsick.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 20th year of Camp Fire's Absolutely Incredible Kid Day, which observed the third Thursday in March and is devoted to sending uplifting messages to the youth in their lives.

Founded in 1910, by Luther Gulick, M.D., and his wife, Charlotte Gulick, Camp Fire is a leading national youth development organization that guides ``young people on their journey to self-discovery.''

As founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's caucus, I understand the importance of encouraging and supporting our youth to grow and thrive in this world.

Camp Fire's Absolutely Incredible Kid Day honors our nation's youth by asking adults to write letters of encouragement and inspiration to the incredible kids in their lives.

This is a simple and impactful way to let the youth know how much people care and support them.

There are numerous ways for adults to participate in this call to action including using social media to tag, tweet, post, and write letters of love and support to kids.

The campaign has received the critical acclaim of child and family care experts, award winning authors, noted psychologists, and adults and kids everywhere, including Dr. Stephen R. Covey, author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families; Tipper Gore, who is a leading child advocate; and the famous Astronaut, the late U.S. Senator John Glenn.

Celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey, Jim Carrey, and Cindy Crawford have also given their support to Absolutely Incredible Kid Day.

In Houston, Texas we know that it truly takes an entire community to raise a child.

Houston has a distinct history of uplifting the youth in our community so they can excel in any area they choose.

A few examples of Houstonians who have benefited from community support are: the entertaining Beyonce Knowles Carter; the hilarious Jim Parsons, from the Big Bang Theory;

the talented actor Isaiah. Washington, from Grey's Anatomy; and Simone Biles, who set the record for the most gold medals in women's gymnastics at a single Olympic games.

I rise to reaffirm my support for our youth and commend the Camp Fire organization on their Absolutely Incredible Kid Day initiative which reminds adults to let children know that they are loved and supported by their families and members of their community.

Mr. Speaker, let me join my colleagues, first of all, and say that this country is made up of somebody else's babies; and I am very proud to be an American who sees the great talent of these babies who have become great leaders, such as teachers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, and members who do public service. Thank you to somebody else's babies.

Let me also congratulate the district court in Hawaii, which has just rendered a decision to block the President's Muslim ban again. Thank you for that wise and deliberative decision.

I rise today in particular to really ask and wonder where we are in this country that a President of the United States can, first, tweet out that a former President committed a criminal felony: wiretapping.

In the last 48 hours, there is mish-mash of information coming from the press secretary or the director of communications and the President: Oh, maybe it was not wiretapping by the President of the United States formally, but it is generally wiretapping.

Mr. President, let me be very clear: the words of the Commander in Chief are known to carry great weight. It is the American people that have to trust and believe and be commanded and led.

I am saddened by the state that we are in right now. I am saddened that there is one position one day and another position another day. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, we cannot tolerate that kind of mismatched conversation. The truth must be told. The American people must know it, Members of Congress must know it. I believe committees should be investigating if there was a wiretap or not and if there was an action by the former President. If not, tell the truth.

Mr. chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 725, the Innocent Party Protection Act of 2017.

H.R. 725 is the latest Republican effort to deny plaintiffs access to the forum of their choice and, possibly, to their day in court.

H.R. 725 seeks to overturn longstanding precedent in favor of a vague and unnecessary test that forces state cases into federal court when they do not belong there, and gives large corporate defendants an unfair advantage to cherry-pick their forum without the normal burden of proving proper jurisdiction.

This bill would upend long established law in the area of federal court jurisicliction, specifically addressing the supposed overuse of fraudulent joinder to defeat complete diversity jurisdiction in a case.

It was previously known as the Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act; however, this bill is not about fraud.

It is a corporate forum-shopping bill that would allow corporations to move cases properly brought in state courts into federal courts.

If enacted this bill would tip the scales of justice in favor of corporate defendants and make it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to bring their state claims in state court.

Corporate defendants support this bill because they prefer to litigate in federal court, which usually results in less diverse jurors, more expensive proceedings, longer wait times for trials, and stricter limits on discovery.

For plaintiffs, who are supposed to be able to choose their forums, this legislation would result in additional time, expense, and inconvenience for the plaintiff and witnesses.

H.R. 725 would effectively eliminate the local defendant exception to diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)(2), which currently prohibits removal to federal court even when there is complete diversity when a defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought.

The current standard used by courts to determine whether the joinder of a non-diverse defendant is improper, however, has been in place for a century, and no evidence has been put forth demonstrating that this standard is not working.

Rather, the Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, is a well-established legal doctrine providing that: fraudulent joinder will only be found if the defendant establishes that the joinder of the diversity-destroying party in the state court action was made without a reasonable basis of proving any liability against that party.

There is no evidence that federal courts are not already properly handling allegations of so-called fraudulent joinder after removal under current laws.

H.R. 725 reverses this longstanding policy by imposing new requirements on federal courts considering remand motions where a case is before the court solely on diversity grounds.

Specifically, it changes the test for showing improper joinder from a one-part test, (no possibility of a claim against a nondiverse defendant) to a complicated four-part test, requiring the court to find fraudulent joinder if:

1) There is not a plausible claim for relief against each nondiverse defendant;

2) There is objective evidence that clearly demonstrates no good faith intention to prosecute the action against each defendant or intention to seek a joint judgment;

3) There is federal or state law that clearly bars claims against the nondiverse defendants; or

4) There is actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts.

What should be a simple procedural question for the courts, now becomes a protracted mini-trial, giving an unfair advantage to the defendants (not available under current law) by allowing defendants to engage the court on the merits of their position.

By requiring litigation on the merits at a nascent jurisdictional stage of litigation based on vague, undefined, and subjective standards like plausibility and good faith intention, and by potentially placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff, this bill will increase the complexity and costs surrounding litigation of state law claims in federal court and potentially dissuade plaintiffs from pursuing otherwise meritorious claims.

Further, taking away a defendant's responsibility to prove that federal jurisdiction over a state case is indeed proper alters the fundamental precept that a party seeking removal should bear the heavy burden of establishing federal court jurisdiction.

The bill is a win-win for corporate defendants.

At its most harmful, it will cause non diverse defendants to be improperly dismissed from the lawsuit.

At its least harmful, it will cause an expensive, time-consuming detour through federal courts for plaintiffs.

Wrongdoers would not be held accountable for the harm they cause, while the taxpayers ultimately foot the bill.

For example: large corporate defendants (i.e. typically the diverse defendants) would be favored by the bill because, if the nondiverse defendant is dismissed from the case, they can blame the now-absent in- state defendant for the plaintiff's injuries.

Smaller nondiverse defendants would also be favored because the diverse defendant does all the work for them.

The diverse defendant removes the case to federal court and then argues that the nondiverse defendant is improperly joined.

If the federal court retains jurisdiction, the nondiverse defendant must be dismissed from the case.

If one or more defendants are dismissed from the case, it is easy for the remaining defendant to finger point and blame the absent defendant for the plaintiff's injuries.

Even if a federal court remands the case to state court under the bill, the defendants have successfully forced the plaintiff to expend their limited resources on a baseless, time-consuming motion on a preliminary matter.

While large corporate defendants can easily accommodate such costs, plaintiffs (i.e. injured consumers, patients and workers) cannot.

Regardless of whether the case is remanded to state court or stays in federal court, this new, mandated inquiry will be a drain on the limited resources of federal courts.

By mandating a full merits-inquiry on a procedural motion, H.R. 725 is expensive, time-consuming, and wasteful use of judicial resources.

