[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 139 (Thursday, October 27, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9282-H9289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 420, LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT OF
2005
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up H. Res. 508 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 508
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, 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. 420) to amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to improve attorney accountability, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of
[[Page H9283]]
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 chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now
printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute shall be considered as read. Notwithstanding
clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments 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. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 508 is a structured rule. It provides
for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill, and it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
and shall be considered as read.
It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules
Committee report accompanying the resolution. It provides that the
amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order
printed, may be offered only by the Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
This resolution waives all points of order against the amendments
printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 508 and
the underlying legislation, H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act
of 2005.
First, I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, not just for the underlying bill but for a number of recent
bills aimed at strengthening our legal system by protecting people's
rights under the law and shielding them from frivolous proceedings.
Additionally, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and
Intellectual Property, for sponsoring H.R. 420.
Madam Speaker, over the past couple of weeks, this House has taken
several important steps to reform our legal system, to relieve our
overburdened court dockets and drastically reduce the number of costly
frivolous claims against innocent and legitimate businesses.
On October 24, we passed and sent to the President's desk S. 397, the
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, by a vote of 283 to 144 in the
House. I might add that in the spirit of bipartisanship, 59 Democrats
and one Independent joined 223 Republicans in passing this landmark
legislation that refocuses liability for gun violence on the actual
criminal, the person who pulled the trigger.
Additionally in this House, 226 Republicans, along with 80 Democrats,
passed H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of
2005. This bill also reaffirms the need for individuals to take
responsibility for their own actions and not expect someone else to
foot the bill for the adverse health consequences of their own
gluttony.
Today, Madam Speaker, we have another prime opportunity to pass
meaningful legislation to strengthen our court system even further and
to protect the falsely accused.
The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005 will go a long way to curb
the actions of individuals who would seek to abuse our courts by gaming
the judicial system. Last week, there were probably millions of people
across this country who tuned in, ticket in hand, to see if they had
won a $340 million Powerball jackpot. Unfortunately, there are also
people who look to the courts, legal briefs in hand, as if it were the
Powerball lottery.
However, Madam Speaker, it is the American people and small
businesses that pay the ultimate price for frivolous lawsuits and this
type of jackpot justice. They pay for it through higher prices for
goods and services, they pay for it through diminished quality of
products, they pay for it through loss of economic freedom, and they
pay for it through a clogged court system that has been turned into an
ATM for junk lawsuits. In fact, the current tort system is estimated to
cost American people well over $200 billion per year.
Clearly, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005 is a bill that is
sorely overdue, sorely needed and, I might add, was approved by this
House in the last Congress by a vote of 229 to 174.
With respect to the underlying bill, it would amend Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by restoring the mandatory sanctions
for the filing of frivolous lawsuits. This bill would require that
courts impose an appropriate penalty on attorneys, law firms, or
parties who continue to file frivolous lawsuits. Also this bill would
eliminate the ``free pass'' provision that allows attorneys to avoid
sanctions if they withdraw their frivolous claim after a motion for
sanctions has been filed.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 420 also would prevent forum shopping by
requiring that personal injury cases only be brought in those
jurisdictions either where the plaintiff, the defendant or a related
business resides, or where the alleged injury or surrounding
circumstances occurred.
This act would also institute a three-strikes-and-you're-out sanction
that would suspend an attorney from practicing in Federal court if a
Federal judge determines the lawyer has violated Rule 11 on three or
more occasions.
H.R. 420 clearly emphasizes that personal responsibility is not just
some catch phrase that applies only to some people, such as a fast-food
connoisseur, a firearms owner, a consumer or, indeed, a doctor.
Personal responsibility and professional accountability should be the
rule for those in the legal field, too, and that is why this House
should pass this bill.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would just emphasize that House
Resolution 508 is a straightforward rule and H.R. 420 is a
straightforward bill. Simply put, it just makes sense to stop and
punish the willful abuse of our legal system by the slash-and-burn
tactics of frivolous lawsuits.
As always, I look forward to the consideration of this rule, and I
ask my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, here we go again. Whenever the
Republican leadership appears to be floundering or simply needs some
legislative
[[Page H9284]]
filler, they turn to the Judiciary Committee for some kind of anti-
lawyer, anti-lawsuit bill.
We recently considered a bill to ban lawsuits against people who want
to sue fast food companies, even though these cases are nonexistent.
