the speaker: the house will be n order. the chair lays before the house a communication. the gentleman will suspend. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i have the honor to transmit a copy of a letter received from executive director, state board of elections for the state of illinois indicating that according to the preliminary results of the special election held september 10, 2015, the honorable, darin lahood was elected representative to congress for the 18th

congressional district state of illinois. signed, karen l. haas, clerk. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. gutierrez: i ask that the gentleman from illinois the honorable lahood be permitted to take the oath of office today. his certificate of election has not arrived. no question has been raised with regard to his election. the speaker: without objection. will representative-elect lahood and members of the illinois delegation present themselves in the well of the house. and will all members rise. and will representative-elect, mr. lahood, raise his right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will defend and support the

constitution and bear truth faith and allegiance to the same and you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation and well and faithfully discharge the duties you are about to enter mr. lahood: i do. the speaker: congratulations. you are now a member of the 14th congress. the speaker: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez. mr. gutierrez: thank you, mr.

speaker, darin lahood is a illinois native. he comes to the u.s. congress after serving four years in the illinois state senate. he was a state and federal prosecutor and assistant united states attorney and assistant state's attorney in cook county in the narcotics unit and felony prosecutor. he is known for his work fighting terrorism and making america safer. n a personal note, his dad was a former member of the house, ay lahood.

and i would just like to add, i can't think of a member of the house that i love or care for more than ray lahood and i just want to say to his son, everybody keeps saying who is the new congressman? we say that's ray lahood's son. he is going to be known for a lot more than that. but what a wonderful beginning. and with that, i yield to my colleague, mr. shimkus from the state of illinois. mr. shimkus: i don't have much to add. we are glad to have darin here as a new member of the 114th congress. he is joined by his dad and we would hope he was going to be here. and we think of him as we swear in darin. darin has already hit the ground running and i can speak for all my colleagues, we'll do all we

can to help you be successful and with that, i yield back. mr. gutierrez: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to say i can't wait to work for him and i know very soon mr. lahood, former congressman, he's going to be -- you are going to be known as his father pretty soon and i can't wait to start working with him. mr. shimkus: i recognize the member from illinois, mr. ahood. mr. lahood: thank you, speaker boehner for swearing me in today and it is a true honor to be here and i'm humbled to be part of this body and thank my

colleagues, congressman shimkus and the rest of the illinois delegation for being here today. i look forward to working with them and being a productive member of this body. and i would like to say i want to thank my constituents that voted for me in this special election. we worked hard in this race and proud to be entrusted with the responsibility that 710,000 people gave me in my district in illinois. and proud of that district and proud of my record in the state senate. and i look forward to bringing the values that i have had in illinois to this body. and i also want to thank my family, the family are the pride nd joy of who imand my three boys, mckay who is 13 and teddy who is eight and lucas and my wife. risten, please stand up.

and i guess would just say that i look forward to working hard in this body to meeting my colleagues and doing a lot of listening and learning to be the best member of congress i can be and i want to thank my mom and dad and extended family for being here. i'm proud to be the son of ray and kathy lahood and the values they instilled, faith, family, working hard, remembering where you came from and doing the best job for the people you represent and staying grounded in your district. and i couldn't be prouder to be here today with the legacy in this district going back to abe ra man -- abraham lincoln. when i think about bob michael a he began his service on the beaches of normandy and spent 38

years in this body representing peoria and ushered reagan's values and to have that legacy means so much. i know i got a lot to learn and i look forward to hitting the ground running and working hard for my district. thank you very much. the speaker: under laws 5-d of rule 20 the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath to the gentleman from illinois, the whole number of the house is now 435.

the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. for what purpose does gentleman seek recognition? mr. polis: parliamentary inquiry. madam speaker, does this amendment for martial law mean that next week any bill can be brought up with less than 24 hours. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: does this martial law amendment mean any bill next week can be brought up without the 24-hour notice that we normally have to read a bill, directly to the floor? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not interpret the pending amendment. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on the adoption

of the amendment to house resolution 420 offered by mr. collins. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. mr. polis: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. a sufficient number having arisen having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237. the nays 187. he amendment is adopted. the question is on the resolution, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> madam speaker. mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 238. the nays are 182.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 238. the nays 183. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. he house will be in order. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. please take your conversations from the floor.

the gentleman deserves to be heard. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 420, i call up h.r. 758 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 187, h.r. 758, a bill to amend rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure to improve attorney accountability and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to resolution 420, the bill is considered as read. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, pursuant -- i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks

and include extraneous materials on h.r. 758, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: and the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, h.r. 758, the lawsuit abuse reduction act, would restore mandatory sanctions for frivolous lawsuits filed in federal court. many americans may not realize it but today under what is called rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure, there is no requirement that those who file frivolous lawsuits pay for the unjustified legal costs they impose on their victims, even when those victims prove to a judge the lawsuit was without any basis in law or

