Floor Statements

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, in just a second, I will yield to the distinguished chairman.

Just in a sentence, the Jackson Lee amendment is simple and will provide for an annual review of any and all hydraulic fracturing activity, as well as a report to be submitted to Congress.

I now yield to the gentleman from Washington, Chairman Hastings, for the purpose of entertaining a question.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for working with me on this matter. I appreciate his willingness to work with me.

I want to achieve what the ultimate intent was, and that is, to have this amendment pertain to Federal lands. My response is that I do not object to a modification of the amendment to make clear that the review and report required of the Secretary should be limited to State permitting of hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands, which will, in fact, provide this Congress with

the necessary information on these processes.

I yield to the chairman.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to indicate that we have the opportunity to do a number of things: create jobs, energy independence, preserve and create a strong economy, and protect our environment.

I am interested in seeing the opportunity for low-income families to be able to be helped in the cold of the winter and the heat of the summer, to be able to find relief from the energy costs that we have talked about so often, and I would hope that as we move forward with the legislation that we will be able to work together.

I believe that the 2.1 million jobs that will be created, the increase of consumers' household dollars, and the amount of money that will be going into the government Treasury really should bring us together. My amendment, as clarified by the chairman in our discussion in the colloquy, is to give Congress that oversight pertaining to those Federal lands.

I thank the chairman for his clarification. I am looking forward to working with him and maintaining the language in the bill, however, with the understanding that we will get that review for Federal lands and that that will come from the Secretary of the Interior to the United States Congress.

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

I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct that none of the dialogue that we just heard is mutually exclusive from creating jobs, from providing a growing economy, having a sustainable environment, and maybe having even a national energy policy. This should not be a conflict between who has read and who has not in terms of land and the ability to use Federal lands and education. We can do both. And what I believe is happening is that we are trying to take sides without looking constructively at everyone's amendments to make this legislation what it should be.

I have always advocated for a national energy policy. Today I rise to discuss the amendments that I offered to try to bring people together. I listened to the discussion.

Since the industry pays $6,500, we must let individual protesters pay $5,000. I would venture to say that the amendment that I offered would have been a fair one. It is to eliminate that amount. It could have been a compromise, make it a $1,000 fee. But in actuality, this blocks individuals from even expressing their viewpoint even though they have been able to go through the process of comment.

I did get an amendment in which will help ensure that the legislation, should it become law, will not apply or be interpreted in such a way that it unfairly burdens injured parties seeking relief. My amendment No. 2 indicates that this shall not be construed to abridge the right of people to petition for the redress of grievances in violation of the first article of the amendment to the Constitution, a right to protest.

Another amendment that I had was also an amendment to protect individuals, farmers, ranchers, and small businesses by removing the provision in the bill prohibiting recovery of attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. That amendment was made in order to create a level playing field.

There are a number of other amendments that I offered to H.R. 2728. One would have made it clear that the deference accorded to State law under section 44 of the bill applied only to fracking operations conducted on State lands but not to Federal lands. This was a good amendment that did not make it. A number of amendments did not. Some of my amendments did, and I want to say thank you. But I believe we can work together for a national energy policy that works for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule governing debate on H.R. 1965, the ``Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act,'' and H.R. 2728, the ``Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act.''

As the Member of Congress from Houston, the energy capital of the nation, I have always been mindful of the importance and have strongly advocated for national energy policies that will make our nation more energy independent, preserve and create jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.

I am not pro- or anti-fracking. I strongly am ``pro-jobs'' and ``pro- growing economy'' and ``pro-sustainable environment.''

Volatile energy prices threaten economic security for millions of middle class Americans and hits consumers hard, raising gas prices and straining budgets for millions of American families.

It is a familiar story, but in order to restore lasting security for middle class families we need a sustained plan for American energy, not false promises of quick fixes.

That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when they are sound, balanced, fair, and promote the national interest.

Where they fall short, I believe in working across the aisle to improve them by offering constructive amendments.

That is why I offered several amendments for the Rules Committee to consider in reporting the bills covered by this rule.

Three of my amendments were made in order by the Committee and for this I wish to express my appreciation to Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter hearing the bills before the House.

Four other amendments that I offered were not made in order by the Committee, which I regret very much since I believe strongly that each would have made genuine improvements to the bills.

For the benefits of all Members, I will describe these amendments briefly.

Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 1965, ``Federal Lands Jobs and Energy

Security Act''

Jackson Lee Amendment #1 would have eliminated the new $5,000 filing fee that creates a higher barrier for individuals, small businesses or communities to protest agency actions taken pursuant to the bill.

A filing fee of this magnitude would unduly burden the ability of farmers, ranchers, homeowners, communities, and small businesses aggrieved by agency action to seek redress to vindicate their rights or obtain a remedy for a legally cognizable injury.

Although the Committee did not make in order Jackson Lee Amendment #1, I am pleased that the Rules Committee made in order Jackson Lee Amendment #2, which will help ensure that this legislation, should become law, will not applied or interpreted in such a way that it unfairly burdens injured parties seeking relief.

Jackson Lee Amendment #2 provides that this legislation:

``[S]hall not be construed to abridge the right of the

people to petition for the redress of grievances, in

violation of the first article of amendment to the

Constitution of the United States.''

We should never take for granted the precious and unique right--even for democracies--of citizens to hold their government accountable and answerable to the judiciary for redress for legally cognizable injuries.

I am also pleased that Rules Committee made in order Jackson Lee Amendment #3, another amendment offered to protect individuals, farmers, ranchers, and small businesses by removing the provision in the bill prohibiting recovery of attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act.

This amendment levels the playing field and conforms the bill to current law and practice.

Since its enactment in 1980, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) has enhanced parties' ability to hold government agencies accountable for their actions and inaction.

EAJA also helps deter government inaction or erroneous conduct and encourages all parties, not just those with resources to hire legal counsel, to assert their rights.

The EAJA is used to vindicate a variety of federal rights, including access to Veterans Affairs and Social Security disability benefits, as well as to secure statutory environmental protections.

The EAJA promotes public involvement in laws have a significant impact on the public health and safety such as the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

2. Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 2728, ``Protecting States' Rights to

Promote American Energy Security Act''

I offered several amendments to H.R. 2728, the ``Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act'' that address State and Federal interest in developing and enforcing fracking regulations.

The first of these, Jackson Lee Amendment #1 to H.R. 2728, would have made it clear that the deference accorded to state law under section 44 of the bill applied only to fracking operations conducted on state lands but not to federal lands.

My amendment would not impact the ability of states to approve fracking on state or private lands.

I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make this amendment in order because it would have markedly improved the bill.

Before offering this amendment I canvassed and consulted key stakeholders in my district and was advised by them that a patchwork of 50 separate sets of legal rules and regulations governing fracking operations on federal lands was inefficient, expensive, and unduly burdensome. I agree. My amendment would have ensured that there would be only a single, uniform standard governing fracking operations administered by the Department of Interior.

Federal lands are held in trust for the benefit of the American people. They are a source of national pride as well as a source of revenue for a wide range of industries, which include ranching, logging, mineral extraction (including oil and gas), and tourism.

I am hopeful that this amendment will be reconsidered by the Senate or the bicameral conference as the bill makes its way through the legislative process, particularly since the Rules Committee also declined even to make in order another version of the amendment, Jackson Lee Amendment #2, which required only that the Secretary review and approve state fracking law before permitting it to govern fracking operations on federal land.

Mr. Speaker, fracking is a new and promising mining technique that has proven to be very effective and profitable for oil and gas extraction processes. This appears to be good news for our nation's energy and economic but the technology is still in its infancy.

That is why I am also pleased that the Rules Committee made in order Jackson Lee Amendment #3, which provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall annually review and report to Congress on all State activities relating to hydraulic fracturing.

I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendments made in order under this rule.

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

Let me thank Mr. Holt and Mr. Hastings and the Rules Committee for admitting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we could all engage in discussions about our commitment to a national energy policy. I would venture to say that we would not find one Member of this body that was not committed to the idea of individuals being

able to have low costs at the pump and to be able to have heat in the severe winters and air conditioning for those of us in the heat of summer in places like Texas and elsewhere. We are committed to doing so.

I said this earlier this morning on the rule. Let me thank the Rules Committee for this amendment that has been admitted on my behalf, but let me also say that we will do better if we come across the aisle and talk about the issues--again, sustainable environment, sustainable energy policy, the creation of jobs, and addressing the needs of low- income families. That is the American way. The American way is also the ability to petition your government in the system of laws that we have.