The bill would result in needless micromanagement of federal courts and a waste of judicial resources.

Lastly, by seeking to favor federal courts over state courts as forums for deciding state law claims, this bill offends the principles of federalism.

While it purports to fix a non-existent problem, it creates problems itself.

The ability of state courts to function independently of federal courts' procedural analysis is a necessary function of the success of the American judiciary branch.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the underlying legislation, H.R. 725, the dubiously named, Innocent Party Protection Act of 2017.

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, as we speak, 24 Members, Democrats, have been sitting with our Republican friends in Energy and Commerce for more than 24 hours, hunkered down on a bill that no one has seen, no one has read, or no one knows what it is about. Contrast that to the Affordable Care Act with over 79 hearings, over a 2-year period, hundreds and hundreds of hours of hearings, 181 witnesses from both sides of the aisle, ongoing interaction with the American people. And what did we get? Over 20 million people, lower costs in Medicare, Medicaid, and employer coverage.

What are we getting now in this document that is called a healthcare bill? Loss of coverage with 15 million Americans kicked off of health insurance, 73 million Americans may lose their health insurance, undermining employer-sponsored coverage that more than 177 million individuals would be jeopardized, no CBO assessment of what it is going to cost, how many jobs will be lost, and you will be paying more for your insurance and getting less. And the loved ones that you have in nursing homes that are dependent upon Medicaid, even though they worked, may be kicked out as we speak.

Go forward on the D.C. 24 #ResistRepeal.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to Rules Committee Print 115-5 of H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017, which is a radical measure that would overturn centuries of American law.

This committee print buries the ``Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017,'' crammed through committee on a party-line vote, within the overarching legislation intended to effectively obliterate class actions in America, H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017.

I oppose this two-for-one bill combination because it will, in sum, undermine the enforcement of this Nation's civil rights laws and upend decades of settled class action law.

The fact that the House would even consider such sweeping, reckless legislation without holding a single hearing is an outrage.

This poorly drafted legislation will create needless chaos in the courts without actually solving any demonstrated problem.

Class action lawsuits are among the most important tools to enable injured, cheated, and or victimized individuals and small businesses to hold large corporations and institutions accountable and deter future misconduct.

H.R. 985 would eviscerate that tool.

Let me remind my colleagues that class actions are critical for the enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, education, and access to public areas and services.

As the Supreme Court has recognized in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, class actions provide ``vindication of the rights of groups of people who individually would be without effective strength to bring their opponents into court at all.''

Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997). Courts have interpreted Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the federal class action rule, over decades and the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules has, through its deliberative process, reviewed and amended the rule to ensure its fair and efficient operation.

No further revisions are needed at this time.

Civil rights injuries are never identical and are already subject to rigorous judicial review.

H.R. 985 imposes a new and impossible hurdle for class certification.

This alone would sound the death knell for most class actions.

It requires that the proponents of the class demonstrate that each class member has suffered the same type and scope of injury.

At this early stage of a civil rights class action, it is frequently impossible to identify all of the victims or the precise nature of each of their injuries.

Classes inherently include a range of affected individuals, and in no case does every member of the class suffer the same scope of injury from the same wrongful act.

But even if this information were knowable, class members' injuries would not be the same.

As a simple example, those overcharged for rent will have different injuries.

In an employment discrimination class action, the extent of a class member's injuries will depend on a range of factors, including their job position, tenure, employment status, salary, and length of exposure to the discriminatory conditions.

For this reason, nearly forty years ago, the Supreme Court developed a two-stage process for such cases in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 371-72 (1977).

In the first stage, the court determines whether the employer engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination.

If the employer is found liable, the court holds individual hearings to determine the relief (if any) for each victim.

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the use of the Teamsters model for discrimination class actions in part because of the individualized nature of injuries.

In the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 366 (2011).

Thus, this bill would overturn the approach established four decades ago to permit a class of victims of discrimination to seek effective relief.

Certainly, many civil rights, discrimination and employment class actions, including cases involving refusals by companies to properly pay workers, would not satisfy these criteria.

Some provisions would make it even more difficult to bring race and gender discrimination class actions.

Other provisions would have a dramatic impact on cases against toxic polluters.

For example, arbitrary and unworkable standards for attorneys' fees undermine civil rights enforcement.

If a case is successful, the judge awards a reasonable fee based upon the time that the advocates have spent working on the case.

This method of determining attorneys' fees provides for consistent and predictable outcomes, which is a benefit to all parties in a lawsuit.

H.R. 985 would entirely displace this well-settled law with a standard long ago rejected as arbitrary and unworkable.

Under the bill, attorneys' fees would be calculated as a percentage of the value of the equitable relief. Sec. 1718(b)(3).

But how is a judge to determine the cash value of an integrated school, a well-operating foster care system, the deinstitutionalization of individuals with disabilities, or myriad other forms of equitable relief secured by civil rights class actions?

Asking judges to assign a price tag in such cases is an impossible task and would lead to uncertainty and inconsistency.

Non-profit organizations cannot bear the risk of these long and expensive cases if, at the end, their fees are calculated under this incoherent and capricious standard.

Indeed, the bill creates an incentive for defendants to prolong the litigation so as to make it economically impossible for plaintiffs' attorneys to continue to prosecute the litigation.

In addition, by considering this bill now, Congress is circumventing the process that Congress itself established for promulgation of federal court rules under the Rules Enabling Act, bypassing both the Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Civil rights class actions are often about systemic reforms that benefit the most vulnerable.

Interference with the proper federal court rules process is reckless and irresponsible, particularly when this proposal is so damaging to victims.

Mr. Chair, the only beneficiaries of the so-called FACT Act, are the very entities that knowingly produced a toxic substance that killed or seriously injured thousands of unsuspecting American consumers and workers.

The FACT Act would force asbestos patients seeking any compensation from a private asbestos trust fund to reveal on a public web site private information including the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, and personal information about their families and children.

In fact, not a single asbestos victim has come forward in support of this legislation.

Worse, this bill would allow victims of asbestos exposure to be further victimized by requiring this information about their illness to be made publicly available to virtually anyone who has access to the Internet.

For example, the bill requires all payment demands, as well as, the names and exposure histories of each claimant--together with the basis for any payment the trust made to such claimants--to be publicly disclosed.

This sensitive information must be posted on the court's public docket, which is easily accessible through the Internet with the payment of a nominal fee.

Once irretrievably released into the public domain, this information would be a virtual treasure trove for data collectors and other entities for purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with compensation for asbestos exposure.

Insurance companies, prospective employers, lenders, and predatory scam artists as well as the victim's neighbors would have access to this information.

Many of the people who would be hurt by the FACT Act are veterans, who are disproportionately affected by asbestos disease.

To address this serious failing of the bill, I offered an amendment which would ensure that the quarterly reports required under the FACT Act, contain only aggregate payment information.

My amendment also deletes the bill's burdensome discovery requirement.

As noted by the widow of our former colleague Congressman Bruce Vento who passed away from asbestos-induced mesothelioma, the bill's public disclosure of victims' private information: ``could be used to deny employment, credit, and health, life, and disability insurance.''

Mrs. Vento also warned that asbestos victims ``would be more vulnerable to identity thieves, con men, and other types of predators.''

Supporters of this legislation say that Bankruptcy Code section 107 will prevent such results.

But, they are wrong; this provision only permits--it does not require--the bankruptcy court to issue a protective order.