fact. as a result, the current rule 11 goes largely unenforced. because the victims of frivolous lawsuits have little incentive to pursue additional litigation to have the case declared frivolous when there is no guarantee of compensation at the end of the day, h.r. 758 would finally provide light at the end of the tunnel for victims of frivolous lawsuits by requiring sanctions against the filers of frivolous lawsuits, sanctions which include paying back victims for the full cost of their reasonable expenses incurred as a direct result of the rule 11 violation, including attorneys' fees. the bill also strikes the current provisions in rule 11 that allow lawyers to avoid sanctions from making frivolous claims and demands by simply withdrawing them within 21 days. this changes the free pass lawyers now have to file frivolous lawsuits in federal court. the current lack of mandatory

sanctions leads to the regular filing of lawsuits that are clearly baseless. so many frivolous pleadings currently go under the radar because the lack of mandatory sanctions for frivolous filings forces victims of frivolous lawsuits to roll over and settle the case because doing that is less expensive than litigating the case to a victory in court. correspondence written by someone filing a frivolous lawsuit, which became public, concisely illustrates how the current lack of mandatory sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits leads to legal extortion. that correspondence to the victim of a frivolous lawsuit, quote -- states, quote, i really don't care what the law allows you to do. it's a more practical issue. do you want to send your attorney a check every month indefinitely as i continue to pursue this, end quote? under the lawsuit abuse recovery reduction act, those

who file frivolous lawsuits would no longer be able to get off scot-free and therefore they couldn't get away with those sorts of extortionary threats any longer. the victims of lawsuit abuse are not just those who are actually sued. rather, we all suffer under a system in which innocent americans everywhere live under the constant fear of potentially bankrupting frivolous lawsuits. an unpredictable legal system casts a shadow over every plan and investments. it is devastating of one lawsuit can bankrupt a growing company and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. the prevalence of frivolous lawsuits in america is reflected in the warning labels companies must place on their products to limit their exposure. a five-inch brass fishing lure

is labeled harmful if swallowed. a vanishing fabric marker warns it shouldn't be used for signing checks or legal documents as signatures will disappear completely. a household iron contains the warning, never iron clothes while they are being warned. piece of ovenware, will get hot. a hair dreier warns never use while sleeping. a cardboard sun shield that keeps sun off the dashboard warns do not drive with sun shield in place. and not to be outdone, a giant yellow pages directory warns do not use this directory while operating a motor vehicle. and here are a couple of examples of frivolous lawsuits brought in federal court where

judges failed to award compensation to the victim. a man sued a television network for 2.5 million because he said a show it aired raised its blood pressure. when the network publicized his lawsuit, he demanded the court ask them to stop. not only did it not compensate the victim but granted the man who filed the lawsuit an exemption from paying the ordinary court filing fee. the ther case, a man discipline of a child violated the eight amendment. one of the lawyers admitted signing the complaint without reading it. the court found the case frivolous but awarded the victim only about a quarter of its legal costs because rule 11 currently doesn't require that a

victim's legal costs be paid in full. the lawsuit abuse reduction act would change that. in his 2011 state of the union address, president obama said and i quote, i'm willing to look at other ideas to rein frivolous lawsuits. mr. president, here it is, a one-page bill that would significantly reduce the burden of frivolous litigation on innocent americans. i thank the former chairman of the judiciary committee, for introducing this simple, commonsense legislation that would do so much to prevent lawsuit abuse and restore americans' confidence in the legal system. i urge my colleagues to support it today and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i was impressed with the statement and position of my chairman, but i find it hard to

believe it's on this bill, because this bill is not a bill that should be passed. this bill is an afront to the judges of this country, to the judicial conference and to the american bar association. american bar association, a conservative organization, has come out against it. the judicial conference made up of a.m. ate judges, led by chief justice roberts came out against it because it's not necessary. and it will clog the courts with unnecessary litigation, cost money and make it more difficult to get your cases disposed of. it's just unnecessary. indeed, it would amend rule 11, but in such a way it could have a serious effect on civil rights claims as well as increase the

volume of costs of litigation. if this house were a court and not a legislative body, rule 11 sanctions could apply here. these concerns are not hypothetical. they are based on actual experience. from 1983 to 1993, there was a version of rule 11 that this law would reinstate. all you got to do and any legislative body ought to do is go back and look what happened in history. these rules were in effect from 1983 and 1993, taking judges' discretion away. they can order sanctions and make sure those cases brought up about reading a phone book and having a wreck, out, gone. they can do that. this takes their discretion away and have to give costs and there is hearings and all that stuff. presently, the court has

discretion and there's a 21-day safe harbor provision where an attorney can correct or withdraw any alleged submissions that were wrong. this requires the courts to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. currently such awards are in the discretion and limited to deterrence purposes and not for compensation of lawyers. imply put h.r. 758 will have a negative impact for these reasons. first, civil rights. think about brown versus board of education. when it came before the court, it was a novel case. d a judge in certain places, especially in the south in 1954, might have said, sorry, lawyer, you're out of here. the judge would have had no option under this, but do grant

costs against the attorney that rought the case, mr. marshal l and might not have ever had brown versus board of education. civil rights cases have been filed in 22% of the cases. h.r. 758 would restore this problem. just imagine that result and there are other cases that are similar. the legal arguments inland mark cases where novel arguments are made not based on then existing law, would be affected. litigation prolonged that may be too expensive to continue. secondly, h.r. 758 would increase the costs and intensity of litigation. by making sanctions mandatory