Now we are here considering another bill that will pass the House and
go nowhere in the Senate.
The fact is that the Republican leadership has run out of meaningful
legislation to consider. They have run out of ideas. So here we are
once again considering another bill that attacks America's judicial
system and takes away rights from our fellow citizens.
Time after time, the Republican leadership refuses to bring necessary
legislation to the floor. Where, Madam Speaker, is the legislation
combating poverty or ending hunger or increasing access to affordable
and comprehensive health care? Where are their priorities? There are 45
million Americans who have no health insurance in this country. Where
is the increase in the minimum wage? Where is the legislation to lower
gas and oil prices?
It was comical to see the Republican leadership gather at a press
conference the other day in reaction to the news that oil companies are
making record profits. And what was their response? They very nicely
asked the oil companies to do more. Why should the oil companies do
more when they have passed legislation to give oil companies more tax
breaks and more oil subsidies?
Where, Madam Speaker, is the oversight into the Iraq war? Over 2,000
Americans have lost their lives in Iraq, and all we get from this
leadership and all we get from this White House is ``stay the course.''
Well, stay the course is not a policy; it is a sound bite. We owe our
young men and women more than just a sound bite.
Where is the genuinely independent 9/11-style commission to
investigate the botched response to Hurricane Katrina and to make
recommendations on how to prevent such another tragedy in the future?
Where is the fully constituted, functioning Ethics Committee to look
into the numerous ethics charges that are mounting in this body?
No, here we are dealing with legislation that we dealt with last year
that is going nowhere.
The fact is, the Republican leadership does not care much about these
issues, and I know they are out of step with the American people on
these issues. So, instead, they bring us the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction
Act once again. This is like watching a bad TV rerun. It was not good
the first time; it is even worse the second time.
{time} 1045
Remember, we considered this bill last year, and just like last year,
it will pass this Republican-controlled Congress. They will do their
press releases, they will send it over to the Senate, and it will go
nowhere.
Later today we will hear from members of the House Judiciary
Committee who have particular subject expertise on the specifics of
this legislation. I will leave it to these Members to explain the
intricacies of the Federal Code and the Rules of Civil Procedure and
how Rule 11 fits in. I would like for a few minutes, however, to talk
about the continued abuse of power that the Republican majority takes
to a new level today.
Under this rule and under this bill, Republican fund-raisers are
rewarded, while the majority party continues its unabashed assault on
the judicial branch of this Nation. Do not just take my word for it,
Madam Speaker. One of the broadest arrays of groups that I have ever
seen has come together to oppose this misguided, short-sighted, mean-
spirited legislation. These groups include, but are certainly not
limited to, the NAACP, the Legal Defense Fund, the American Bar
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the
National Women's Law Center, and the Consumers Union.
The one that stands out the most, however, is the opposition from the
Judicial Conference of the United States. Now, what is that? What is
this conference that opposes what my Republican friends will describe
as a critically important piece of legislation?
The Judicial Conference was created by this very Congress in 1922.
Their congressionally mandated mission is to be the principal
policymaking body concerned with the administration of the United
States courts. The presiding officer of this organization is none other
than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. You know what the Judicial
Conference has to say about this legislation? In a three-page letter to
Chairman Sensenbrenner, in short, they say it is unnecessary and it is
harmful. If they were less judicious in their choice of words, they
would say what I say: It stinks.
But what they say, Madam Speaker, this group representing the Federal
judges of this country, is that this legislation is fatally flawed.
They say that Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what the
underlying legislation aims to fix, is working better today than ever
before. In fact, in their letter to the Judiciary Committee chairman,
they say that Federal district judges are united in their opposition to
any legislation which seeks to amend rule 11. They specifically urge
Congress to reject this legislation.
Now, Madam Speaker, let us think this through for just a second,
shall we? The organization representing President-appointed, Senate-
confirmed judges thinks this legislation is unwise. Why do we think we
know better than our Federal judges how to operate the Federal
judiciary? Frankly, I would laugh if I did not think that the majority
was so sincere in their attempts to undermine the constitutional rights
of every single American. Shame on you. Shame on all of you for trying
to eviscerate the Constitution, all for a few extra campaign dollars,
because that is what this is about.
The underlying legislation is not sound public policy, plain and
simple. On the contrary, it is outright political grandstanding. So let
us be honest and let us call this bill and this debate what they really
are: legislative abuse and a political charade.