In fact, such relief may only be granted for cause if the court finds that ``disclosure of such information would create undue risk of identity theft or other unlawful injury to the individual.''

What this means is that an asbestos victim would have to retain counsel and go to court in order to prove cause to obtain relief.

And, even though Bankruptcy Rule 9037 does require certain types of personal information to be redacted from a document filed in a bankruptcy case, said Rule would be overridden by this legislation, as written.

Accordingly, for these reasons and more, I oppose this harmful legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think the question is: Is there any collegiality and respect for the Federal judicial system?

Let me read a letter in reference to the underlying bill:

We strongly urge Congress not to amend the class action

procedures found in rule 23 outside of the Rules Enabling Act

process.

It goes on to talk about an advisory committee, but I don't know any sentence more clear than that. I know that as a parent raising a child, ``do not'' and ``no'' are very clear, yet we maintain this debate on the floor of the House.

Let me also mention a debate that is tomorrow, but I think it is relevant to my amendment, LARA. This is a rule that was in in 1983. In 1993, it was thrown out because it had a deleterious effect on meritorious civil rights cases, employment cases, and others. The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, that is tomorrow. The courts also don't want you to do that, and most of the courts say it is a waste of resources.

My amendment is going to help us solve the problem for this bill, H.R. 985. It would improve the rules of the committee print by replacing the substantive text of the bill with a requirement that the bankruptcy asbestos trust report quarterly an aggregate list of demands received and payments made. Specifically, the Jackson Lee amendment protects the privacy of asbestos victims from overly broad and invasive disclosure requirements by striking from the bill's text personal information disclosure mandates.

Mr. Chairman, the only beneficiaries of the so-called FACT Act are the very entities that knowingly produced a toxic substance that killed or seriously injured thousands of unsuspecting American consumers and workers--it is the defendants. And, no, it does not provide for a safety for the trust.

Worse, this bill would allow victims of asbestos exposure to be further victimized by requiring information about their illness to be made publicly available to virtually anyone who has access to the internet. Once irretrievably released into the public domain, this information would be a virtual treasure trove for data collectors and other entities for purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with the compensation for asbestos exposure.

Why do these people have to be doubly, triply penalized? They are already dying, many of them.

Insurance companies, prospective employers, lenders, predatory scam artists all have access to these unsuspecting and devastated families or victims. I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee for making the Jackson Lee Amendment in order.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee Amendment to Rules Committee Print 115-5 of H.R. 985, the ``Fairness in Class Action Litigation And Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017.''

My amendment would improve the Rules Committee Print 115-5 to H.R. 985 by replacing the substantive text of the bill with a requirement that the bankruptcy asbestos trust report quarterly an aggregate list of demands received and payments made.

Specifically, the Jackson Lee Amendment protects the privacy of asbestos victim plaintiffs from overly broad and invasive disclosure requirements, by striking from the bill's text personal information disclosure mandates.

Mr. Chair, the only beneficiaries of the so-called ``FACT Act,'' are the very entities that knowingly produced a toxic substance that killed or seriously injured thousands of unsuspecting American consumers and workers.

In fact, I am unaware of any asbestos victim who supports this legislation.

Worse yet, this bill would allow victims of asbestos exposure to be further victimized by requiring information about their illness to be made publicly available to virtually anyone who has access to the Internet.

For example, the bill requires all payment demands, as well as, the names and exposure histories of each claimant together with the basis for any payment the trust made to such claimants to be publicly disclosed.

This sensitive information must be posted on the court's public docket, which is easily accessible through the Internet with the payment of a nominal file.

Once irretrievably released into the public domain, this information would be a virtual treasure trove for data collectors and other entities for purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with compensation for asbestos exposure.

Insurance companies, prospective employers, lenders, and predatory scam artists as well as the victim's neighbors would have access to this information.

To address this serious failing of the bill, my amendment would ensure that the quarterly reports required under the ``FACT Act,'' contain only aggregate payment information.

My amendment also deletes the bill's burdensome discovery requirement.

As noted by the widow of our former colleague Representative Bruce Vento who passed away from asbestos-induced mesothelioma, the bill's public disclosure of victims' private information: ``could be used to deny employment, credit, and health, life, and disability insurance.''

Mrs. Vento also warned that asbestos victims ``would be more vulnerable to identity thieves, con men, and other types of predators.''

I am sure that the supporters of this legislation will say that Bankruptcy Code section 107 will prevent such results.

But this provision only permits--it does not require--the bankruptcy court to issue a protective order.

In fact, such relief may only be granted ``for cause'' if the court finds that ``disclosure of such information would create undue risk of identity theft or other unlawful injury to the individual.''

What this means is that an asbestos victim would have to retain counsel and go to court in order to prove ``cause'' to obtain relief.

And, even though Bankruptcy Rule 9037 does require certain types of personal information to be redacted from a document filed in a bankruptcy case, said Rule would be overridden by this legislation, as written.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment to ensure that the privacy of asbestos victims is protected.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on my side?

Mr. Chairman, let me say whose side I want to stand on, and that is the side of Mrs. Vento, the widow of our former colleague, Representative Bruce Vento, who passed away from asbestos- induced cancer.

The bill's public disclosure of victims' private information could be used to deny employment, credit, and health, life, and disability insurance. Mrs. Vento also warned that asbestos victims would be more vulnerable to identity thieves, con men, and other types of predators.

There is no reason for this bill. Not only is the Judicial Conference of Federal Judges against it, but victims are crying out: Stop it, and stop it now.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a StarTribune article.

[From the StarTribune]

Stand With Families Affected by Asbestos, and Help Kill FACT Act

My husband was the late U.S. Rep. Bruce F. Vento, who

served for almost 24 years in the House of Representatives

representing Minnesota's Fourth Congressional District. He

died from mesothelioma in 2000 within eight and a half months

of being diagnosed.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer caused by asbestos

exposure. Bruce was exposed while working his way through

college as a laborer, years before he became involved in

public life.

With his death, our country lost a hardworking and humble

public servant years before his time. Bruce's parents,

siblings, children, grandchildren and I lost so much more.

Since his death, I have worked with asbestos patients and

family members from across the country to fight for a ban on

asbestos and to protect the rights of people whose lives have

been forever affected by this terrible poison.

I have recently been involved in the effort to stop the so-

called ``Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act,'' or

FACT Act, which would obstruct justice for victims dying from

asbestos-related diseases while giving a handout to the very

corporations that knowingly poisoned and killed them.

The FACT Act would require that the personal information of

sick and dying asbestos patients and their families be posted

on a public website, including names, addresses, medical

diagnoses, financial compensation received and the last four

digits of our Social Security numbers.

This is precisely the kind of information that law

enforcement officials tell the public we should not share on

the Internet because it leaves us vulnerable to identity

thieves and con artists.

The House could be considering a vote on this bad

legislation in the coming weeks, making it all the more

urgent that we act now to protect the privacy of asbestos

victims and their families.

Supporters of the FACT Act are the corporations that

exposed innocent workers, consumers and their family members

to asbestos, while concealing what they knew about this

dangerous poison. They claim that this gross violation of our

privacy is necessary in order to protect asbestos patients

from fraud against the asbestos trust funds that were set up

to compensate asbestos victims and their families. Yet, not a

single instance of fraud against the trust funds has been

identified.

What is worse, while the bill's supporters claim that they

are doing it for asbestos victims, not one victim of asbestos

exposure or an affected family member has been allowed to be

heard on this legislation. The only people who would be

directly affected by the bill have been completely shut out

of the process.