and no safe harbor, it spawns a cannotage industry of litigation. there were financial incentives to file rule 11. prior to the 1983 rule taking effect there had been only 19 rule 11 proceedings over the course of 45 years. but in the decade that this rule was in effect that this bill wants to reinstate, there were 7,000 proceedings in 10 years. 11 in 45 years and 7,000 in 10 years. so we are talking about a lot of litigation and clogging up the courts. one-third of all federal lawsuits were burdened by the satellite litigations that came about because of this rule. and it strips the judiciary of discretion and utterly ignores the thorough process by which the federal court rules are usually amended. h.r. 758 overrides this judicial independence by removing the

discretion to impose sanctions and determine when they are ppropriate and congress itself established rules. the amendments have been a tremendous success as documented by the judicial conference of the united states. these amendments resulted in marked decline of rule 11 litigation. h.r. 758 would undo this. that's why the bar and the judicial conference oppose it. it's opposed by the alliance for center of justice, the consumer federation of america, consumer union and this is a deeply flawed bill that addresses a nonexistent problem. we have this bill and a bill on abortion up. r ay's actions in congress first kill the lawyers. the other one, kill the doctors. congress knows the answer, we

can tell the judges what they need to do because they aren't doing and we'll tell the judges what they need to do and tell the women what they need to do. bad bill. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself one minute to say to the gentleman from tennessee that no judge has to find a frivolous lawsuit to be a frivolous lawsuit. they have that discretion in every case. once they find it to be a frivolous lawsuit, it is gin justice to not award attorneys' fees under rule 11 to those who are victims. what about the burden on the court? well, when the mandatory rule 11 sanction provision was in effect for almost 10 years between 1983 and 1993, the number of rule 11 court proceedings were easily

manageable by the court. the number of rule 11 court proceedings during that time amounted to 7.5 reported rule 11 cases per federal district court per year or one reported decision for each federal district court judge per year. one per judge per year. that is not an unreasonable burden to see justice done and if that were done more often today, we would see a lot fewer frivolous lawsuits and fewer requests for attorneys' fees. i yield five minutes to the author of the legislation former chairman of the house judiciary committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: let me thank the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, for bringing this legislation to the house floor, i appreciate all his efforts to do so and appreciate his taking the initiative on this and so

many other issues as chairman of the judiciary committee. and mr. speaker, the lawsuit abuse reduction act is just over one-page long but would prevent the filing of hundreds of thousands of pages of frivolous lawsuits in federal court. they have been filed against the weather channel for failing to accurately predict storms, against television shows people claimed were too scary and against fast food companies because inactive children gain weight. inmates have sued alcohol companies for a life of crime, a teacher sought damages from her school district based on her fear of children and a father demanded $40 million in compensation after his son was kicked off the track team for excessive absences. frivolous lawsuits have become too common. lawyers have everything to gain

and nothing to lose under current rules, which permit plaintiffs' lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits no matter how absurd the claims without any penalty. defendants are often faced with years of litigation and substantial attorneys' fees. these cases have wrongly cost innocent americans their reputations and hard-earned dollars. they amount to legalized extortion because defendants must settle out of court rather than endure a more expensive trial. according to the research firm, the annual direct cost of american tort litigation now exceeds over $260 billion a year or over $850 per person. before 1993, it was mandatory for judges to impose sanctions such as orders to pay the expenses of the other attorney. the civil rules advisory committee made penalties

optional. this needs to be reversed by congress. as chairman goodlatte noted, even president obama has expressed the willingness to limit frivolous lawsuits. if the president is serious about stopping these meritless claims he should support this to avoid making frivolous promises. lawyers will have to pay attorneys' fees and court costs of innocent defendants. it reversed the rules to make it discretionary rather than mandatory. no laws would be affected in any way and i trust this will address the concerns expressed by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. and i would like to direct his attention to page two of the bill lines 18 to 23 which protect civil rights lawsuits. .

this is patently false. under lara, they retain the discretion to determine whether or not a claim a frivolous. if a judge determines a claim is frivolous, they must reward sanctions. this ensures victims of frivolous lawsuits obtain compensation but the decision to find a claim frivolous still remains with the judge. a report earlier this year from the administrative office of the united states courts found that civil lawsuits increased by tens of thousands last year. such an increase makes this legislation necessary in order to discourage abusive filings, which further constrain court dockets with lengthy backlogs. the american people are looking for solutions to obvious lawsuit abuse. lara restores accountability to our legal system by reinstating mandatory sanctions for attorneys who file these frivolous lawsuits. though it will not stop all lawsuit abuse, lara encourages

attorneys to think twice before filing a frivolous lawsuit. i want to begin thank chairman goodlatte for bringing this much-needed legislation to the house floor, and i ask my colleagues who oppose frivolous lawsuits and who want to protect hardworking americans from false claims to support the lawsuit abuse reduction act. furthermore, mr. speaker, similar bills to this have passed in the last several congresses, and i hope this legislation will be approved today. i yield back and i again thank chairman goodlatte for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. i have great respect for mr. smith as i do for mr. goodlatte but i would submit that the rule of construction, nothing in this act or amendment made by this act shall be construed to -- the development of new claims, defenses or remedies under federal, state or local laws under constitution -- under the constitution of the united states.