The majority's reckless disregard for judicial integrity mocks our
Constitution's separation of powers doctrine, and I implore my
colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, in response to some of the comments that
were made, I just want to hold up this document that lists over 300
groups in support of LARA, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005, and
I will include them in the Record.
I would like to also point out that the Federal Judicial Center was
in opposition to class action reform, which we passed in the previous
Congress and in the 108th by a vote in this body of 279 to 149.
Groups Supporting H.R. 420--The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005
Advanced Medical Technology Association.
Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee.
Alabama Restaurant Association.
Alabama Trucking Association, Inc.
Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant and Retailers
Association.
Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Minnesota.
Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Pennsylvania.
America Chamber of Commerce (NV).
American Apparel and Footwear Association.
American Automotive Leasing Association.
American Bakers Association.
American Boiler Manufacturers Association.
American Business Conference.
American Chemistry Council.
American Council of Engineering Companies.
American Health Care Association.
American Home Furnishing Alliance.
American Insurance Association.
American International Automobile Dealers Association.
American Legislative Exchange Council.
American Machine Tool Distributors Association.
American Petroleum Institute.
American Rental Association.
American Road & Transportation Builders Association.
American Supply Association.
American Trucking Associations.
American Tort Reform Association.
American Veterinary Distributors Association.
American Wholesale Marketers Association.
Antelope Valley Chamber of Commerce (CA).
Ardmore Chamber of Commerce (OK).
Arkansas Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Arkansas Hospitality Association.
Arizona Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
[[Page H9285]]
Arizona Restaurant & Hospitality Association.
Associated Builders & Contractors.
Associated General Contractors of America.
Associated Equipment Distributors.
ASFE--Associated Soil & Foundation Engineers.
Associated Wire Rope Fabricators.
Association for High Technology Distribution.
Association of Equipment Manufacturers.
Association of Pool & Spa Professionals.
AMT--The Association for Manufacturing Technology.
Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association.
Automotive Parts Remanufacturers Association.
Automotive Parts & Service Association of Illinois.
Aviation Distributors & Manufacturers Association.
Bay Area Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
Bearing Specialists Association.
Brunswick-Golden Isles Chamber of Commerce (GA).
Business Council of New York State, Inc.
Business Roundtable.
California Central Coast Chapter, National Electrical
Contractors Association.
California Restaurant Association.
California/Nevada Automotive Wholesalers Association.
Central California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
Central Illinois, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County (PA).
Chamber of Commerce for Anderson & Madison County (IN).
Chamber of Commerce of the Mid-Ohio Valley (WV).
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse of Central Texas.
Citizens for Civil Justice Reform.
City of Chicago, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Civil Justice Association of California.
Cleaning Equipment Trade Association.
Cleveland Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Coalition for Uniform Product Liability Law.
Colorado Civil Justice League.
Colorado Motor Carriers Association.
Colorado Restaurant Association.
Connecticut Restaurant Association.
Construction Industry Round Table.
Copper & Brass Service Center Association.
Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers.
Crawfordsville/Montgomery Chamber of Commerce (IN).
Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce (OH).
Delaware Motor Transport Association.
Delaware Restaurant Association.
East Texans Against Lawsuit Abuse.
The Employers Association.
Electrical Manpower Development Trust.
Equipment Leasing Association.
Florida Chamber of Commerce.
Florida Restaurant Association.
Food Industry Suppliers Association.
Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association.
Gases and Welding Distributors Association.
General Aviation Manufacturers Association.
Georgia Association of Petroleum Retailers, Inc.
Georgia Industry Association.
Georgia Restaurant Association.
Great Lakes Petroleum Retailers & Allied Trades
Association.
Georgia Motor Trucking Association.
Hawaii Restaurant Association.
Hawaii Transportation Association.
Health Industry Distributors Association.
Healthcare Distribution Management Association.
Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors
International Association.
Hobbs Chamber of Commerce (NM).
Hospitality Association of South Carolina.
Hospitality Minnesota--Minnesota's Restaurant, Hotel &
Lodging and Resort & Campground Associations.
Hudson Valley Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association (NY).
Humble Area Chamber of Commerce (TX).
Idaho Lodging and Restaurant Association.
Illinois Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Illinois Civil Justice League.
Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch.
Illinois Quad City Chamber.
Illinois Restaurant Association.
Independent Electrical Contractors.
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc.
Independent Sealing Distributors.