The FACT Act would also bog down the asbestos trust funds

in endless paperwork to respond to information requests from

asbestos companies. This would drain the funds of money that

is desperately needed to compensate sick and dying victims.

As the victims get more and more desperate, they will be

willing to settle cases for pennies on the dollar, taking

needed compensation away from families and leaving it in the

pockets of the responsible companies.

I recently traveled to Washington, D.C., and met with Sens.

Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Betty McCollum, all of

whom committed to work with asbestos patients and family

members to stop the FACT Act from becoming law. I hope that

we can count on the rest of Minnesota's congressional

delegation to stand with asbestos patients and families and

against the FACT Act.

Mr. Chairman, without having the ability to hear my colleague's opposition, I know that the supporters of this legislation will say that Bankruptcy Code section 107 will prevent these devastating results, but it is not true. This provision only permits it. It does not require the bankruptcy court to issue a protective order.

My amendment protects these vulnerable victims against the release of their data, making them, in addition to the devastating disease that they got from asbestos--and our good friend Bruce Vento, many of us knew Congressman Vento, we knew his wife, and we knew that his death was both untimely and devastating, and now you are saying to victims like him: Release all the data. Open yourself up to more. Open your families up to more.

The Jackson Lee amendment is a commonsense amendment that will provide for an asbestos trust report quarterly, an aggregate list of demands received and payments made. As well, it would protect the privacy of asbestos victim plaintiffs from overly broad and invasive disclosure requirements by striking down the bill's text about personal information disclosure mandates. No matter what my good friend from Texas says, he does not have an answer to protecting the privacy of these victims.

I ask our colleagues to support a commonsense response. Stop it now. The courts don't want it, and it is horrible for the victims. It is doubling down on people who have lost loved ones and victims who are suffering from asbestos-induced cancer. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be an adherent of the Constitution, as I know that my colleagues are. We believe in the separation of the three branches of government.

That is why it was so noteworthy and so outrageous that the leader of the free world and Commander in Chief issued a patently irrational email or Twitter on Saturday morning this past Saturday regarding a personal and direct attack on the past President of the United States of America regarding that President having wiretapped this individual in an outrageous manner.

Let me cite for you headlines in the Houston Chronicle: FBI chief seeks Trump rebuke of that horrible statement.

I ask the Department of Justice to immediately respond to Director Comey's request that you rebuke this outrageous statement that would accuse the President of any wiretapping that require either a Title III court, DEA, FBI, or require a FISA court.

Mr. President, explain yourself.

Justice Department, respond to this untruth now.

The Constitution requires it, and the separation of the three branches of government, out of respect, requires it.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your courtesies.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of topics that I choose to debate this evening, but before I do that, I would like to first raise a very important concern. I will soon draft a letter that my colleagues will join in signing to the President of the United States on the extensive crisis of starvation in Somalia and South Sudan.

Just recently, we met with leadership--with my colleague Karen Bass and a number of other colleagues--of South Sudan speaking about the extensive starvation in sub-Saharan Africa.

I am looking forward to a response from this White House upon receipt of the letter that they will engage with the world community on providing immediate food aid and other resources to the people of sub- Saharan Africa, particularly Somalia and South Sudan.

It is something that I am well aware of because my colleague, the late Mickey Leland, Congressman from the 18th Congressional District in 1989, and years before that as the co-chair of the Select Committee on Hunger, was very concerned about starvation in that very same area because of the drought and terrible climatic conditions, huge loss of life. Congressman Leland was constantly responding with his own personal sacrifice of taking food over to that area as well as seeking to encourage others in the world family, United Nations to do so. In 1989, he, in actuality, lost his life in a plane crash in Ethiopia delivering resources to those individuals caught in a terrible condition, a valley, a desert-like atmosphere attempting to save their lives or to bring grain in. I know full well that his spirit reigns as he might have been engaged in this if he were alive in 2017 to see this terrible disaster occurring right in front of us.

We need the United States to be very active in the world community. The U.N. Secretary-General has now pronounced this to be a horrific disaster needing the attention of world leaders and the world community. I want to

put that on the record because I want to offer to the people of Somalia and South Sudan my deepest sympathy. There are other issues in South Sudan that we must address, but we also need to be concerned in the area of food starvation, loss of lives of hundreds of thousands of women and children who are now suffering, and it needs to be addressed.

But I really came to the floor in the backdrop of the introduction of a document that is represented to be an answer to the need of Americans for health care. Certainly the document is one that is being proposed by those who believe that there is a need.

I might offer to say that there may be a need to improve some aspects of existing coverage, which has worked so well under the Affordable Care Act. And, yes, to those opponents of the Affordable Care Act, I would be pleased to debate you that, in fact, it has worked well.

It has worked well because 30 million Americans have insurance. It has worked well because 150 million Americans have guaranteed health benefits. It has worked well because low-income Americans have access if they are able to come under the expanded Medicare to health care. It has worked well because of young people being on the insurance of their families to the age of 26. That was first on the Affordable Care Act. It has worked well because we can provide for the preexisting condition, for you to be able to have insurance. We can provide for no caps on your insurance, and also payments to hospitals for uncompensated care. We can provide for that because of the mandate and the tax subsidies that go to the people to allow them to secure the insurance that they would desire.

There are certainly ways that we look to improve, and it would be nice if we had bipartisan cooperation to do that. But now we have a document that it is important for the American people to know that the question of how many people will lose coverage has not been answered. How many people will be covered has not been answered by this new document that pretends to respond to the healthcare needs of Americans. There is no documentation as to what the quality of the coverage will be. And to those listening who are concerned about the financial fiscal responsibility of this country and this Congress, no one knows the cost of this insurance.

So I would make the argument that we have a real problem and that there is a document that is supposed to be marked up as a healthcare bill for which the Republicans have not received any response from CBO. Let me indicate that when Democrats were seeking to work with Republicans in 2009, we had a CBO estimate before our markup began. Certainly, a request was made by Republicans about the bill; and, interestingly enough, they asked about coverage, and they asked about quality and cost.

We know that it is almost certain that Americans will lose coverage under this new document. We also know that jobs will be lost. We also know that in my State of Texas, very much is dependent or concerned, if you will, with rural hospitals, that rural hospitals will suffer greatly by the loss if it happens--and we hope not--of the Affordable Care Act, because rural hospitals and the rural communities throughout Texas will be devastated.

We also know that, with the mandate going away, the tax subsidies will be going not to people where they should be so that you can provide for your insurance as we understand it--this document is still a mystery--but it will be going to insurance companies. And we also know that, if you are 50 and older, it will cost some five times more than if you are younger. A heavy burden on working Americans, with no explanation. We know that the cost is going up and that you may be paying an amount that continues to go up every month.

Let me be very clear. We are trying to get the answers, but it makes for a very difficult process of getting the answers for a bill that has just been released in the last 24 hours, and, in actuality, no one knows really what is in it, and it will then go to committee to be marked up.

In my State of Texas, almost 2 million--1,874,000--individuals in the State who have gained coverage since the Affordable Care Act was implemented would lose their coverage if the Affordable Care Act is entirely or partially repealed.

Mr. Speaker, 1,092,650 individuals stand to lose their coverage if we dismantle the exchanges which allow people to access insurance companies all over the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, 913,177 individuals in the State of Texas who received financial assistance to purchase health insurance in 2016 and received an average of $271 per person would risk having coverage become unaffordable because they would not get that money anymore. That money would go to insurance companies.