if the committee accepted the amendment we offered to specifically exempt civil rights laws, that was not accepted. i will yield. mr. smith: this was a bipartisan effort led by bobby scott, a member of the judiciary committee, former member of the judiciary committee, to avoid the problem that you're concerned about and that is that this bill in any way would seem to dampen or prohibit civil rights legislation. and so, again, this rule of construction was put in there to address the very problem that the gentleman is concerned about. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. cohen: you're welcome, sir. but at the same time i'd submit the rule of construction is not the same thing if the committee offered this that says civil rights laws will not be affected by this because you could offer rule 11 in this. it said it should not bar or impede the assertion. it does not bar or impede the assertion of a new claim. the court cannot find a rule 11 violation, and then the mandatory imposition of cost would take place.

so it doesn't do what you're submitting, i would suggest, but the bottom line is the court felt this wasn't necessary. the court said in all those cases he talked about that seemed so absurd, i don't understand, particularly as a lawyer, why a lawyer wastes his time doing it because there's no chance of success and no chance of renew mexico ration. i would recognize -- how much time do you want, mr. cartwright? five minutes to mr. cartwright who could explain easily and in a very good fashion why those arguments were not good. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cartwright: thank you, mr. speaker. i will say, with due deference to respected colleagues from virginia and texas, this is a misguided piece of legislation. i speak as not only a member of this house but also as somebody who has practiced civil litigation for the last 25 years. i represented companies,

consumers, defendants, plaintiffs in all sorts of civil litigation. and i've done this before and after the 1993 changes that led to the current rule 11. and where i come out on it is this really is an attack of the federal judiciary. yes, they have discretion on whether to decide whether there has been a rule 11 violation, but this is something that encourages rule 11 motion litigation. it encourages rule 11 motion practice, and that's why the federal judges oppose it. the judicial conference surveyed the federal judges of of nation and fully 87% united states district judges prefer the current virgs of rule 11 -- version of rule 11. after all, it already allows monetary sanctions for silly

lawsuits. it is -- and it's something that i think something of a false picture was presented a little bit earlier. the idea that the implication that federal judges don't have the power to impose monetary sanctions. court costs and legal fees of the victims of the so-called frivolous lawsuits, that is in the current practice of rule 11. they can do that now, and so if a federal judge decides he or she thinks a lawsuit is frivolous and dismiss on that basis can fully award all defense costs and defense fees and as a result, this is completely unnecessary and superfluous legislation. it defends the federal judiciary. after all, we're talking about limiting the discretion of federal judges. federal judges are folks that are appointed, and we worked very, very hard here on capitol

hill making sure that we appoint only the federal judges who will exercise good discretion, federal judges that are completely vetted, who are interviewed, who go through hearing after hearing and are very carefully selected here by the united states congress. so to say that we cannot and we should not repose full discretion in our federal judges is what's being said here, and i think it's a misguided attempt to take away the discretion of our federal judges. not only that, it leads to unnecessary litigation. you know, everybody in court who ever won a motion thinks that the -- or threw out a case thinks that the opposition's position was frivolous. when you say sanctions are mandatory, rule 11 sanctions are mandatory, it creates this compulsion to follow up a motion victory with a rule 11 motion.

not only did i win the case but i want you to pay my attorney's fees and costs. and when you make it a mandatory sanction like this, you create this compulsion to file rule 11 motions. i don't say that out of theory, mr. speaker. the truth is that we did have in that 10-year period 7,000 rule 11 motions. this is the time of rule we lived under for 10 years that this legislation would go back to that spawned all this extraneous litigation. you say your position was frivolous so i'm filing a rule 11 motion. and guess what, rule 11 motions themselves are subject to rule 11 so they could be frivolous so the receiving end says, well, your rule 11 motion was frivolous so i'm filing my own rule 11 motion against you. that is something that happened. in fact, united states district judge from the eastern district of pennsylvania, robert s.

gothrup, in the suburban philadelphia area, he termed that zombie litigation. that's something that gets spawned by this kind of legislation. we don't need zombie litigation in this country, and i say -- certainly. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. goodlatte: what sorts of other legal claims should a victim be able to prove in court, prove in court but be denied damages by the judge? mr. cartwright: i'm afraid i'm not following the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: what other sorts of legal claims should a victim be able to prove in court, because they're allowed to do that under current rule 11, prove that they have suffered damages in court but be denied those damages by the judge? mr. cartwright: this is not something that is denied. judges have discretion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cartwright: reclaiming my time. mr. cohen: i yield the

gentleman another minute. mr. cartwright: thank you. the bottom line is this is misguided legislation but more ominously it disproportionately hurts the people filing claims. civil rights claims, consumer rights claims, and it chills -- it has a chilling effect on legal innovation. it was legal innovation on the part of thurgood marshall to come up with brown v. board of education. who are we to chill that kind of legal innovation in this chamber? for those reasons i oppose this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. mr. cohen: and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute to respond to the gentleman from pennsylvania, who was not able to identify a single other sort of legal claim where the victim would be able to prove their damages in court but still be denied those

damages by the judge. what i'm getting at is that in no other area of law can a person prove to a judge that they are a victim under the standards that define the wrong they have suffered. and yet the judge retains the discretion to refrain from compensating the victim of the legal wrong. all this bill does is provide equal treatment by allowing victims of frivolous lawsuits who prove the lawsuit against them was frivolous the right to compensation for the harm done to them just like every other victim of a legal wrong. so i will continue to ask in what other area of the law can a person prove to a judge they were the victim of a legal wrong and still be denied compensation by the judge? this only occurs after the judge has already found that the lawsuit was frivolous. which would not apply to some of the great cases through history where courts have found merits of the case.