My amendment is simple. It indicates that the underlying bill should not be construed to abridge the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances in violation of the first article of the amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

It is important to note that there is a $5,000 fee for anyone who wants to protest the particular structure in this bill, upon aggrieved parties, to challenge the award by the agency of a lease, of a right- of-way, of a permit to drill on public lands. This $5,000 fee is supposed to give comfort because, on the larger entities--the businesses--it is a $6,500 fee. For many parties, that may adversely affect the individuals, who would be homeowners, small businesses, nonprofits, and community organizations. A filing or a documentation fee of this amount, in many cases, is prohibitive and will discourage many injured parties from taking the actions necessary to vindicate their rights.

My amendment seeks to avoid this undesirable result by making it plain that it is not the intent of Congress to discourage parties from seeking relief where necessary or to deny access to justice to any party with a legitimate claim. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. The Jackson Lee Amendment provides that nothing in section 1121 of the bill:

``[S]hall not be construed to abridge the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances, in violation of the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.''

Section 1121 amends the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(p)) to impose a $5,000 ``documentation fee'' upon aggrieved parties to challenge the award by the agency of a lease, right of way, permit to drill on public lands.

For many parties that may be adversely affected by these types of agency actions--individuals, home owners, small businesses, non-profits and community organizations--a filing or documentation fee of this amount in many cases is prohibitive and will discourage many injured parties from taking the action necessary to vindicate their rights.

My amendment seeks to avoid this undesirable result by making plain that it is not the intent of Congress to discourage parties from seeking relief where necessary or to deny access to justice to any party with a legitimate claim.

The Jackson Lee Amendment is intended to provide flexibility to the agency and the courts in considering a request to waive all or a portion of the ``documentation fee.''

It does not direct or require the agency to grant such waivers. The amendment is intended only to permit and encourage such waivers in appropriate cases.

Mr. Chairman, we should never take for granted the precious and unique right--even for democracies--of citizens to hold their government accountable and answerable to the judiciary for redress for legally cognizable injuries.

As the Member of Congress from Houston, the energy capital of the nation, I have always been mindful of the importance and have strongly advocated for national energy policies that will make our nation more energy independent, preserve and create jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.

I am pro-energy independence, ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-growing economy'' and pro-sustainable environment. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I am also ``pro-fairness.''

The Jackson Lee Amendment seeks to establish fairness and restore balance in the application and implementation of this law.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I take issue with my good friend from Washington State.

This bill has a $5,000 documentation fee on the stage of protest and petition. Obviously, our good friends on the industry side don't even pay anything to nominate land, but it is a $5,000 barrier.

My friend refers to the administrative process. I am a lawyer. It is under the APA code. That is different from being able to go to a higher level and to be able to comment under the Federal Register and write that ``I don't like this,'' and then you are ruled against anyhow. Then your next level of protest is to be able to protest at the level that requires you to pay $5,000, not even $1,000. We are scoring this, and we are doing it on the backs of citizens.

My amendment does make sense because what it says is that we are committed as a Congress not to block people from being able to have an equal opportunity to protest. They may not prevail, Mr. Chairman, but they should have an equal opportunity.

I believe it would be senseless for Republicans and Democrats not to go on record to say that we support the opportunity for protest and petition. I am pro-energy independence, pro-jobs, pro-growing the economy, pro-fairness, pro-sustainable environment, and I believe that there are opportunities for us to come together. We haven't listened to each other. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) just made some very important statements. I am making a statement about the idea.

I believe it is egregious to have a $5,000 fee on individuals-- nonprofits, farmers, ranchers, neighbors, et cetera. I will say to you, if you want to understand what it means, in my town, there is a group going to court to fight against a high-rise. That high-rise, Mr. Chairman, went through every process--the planning commission, the city council--and they were rejected, but they are going into a lawsuit. They happen to be a little bit more prosperous. Farmers, ranchers, and others who are having to pay $5,000 and neighbors who are having to pay $5,000, I simply think that is excessive.

My colleagues, since the amendment that I had was to eliminate the $5,000, I welcome a compromise of $1,000; but I offer this simple statement that what we do today shall not be construed to abridge the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances in violation of the first article of the amendment, and it protects the Fifth Amendment as well, which is due process--the right to protect your property.

Frankly, I believe that it is extremely important because there are entities that are near Federal lands.

So, with a generosity of spirit, I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

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, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I again thank the managers, Mr. Holt and Mr. Hastings.

Mr. Chairman, I again make the same comment about what I have heard on this floor from Members on both sides of the aisle: that they are pro-energy policy, pro-environment, pro-jobs, pro-sustainable environment. They simply want an opportunity to work on legislation to activate or to ensure that that occurs.

There is a prohibition contained in section 1147 of this legislation with respect to the recovery of attorney fees and costs by a prevailing party pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. My amendment removes the prohibition, a prohibition that has been established law for a very long time.

This amendment is needed to level the playing field and conform the bill to current law and practice. I think that if we listen to each other, it will be a simple answer of ``yes'' if we ask any citizen should they have a right to sue, and if they prevail under the Equal Access to Justice Act, that they are able to get attorney fees.

I think the answer, when clear heads would respond, is not whether it is an energy bill or not, or who the defendant is; they would say, Why shouldn't this bill be subjected to the law that exists?

The Equal Access to Justice Act allows individuals, small businesses, and nonprofits to recover attorney fees from the Federal Government. This act is used to vindicate a variety of Federal rights, including access to Veterans Affairs and Social Security disability benefits, as well as to secure statutory environmental protections.

Therefore, to eliminate that is again to cut into--to cut into--the very Bill of Rights of your right to petition, to the right to counsel, all of that, because it indicates that you have a right to prevail in attorney fees.

It is a simple process that does not undermine, if you will, the question of the energy policy in the United States.

If we look at the first poster, we will acknowledge the fact that, interestingly enough, the average amount of money under these cases was $1.8 million annually over the last 8 years. The EPA only paid out $280,000 annually over the last 5 years. I venture to say with the average payment of $100,000 this is not busting the bank. This is allowing citizens who prevail to be able to have attorney fees. I clearly believe that the legislation that we have warrants a fix, a fair fix, to be able to ensure that anyone that has a disagreement post the administrative process and goes into court can, in fact, utilize.

This is one that shows that, in fact, local environmental groups and national environmental groups are no more than others. The largest amount goes to various State governments, individuals, various unions and workers that got a minimal amount or may not have even prevailed.

So I think it is important to recognize that this is not one that is going to destroy this bill, it is going to enhance the bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment removes the prohibition contained in Section 1147 with respect to the recovery of attorney fees and costs by a prevailing party pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 504 and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412).

This amendment is needed to level the playing field and conform the bill to current law and practice.

For more than three decades, since its enactment in 1980, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) has enhanced parties' ability to hold government agencies accountable for their actions and inaction.

EAJA allows individuals, small businesses and nonprofits to recover attorney fees from the federal government.

The EAJA is used to vindicate a variety of federal rights, including access to Veterans Affairs and Social Security disability benefits, as well as to secure statutory environmental protections.

The EAJA promotes public involvement in laws have a significant impact on the public health and safety such as the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

EAJA also helps deter government inaction or erroneous conduct and encourages all parties, not just those with resources to hire legal counsel, to assert their rights.

Mr. Chairman, fee awards under the EAJA are NOT available in any and every case. Rather, attorneys' fees are only recoverable in cases where plaintiffs prevail and the government cannot demonstrate that its legal position was ``substantially justified.''

The amount of attorney fees awarded cannot exceed $125 per hour, a figure is far below the amount currently charged by big city law firms.

No law firm or public interest group is getting rich off a practice relying upon EAJA awards for its attorney fees.

A new report, Shifting the Debate: In Defense of the Equal Access to Justice Act, concludes that EAJA has been cost-effective, applies only to meritorious litigation and that existing legal safeguards and the independent discretion of federal judges will continue to ensure its prudent application.

Moreover, the claim that large environmental groups are getting rich on attorney fees simply is not supported by available evidence.

A recent GAO study (requested by House Republicans) of cases brought against EPA found: most environment lawsuits (48%) were brought by trade associations and private companies; attorney fees were awarded only about eight percent of the time; among environmental plaintiffs, the majority of cases were brought by local groups rather than national groups; and the average award under the EAJA was only about $100,000.

In reality, EAJA ``reforms'' would have the effect of watering down the implementation and enforcement of law enacted to protect the public health and safety.

Much has been made about environmental groups obtaining fees in suits that are ``merely'' procedural.

Both public-interest and industry litigants agree that ``procedural'' litigation under the Administrative Procedure Act is essential to checking executive power on a range of issues.

Additionally, it should be pointed out that procedural requirements and deadlines contained in environmental laws are paramount to ensuring the protections that Congress has enacted.

Indeed, in the case of the National Environmental Policy Act, the nation's foundational environmental statute, following sound procedure is the entire point of the law.

NEPA requires agencies to take a ``hard look'' at the consequences of their actions and to carefully consider alternatives, but compels no particular outcomes.