Industrial Compressor Distributor Association.
Industrial Supply Association.
International Association of Plastics Distributors.
International Foodservice Distributors Association.
International Franchise Association.
International Furniture Suppliers Association.
International Housewares Association.
International Safety Equipment Association.
International Sanitary Supply Association.
International Sign Association.
International Sleep Products Association.
International Truck Parts Association.
Iowa Hospitality Association.
Iowa Motor Truck Association.
Jackson Area Manufacturers Association.
Kansas Chamber of Commerce.
Kansas City Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association.
Kentucky Motor Transport Association.
Kentucky Restaurant Association.
Kern County Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association (CA).
Kingman Area Chamber of Commerce (AZ).
Lakewood Chamber of Commerce (WA).
Latrobe Area Chamber of Commerce (PA).
Lawn and Garden Marketing and Distribution Association.
Lebanon Valley Chamber of Commerce (PA).
Los Angeles Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
Los Angeles Fastener Association.
Louisiana Motor Transport Association.
Louisiana Restaurant Association.
Maine Liability Crisis Alliance.
Maine Restaurant Association.
Manufactured Housing Institute.
Manufacturers' Association of Northwest Pennsylvania.
Marion Area Chamber of Commerce (IL).
Maryland Business for Responsive Government.
Maryland Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Massachusetts Restaurant Association.
Material Handling Equipment Distributors Association.
Mechanical Contractors Association of America.
Memphis Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Metals Service Center Institute.
Mason Contractors Association of America.
Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch.
Michigan Restaurant Association.
Minnesota Trucking Association.
Mississippi Hospitality and Restaurant Association.
Mississippi Manufacturers Association.
Mississippi Trucking Association.
Mississippians for Economic Progress.
Missouri Motor Carriers Association.
Missouri Restaurant Association.
Montana Chamber of Commerce/Montana Liability Coalition.
Montana Motor Carriers Association.
Montana Restaurant Association.
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association.
Motorcycle Industry Council.
National Association of Chemical Distributors.
National Association of Convenience Stores.
National Association of Electrical Distributors.
National Association of Home Builders.
National Association of Manufacturers.
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.
National Association of Sign Supply Distributors.
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
National Concrete Masonry Association.
National Council of Chain Restaurants of the National
Retail Federation.
National Electrical Contractors Association.
National Federation of Independent Business.
National Lumber & Building Materials Dealers Association.
National Marine Distributors Association.
National Paint & Coatings Association.
National Pest Management Association.
National Propane Gas Association.
National Restaurant Association.
NRF--The National Retail Federation.
National Roofing Contractors Association.
National School Supply & Equipment Association.
National Shooting Sports Foundation.
NAHAD--The Association for Hose & Accessories Distributors
NPES--The Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing
and Converting Technologies.
National Small Business Association.
Nebraska Restaurant Association.
Nebraska Trucking Association.
Nevada State Medical Association.
New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association.
New Jersey Automobile Wholesalers Association.
New Jersey Business & Industry.
New Jersey Motor Truck Association.
New Jersey Restaurant Association.
New Mexico Alliance for Legal Reform.
New Mexico Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
New Mexico Restaurant Association.
Nevada Restaurant Association.
New York State Automotive Aftermarket Association.
New York State Motor Truck Association.
New York State Restaurant Association.
North American Horticultural Supply Association.
North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry.
North Carolina Restaurant Association.
North Carolina Trucking Association.
North Dakota State Hospitality Association.
North Florida Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
North Louisiana Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
North Texas Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
[[Page H9286]]
Northeastern Illinois Chapter, National Electrical
Contractors Association.
Northern California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
Northern Illinois Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Northern New York Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce.
Office Products Wholesalers Association.
Ohio Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
Ohio Manufacturers Association.
Ohio Restaurant Association.
Ohio Trucking Association.
Oklahoma Restaurant Association.
Orange Chamber of Commerce (CA).
Orange County Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
Oregon Restaurant Association.
Outdoor Power Equipment & Engine Service Association.
Outdoor Power Equipment Institute.
Outdoor Power Equipment Aftermarket Association.
Pacific Printing & Imaging Association (AK, HI, ID, MT, OR,
WA).
Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute.
Painting & Decorating Contractors of America.
Penn-Ohio Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Pennsylvania Health Care Association.
Pennsylvania Restaurant Association.
Paris Area Chamber of Commerce & Tourism (IL).