the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself time and yield to the gentleman. mr. cartwright: the answer is every time somebody with damages proves his or her case in front of the jury, the jury has the discretion to award whatever they think is proper damages. so for example, if they accept some of the damages and reject other parts of the damages, they don't award the full amount, and that's the kind of discretion a federal judge should retain. i yield back. mr. goodlatte: well, reclaiming my time. the judge has that discretion under current law, has that discretion under this bill but they don't have the discretion to say they're not going to award any damages in a case where frivolous -- where the case is found to be frivolous and in fact damages have been incurred. obviously the judge has the discretion to determine what

those actual damages are, but he doesn't have the discretion to simply say i'm not going to award damages even though i find the case to be frivolous. and at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. farenthold: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of h.r. 758, the lawsuit abuse reduction act, commonly called lara, sponsored by my good friend and colleague from texas, lamar smith. the legal system in the united states needs to be driven by justice, not by dollars. right now there are too many lawyers out there throwing their money at frivolous lawsuits that manipulate and abuse the system. no one should be able to abuse our system. it's simple to file a lawsuit, and you can cost the defendant hundreds of thousands of

dollars on a frivolous claim going through discovery and going through all of the legal processes. that simply isn't right. lara ensures that judges impose monetary sanctions against lawyers who file these frivolous lawsuits, including the cost of attorney's fees incurred by their victims. it prevents bad lawyers from using the judicial system as a weapon and provides justice for those who have been abused by these attorneys. by passing lara, attorneys will no longer be able to exert power over their victims with these suits that are not based on facts and in law but merely intended to scare or extort money out of the victims. i remember when i was in law school in congressman smith's hometown of san antonio, texas, and one of the professors in my class stuck with me all these years about a lawsuit. you may be able to beat the wrap, -- beat the rap but you

can't beat the ride. lara will help with that. you won't stop the emotional roller coaster ride the defendant and his family, his partners, his employees, his friends all go through as a result of the lawsuit that's frivolous but you will be able to beat some of the cost of that ride by holding the attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits responsible for that. that's what we need to do. frivolous lawsuits drain victimings of their money. let's stop them before they charges. we aren't proposing a loser pay system but we do want victim for -- justice for victims of clearly frivolous lawsuits and and this law will make sure that happens. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from texas yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: i recognize mr. deutch, he's hiding down there in the first row, i recognize the distinguished gentleman, the barrister from florida, now the congressman from florida. for three minutes and 12 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. deutch: i rise in opposition to the so-called lawsuit abuse reduction act. today, mr. speaker, is constitution day. how is the house g.o.p. celebrating constitution day? by trampling on our framers' vision of an independent judiciary as one of three separate but equal branches of government. the framers of our constitution established an independent judicial fwraverage because they believed the judges should be

able to interpret the law without interference. they believe that only when judges were shielded from influence of politicians and pundits and special interests could they issue rulings fairly and impartially. in short, they worked to create a system that shielded judges from efforts like the one behind today's lawsuit abuse reduction act. this legislation, mr. speaker, is nothing more, i repeat this legislation is nothing more than a giveaway to corporate special interests that seek to price americans out of their day in court. the bill restores the rule, reimposes a rule, that our independent judiciary system abandoned over 20 years ago. because it unfairly disadvantaged workers and consumers and other americans that dared to take on big corporations in court. our judges put in place this rule, kept this version we use

today of this rule, 20 years ago and they remain strongly in support of it today. that's because today's rule, mr. speaker, today's rule gives judges the flexibility to determine when to apply sanctions against attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits. this legislation flies in the face of our framers' virgs of an independent judiciary. it strip ours judges of their discretion, imposing congressionally mandated rules that drove up costs and clogged our courts when these were the rules before. we don't have to debate the harmful consequences of this legislation because history has already shown us how the 1983 version of rule 11 tipped the scales of justice in favor of those with the deepest pockets. mr. speaker, too often, everyday americans feel that they've got the cards stacked against them in our economy and in our elections. let's give them a fighting chance in the courtroom and

reject this frivolous bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rohrabacher: i rise in strong support of h.r. 758, and this is not an attack on the federal judiciary. this is an attack on those unscrupulous lawyers and con artists who are taking, who are bilging the american people -- bilking the american people out of hundreds of millions of dollars they have had to earn and work hard to achieve. our system is out of whack today and today we find our honest citizens exposed to this type of threat. this would take care of that,