Mr. Chairman, the provision in the bill that prohibits recovery of attorney fees under the EAJA is not ``reform''; it is a step backwards.

Instead of providing an important tool by which the public can hold the federal government accountable for its actions, Section 1147 wold deny the benefit of this proven accountability tool to unwelcome legal challenges and to prejudice a subset of disfavored plaintiffs.

I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear that the awards under the EAJA are not available for any and every case. Only when the plaintiff prevails. Is that not fair?

When an individual, a nonprofit, who has sought to even the playing field, who wants to make sure that we have a strong energy policy but they are praying that you listen to them as to how it is destroying their property, their house, their quality of life, they have a right to petition.

So I want to correct the gentleman's interpretation. I heard on the floor of the House that he mentioned the word ``frivolous.'' As a lawyer, and one who adheres to the Constitution, I would like to not think that if you are concerned about an issue, that you cannot get into the court of justice and that you cannot make your case. You may not win, but I want to surprise him with the fact that the large number of cases that went under this act and sued the EPA were trade associations--622; private companies--556. There are a variety of others, not collectively together. State territories and municipalities--297. Should they not recover if they prevail? Should environmental groups not recover if they prevail--only at 388? Should individuals at 185 cases not prevail if they win? Should workers groups and universities and tribes not prevail if they should win?

I think that we are wrongheaded if we simply do not adhere to the existing law; not use the terminology ``frivolous'' but applaud Americans who are willing to stand up for their rights.

My example was correct. It was an analogy. These homeowners are fighting Big Business, but what they decided to do is, after they were ruled against by every administrative local body, they have gone into the courthouse. They happen to be more prosperous than someone else, but why would you fault an individual who is using their meager pennies with an attorney to try and prevail on something that they believe will harm them?

My amendment is very simple. It just indicates, if you prevail, you should not be denied the attorney fees that anyone else would get and, if you will, debunks and rebuts the proposition that only those groups that we might not enjoy their position--trade associations, private big companies--I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment for fairness and justice in America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today there was a memorial in Washington in honor of a great public servant, Gerardo I. Hernandez, the first transportation security officer to be killed in the line of duty. It is with great sorrow that I offer my deepest sympathy to his family and pay tribute to him. He died on Friday, November 1, 2013, in Los Angeles of gunshot wounds received from an assailant while he was doing his duty as a transportation security officer. He was the first one to be killed in the line of duty.

He was born in El Salvador and became an American citizen. He met Ana, the love of his life, who he married in 1998, and they have two wonderful children.

In 2010, he joined the Transportation Security Administration. Everyone indicated what a great public servant he was. He was always excited to go to work and enjoyed the interaction with the passengers at LAX. He was a joyful person, always smiling, took pride in his duty for the American public and for the TSA mission.

As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I offer my deepest sympathy and ask for a 1-minute acknowledgement of this great and fine public servant. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow but also great admiration that I rise to pay tribute to Gerardo I. Hernandez of Porter Ranch, California.

Mr. Hernandez died on Friday, November 1, 2013, in Los Angeles of gunshot wounds received from an assailant while he was doing his duty as a Transportation Security Officer at the Los Angeles International Airport.

He was the first TSA officer killed in the line of duty in the 12 year history of the agency. He was only 39 years old.

Gerardo Hernandez was born in El Salvador in 1973 and at the age of 15 immigrated to the United States to escape the civil unrest of that war-torn country in 1988.

Four years later, Gerardo met Ana, the love of his life, whom he married in 1998. Together, Gerardo and Ana were the loving parents of two wonderful children, Louis and Stephanie.

Mr. Speaker, in 2010, Gerardo Hernandez joined the Transportation Security Administration, an agency created from the ash and rubble and heartbreak of the terrorist attack of September 11. He did so because he loved his adopted country and wanted to do what he could to help keep her safe. According to his wife Ana:

[Gerardo] was always excited to go to work and enjoyed the

interactions with the passengers at LAX. He was a joyful

person, always smiling. He took pride in his duty for the

American public and for the TSA mission.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and former chair of its Transportation Security Subcommittee, I can tell you that Gerardo Hernandez was a good man and reflected TSA at its best.

He will be greatly missed by his family and friends and colleagues and by countless members of the flying public who will remember how he also greeted them with a smile and treated them with respect.

Gerardo Hernandez was a special person but happily for our country he is not unique.

Every day thousands of TSA employees carry out their mission of keeping the airways safe for the flying public. The importance of TSA in safeguarding transportation throughout the nation cannot be understated.

On average, TSA officers screen 1.7 million air passengers at more than 450 airports across the nation, which in 2012 amounted to 637,582,122 passengers.

TSA provides security for the nation's airports, maintains a security force to screen all commercial airline passengers and baggage, and works with the transportation, law enforcement and intelligence communities to ensure the security of the air transit industry.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we tend to forget just how horrible was that September 11 day twelve years ago. That day changed forever the way we gain access to commercial airplanes.

From that day on Americans understood that a little temporary inconvenience in exchange for the more permanent security of a safe and uneventful flight was a small price to pay.

It is people like Gerardo Hernandez who do their best to make the necessary screening as unintrusive and unburdensome as possible consistent with the mission of ensuring the security of all members of the flying public.

And they are willing to risk their lives to ensure the job gets done.

We owe the men and women of the TSA a debt of gratitude. They have earned our respect and appreciation and our support. Their hearts ache over the loss of their friend and colleague.

But they recognize and understand that the best way to honor the memory of the great Gerardo Hernandez is to continue doing what he always did: treat everyone with respect, greet them with a smile, and discharge their duties so that all passengers screened board their flights secure in the knowledge that every precaution has been taken to ensure that they reach their destination and return safely home to the families and friends who know them best and love them most.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in honor of Gerardo I. Castillo, the first Transportation Security Officer to lose his life in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues this morning talked about creating jobs, and I am delighted to be one of those who saw and advocated in the Affordable Care Act the expansion of service and use on behalf of the American people.

First, as a woman, let me say for women, the Affordable Care Act will take away forever this dastardly assessment that pregnancy was a preexisting disease. The lifetime caps will be removed for women. The costs are going down for women. In fact, a small business owner indicated that she was going to save $10,000 on her insurance.

This creates jobs, scholarships for medical professionals, doctors, nurses, and expands the federally-qualified clinics.

The Affordable Care Act is here to stay, with consumer protection that will provide for the right kind of health care for the American people.

Don't be fooled. It is going to be the civil rights legislation of the 21st century: women given dignity, children provided health care, seniors not denied health care.

I am delighted that this particular legislation is going to be what we desired it to be: civil rights and health care for all Americans.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise to save lives and to ensure that the Affordable Care Act does what it was intended to do and what it is already doing: lifting the lifetime caps, providing preventative care, taking away the discrimination against women and other ethnic minorities by eliminating health disparities.

This is a bill that has seen eons of hearings not only in the underlying committee, but also in the Judiciary Committee and other committees and ad hoc hearings and briefings over and over again. I remember sitting and hearing the painful stories of families whose children had died because they could not get access to health care. But the Upton bill comes today disguised as a sheep in wolf's clothing. It discriminates against people with preexisting conditions; it restores annual caps on the amount of care you can receive; and it forces women to pay more than men for the same coverage.

This bill is not a fix. It is a dissolver of a good bill.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, let me inform my colleagues that there was nothing in the Affordable Care Act that dictated to insurance companies that they had to send cancelation letters. Why don't we hold a hearing and call the CEOs of the insurance companies and ask them why they didn't send the normal letter indicating that you have the opportunity to have a modified policy that will comply with the Affordable Care Act and that your policies are not canceled because those individuals did not pay their premium? Ask that question.

I will tell you that there are health professionals and organizations that believe this particular bill will not work, such as the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Society.

I agree with my colleague that there should have been an open rule. And the reason that there should have been an open rule is because I had an amendment that indicated that the conditions specified in the subsection for health insurance insurer, they must notify enrollees eligible for such continued coverage. I am glad that the President yesterday put that language in and also said that you can opt in to your old policy.

We have answered the call and concern of the American people, but we have not taken away from them the right to have consumer protections and insurance coverage that will make their lives better.

I would also suggest that my amendment indicated health insurance companies are making decisions based on their bottom line, their self- interests, and have decided to terminate insurance plans that are not profitable in the new, highly competitive marketplace for health insurance or want to end insurance for those who are ill and thereby increase their profit margin by keeping only the healthy and marginally healthy while discarding the ill, and the amendment should have been included, because we need to speak to our friends in the health insurance industry that we are here working together and that those letters were not necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I want to save lives. I want consumer protections. I want women not to be discriminated against. Tomorrow, in Houston, we are opening the doors for enrollment in a health fair that we hope thousands will come to.

My friends, the Upton bill does not answer the question. Let us save lives today.