Let me also say that 1,107,000 individuals in the State could have insurance if the State of Texas additionally would have accepted the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion. I can tell you that States like Kentucky understand the full impact of the Medicaid expansion, and they do not want to see it go away.

Mr. Speaker, 508,000 children have regained coverage since the ACA has been implemented, and they will lose their insurance.

Mr. Speaker, 205,000 young adults, as I have indicated, in the State would be able to stay on their parents' insurance. We don't know if that is clear because we really don't know the funding structure of this new document that has now been thrown to the American people.

We know that 646,415 individuals in the State who received cost share reductions to lower out-of-pocket costs, such as deductibles, copays, and coinsurance, are now simply at risk. We are all at risk. We are all, frankly, at risk. So I would have to ask the question: What does this plan really do to help America?

We know that 10,278,005 individuals in the State of Texas who now have private health insurance that covers preventative services without copays, coinsurance, or deductibles may lose these benefits if the Affordable Care Act goes. Women in the State who can now purchase insurance for the same price as men, eliminating the disparities that occurred before 2009 and 2010, may be at risk again for having to pay more money for their insurance--the actual disparity in health care being totally eliminated--and insurance companies being able to charge women more than their male counterparts.

Roughly, 4 million individuals in the State with preexisting diseases may, in fact, not have that because what is the basis of the financial structure that can pay to ensure that those with preexisting diseases in this new document called health care, whether there will be any money to cover those individuals with preexisting diseases, we don't even know that. I think that is something important to note.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, because this is a mysterious bill, we know that it will mostly benefit the rich. Households at the top of the U.S. income ladder would see taxes on their wages and investments drop under this bill. No one has anything against our friends that are doing quite well, but it will be on the backs of working Americans.

The Republican plan to replace ObamaCare includes a tax break for insurance company executives making over half a million dollars a year. What a great gift. We are about to approach Easter, a time of sacrifice, and Passover, and isn't it interesting that what we would be facing is a gift in this tax season of a great tax break of our friends making over $500,000 a year. Meanwhile, working Americans would lose coverage and be forced to pay more for less.

According to CNN, most healthcare experts agree that millions of Americans are likely to lose their coverage under this new document that is to reflect health care. Mothers: likely to make maternity coverage, among other services, immensely expensive, if available at all.

In fact, I recall certainly as a young mother that one of the most frightening things is to not have insurance or the kind of complete coverage that one needs with expectancy of the birth of a child. Not knowing what may happen to the mother during birth, what challenges the new baby may face, and to face the uncertainty of not having full maternity coverage is devastating.

Seniors, pregnant women, and children on Medicaid, under the Medicaid expansion, which has been adopted in 31 States and Washington, D.C., more

than half of the 50 States would shut down at the end of 2019. So you would get a few more years, and then hardworking Americans would be thrown off into the street in 31 States, including Washington, D.C. Women, seniors, children, in particular pregnant women, would see their health care thrown to the wind, extinguished, burned up.

The bill also proposes a major overhaul of Medicaid, a Federal State program covering more than 70 million low-income and disabled Americans. I believe that the proposal is to block grant Medicaid dollars under the pretense of letting States be creative.

I want Americans and my colleagues to understand what creativity means. Creativity simply means that they will do everything they can to shorten and cheapen the health benefits that you will get. And it will be made through deals, how little money can we spend, whether we can use the Medicaid block grant dollars for some other things, a wish list that we may want in the State that we come from, the 31 States, plus Washington, D.C.

Instead of the current open-ended Federal entitlement, States would get capped payment block grants based on the number of Medicaid enrollees. Block grants, basically. And when it runs out, you are in a whole world of trouble. Or, as we say, you are up the river without a paddle--you are up the river without a paddle. No one comes to your rescue when you are up the river without a paddle.

Seniors who have worked so hard who are on Medicare will have fiscal problems themselves. It will exacerbate the fiscal problems of Medicare by hastening the exhaustion of the program's trust fund by 4 years. Our commitment is to ensure that the Medicare trust fund clearly is strong, solid, and solvent. Whenever I meet with my seniors, I tell them my commitment--strong, solid, and solvent. But with this document called health care, we are in jeopardy.

So it is clearly a problem, and it certainly is not gathering support in unanimity on the other side. Mr. Speaker, someone is complaining about it. It happens to be Republicans, so it looks like it is going to be a rough road.

But my concluding remark, Mr. Speaker, is that this document that represents itself as a healthcare answer has so many problems, so many people will suffer, so much loss, that I ask my colleagues to reject this legislation as it is presently constructed, and I look forward to working to better health care for all Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we begin the process that comes as a responsibility of this House, and that is, overseeing the President's budget and designing a budget to serve the American people, I am raising the question of the baffling budget that seems to be emerging from the White House.

The plus-up and elimination of sequester on the defense spending may be worth considering. I, frankly, believe we should remove the sequester on discretionary spending. But what is being proposed is that the plus-up of $54 billion will be taken out of the needs, the hearts, and minds of the American people.

The EPA will be gutted, so there will be no staff to oversee clean water and clean air, of which so many counties and cities, like Flint and my own community of Harris County, are in desperate need of.

What will happen to housing for senior citizens and young families?

Gutted because the Department of Housing and Urban Development will see a drastic cut. Or Health and Human Services that helps to sponsor federally qualified health clinics and the complete elimination of the Affordable Care Act, which will bust the budget. Medicaid, civil rights, and the prevention of hate crimes; the Justice Department gutted and, as well, as Attorney General Sessions has already done, not preventing voter fraud or voter discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, we need a budget that serves the American people. That is the kind of budget that I will be looking to support.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair and the managers of the bill, in this instance Mr. Raskin and his collaborator, the Republican manager as well. I thank them for their very thoughtful discussion. I also want to indicate that this regulation does have a perspective of excessiveness on a matter that can be confined to instructions to the agencies that have the responsibility of implementing the laws that we pass here in the United States Congress.

My amendment improves the present underlying bill by making clear that

communication of information statements or claims that are generally accepted by the scientific community or supported by empirical data is not restricted by this bill.

H.R. 1004 directs each Federal agency to make information regarding their regulatory actions publicly available in a searchable format on a prominent website. That information would have to include the date a regulation was considered, its current status, an estimate of when the regulation will be final, and a brief description of the regulation. In addition, agencies will be required to track the details of all public communications about pending regulatory actions.

But it further provides that:

``Any public communication issued by an Executive agency that refers to a pending agency regulatory action, other than an impartial communication that requests comment on or provides information regarding the pending agency regulatory action,'' among other things, ``may not--be directly or indirectly for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States. . . .''

I want to make sure that if an agency is telling the truth, then that agency is not going to be charged, as was said by Mr. Raskin, using a sledgehammer, that they can't make those communications. Take, for example, someone claiming that global warming is a hoax, but, if you read the facts, you will find out that a landmark 2013 study assessed 4,000 peer-reviewed papers by 10,000 climate scientists that gave an opinion on the cause of climate change. It showed 97 percent of the authors attributed climate change to manmade causes. That may be a simple statement made by an agency based on science and empirical study. That should not be prohibited.

The Jackson Lee amendment will protect Federal agency employees who might otherwise be ostracized, marginalized, discriminated against, wrongfully terminated or mistreated, or the whole regulation process imploded for statements made even though the statement is externally valid, logical, rooted in fact, or supported by empirical data, although contrary to an administration's political agenda. I want this to be straight up. I want these agency representatives to do what is right, so I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee for making the Jackson Lee Amendment in order.