somewhat. i -- first i would like to thank my good friend from texas, lamar smith, for his bill, which i believe is so important, as many small and medium sized businesses like we have here in california that are hit every year with frivolous and abusive lawsuits. i would also like to thank my friends, chairman trent franks from arizona and especially chairman bob goodlatte from virginia, for their leadership on this much needed legislation. frivolous lawsuits have cost honest americans hundreds of millions of dollars by encouraging lawyers and scam artists to attack honest citizens, expecting that these honest citizens will opt for a settlement, this is what we would call a legal shakedown, and it must be ended, which is what h.r. 758 intends to do. let us note that giving in when someone reaches a settlement,

rather than trying to fight people who have more resources than they do, even though it's a frivolous lawsuit, encourages more people to have more lawsuits and encourages certain lawyers to go down a route where they're only aimed at trying to use their leverage against honest citizens to enrich themselves. i would note that this legislation will go a long way in these specific areas in terms of that threat and all americans, honest citizens, but especially it will take care of another concern that i have had, of course, and chairman goodlatte, and of course lamar -- chairman smith has had and that is, it takes care of patent trolls who are scam artists who use claims of patent infringement in their frivolous lawsuits. other proposed approaches to this problem deals with a

problem in a way that would hurt legitimate inventors, this is where we have a little disagreement, but this solution will help these inventors and help all enterprisers and entrepreneurs. h.r. 5 8, excuse me, 758, combined with the actions of the f.t.c. and other states on bad faith demand letters gives small business owners the tools they need to fight scam artists, including patent trolls who attempt to use our judicial process to extort america's job creators. i urge all of my colleagues to support h.r. 758, support those people who are creating jobs throughout our society. support those people who deserve the protection and are not trying to scam our system. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from california has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. can hen: to continue to reserve -- mr. cohen: to continue to

reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. costello. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. costello: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. should those filing a frivolous lawsuit be held accountable to the victims of that frivolous lawsuit? i think most people would say yes. there are hardworking americans and small businesses across this country spending tens of thousands of dollars, collectively millions of dollars every year, defending themselves from frivolous lawsuits. a frivolous lawsuit, as it's the fined, has no basis in fact or in law. no basis whatsoever. a judge can make a

determination, must make a determination, whether a lawsuit is frivolous or not upon the question being presented and yet not award damages even upon finding of a frivolous lawsuit. that just doesn't make sense. and it's not fair to the victims of frivolous lawsuits. the law, the bill we're voting on here, stands for something very base ex. a judge shouldn't be allowed to deny damage awards to the victim of a frivolous lawsuit. a vote for this bill is a vote to reduce the filing of frivolous lawsuits. a vote for this bill is a vote to protect the integrity of the judicial system. and a vote for this bill is a warning shot to anyone who thinks that filing a frivolous lawsuit is a way to extort money. it's been said -- i've practiced

law. what's the nuisance value of this claim. what would you advise your client to pay the other side to make a lawsuit go away because of how costly it is? and how much time you spend worrying and preparing? lawsuits can be very intimidating. -- intimidating to a defendant. and those who have a good faith claim will litigate it out and the judge won't find there to be anything frivolous about it. but when it's frivolous, those filing it should have to pay. this is very, very common sense. a vote for this bill is standing on the side of small business. and preserving the integrity of our judicial system. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from tennessee is ecognized.

mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. the , i want to go back to judicial conference of the united states and their committee on rules of practice and procedure which came out against this just -- just against it totally. they said it's going to cost money, going to beat justice and it's not necessary. a letter signed by judge jeffrey sutton, judge david campbell. we've heard this is common sense and all these frivolous case, how absurd it is, how wrong it is, how terrible it is. the two gentleman, the -- the two gentlemen, the judges who wrote this letter to mr. goodlatte and said that this was unnecessary, that we should keep the rule we've got, that the rule we're adopting was an error from 1983 to 1993, cost a lot of money, explosion of satellite

litigation, lawsuits. and it just didn't work. judge sutton was appointed to the bench by president bush. after clerking for judge scalia and powell. i would assume that a judge appointed by president bush and approved by the united states senate and clerked for judge scalia and justice powell, you're not some kind of big supporter of frivolous lawsuits and plaintiffs. the other fellow is judge campbell of arizona, also appointed by president bush. they were pretty adamant that this was a bad idea. they took some surveys and 80-manage percent of folks said this was a bad idea. the bar association said it was a bad idea. the bar association had a group lawyers,niversity 2,00 litigants, participated in the

2010 conference at duke university law school, convened by the advisory committee to search for ways to address the problem. no one of the 200 people proposed a return to the 1983 version. so 200 lawyers, litigants, judges and academics meet and none of them suggest this type of bill. the judicial conference headed up by two people appointed by president bush said this is a very bad idea. the bar association says it's a terrible idea. and yet we're going to come here and think that congress has got the best idea, better than all these specialists. that's one of the things that's wrong with this congress. people realize that we're not respecting logic, expertise, and history. you know, this was -- in the letter from the justices, they said that this was a return to previous attempts to amend this

rule. that it would eliminate this provision adopted in 1993 and their concerns that they expressed here mirrored the views expressed by the judicial conference. in 2004, when the republicans i believe had both houses, house and senate, but they certainly had the house, 2005, this bill came up and they came out against it, the republicans had the house and maybe the senate, i don't know. and again new york 2011 and 2013. so this bill has been here in 2004, 2005, 2011, 2013, and the judicial conference has always said the judges and the lawyers and the experts, almost to a one, bad idea. i know it's throwback thursday, but that's no reason to bring this bill forward. i find it hard to be against my good friends, mr. smith and mr. goodlatte. they're fine gentlemen. mr. rohrabacher was here, he's my buddy.