I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

This is what we lived in preceding the Affordable Care Act:

18 percent of the underinsured postponed getting care or treatment, and some of those people died;

15 percent of the uninsured had problems paying their medical bills, hounded, hounded, hounded because they didn't have the resources and even went bankrupt;

10 percent of the uninsured needed prescription drugs but they could not afford them;

8 percent were hounded by collection agencies because they had to pay for their mortgage or their food;

6 percent did not seek treatment at all.

Do you know what that equals to? One hundred percent of those individuals suffering bad health care.

Let us vote down the Upton bill, vote against the underlying rule, and let's promote the Affordable Care Act and fix it like the President has done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3350, the so-called ``Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013.'' I oppose the rule and the underlying bill for two reasons.

First, the bill will not save lives. Second, the legislation is unnecessary in light of the action taken yesterday by President Obama, which should satisfy the proponents of this legislation while at the same time minimizing the risk to the health and safety of underinsured Americans, who are persons who have insurance but spend more than 10% of their income on out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Were it to become law, H.R. 3350 would jeopardize the life and health of those underinsured who purchase these plans it protects, even though health insurance plans are available that would in nearly every case provide more health coverage for less.

Mr. Speaker, researchers have found the following disturbing facts regarding the underinsured:

Eighteen percent of the underinsured postpone getting care or treatment;

Fifteen percent of the underinsured had problems paying medical bills;

Ten percent of the underinsured needed prescription drugs but could not afford them;

Eight percent were hounded by collection agencies for nonpayment of medical bills; and

Six percent did not seek treatment even though they needed it.

Mr. Speaker, this is the cost of underinsurance in America--and this is what we can expect more of should H.R. 3350 become law. The express purpose of this bill is to allow underinsured persons to retain an inadequate ``health insurance'' plan on the ground that supposedly it is the plan the person ``wants to keep.''

Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill that would provide consumer education on the inadequacies of the plan and that something much better is available. For example, there is no requirement in this bill for the insurer to notify the insured that health insurance provided through the exchange that provides more and better coverage for less money.

This means that under H.R. 3350 people will still have problems paying their medical bills, they will have high bills, and they will not be able to afford prescription medication or be hounded by medical bill collectors.

The second reason for opposing this rule and bill is that it is unnecessary in view of the actions taken yesterday by President Obama. As the President announced, insurers will be

permitted to offer consumers the option to renew their 2013 health plans in 2014, without change, allowing them to keep their plans. This should satisfy the proponents of the bill.

But the President went further than that because he recognizes that inadequate insurance is really no insurance at all. That is why the President conditioned the ability of insurers to offer plan renewals upon the following:

1. That insurers notify enrollees that they can purchase coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace where they can potentially qualify for premium tax credits; and

2. Those insurers must inform consumers of the protections they are giving up to keep the plan they have.

Taken together, President Obama's actions are a tempered and measured response to the alleged problem that this bill seeks to remedy.

I fully applaud what the President has done and I offered an amendment that would achieve precisely the same results but the Rules Committee did not make my amendment in order. The text of Jackson Lee Amendment #1 provides:

(C) Conditions for Continued Offering of Coverage.--The conditions specified in this subsection for a health insurance issuer offering continued coverage under subsection (a) are as follows:

(1) The issuer must notify enrollees eligible for such continued coverage that they can purchase health insurance coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace where they can potentially qualify for premium tax credits.

(2) The issuer must tell consumers what protections they are giving up to accept the continued coverage they have.

(3) The issuer must provide notice by mail of the offering of such continued coverage to each affected enrollee; and post these notices on the issuer's website.

The Jackson Lee Amendment, like the action announced by the President, is practical, efficient, and addresses the concerns of those who received cancellation letters from their insurance companies.

It should be noted again that Jackson Lee Amendment #1, and the President's actions, are each superior to H.R. 3350, which contains no provision or requirement that consumers who received these notices be advised by their insurers that they may receive lower insurance rates with better coverage by shopping online or calling the toll free number.

Now there may be some who think the availability of the types of health care insurance that H.R. 3350 would protect is sufficient for Americans. I do not. Neither does President Obama. The majority of the American people do not. We believe, and the Affordable Care Act ensures, that healthcare should be available, accessible and adequate.

Mr. Speaker, adequate health plans have in common the inclusion of certain minimal benefits and services. The second amendment I offered to the legislation before us documented the differences between adequate and inadequate health insurance plans. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee elected not to make my amendment in order. The text of Jackson Lee Amendment #2 is as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3350, the ``Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013.'' I oppose the bill for two reasons.

First, the Affordable Care Act health insurance plans offered by private insurance companies have 10 basic options that saves lives. Second, the legislation is unnecessary in light of the action taken yesterday by President Obama, which should satisfy the proponents of this legislation while at the same time minimizing the risk to the health and safety of

underinsured Americans, who are persons who have insurance but spend more than 10 percent of their income on out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Were it to become law, H.R. 3350 would jeopardize the life and health of those underinsured who purchase these plans this bill protects, even though health insurance plans are available that would in nearly every case provide more health coverage for less.

Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act that the Republicans have tried for 46 times to end, delay or impede is working my constituents of the 18th Congressional District and the people of Texas.

Flora Alexandra Brewer of Fort Worth a real estate development business owner who works from home kept trying to sign into the website. She was determined to participate in the exchange. She said that her family had pre-existing conditions. Flora said that, ``There's nothing more expensive out there on any of the websites that I have looked at than what I am currently paying for COBRA.

For the past 10 months, Flora has been paying nearly $1,900 a month for health insurance for her, her husband and one of her sons. She knows that she will most likely not qualify for any subsidies, but she believes she will save around $500 a month under the program commonly known as Obamacare.

Those potential savings motivate Brewer not to give up on the exchange.

On Wednesday, she called the toll free number listed on healthcare.gov. She spoke to a representative and enrolled in 15 minutes. She will soon receive an email and a packet in the mail detailing the polices and rates she and her family are eligible for.''

Mark Sullivan, an Entrepreneur from Austin, enrolled in a Plan that reduces his monthly premiums by half, expands his coverage, and gave him the financial security to focus on his small business. ``Mark now feels confident focusing on the success of his new consulting business, saying health insurance is 'one less thing I have to think about' as he pours his time and talent into this next major career move.

Mark also thinks the marketplace will make it possible for more people to start new businesses and wants to share his success with the larger entrepreneurial community in Austin. After comparing plans, Mark settled on a bronze option and added dental insurance. He will receive an $82 per month subsidy, which will halve the monthly premium he will pay down to $78.''

Lucy after choosing from over 30 plans is saving $2,300 a year on her premium and $4,000 on her deductible, said that ``I signed up at Healthcare.gov and I'm going to save $2,300 a year on my premium alone--and more, because my deductible will drop from $7,500 a year to $3,000 a year. It's still Blue Cross insurance, and I don't have to change doctors, either. I had a choice of over 30 plans and several different companies.''

Mr. Speaker, according to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured 47 million persons under the age of retirement were uninsured in 2012. Most of the uninsured are self-employed or employed by small businesses. Another 28 million people were enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP programs to gain access to health insurance.

The overwhelming majority (59 percent) of the insured receive their insurance through employer health plans. However, one in six of the uninsured have at least one working person in their household.

Mr. Speaker, this is the cost of underinsurance in America--and this is what we can expect more of should H.R. 3350 become law. The express purpose of this bill is to allow underinsured persons to retain an inadequate ``health insurance'' plan on the ground that supposedly it is the plan the person ``wants to keep.''

Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill that would provide consumer education on the inadequacies of the plan and that something much better is available. For example, there is no requirement in this bill for the insurer to notify the insured that health insurance provided through the exchange that provides more and better coverage for less money.

This means that under H.R. 3350 people will still have problems paying their medical bills, they will have high bills, and they will not be able to afford prescription medication or be hounded by medical bill collectors. Further, this bill would allow these health insurance plans to be sold to new customers who may not know about the potentially better options available on the health insurance exchanges.

The second reason for opposing this rule and bill is that it is unnecessary in view the actions taken yesterday by President Obama. As the President announced, insurers will be permitted to offer consumers the option to renew their 2013 health plans in 2014, without change, allowing them to keep their plans. This should satisfy the proponents of the bill.

But the President went further than that because he recognizes that inadequate insurance is really no insurance at all. That is why the President conditioned the ability of insurers to offer plan renewals upon the following:

1. That insurers notify enrollees that they can purchase coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace where they can potentially qualify for premium tax credits; and

2. Those insurers must inform consumers of the protections they are giving up to keep the plan they have.

Taken together, President Obama's actions are a tempered and measured response to the alleged problem that this bill seeks to remedy.

I fully applaud what the President has done.