Pennsylvania Automotive Wholesalers Association.
Pet Industry Distributors Association.
Petroleum Equipment Institute.
Petroleum Marketers Association of America.
Petroleum Retailers & Auto Repair Association.
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association.
Post Card and Souvenir Distributors Association.
Power Transmission Distributors Association.
Printing & Graphic Communications Association.
Printing & Imaging Association of Mid-America (KS, MO, OK,
TX).
Printing & Imaging Association, Mountain States.
Printing Association of Florida.
Printing Industries Association of San Diego.
Printing Industries of Michigan.
Printing Industry Association of the South (AL, AR, KY, LA,
MS, TN, WV).
Printing Industries of America.
Printing Industries of Illinois/Indiana Association.
Printing Industries of New England (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI).
Production Engine Remanufacturers Association.
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.
Red River Valley Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association (TX).
Retail Industry Leaders Association.
Restaurant and Hospitality Association of Indiana.
Restaurant Association of Maryland, Inc.
Restaurant Association of Metro Washington, Inc.
Rhode Island Hospitality and Tourism Association.
Richmond/Spring Grave Chamber (IL).
Rio Grande Valley Partnership.
Rubber Manufacturers Association.
Safety Equipment Distributors Association, Inc.
Saguaro Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association (AZ).
St. Paul Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association (MN).
San Diego Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
San Diego County Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
San Diego Employers Association.
Scaffold Industry Association.
Security Hardware Distributors Association.
SSDA-AT--Service Station Dealers Of America/ National
Coalition Petroleum Retailers and Allied Trades.
Silicon Valley Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
SBE Council--Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council.
Small Business Legislative Council.
SMC Business Councils.
Snack Food Association.
South Carolina Trucking Association.
South Carolina Civil Justice Coalition.
South Dakota Retailers Association.
Southern Nevada Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Specialty Equipment Market Association.
Society of American Florists.
The State Chamber of Oklahoma.
Steel Tank Institute.
Tarpon Springs Chamber of Commerce (FL).
Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry.
Tennessee Restaurant Association.
Texas Association of Business.
Texas Civil Justice League.
Texas Restaurant Association.
Textile Care Allied Trades Association.
Tire Industry Association.
Truck Renting and Leasing Association.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.
Utah Restaurant Association.
Valve Manufacturers Association.
Vermont Lodging and Restaurant Association.
Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association.
Virginia Trucking Association.
Washington State Liability Reform Coalition.
Washington Restaurant Association.
Waste Equipment Technology Association.
West Virginia Chamber of Commerce.
West Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association.
West Virginia Motor Truck Association.
Western Association of Fastener Distributors.
Western New York Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Western Pennsylvania Chapter, National Electrical
Contractors Association.
Weston Area Chamber of Commerce (FL).
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce.
Wisconsin Motor Carriers Association.
Wisconsin Restaurant Association.
Wood Machinery Manufacturers of America.
Woodworking Machinery Industry Association.
Wyoming Lodging & Restaurant Association.
Wyoming Trucking Association, Inc.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if I could inquire from the gentleman
how many more speakers he has, because I am the last speaker on my
side.
Mr. GINGREY. To the gentleman from Massachusetts, we do not actually
have any additional speakers at this time, so right now I am reserving
the balance of my time for the purpose of closing, unless another
speaker comes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record as
well another letter signed by a number of groups urging a vote against
H.R. 420.
I would also like to include a letter that was sent to every Member
of Congress by Michael S. Greco, the President of the American Bar
Association, opposing this legislation.
I would also like to insert in the Record the text of the letter that
I mentioned in my opening speech from the Judicial Conference of the
United States which very strongly opposes this legislation.
October 25, 2005.
Dear Representative: We urge you to oppose H.R. 420, a bill
that would restore the discriminatory impact of the old
version of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
trample on states' rights to run their own courts, and
increase the extent and expense of litigation rather than
reduce it.
H.R. 420 seeks to roll back Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to an earlier 1983 version of the rule, which
would undermine carefully crafted standards that were enacted
in 1993. Those changes expanded responsibilities of
litigants, while at the same time providing greater
constraints and flexibility in dealing with violations of the
rule. The current rule requires litigants to ``stop-and-
think'' before making legal or factual contentions. It also,
however, emphasizes the duty of candor by subjecting
litigants to potential sanctions for insisting upon a
position after it is no longer tenable, and by generally
providing protection against sanctions if they withdraw or
correct contentions after a potential violation is called to
their attention.