but it's a bad bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserve the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. smith is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: i thank chairman mr. smith: a couple of things. we found in the past that judiciary opposes everybody everyone changes these rules except for themselves. that's no surprise they object to this change that we propose today. that means the change isn't a good one but that's their history if they didn't think of the change they don't like it, but clearly this is good for the american people because it reduces the number of frivolous lawsuits. but the gentleman from tennessee mentioned a poll a few minutes ago. i'd like to mention a poll that was taken when this rule was

not in effect in 1990. at that point 751 federal judges responded to that survey and they overwhelmingly supported a rule 11 with mandatory sanctions. the gentleman mentioned, i believe, a 2005 survey. in that survey only 278 judges responded, and over half of the judges who responded had no experience under the stronger rule 11 because they were appointed to the bench after 1992. so the 2005 survey tells us very little about how judges actually view the stronger versus the weaker rule 11. it's just amazing to hear individuals try to justify the frivolous lawsuits. there is no effort in this bill to deny individuals the right to file lawsuits if they have legitimate claims, but try to justify frivolous lawsuits and lawsuits found to be frivolous by judges to me is so contrary to the best -- the best

interest of americans who are innocent of these charges. i just don't understand the opposition to this bill. innocent americans sacrifice reputations, they sacrifice money, they oftentimes lose their livelihoods to frivolous lawsuits, and i think we ought to do everything we possibly can to reduce the number of these frivolous lawsuits. i thank the gentleman from virginia for yielding me time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i respect mr. smith and i understand what he's saying about the judges wanting to control their own courtrooms and control the system, but they have the expertise. and the bar association is not the judges, and the bar association's against this too. so you got the bar association and the judicial conference, both of which are conservative organizations, being against it. and the study, yeah, some of those folks might not have been there from 1983 to 1993 but they still knew what the rule was and they were able to study and able to understand things.

they weren't there when cases were filed. they didn't know the facts of the case. they learned. they got minds that are capable of absorbing information, analyzing, synthesizing it and coming to decisions. you didn't have to be alive around when slavery around to know slavery was bad. you didn't have to be on the bench from 1983 to 1993 that rule 11 way working and this rule which brings back that old rule would be a failure. i think if you don't learn from experience, there is deference you should give to the bar association and to the judicial conference, both of which have come out against this. there are motions for summary judgment. they take there's no way to get rid of a frivolous lawsuit. court can award -- order that. they can find a motion to dismiss. don't even have to go into discovery. the courts are the ones that suffer the most. you say, sure, sometimes the plaintiffs do -- defendants,

excuse me, but the courts have to put up with it. the courts don't want frivolous litigation at all. they will probably be one of the first groups that don't want frivolous litigation. i know some people that serve in this congress who have been judges, outstanding men. they understand how important judges are and they should be revered and respected. i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i have only one speaker remaining, and i'm prepared to close. mr. cohen: i would thank you. i would just say sometimes -- i see mr. rohrabacher and i think about the fact we traveled some together. and one of the things i learned on those travels is people from foreign country appreciate most about the united states of america is our justice system, the fact where you got a system

and you go in and get a case heard. that's one of the things best about our country. and what this is about is taking power from judges and giving financial incentives to the defendants that got the heavy pockets and it will squeeze plaintiffs from bringing actions and if they're so frivolous, the judges will dismiss them on summary judgments or motions to dismiss and the judges can still have sanctions and damages but just not have power taken from them. and there are other rules where they can have sanctions if you're messing with discovery and violating the rules. i just think this is going to help close our courts and that's not the right way to go, particularly on constitution day. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close debate on this bill. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of the time. first, mr. speaker, i'd say to

the gentleman from tennessee who is my friend, that i was pleased that he cited as one of the credentials for the two judges that wrote to the committee on behalf of the conference that they had been schooled by justice scalia. because here's what justice scalia himself had to say about this. he specifically opposed the weakening of rule 11 when it occurred in 1993, writing that it was, quote, rendering the rule toothless, by allowing judges to dispense with sanction by disfavoring compensation for litigation expenses and by providing a 21-day safe harbor, entitling the party accused of a frivolous filing to escape with no sanction at all. justice scalia further observed, in my view, those who

file frivolous suits and pleadings should have no safe harbor. the rule should be solicitous of the abused. the courts and the opposing party and not the abuser. under revised rule 11, parties will be able to file thoughtless, reckless and harassing pleadings, securing the knowledge that they have nothing to lose. if objection is raised, they can retreat without penalty. mr. lso want to say, speaker, that the gentleman from tennessee and i agree on one of the great hallmarks of this country and that is our jew depirble system and -- judicial system and the hallmark of our judicial system is that when you're victimized in this country, you have a place where you can go and seek justice. that's exactly what mr. smith's bill does. it allows people who are