There may be some who think the availability of the types of health care insurance that H.R. 3350 would protect is sufficient for Americans. I do not. Neither does President Obama. The majority of the American people do not. We believe, and the Affordable Care Act ensures, that healthcare should be available, accessible and adequate.

Mr. Speaker, adequate health plans have in common the inclusion of certain minimal benefits and services.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas favor the Affordable Care Act because they understand the insecurity and feeling of helplessness of being uninsured or underinsured. My home state of Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured (27.6 percent) in the nation, 4 percent more than Louisiana the next state on the list.

The state of Massachusetts, in contrast, boasts the lowest uninsured rate in the country (4 percent). This is because Massachusetts several years ago adopted the health insurance system upon which the Affordable Health Care Act is based.

Mr. Speaker, health care coverage must be not only available and affordable but also adequate in order for consumers to have the health security and financial protection they need and deserve. The Affordable Care Act satisfies these criteria; the bill before us does not. That is why we should reject this rule and the underlying bill.

H.R. 3350 is nothing more than the House Republicans' newest variation on their very old theme, which is to repeal, impede or undermine the Affordable Care Act. This bill is the 46th attempt by the Republicans to deprive the American people of the security and peace of mind that comes with health care that is affordable, accessible and adequate.

Of course we should not be surprised. After all, it was the House Republicans who shut down the Federal Government for 16 days and cost the economy $24 billion while refusing to consider any legislation that would create jobs or address the real needs of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before is strongly opposed by a coalition of some of the nation's leading health and consumer organizations, including the following:

Paralyzed Veterans of America.

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

American Diabetes Association.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

American Music Therapy Association.

The Arc of the United States.

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network.

Community Catalyst.

Families USA.

Health and Wholeness Ministries, Disciples Center for Public Witness.

Health Care for America Now.

National Alliance on Mental Illness.

National Association of County Behavioral Health & Developmental Disability Directors.

National Council of Jewish Women.

National Partnership for Women & Families.

These groups oppose the bill for substantially the same reasons I have discussed. While sympathizing with consumers who are receiving notices from their insurance companies that their policies are not being renewed for next year because they do not comply with the ACA's consumer protections, the Coalition rightly observes that:

[T]he solution is not to allow for the continued sale of

inadequate policies[.] Rather, we must educate consumers

about their new health insurance options and ensure that

notices being sent by insurers clearly inform them of the

shortfalls with their current coverage and explain all of

their options for finding better coverage.

I agree. Therefore, I urge all Members to join me in voting against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Leonel J. Castillo, a legendary and pioneering figures in the history of Houston, Texas. Mr. Castillo, who was the first Hispanic elected to public office in Houston, died November 4, 2013. He was 74 years old.

Leonel J. Castillo was born June 9, 1939 in Victoria, Texas and educated at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, from which he received his Bachelor's degree in English, and his Master's degree in Community Organization from University of Pittsburgh.

Like many men and women of his generation, Leonel Castillo was inspired by President John F. Kennedy's call to service and joined the Peace Corps, serving in the Philippines. During this time he met the gracious and brilliant Evelyn, his partner in life and marriage for more than 50 years, and the mother of their two children, a daughter Avalyn, and a son, Efrem.

In 1967, Leonel and his family moved to Houston where he soon became involved with local neighborhood organizations. He organized across racial lines and worked to find common ground on important issues to each community, including integration and better educational opportunities for the children of Houston.

Leonel served as Director of SER-Jobs for Progress, board member of Catholic Charities, and member of the Memorial Hermann Hospital advisory board. Leonel also was one of the co-founders of the Houston Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and Houston International University. He also taught at the University of Houston and Texas Southern University.

In 1971, Leonel Castillo was elected Comptroller of the City of Houston, the first Hispanic ever elected to public office in the city's history. He served in that office with distinction, earning the nickname the ``Watchdog at City Hall.''

Based on his record of demonstrated excellence as a manager and public administrator, Leonel Castillo came to the attention of President Jimmy Carter, who nominated him on April 7, 1977 to be Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and confirmed by the Senate just three weeks later, on April 27, 1977. He was the first Hispanic to hold this position. Leonel Castillo served as INS Commission until October 1, 1979.

At a White House swearing-in ceremony, President Carter explained his reasons for appointing Leonel Castillo to such an important post:

He's a man who has the highest possible reputation. He's a

public administrator, and I think I can tell you that he's

going to take on one of the most difficult jobs in the

Government.

Mr. Speaker, Leonel J. Castillo touched so many lives in so many ways. He inspired a generation of civic minded Hispanic men and women to seek public office. He was a towering figure in the life of our community. He will be greatly missed.

I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in honor of a great American, my friend, the Honorable Leonel J. Castillo.

Madam Speaker, over this last weekend, we celebrated the life of Leonel J. Castillo: educator, civil rights activist, and Houston's first Hispanic elected official, but--a truely--wonderful and deserving and outstanding American.

I rise today to pay tribute to Leonel J. Castillo, a legendary pioneer figure in the history of Houston and, as I said, the first Hispanic elected to public office in Houston. He died on November 4, 2013.

But this weekend, we had a chance to be with his family and to celebrate his life, to name a neighborhood center after him, to hear the testimonies regarding his passion and his love of bringing people together, and to hear about his love for his family.

He was inspired by President John F. Kennedy and joined the Peace Corps, where he met his wonderful, beautiful wife, Evelyn, and had two children: a daughter, Avalyn, and a son, Efrem. He met his wife in the Philippines. And we know today that we are praying for all of them in the Philippines.

Leonel, of course, in 1967, moved his family back to Houston. We are so delighted. He served as the director of SER-Jobs for Progress. In 1971, he was elected comptroller of the city of Houston. When nominated for INS Commissioner President Carter said:

``He is a man who has the highest possible reputation. He

is a public administrator, and I think I can tell you that he

is going to take on one of the most difficult jobs in

government.''

Mr. Castillo, a great American succeeded in that job and all that he did.

We thank you, Leonel Castillo, as you served the United States Government and all of America well. May you rest in peace.

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for his outstanding leadership of this committee, and let me thank the manager as well. This is an important initiative. Using the time to be able to speak to the Members is very important, and I am glad to have been given the courtesy of being yielded as much time, and I will use it efficiently for this particular legislation.

This is another gift to large, prosperous, and threatening entities against a single plaintiff, the plaintiff who secures a lawyer, who is attempting to create the scales of justice and to balance, if you will, the needs of that individual plaintiff, those small plaintiffs, those collective plaintiffs who are seeking justice.

It is a fact that the threat of lawsuits is not a concern of small businesses, as has been represented. A 2008 study by the National Federation of Independent Business indicated that the biggest threat facing small businesses was other concerns and was not costs and frequency of lawsuits. That was No. 65. They have other issues that we should be concerned about.

It is a fact that judges support the current version of the rule, and rule 11 is just one of many tools that judges use. It is not the only tool to be able to be responsive to someone who may be abusing the system.

Remember, we are here to perpetuate justice, and justice has scales. In many instances, that scale is tipped towards the one with the most money, the deepest pockets, and the longest time to wear you out as a plaintiff.

Let me refresh my colleagues' minds and understanding of the Federal system, that tort cases are a very small percentage of that civil docket. So this is not an instance. Many of these cases are filed in State court, these personal injury cases, these cases dealing with large damages because people have been injured because of bad products and other matters.

Here we have a bill looking for a problem. In actuality, LARA will increase, not decrease, litigation, and you can see the spiking that occurred. The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act would return rule 11 to the 1983 version. Litigation spiked after the 1983 amendment to rule 11. From 1982 to the peak in 1991, satellite litigation increased by more than 10,000 percent. Here we go with a gift to those who are truly litigious.

Just as we have been on the floor of the House pounding the Affordable Care Act because cancelation letters have been sent--they haven't been sent by Republicans. They haven't been sent by Democrats. They haven't been sent by Health and Human Services. They haven't been sent by people who are committed to making sure every American has health insurance. They have been sent by fat-cat insurance companies who are sending cancelation letters.

Here we go again, the scale of justice imbalanced. Again, the same problem: the mother, the single parent, the family waiting to get on the Affordable Care Act. In the normal course of the process, they get a cancelation letter. What an unnecessary act. That letter could have been that they were modifying their insurance, but there go the big guys again. You haven't heard one single sound coming out of the mouths of insurance companies to answer the question of why did they send the letters, and here we are on the floor of the House making it even worse.

Under the LARA regime, with mandatory sanctions and no opportunity to correct mistakes, the parties to a lawsuit have every incentive to file rule 11 complaints and seek court costs and legal fees, and to defend against such actions to the bitter end. This is a dynamic that should not happen. We should allow a pullback. We should allow a correction. All we are doing is just throwing them over the cliff and under the bus.