I also wish to thank Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings for their work in bringing the legislation before us to the floor.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 1004.

The Jackson Lee Amendment improves H.R. 1004 by making clear that Communication of information, statements or claims that are generally accepted by the scientific community or supported by empirical data is not restricted by the bill.

H.R. 1004 directs each federal agency to make information regarding their regulatory actions publicly available in a searchable format on a prominent website.

That information would have to include the date a regulation was considered, its current status, an estimate of when the regulation would be final, and a brief description of the regulation.

In addition, agencies would be required to track the details of all public communications about pending regulatory actions.

H.R. 1004 further provides that ``any public communication issued by an Executive agency that refers to a pending agency regulatory action, other than an impartial communication that requests comment on or provides information regarding the pending agency regulatory action, among other things, may not ``be directly or indirectly used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States unless otherwise authorized by law.''

Thus, in addition to requiring each federal agency to make information regarding regulatory action publicly available and accessible online, H.R. 1004 places restrictions on the type and quality of communications agencies may make.

This vague phrase--``publicity or propaganda purposes''--creates substantial uncertainty and confusion as to what public communications are permissible, and risks discouraging agencies from keeping the public apprised of the important work they do on its behalf.

The Jackson Lee Amendment will protect federal agency employees who might otherwise be ostracized, marginalized, discriminated against, wrongfully terminated, or mistreated for statements made even though the statement is externally valid, logical, rooted in fact, or supported by empirical data, although contrary to an administration's political agenda.

Under the Jackson Lee Amendment, for example, a communication that human activity is a major contributor to climate change is not propaganda because it is an assertion supported by an overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

On the other hand, a claim that there is `widespread voter fraud' in presidential elections could be considered propaganda, because there is no reliable and statistically significant empirical data to support such a claim.

Federal agencies' ability to engage and inform the public in a meaningful and transparent way regarding their work on important science-based rulemakings that will greatly benefit the public is a public good that we must nurture and protect.

While propaganda may corrupt information or ideas by an interested party in a tendentious way in order to encourage particular attitudes and responses, information, supported by facts or empirical evidence, on the other hand, does not.

The Jackson Lee Amendment safeguards the legitimacy and transparency of communications issued by federal agencies, ensuring that the information disseminated to the public is accurate and reliable.

I urge my colleagues to preserve the bedrock principles of empirical research, scientific method, and free inquiry that are indispensable to free societies by voting for the Jackson Lee Amendment.

[From cnbc.com, February 17, 2017]

Murray Energy CEO Claims Global Warming Is a Hoax, Says 4,000

Scientists Tell Him So

(By Tom DiChristopher)

Murray Energy Chairman and CEO Robert Murray on Friday

claimed global warming is a hoax and repeated a debunked

claim that the phenomenon cannot exist because the Earth's

surface is cooling.

Murray appeared on CNBC's ``Squawk Box'' to discuss

Republicans' rollback of an Obama-era rule that would have

restricted coal mining near waterways. President Donald Trump

signed the measure on Thursday in front of Murray and a group

of Murray Energy workers.

Murray Energy is the country's largest coal miner. Many of

its mines are in Appalachia, a region that would suffer some

of the biggest impacts of the rule. Murray also successfully

sued to delay implementation of the Clean Power Plan, which

would regulate planet-warming carbon emissions from power

plants.

Asked about the economic analysis behind President Barack

Obama's energy regulations, Murray said, ``There's no

scientific analysis either. I have 4,000 scientists that tell

me global warming is a hoax. The Earth has cooled for 20

years.''

It was not immediately clear who the 4,000 scientists

Murray referenced are.

Asked for clarification, a spokesperson for Murray Energy

sent links to the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change,

which says ``human-caused climate change is not a global

crisis,'' and the Global Warming Petition Project, a list of

science degree holders who don't think humans cause climate

change.

Murray's claim that there is no scientific analysis behind

climate change is not true.

A landmark 2013 study assessed 4,000 peer-reviewed papers

by 10,000 climate scientists that gave an opinion on the

cause of climate change. It showed 97 percent of the authors

attributed climate change to manmade causes.

His second claim that Earth is cooling is also false.

Temperatures were the warmest on record last year,

according to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. It was the third year in a row global average

temperatures set a record.

``The planet's average surface temperature has risen about

2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late

19th century,' a change driven largely by increased carbon

dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere,''

NASA and NOAA said.

Climate change skeptics sometimes point to cool land

temperatures to dispute global warming. Scientists have

repeatedly noted that water covers 70 percent of the Earth's

surface, so it is highly misleading to cast temperatures on

land as a representation of global-scale temperatures.

Land also heats and cools more quickly than the ocean, The

Weather Channel noted while debunking a recent Breitbart News

article that was widely found to have cherry-picked data to

cast doubt on climate change.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that my good friend from Texas loves his wife. I would also suggest to him that there might be a number of individuals who are experts that would be able to confirm that, certainly those who are around him, and they might be able to say that that is not propaganda or publicity, and, therefore, his statement stands.

But when you are talking about thousands upon thousands of executive agency staff, servants of the United States Government wanting to do what is right, and you come down with this massive, oppressive document that says here is what you have to do, but don't do propaganda and don't do publicity, there should be a determination or a standard that says if it is based in fact, you have no problem, that is information that you can disseminate in order to edify those who may be wanting to comment by edifying the particular regulatory scheme or structure that you are putting forward for comment.

Why should my friends on the other side be afraid of good, strong information to make the input valuable so that if I am dealing with a clean air regulation that I am able to hear from those who are for and against, but I can provide documentation, scientific documentation about the quality of air pollution, why this regulatory scheme is appropriate. I ask my colleagues, again, to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

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

How much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman that what we are suggesting is that propaganda can be confusing. I want truth and honesty, and I want our agencies to be able to reach out and to help the American people. Therefore, my amendment says that if by chance they say something but it has facts or empirical evidence, it is not propaganda, it is not publicity, they can go forward and protect our water, they can protect our health, they can protect our air. Why are we hiding on this floor?

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. It only makes this bill more refined as to how we can help the American people pass a regulatory scheme that enhances local communities and cities. That is why we need the Jackson Lee amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, with all good intentions of the underlying bill, the Regulatory Integrity Act

of 2017, which has a very distinguished name, I am really concerned, and my colleague should be concerned, of the chilling effect of this particular legislation. Let me tell you what the problem is.

My good friend from Texas Mr. Farenthold, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and Professor Raskin will not be bending over the shoulder of some hardworking public servant for the Federal Government trying to interpret what this new law means. Can I speak? Can I send information out? What a chilling effect. What a First Amendment violation this legislation might entail.

Take, for example, Chairman Pai of the FCC. He decided to publish the full text of proposals and regulations that the public would otherwise never see until after they had been finalized and approved. Suppose he was then charged with a violation of this bill? Chilling effect, undermining the public's ability to even understand what a very important agency such as the FCC is doing.

My amendment simply states that nothing in this bill shall be interpreted to prohibit any communication that is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. For those of us who love the Constitution, that is the First Amendment, and it is a simple, simple statement. Your freedom of speech is protected because it enables people to obtain information from a diversity of sources, makes decisions, and communicates those decisions to the government.

Let me recite a 1927 case from Justice Louis Brandeis, Whitney v. California. There is a joy in reading it because he wrote and said: ``Freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.''

The Framers of the Constitution knew, to quote Justice Brandeis: ``that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate.''