victimized by aggressive plaintiffs, abusive, frivolous and fraudulent lawsuits to be able to get justice themselves. because when you're the victim of an expensive, costly lawsuit that can damage your business, damage your reputation, cost you huge amounts of money, you are indeed a victim, if the court finds that that whole lawsuit was brought on a frivolous basis. the et i challenge, again, other side of the aisle and those who oppose this legislation to name one other sort of legal claim, just one, one other sort of legal claim where the victim is able to prove in court their damages and then be denied those damages by the judge. they have not done that. they have not made their case in this court, the people's court, the elected

representatives of people today should pass this legislation and give justice to victims of frivolous lawsuits. i urge my colleagues to support this great legislation and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 420, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. hose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. mr. cohen: i would ask -- the clerk: to improve attorney accountability and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek neck snigs -- recognition? mr. cohen: i'd like to get a roll call vote on the previous one. i thought that's the purpose of the recognition was.

the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? ms. delbene: i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. cloip ms. delbene moves to recommit the bill -- ms. delbene: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. ms. delbene: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment of the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. the so-called lawsuit abuse reduction act would turn back the clock to deter good-faith litigants seeking justice like those women looking for equal pay for equal work. we know this bill will undercut important civil rights and equal pay litigation because it would restore a version of rule 11 that was in effect from 1983

to 1993. under the version of rule 11 that this bill would resurrect, sanctions were disproportionately opposed on plaintiffs in civil rights and anti-discrimination cases. the onerous provisions created a chilling effect on civil rights litigation, created time-consuming and satellite litigation and gave rise to harassment in the courtroom. this amendment would ensure the bill's harmful effects do not apply in cases brought under employment discrimination laws, including laws to ensure women earn equal pay for equal work. when president kennedy signed the equal pay act into law 50 years ago, women on average made 59 cents for every dollar earned by men. while we have made some progress since then with woman appointed to the supreme court and to executive leadership roles at fortune 500 companies, we are still nowhere near the goal of equal pay for equal work. just as recently as 2007, the supreme court ruled against

lilly ledbetter, those workers seeking justice. because she was prohibited from discussing her salary with co-workers, lily didn't know she was making significantly less than her counterparts until her retirement. luckily in 2009, congress intervened, passing the lilly ledbetter fair pay act to reverse the supreme court's decision. unfortunately, stories like this are not unique. women still make only 79 cents on the dollar, about 20% lace take-home pay than their male counterparts. that's why it's critical that congress vote for this amendment to ensure women can continue fighting for equal pay at work, because equal pay is not just good for women, it's good for families, businesses and our economy. when women aren't paid what they deserve, middle-class families and communities pay the price. families today rely on women's wages to put food on the table, safer retirement and pay for

their children's education. it's estimated that the pay gap cost a woman and her family more than $10,000 in lost earnings each year, a significant number by any standards. i recently spoke with a mother of name named adriana. she told me while working at a restaurant, she had to talk to her boss knowing that her male counterparts made a dollar more. she was glad to have worked for a family-owned business. she said it seemed criminal and ridiculous to pay people unfairly and people should think about their wife, sister and daughter and the effect this financial barrier would have on them. i agree and i hope everyone in this chamber does as well. for women seeking justice under employment discrimination laws, the law enforcement abuse reduction act would be a disaster. limitless funds and armies of attorneys would face an uphill

battle in court at best or may be completely deterred from even pursuing their day in court. we've come a long way in expanding opportunities for women, but there's no question we have a lot more to do. we cannot create more barriers to success than women and families already face in america today. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to recommit and support the women and families and our communities who we were sent here to represent. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. does the gentleman from virginia seek time in opposition to the motion? mr. goodlatte: i do, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. this motion to recommit must be strongly opposed by anyone who understands that the victims of frivolous lawsuits are indeed victims. no one who supports civil rights laws or the constitution should support the filing of frivolous claims without penalty. but that's exactly what this motion to recommit would allow. the base bill makes sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits

in federal court mandatory. under rule 11, a lawsuit is frivolous if it is presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. if it is not warranted by existing law or if the factual contentions have no evidenceary support, in other words, a lawsuit will only be found frivolous if it has no basis in law or fact. who here thinks that lawyers should be able to avoid any penalty when the lawsuit they file is found by a federal judge to have been filed simply to harass or cause unnecessary delay or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation? or when the federal judge finds that the lawsuit is not warranted by existing law or have no evidentiary support? if you think lawyers should be able to get off scot-free when they file those sorts of frivolous lawsuits, vote for this motion to recommit, but if you agree with me that the victims of frivolous lawsuits

are real victims, they have to shell out thousands of dollars, endure sleepless nights and spend time away from their family, work and customers just to respond to frivolous pleadings with no basis in law or fact, then you should oppose the motion to recommit and support the base bill and join me in taking a clear stance against frivolous lawsuits. . i urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and support the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired on the motion to recommit, without objection the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. delbene: i ask for the yeas and nays.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, ordering the previous question on house resolution 421, and adopting house resolution 421 if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]