The changes would create a disincentive to abandon or withdraw a pleading or claim that lacks merit and thereby admit error after determining that it no longer was supportable by law or fact. As I have indicated, we have seen this kind since 1983 spike.

I have another statistic. Rule 11 cases spiked to 7,000 during the decade following the 1983 rule. So when a lawyer wants to do right with his client, the little guys, then, of course, they are blocked from solving the problems.

They use horror stories like demand letters, where a lawyer writes a letter demanding compensation in order to get a potential defendant to settle without having to file suit. That is not covered by rule 11. As far as I know, that is not an illegal procedure to engage in discussion, to be able to resolve the matter before going to a costly lawsuit. Again, that is the little guy's tool. So you are going to beat up on the little guy--the construction worker that falls because of violations of OSHA rules, or the person that works in a chicken plant who has carpal tunnel syndrome because there were no appropriate rest times for them to get off of the line, and you are going to make the argument that this is right for justice.

Madam Speaker, this graph speaks for itself. This will add an extra burden of cost to those who are trying to find a way for Lady Justice's scales to be balanced. My belief, under the Sixth Amendment, the right to counsel, and many other aspects of the Bill of Rights, is that the Founding Fathers believed that justice should be rendered regardless of your race, color or creed, regardless of whether you were an indentured servant, regardless of whether or not you came in Pilgrims' Pride or came in some other matter.

Rule 11 completely disputes that concept of justice. I am appalled that we are here at this point today, and it equates to the fat-cat insurance companies who have decided to send out letters when they well knew that this was a process that would work ongoing in their modification that could be noted to those recipients that their insurance was not going away, it was only going to be made better. I would like to make the justice system better.

I thank the gentleman for his time, and I would like to make sure that the little guy has an opportunity to walk into any court of the United States of America and stand tall and feel that the judge, no matter what size his pocketbook is, will give him as much credence and respect as the big guys coming in with millions, maybe billions, to make sure he does not or she does not win justice in the court.

Today I would ask our colleagues to vote for fairness for Lady Justice and to vote against this initiative and this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2655, The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act--a flawed piece of legislation and a step backwards.

It amazes me that we did not learn the lesson from the ten years we had under the 1983 mandatory version of Rule 11. H.R. 2655 and its Senate companion S. 1288, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, known as LARA, would amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure by replacing the current version of the Rule, which has been in effect since 1993, with the 1983 version of Rule 11. Based on what we have seen it is quite likely that the effect of this bill if enacted would be to increase litigation costs due to the filing of sanction motions-- leading to more delay.

The bill should be called ``The Lacking All Rational Analysis Act of 2013,'' because any impartial look would inform that this bill is unnecessary and a waste of time.

Congress should reject this measure, which would force the federal judiciary to enforce a

rule that legal scholars, judges, and lawyers agree was a complete failure. LARA would increase litigation, unnecessarily meddle with the authority of the federal judiciary, and disproportionately affect plaintiffs, especially plaintiffs in civil rights cases.

Encourages satellite litigation. For the 10 years that mandatory sanctions were in effect, litigation surrounding Rule 11 significantly increased. Any time a party filed a Rule 11 motion--because judges had no discretion and were forced to issue a sanction for even the smallest violation of the Rule--a countermotion would be immediately filed and a whole side or ``satellite'' litigation business erupted. Congress does not need to be in the business of promoting more paper wars amongst attorneys.

Threatens an independent judiciary. Since 1993, Rule 11 has been discretionary rather than mandatory.

Under current Rule 11, judges are able to use their discretion to assess the complex nature of a case, and evaluate potential violations of the rule and issue sanctions accordingly. This appropriately leaves the determination of whether or not sanctions should be imposed for a violation of Rule 11 to the judges who hear the cases, and not Congress. Perhaps it is time that we allow judges to do their jobs and then we can move on to comprehensive immigration reform, tax reform, and other prudent legislative initiatives that the American people would like us to do.

Jeopardizes 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. Unfortunately Mr. Speaker, we are not at a time in our nation's great history where we can upend the law and make the filing of civil rights cases prohibitive. As we have seen recently with such appalling examples such as the Trayvon Martin case--we have a long way to go--and the civil rights bar should not cringe in fear at the thought of filing a case to do justice.

I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman is very kind to yield.

Very briefly, let me say it is about policy and process. The gentleman knows that most of America is very happy about the changes in the Affordable Care Act to get them out of the junk insurance policies that they have had.

I thank the gentleman very much.

Madam Speaker, let me be very clear. I want to say to the gentleman from Virginia that I would venture to say that those attacks on frivolous lawsuits are the big guys against the little guys, who had very legitimate and good intentions. It may be their resources were limited, and so they have to be subjected to a rule 11 on a perfectly legitimate litigation to be called frivolous.

The other point that I was making is that there is something between process and policy. I will stand again to say that the policy of making better health plans and better and healthier Americans is supported by all.

The process that I challenge is that the big insurance companies decided to use the process of cancelation letters, not letters that said modify. They decided to use their big authority to be able to undermine a policy of lifting the boats of all Americans for good health.

That is what I see rule 11 as. I see that as undermining the basic scales of justice. It says to get back money for frivolous lawsuits. Well, the frivolous lawsuits may be on one individual or a group of small individuals who feel

that they have been harmed. They may have lost. They may be in the midst of pleadings, but they don't have the resources to file a rule 11. So what happens is those who want to be punitive will use a rule 11.

I think a judge can make determinations under the present system, and so the spiking that we are talking about is a spiking of rule 11 filings. That is more litigation. That is more litigation. That is what we are suggesting that we don't want.

And this response and respect that the President and others are giving, all of us want to give respect to the mishap that has been created by the insurance companies. And so, fine. The President is giving respect to the constituents because his bottom line is to make sure all uninsured Americans, like the 6 million in the State of Texas, get the opportunity to be insured.

Let me thank the gentleman for the time. I believe that we are going down the wrong path for rule 11.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 982, The F.A.C.T. Act.

This intrusive legislation which misuses the word ``transparency,'' would invade the privacy of asbestos victims by requiring the posting of personal exposure and medical information online and create new barriers to victims receiving compensation for their asbestos diseases.

We have witnessed decades of uncontrolled use of asbestos, even after its hazards were known, have resulted in a legacy of disease and death. Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members have been exposed to, suffered or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease, and the toll continues. It is estimated that each year 10,000 people in the United States are expected to die from asbestos related diseases. This is an outrage--and to add to their misery--they have to deal with the onerous provisions of H.R. 982.

Asbestos victims have faced huge barriers and obstacles to receiving compensation for their diseases. Major asbestos producers refused to accept responsibility and most declared bankruptcy in an attempt to limit their future liability. In 1994 Congress passed special legislation that allowed the asbestos companies to set up bankruptcy trusts to compensate asbestos victims and reorganize under the bankruptcy law.

But these trusts don't have adequate funding to provide just compensation, and according to a 2010 RAND study, the median payment across the trusts is only 25 percent of the claim's value. With compensation from these trusts so limited, asbestos victims have sought redress from the manufacturers of other asbestos products to which they were exposed.

Although the proponents of this legislation assert that it is intended to protect asbestos victims, not a single asbestos victim has expressed support for H.R. 982. As the widow of our former colleague Representative Bruce Vento (D-MN), who passed away from mesothelioma, stated H.R. 982 ``does not do a single thing'' to help asbestos victims and their families?

H.R. 982 disturbs a reasonably well-functioning asbestos victim compensation process. Entities facing overwhelming mass tort liability for causing asbestos injuries may, under certain circumstances, shed these liabilities and financially regain their stability in exchange for funding trusts established under Chapter II of the Bankruptcy Code to pay the claims of their victims, under certain circumstances. 3 H.R. 982, however, interferes with this longstanding process in two ways. The FACT Act would require these trusts to: (1) file a publicly available quarterly report with the bankruptcy court that would include personally identifying information about such claimants, including their names, exposure history, and basis for any payment made to them; and (2) provide any information related to payment from and demands for payment from such trust to any party to any action in law or equity concerning liability for asbestos exposure.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this utterly intrusive legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 403 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida

Strike all and insert the following:

Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution

the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill

(H.R. 3383) to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend

to all veterans with a serious service-connected injury

eligibility to participate in the family caregiver services

program. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed

with. All points of order against consideration of the bill

are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Veterans' Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as

ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with

or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises

and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill,

then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 3383.

the vote on the previous question: what it really means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a

vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous

question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an

immediate vote on adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no

substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''

But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the

Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in

the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,

page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous

question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally

not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Let me thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, with all of the protests, I think there is nothing more that we can say other than that it is a

very cruel decision to move forward this particular legislation. It really implodes and violates the process of litigation between plaintiffs and defendants, petitioners and those who are in opposition, because we have an infrastructure of a court system that allows those who participate in that court system to guide the evidence that is being presented under the representation of their counsel.