The question is: Some worker who is responsible for this, what will they think?

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that indicates the First Amendment will not be chilled.

Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee for making the Jackson Lee Amendment in order.

I also wish to thank Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings for their work in bringing the legislation before us to the floor.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain this Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 1004.

The Jackson Lee Amendment is simple and straightforward.

It simply states that ``nothing in the bill shall be interpreted to prohibit any communication that is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.''

The amendment is necessary because not only does H.R. 1004 direct that certain information be made publicly available by agencies regarding their regulatory actions, the legislation also imposes restrictions on the type and quality of communications that can be made by agencies and agency personnel.

Mr. Chair, it is useful to explain briefly why the First Amendment's protection of speech is central to the effective functioning of the American political system.

Freedom of speech and a vibrant and robust democracy are inextricably intertwined.

Freedom of speech enables people to obtain information from a diversity of sources, make decisions, and communicate those decisions to the government.

The First Amendment also provides American people with a ``marketplace of ideas.''

Rather than having the government establish and dictate the truth, freedom of speech enables the truth to emerge from diverse opinions.

In Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that ``freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.''

Free speech facilitates democratic governance because it is only through talking that we encourage consensus and form a collective will.

Over the long run, free speech improves our public decision-making because just as we Americans generally believe in free markets in economic matters, we also generally believe in free markets when it comes to ideas, and this includes governmental affairs.

Freedom of speech strengthens public confidence in the American governmental system of checks and balances.

Speech is thus a means of empowering people, through which they learn, grow, and share; correct errors; and remedy violations of the public trust.

Mr. Chair, the framers of the Constitution knew, to quote Justice Brandeis again in Whitney v. California:

that order cannot be secured merely through fear of

punishment for its infraction;

that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and

imagination;

that fear breeds repression;

that repression breeds hate;

that hate menaces stable government[.]

Free societies like the United States accept that openness fosters resiliency and that free debate dissipates more hate than it stirs.

Not only does freedom of speech serve the ends of democracy, it is also an indelible part of human personality and human dignity.

In the words of Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1974 case Procunier v. Martinez:

The First Amendment serves not only the needs of the polity

but also those of the human spirit--a spirit that demands

self-expression.

Freedom of speech is intimately connected to the human desire to think, imagine, create, wonder, inquire, and believe.

While freedom of speech is not unlimited, the American tradition is to view such limits with caution and skepticism and to embrace freedom of speech as a transcendent constitutional value.

In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), Justice Douglas reminded us that:

effective self-government cannot succeed unless the people

are immersed in a steady, robust, unimpeded, and uncensored

flow of opinion and reporting which are continuously

subjected to critique, rebuttal, and re-examination.

In other words, Mr. Chair, freedom of speech is fundamental to the American identity and psyche.

And that is why I have proposed the Jackson Lee Amendment to ensure that nothing in H.R. 1004 shall be interpreted to prohibit any communication that is protected under the precious First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

Well, let me say this.

Mr. Chair, first of all, before I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Maryland, the reason why we need my amendment is because this deals with speech. This regulatory bill deals with speech, what you can say and what you cannot say.

So this is not a reflection that we need this in every legislative initiative. I would love for it to be there. But this is a bill that deals with what our agencies can say. And if the Chairman of the FCC put out all of these proposals specifically so that the public could see, just think if this bill unclarified what the protection of the First Amendment reiterated, his speech would be chilled.

I am delighted to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Again, Mr. Chair, can the Chair tell us the time remaining.

Mr. Chair, let me indicate that the gentleman just argued my point. Clarity is what we need. My amendment provides clarity.

Again, what does this bill do? This bill tells Federal employees about their speech: what level of speech, containing speech, how much speech, what they can say, what is propaganda, what is publicity. Therefore, I think it is important to avoid the chilling effect on public servants who are doing the task on behalf of the American people.

Being the American people's defendant, I believe that we should, in fact, have this language. In Branzburg v. Hayes, Justice Douglas reminded us that an effective self-government cannot succeed unless the people are immersed in a steady, robust, unimpeded, and uncensored flow of opinion and reporting which are continuously subjected to critique, rebuttal, and reexamination. That is the protection of the First Amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me reemphasize: Clarity in the First Amendment cannot be a bad thing. This bill kills speech. Let's clarify that that speech is protected by the First Amendment to not chill the hard work of our hardworking Federal employees trying to provide for the safety and security of the American people.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 998, the ``Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2017,'' or ``SCRUB Act,'' and the underlying bill.

I oppose the rule and the underlying bill because it hampers the ability of federal agencies to act in times of imminent need to protect citizens.

The SCRUB Act seeks to establish a Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission to identify and recommend to Congress existing Federal regulations that can be repealed to reduce unnecessary regulatory costs to the U.S. economy.

As such, this bill purports to reduce bureaucracy by establishing a new ``regulatory review'' commission charged with identifying duplicative, redundant, or so-called ``obsolete'' regulations to repeal.

Specifically, H.R. 1155 would establish a commission with unlimited subpoena power consisting of unelected, appointed members to review existing agency rules and make recommendations to Congress for an up or down vote on rules to be eliminated.

The scope of this review would be virtually unlimited leaving no rule or regulation safe, and Congress would be prohibited from debating the individual repeal recommendations but would instead be forced to consider the commission's rule recommendations in a single package.

Under the legislation as currently drafted, agencies would be required to follow a ``cut-go'' process--prohibiting a new rule from being issued until an existing rule of equal or greater ``cost'' according to the commission is repealed--thereby undermining the ability of agencies to quickly respond to imminent threats to public health and safety.

Mr. Speaker, the SCRUB Act--and the creation of this $30 million regulatory commission--is problematic because it would operate with little meaningful oversight, transparency, or public accountability to ensure that its recommendations do not subvert the public interest and safety.

For instance, the SCRUB Act would prohibit any regulatory agency from issuing any new rule or informal statement, including non-legislative and procedural rules, even in the case of an emergency or imminent harm to public health, until the agency first offsets the costs of the new rule or guidance by eliminating an existing rule identified by the Commission.

This regulatory ``cut-go'' process would force agencies to prioritize between existing protections and responding to new threats to our health and safety.

Such a sweeping requirement would endanger the lives of Americans by creating unnecessary delays in the Federal rulemaking process and creating additional burdens and implementation problems that will only divert critical agency resources and diminish agencies' ability to protect and inform the public in times of imminent danger and need.

For instance, if an agency needed to respond to an imminent hazard to the public or environment, it would have to either rescind an existing rule that is identified by the Commission's arbitrary and cost-centric process or choose not to act.

That is why I offered an amendment that would have exempted from the SCRUB Act any rule relating to the prevention of cyber-attacks intended to interfere with elections for public office.

Regrettably, the Rules Committee did not make this salutary amendment in order, which is another reason I cannot support the legislation.

The Jackson Lee Amendment would protect American citizens by ensuring that our federal agencies are not unnecessarily burdened with regulatory mandates that would jeopardize the ability of federal agencies to ensure the integrity of our electoral processes, prevent cyber terrorism, and enhance the security and integrity of cybernetworks and systems.

Now is not the time to undermine or impede the ability of DHS, DOJ, and other federal agencies to combat growing threats and active acts of cyber terrorism.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the rule for H.R. 998, and urge all Members to join me in voting against this irresponsible and unwise legislation.

Let me thank the gentleman for his very astute argument and his leadership on the committee.