The Sixth Amendment provides for individuals to have a right to counsel, and what this legislation is trying to do is implode that relationship and ask for information that could be given in the regular order of a court process.

This is intrusive legislation under the false guise of transparency and, in actuality, would invade the privacy of asbestos victims by requiring the posting of personal exposure and medical information online and erect new barriers to victims receiving compensation for their asbestos diseases.

This cancer-driven disease, this asbestos-driven disease, is a silent killer. For a long time, the victims don't even know that they are being impacted by asbestos that is causing cancer.

We have witnessed decades of uncontrolled use of asbestos; and even after its hazards became widely known, disease and death still persist because people work in it and they do not know. And so they have been forced to hire counsel merely to provide for their families or themselves in the waning hours and days of their life.

Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members have been exposed, suffered, or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease; and the toll continues. And yet we have legislation like this that wants to clearly undermine the legal system, the justice system, which means I go into a court, I have a lawyer, there is someone opposed to my position, they have a lawyer, and we submit information under the basis of that litigation or that settlement or that negotiation.

Why do Americans have to be subjected to another abuse while they are suffering and dying?

This is an abuse. H.R. 982 is asking for information that can already be gotten. As I indicated, these individuals have been exposed, suffered, or died from asbestos-related cancer. It is estimated that, each year, 10,000 people in the United States are expected to die from asbestos-related diseases. How much more of an outrage do we have to place on their families--and burdens--to ask them to give information about their sicknesses and other issues that are squarely within the realm of their counsel? Call up their lawyers and ask for it. This is an outrage that they have to deal with this onerous provision.

Time and again, asbestos victims have faced huge obstacles, inconvenient barriers, and veiled but persistent resistance to receiving compensation for their diseases. That is why they organized in the manner that they did. It is because they were dying, dying, dying, and there was no response.

It is particularly galling that many of the major asbestos producers refuse to accept responsibility and that most declared bankruptcy in an attempt to limit their future liability.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. How much more can we put on these poor victims? If you want information, go to their counsel. Go into the courthouse. They will provide it. Let's give them relief. I oppose this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 982, the F.A.C.T. Act. This intrusive legislation which misuses the word ``transparency,'' would invade the privacy of asbestos victims by requiring the posting of personal exposure and medical information online and erect new barriers to victims receiving compensation for their asbestos diseases.

We have witnessed decades of uncontrolled use of asbestos, and, even after its hazards became widely known, disease and death still persist.

Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members have been exposed to, suffered or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease, and the toll continues. It is estimated that each year 10,000 people in the United States are expected to die from asbestos related diseases. This is an outrage--and to add to their misery--they have to deal with the onerous provisions of H.R. 982.

Time and time again, asbestos victims have faced huge obstacles, inconvenient barriers, and veiled but persistent resistance to receiving compensation for their diseases and it is important to note that asbestos litigation is the longest-running mass tort litigation in the United States.

It is particularly galling that many of the major asbestos producers refused to accept responsibility and most declared bankruptcy in an attempt to limit their future liability. In 1994 Congress passed reasonably balanced special legislation that allowed the asbestos companies to set up bankruptcy trusts to compensate asbestos victims and reorganize under the bankruptcy law.

But these trusts don't have adequate funding to provide just compensation, and according to a 2010 RAND study, the median payment across the trusts is only 25 percent of the claim's value. With compensation from these trusts so limited, asbestos victims have sought redress from the manufacturers of other asbestos products to which they were exposed--the original tortfeasors.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, better known as OSHA noted two decades ago that

``It was aware of no instance in which exposure to a toxic substance has more clearly demonstrated detrimental health effects on human than has asbestos exposure.''

We see the harm that asbestos causes when people become sick-- ordinary Americans who did extraordinary things to get this disease-- like go to work every day to support their families.

And although the proponents of this legislation assert that it is intended to protect asbestos victims, I have not heard of a single asbestos victim who has expressed support for the H.R. 982, the FACT Act.

As the widow of our former colleague Representative Bruce Vento (D- MN), who passed away from mesothelioma, stated H.R. 982 ``does not do a single thing'' to help asbestos victims and their families.

H.R. 982 does not help and actually disturbs a reasonably well- functioning asbestos victim compensation process. Entities facing overwhelming mass tort liability for causing asbestos injuries may, under certain circumstances, shed these liabilities and financially regain their stability in exchange for funding trusts established under Chapter II of the Bankruptcy Code to pay the claims of their victims, under certain circumstances.

H.R. 982, however, interferes with this longstanding process in two ways. The FACT Act would require these trusts to: (1) file a publicly available quarterly report with the bankruptcy court that would include personally identifying information about such claimants, including their names, exposure history, and basis for any payment made to them; and (2) provide any information related to payment from and demands for payment from such trust to any party to any action in law or equity concerning liability for asbestos exposure.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this utterly intrusive legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are here today for several reasons, and my friends on the other side of the aisle have their high calling and reasons of great merit that they argue, but I think we have a more devastating and prevailing reason that we are opposed to this legislation.

Frankly, as I indicated earlier in my remarks, there are thousands and thousands of asbestos victims who are suffering from lung disease or cancer. Many of them were diagnosed late. Many of them, unfortunately, have passed. Their families are still victims. They have lost everything that they have had in trying to treat them, and now we add what we are used to saying in the community: insult to injury.

We come with an enormously burdensome and unfair initiative. So today I rise to introduce an amendment that I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider because it is fair.

The amendment would apply the transparency rules that they are seeking from those victims who are barely receiving dollars out of a trust that is the final result of numbers of bankrupt companies. We are asking to equally apply these transparency rules to asbestos industry defendants by requiring asbestos companies to report information about the location of their asbestos-containing products; and the amendment, out of respect for trade secrets, will exempt that.

So today we are asking for transparency on both sides. H.R. 982 is one-sided in that it maintains the rights of asbestos defendants to demand confidentiality of settlements and protects an asbestos defendant's right to continue to hide the dangers of their asbestos products from asbestos victims and the American public. A typical asbestos defendant who settles a case in

the tort system demands the utmost confidentiality along with the right to file for bankruptcy as a condition of the settlement in order to ensure that other victims cannot learn how much they paid or for which asbestos products the defendant is paying compensation.

By no means do we want to help those who are hurting. We certainly don't want to give them a leg up by understanding what the process of compensation is.

These same defendants now, under this particular bill, want the victims to disclose specific settlement amounts with the trusts along with product exposure information and work history. How unfair is that? On my dying bed, I have to offer and find a basis of giving you a settlement, or my family has to give it to you in the midst of our crisis.

The asbestos health crisis is the result of a massive cover-up; therefore, we are asking today for simple fairness. If there is confidentiality on the defendant's part and they ask for information on those who are suffering, then I believe, minimally, defendants can give information about the location of the asbestos-containing products to ensure that our victims are not exposed any longer.

Furthermore, the trust information is already public, and I would ask why this bill is even necessary. And then the further point of controversy is that this bill seeks to override State law regarding discovery disclosure of information.

So I am asking my colleagues to be fair, to recognize the hurt and the pain, and to support the Jackson Lee amendment, which simply asks for those defendants, those companies, to give us the location of the asbestos-containing products.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee amendment which would require the Asbestos Industry to Report Information about Dangerous Asbestos Products.

What does the Amendment do?

The Amendment would apply the transparency rules in the bill equally to asbestos industry defendants by requiring asbestos companies to report information about the location of their asbestos-containing products. And the amendment includes a ``trade secrets'' exception.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

And the gentleman from Virginia?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from

the great State of Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

I thank the distinguished gentleman for his important remarks.

Mr. Chairman, let me quickly say, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Ranking Member, you were superbly right. The plaintiffs in litigation have had their right of exchange of information. What our friends are trying to do on the other side of the aisle is to make the trusts, now, a courtroom where information is dragged out of the victim, but it is not asked for from the defendants, the ones who have filed for bankruptcy, the ones who have left the victims to suffer and to fend for themselves.

I ask my colleagues to make this fair and require the asbestos company to give us where the asbestos-remaining products are so that we can save lives. If there is transparency, if the FACT bill would be fair, they would then have information coming from both parties, not only the victims, the plaintiffs, but they would have it coming from the asbestos companies that have driven up the numbers of those suffering from lung disease and cancer.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

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

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington, DC, November 12, 2013.

Dear Representative: I am writing to express the strong

opposition of the AFL-CIO to H.R. 982, the ``Furthering

Asbestos Claim Transparency Act'' (FACT Act). This

legislation would invade the privacy of asbestos victims by

posting personal exposure and medical information online and

create new barriers to victims receiving compensation for

their asbestos diseases. The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose this

harmful bill.

Decades of uncontrolled use of asbestos, even after its

hazards were known, have resulted in a legacy of disease and

death. Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members

have suffered or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung

disease, and the toll continues. Each year an estimated

10,000 people in the United States are expected to die from

asbestos related diseases.

Asbestos victims have faced huge barriers and obstacles to

receiving compensation for their diseases. Major asbestos

producers refused to accept responsibility and most declared

bankruptcy in an attempt to limit their future liability. In

1994 Congress passed special legislation that allowed the

asbestos companies to set up bankruptcy trusts to compensate

asbestos victims and reorganize under the bankruptcy law. But

these trusts don't have adequate funding to provide just

compensation, and according to a 2010 RAND study, the median

payment across the trusts is only 25 percent of the claim's

value. With compensation from these trusts so limited,

asbestos victims have sought redress from the manufacturers

of other asbestos products to which they were exposed.

The AFL-CIO is well aware that the system for compensating

asbestos disease victims has had its share of problems, with

victims facing delays and inadequate compensation and too

much money being spent on defendant and plaintiff lawyers. We

have spent years of effort trying to seek solutions to make

the asbestos compensation system fairer and more effective.

But H.R. 982 does nothing to improve compensation for

asbestos victims and would in fact make the situation even

worse. In our view, the bill is simply an effort by asbestos

manufacturers who still are subject to asbestos lawsuits to

avoid liability for diseases caused by exposure to their

products.

H.R. 982 would require personally identifiable exposure

histories and disease information for each asbestos victim

filing a claim with an asbestos trust, and related payment

information, to be posted on a public docket. This public

posting is an extreme invasion of privacy. It would give

unfettered access to employers, insurance companies, workers

compensation carriers and others who could use this

information for any purpose including blacklisting workers

from employment and fighting compensation claims.

The bill would also require asbestos trusts to provide on

demand to asbestos defendants and litigants any information

related to payments made by and claims filed with the trusts.

This would place unnecessary and added burdens on the trusts,

delaying much-needed compensation for asbestos victims. Such

a provision allows asbestos defendants to bypass the

established rules of discovery in the civil justice system,

and provides broad, unrestricted access to personal

information with no limitations on its use.

Congress should be helping the hundreds of thousands of

individuals who are suffering from disabling and deadly

asbestos diseases, not further victimizing them by invading

their privacy and subjecting them to potential blacklisting

and discrimination. The AFL-CIO strongly urges you to oppose

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2871 but also ask that this body continue to work assiduously on the remaining budget matters so that the judicial branch has the funding to do its work that every American has a fair trial--and that they do not have to drive so far that they need to camp out overnight.

In 2012, the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended that certain federal court facilities be closed. This includes leased court space in Meridian, Mississippi. An ad hoc committee of judges, which included the Chief U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, was convened to review the issues created by the closure and to recommend the best course of action. I am aware like most Members, that cost-savings are extremely important--but we should be mindful of any perceived inconveniences to plaintiffs and defendants--in a state that is regularly ranked one of the poorest.

Moreover, with numerous nominees of President Obama being held up in the Senate via a nominations process that has in fact become an allegations process, I am also inclined to agree with the judgment of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Chief Justice of the United States that additional judgeships should be created in many parts of the country in order to ensure that the Constitution's promise of justice is fulfilled.

But the need for Congress to create new judgeships aside, I believe the first step in resolving the crisis in our courts is to fill all the existing district and circuit court seats. As of today, there are 91 total vacancies--74 in district courts and 17 in circuit courts. Astonishingly, there are more empty judgeships now than when President Obama took office, almost five years ago. So while it may be appropriate to eradicate duplicity--let this House institute other reforms in a bipartisan manner so

that access to justice is not an abstract notion. Indeed though--we all know that the Senate holds nearly all the cards in this part of the discussion.

We must ultimately consider the effect the proposed changes have on the court's efficiency and stability of the rule of law in the circuit. My experience is that a decrease in space might lead one to believe that justice might be negatively affected but considering that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle are in full support--we must wait and see and hope that justice is not too deliberate in the affected areas of Mississippi.

The chief argument for this legislation is cost-cutting and simplification--but the Judicial Committee did this with an eye on the budget matters that we have dealt with in this body and Mr. Speaker, I must say that if the cost-savings do not injure the provision of justice then this legislation is supportable in its present form.

I urge my colleagues to Support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation which like others before us, demonstrates the Congressional power over the Supreme and federal courts in even the most mundane matters--in this case--security.

It is critical to the day-to-day functioning of the Supreme Court that Justices, Court employees, and visitors to the Court be provided with adequate and appropriate protection. The Supreme Court Police are charged with enforcing the law at the Supreme Court building and its grounds as well as protecting Justices and other court employees on and off the grounds. Congress has provided statutory authority for the Supreme Court Police to provide security beyond the Court building for Justices, Court employees and official visitors since 1982. Since 1986, Congress has extended this off-grounds authority seven times and recent events tend to demonstrate that this authority is as important as ever.

The authority is due to sunset on December 31, 2013 and the current authority and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Police is essential to the force's performance of its everyday duties. Supreme Court Police regularly provide security to Justices by transporting and accompanying them to official functions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, and on occasion, outside the area when they or official guests travel on Court business. Threats to personal safety may require Justices to be accompanied by police between their home and the Court--and although incidents have been few--we must continue to be vigilant to any and all security matters.

I close by harking back to our Founders, the men who forged the underpinnings of this great nation. They had the vision and forethought to craft what is the world's most admired democracy, replete with the vaunted three branches of government. It is not perfect though, and in my role as a representative for the people of the 18th District of Texas, I humbly seek to make it better and the passage of this bipartisan legislation today moves us closer to working in harmony on other matters affecting the Judiciary--matters which the American people are asking us to do. I am certain that on that score we share the same values.

I urge my colleagues to Support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a full-throated support of H. Res. 196, which upholds the Sixth amendment Right to Counsel, as laid out in the Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright affirmed that everyone, whether rich or poor, has the right to an attorney in a criminal proceeding. Fifty years later though, sequestration's devastating cuts to federal defender services are jeopardizing the constitutional rights of Americans around the nation and ultimately resulting in higher costs--which is why this resolution--H. Res. 196--is utterly important. The case law and enunciation of this right began in Powell v. Alabama, in which the Court set aside the convictions of eight black youths sentenced to death in a hastily carried-out trial without benefit of counsel.

Justice Sutherland stated that due process always requires the observance of certain fundamental personal rights associated with a hearing, and ``the right to the aid of counsel is of this fundamental character.'' This observation was about the right to retain counsel of one's choice and at one's expense, and included an eloquent statement of the necessity of counsel. ``The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crimes, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence

Clarence Earl Gideon, could not afford a lawyer to defend him in court, and he was convicted. Gideon challenged his conviction--all the way to the Supreme Court. The result was the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright, which guarantees poor defendants in Houston,

the state of Texas, and all around this great nation, the right to counsel in criminal cases. Indeed Mr. Speaker, just this weekend a horrific shooting took place in Houston that was reported all over--and just as with many crimes--our fine law enforcement officials set-out to find the perpetrators and it appears as if they have. It is in cases like these where the public's opinion is enflamed that Gideon is most importance--particularly in ensuring that the right persons have been apprehended.

Public defenders serve as the backbone of our legal system because they ensure that the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel is maintained. It is critical that this body act to ensure that next year's sequestration cuts do not force federal defender organizations around the country to further reduce their operations, hindering their ability to provide competent and timely legal representation. This body must pass legislation to avert further cuts to defender services otherwise--it will result in an abdication of our constitutional duties, increased costs to the American taxpayer, and a severe degradation of our criminal justice system in Texas and beyond.

In this body we often disagree on the scope and breadth of recent budget cuts, but we must all work to ensure that a highly functioning criminal justice system is maintained and adequately funded. We have a responsibility to the Constitution to continue to fund this critically important program at workable levels. As we continue to debate a budget for fiscal year 2014, and the overall fiscal path for our nation, I urge my colleagues to address this critically important issue.

I urge my colleagues to Support this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have heard some of the testimony of Secretary Sebelius and to understand that we should be in this business, all of us, in serving the American public to fix problems and make, in essence, things work--put the wheels on.

We are going to ensure that this Web site is fixed by the end of November, the beginning of December--the same kind of problems that happened with Medicare part D.

In actuality, rather than using anecdotal stories, let me tell you that the President was, in fact, right that you can grandfather and keep your same insurance. But if your same medical insurance was similar to a subprime mortgage loan that had no value whatsoever, as most Americans know, and you are getting an improved medical coverage insurance, then you get new insurance.

As in California and other places where States have their own insurance exchange, we have seen a 29 percent decrease in insurance premiums.

The real issue is what we are doing in sequester and budgeting and the loss of the researchers at the NIH. It is a disgrace. We need to get to work on serious issues so that we can put this country back to work.