I am going to narrow my argument to, I think, very realistic questions about whether or not we are procedurally in the context of overruling the OSHA decision out of the Federal courts or whether or not this is really a question of do we want to protect the rights of American workers and protect them from the years of injuries that preceded the establishment of OSHA. I want to fall on the side of the American worker.

Let me be very clear what we are talking about today. The ruling that we are speaking about went against 40 years of precedence in reporting workplace safety violations. Since 1972, every administration has maintained that the 5-year retention period for recording work-related injuries, illnesses, or death is standard practice. This DOL rule was simply put in place to codify and create some consistency that will benefit both employers and employees.

Thank you, President Obama, who recognized that it is not the Member of Congress who may slip on a rug in their privileged manner of coming to this august body and voting, but it is, in fact, the workers who come every day and pick up your garbage, the sanitation workers, the same workers that Dr. King went to Memphis to stand up for and the individuals who, because of their work, are susceptible to injuries more often than not.

Individuals who work in construction, who help build our houses and hospitals and tall skyscrapers, what excuse can we give for not maintaining the standards of keeping and reporting those injuries for a period of 5 years and the retention of such? Or those who work, for example, in the area of railroads, railroad beds and railroad sites-- hard labor. Or those who work at our ports--hard labor.

So I rise to oppose disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor regarding OSHA, and I do so for the men and women who do the heavy lifting.

I include in the Record a letter from AFSCME, which represents municipal and county workers across America, establishing why we should vote ``no'' on this.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, February 28, 2017.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members

of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME), I'm writing to urge you to oppose H.J.

Res. 83, which would abolish an Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an

employer's responsibility to maintain accurate records of

serious work-related injuries and illnesses.

The new OSHA rule creates NO new compliance or reporting

obligations and imposes no new costs on employers.

The 1970 law creating OSHA explicitly directed the agency

to ``prescribe regulations requiring employers to maintain

accurate records of and to make periodic reports on, work-

related deaths, injuries and illnesses other than minor

injuries . . . .'' Since the first recordkeeping regulations

issued in 1972, OSHA has required employers to record

workplace injuries on an ``OSHA log'' within seven days of

the injury and to maintain the records of the log and annual

summary of the log for five years. Every Republican and

Democratic administration since 1972 has interpreted this

employer obligation to make and maintain accurate records to

be ongoing from the date of the injury or illness until the

five-year retention period expires. OSHA issued this

clarifying regulation in December 2016 in response to a court

decision that dramatically limited OSHA's enforcement of

injury recordkeeping regulation to a six-month period. OSHA's

clarifying rule simply restores the standard to one employers

have known and complied with for 45 years.

H.J. Res. 83 would strip OSHA of its enforcement authority

and harm workplace safety.

Passage of this Congressional Review Act Resolution of

Disapproval would enable employers who deliberately and

recklessly break the law to avoid any penalties for

systemically failing to report or underreporting

injuries over many years. They would be able to cover up or

mask longstanding workplace hazards that need correcting.

OSHA has limited resources and, on average, can inspect a

workplace once every 140 years. OSHA relies upon reliable

injury and illness data to prioritize its resources to those

workplaces that present the greatest hazards to workers. H.J.

Res. 83 would remove OSHA's enforcement ability to protect

workers from the most dangerous and significant hazards.

Workplace injuries are real. Last year, a GAO report found

workplace violence is a serious concern for the approximately

15 million health care workers in the United States, but the

full extent of injuries that are the result of workplace

violence is unknown because of underreporting. Accurate

reporting would help OSHA, employers, workers and their

representatives respond more effectively to this prevalent

workplace hazard. H.J. Res. 83 would jeopardize the progress

that could be made on workplace violence and other workplace

injuries by blocking this basic reporting and recordkeeping

rule or a similar rule in the future.

We oppose H.R. Res. 83 and urge you to stand with workers

by rejecting this resolution.

Sincerely,

Scott Frey,

Director of Federal Government Affairs.

H.J. Res. 83 is wrong. It is wrong because it goes against the hardworking people.

I also include in the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters disapproving of H.J. Res. 83.

International Brotherhood

of Teamsters,

Washington, DC, February 27, 2017.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members

of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I urge you to

oppose H.J. Res. 83, disapproving the rule submitted by the

Department of Labor relating to ``Clarification of Employer's

Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record

of Each Recordable Injury and Illness.'' Disapproving this

rule would undermine safety in some of the nation's most

dangerous industries, many of which employ Teamsters.

The rule does not impose new costs on employers and simply

reaffirms OSHA's ability to enforce injury and illness

recordkeeping. This rule became necessary when a 2012 court

decision overturned policy that had been in place for 40

years by limiting enforcement of OSHA's injury recordkeeping

regulations to a six month period. OSHA publishes the data

that it collects from employers on worksite injury and

illness which is then utilized by employers, unions, and

workers to identify and fix workplace hazards. With limited

resources, OSHA also utilizes the data to target its

enforcement and compliance activities to the most dangerous

workplaces thus making it essential that OSHA have accurate

information. With under-reporting of injury and illness data

already a major issue, it makes no sense to effectively strip

OSHA of its ability to enforce reporting requirements as this

ultimately impacts workplace safety. Congress should be

working to improve work place safety not undermine it, and

voting for H.J. Res 83 will ultimately harm working men and

women.

I urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 83 to protect OSHA's ability

to enforce accurate injury and illness reporting and to

ensure workers have a safe and healthy workplace.

Sincerely,

James P. Hoffa,

General President.

Mr. Speaker, I stand with the workers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 83, a resolution ``Disapproving Department of Labor Rule Relating to Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make And Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury And Illness.''

I oppose this bill because it will harm workers who depend on the Occupation Health and Safety Administration to ensure that their workplaces are safe. H.J. Res. 83 will undermine workplace health and safety and make it impossible for OSHA to ensure that injury and illness records are complete and accurate.

Accurate records are needed to ensure OSHA focuses its limited resources on the nation's most dangerous workplaces, instead of wasting time in workplaces with low risk.

The Department of Labor rule at issue here does not create any new obligations.

OSHA has enforced injury recordkeeping requirements by reviewing the last five years of an employer's records throughout its entire history, under every administration.

In 2012, a court decision limited enforcement of OSHA's injury recordkeeping regulations to a six month period--a dramatic departure from the last OSHA's 40 year policy and practice.

The 2016 rule simply allows OSHA to continue this practice.

Mr. Speaker, complete and accurate information on work-related injuries and illnesses is important.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 directs the Secretary of Labor to ``prescribe regulations requiring employers to maintain accurate records of, and make periodic reports on, work-related deaths, injuries and illnesses other than minor injuries.''

Since the early 1970's, OSHA has required construction employers to keep these records.

The records are used by employers, workers, and unions at the workplace to identify hazardous conditions, and take corrective action to prevent future injuries and exposures.

Both positive and negative injury trends are tracked on a national scale, allowing limited prevention resources to be targeted effectively.

Most importantly, OSHA relies on the records to target its enforcement and compliance assistance activities to dangerous workplaces.

No employer, union, or individual could possibly want OSHA inspecting safe workplaces rather than hazardous ones, but without accurate information, this will happen.

Disapproval of the new rule puts construction workers lives in danger.

Without the new rule, it will be impossible for OSHA to effectively enforce recordkeeping requirements and assure that injury and illness records are complete and accurate.

Underreporting of injuries and illnesses is already a huge problem, and without enforcement, this will get much worse.

It will undermine safety and health and put workers in danger.

I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 83 and urge all Members to vote against this ill-conceived and unwise legislation.