There is no evidence that the current Rule 11 is not
working. In fact, Department of Justice statistics show that
the number of lawsuits is declining in both federal and state
courts. The end result of H.R. 420 would be a shift of the
function of Rule 11 from deterring frivolous litigation to
increasing litigation by those who have the resources and the
time to litigate against opposing counsel. History shows that
mandatory Rule 11 sanctions imposed in 1983, and to which
H.R. 420 would have us return, were used disproportionately
against plaintiffs' (particularly civil rights) attorneys and
those attempting to extend the law in support of unpopular
causes. More than a decade ago, civil rights organizations--
including some of the undersigned organizations--worked to
amend Rule 11 because the old rule unfairly discouraged
meritorious civil rights claims. H.R. 420 seeks to force
litigants to operate under the terms that we fear, like the
former rule we worked so hard to amend, will be used to
punish and deter valid claims of discrimination.
Nationwide surveys about the former rule found that motions
for sanctions were most frequently sought and granted in
civil rights cases. Expressing his concerns about the former
Rule 11, the Honorable Robert L. Carter, United States
District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York,
noted, ``I have no doubt that the Supreme Court's opportunity
to pronounce separate schools inherently unequal [in Brown v.
Board of Education] would have been delayed for a decade had
my colleagues and I been required, upon pain of potential
sanctions, to plead our legal theory explicitly from the
start.'' The language of H.R. 420 purporting
[[Page H9287]]
to protect civil rights claims provides insufficient
protection for victims of discrimination because the more
severe rules outlined in H.R. 420 can still be applied in
civil rights. Had supporters of the bill wanted to
effectively protect those who seek justice under our civil
rights laws, they could have exempted those claims from the
scope of the bill.
Moreover, H.R. 420 not only changes the rules for federal
courts, it is unprecedented in that its reach extends to
state court cases. Section 3 of the bill provides, upon
motion, the court is required to assess the costs of the
action ``to the interstate economy.'' If the court determines
that the state court action ``affects interstate commerce,''
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ``shall apply
to such action.'' Imagining the proceedings necessary to
determine whether a particular state court action ``affects
interstate commerce'' is mind-boggling. This provision will
certainly spawn satellite litigation. Moreover, the total
disregard for federalism is astounding.
Finally, the vast majority of the federal judiciary opposes
the changes contained in H.R. 420. The Judicial Conference of
the United States, headed by the late Chief Justice
Rehnquist, clearly stated in a letter to Chairman
Sensenbrenner that ``the proposed changes to Rule 11 will not
help deter litigation abuses, but will increase satellite
litigation, costs, and delays.'' The letter also notes there
is ``a remarkable consensus'' among Federal district court
judges in opposition to changing the rule.
If you have any questions or need more information, please
contact Pamela Gilbert, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
representing the Center for Justice & Democracy,
202.587.5064; Sandy Brantley, Legislative Counsel, Alliance
for Justice, 202.822.6070; or Jillian Aldebron, Civil Justice
Counsel, Public Citizen's Congress Watch, 202.454.5135.
Sincerely,
Alliance for Justice.
Center for Justice & Democracy.
Citizens for a Safer Minnesota.
Consumer Federation of America.
District of Columbia Million Mom March.
Legal Community Against Violence.
Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence.
National Association of Consumer Advocates.
New Yorkers Against Gun Violence.
Public Citizen.
USAction.
Violence Policy Center.
Virginians Against Handgun Violence.
____
American Bar Association,
Chicago, IL, October 10, 2005.
Dear Representative: I write regarding H.R. 420, the
``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.'' The American Bar Association
strongly opposes this legislation and respectfully urges you
to vote ``No'' when it is brought to the floor of the House
of Representatives in the near future.
Without any demonstrated problem with the enforcement or
operation of Rule 11, H.R. 420 would (1) impose mandatory
sanctions for any violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and remove its current ``safe harbor''
provisions; (2) enforce a mandatory suspension from
practicing law of an attorney who has violated Rule 11 three
times; (3) impose federal mandatory Rule 11 sanctions upon
any civil state court claim that materially affects
interstate commerce; and (4) impose specific venue
designation rules upon any personal injury claim filed in any
state or federal court.
As a threshold matter, the ABA strongly opposes the
legislation because these amendments to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure are being proposed without utilizing the
process set forth in the Rules Enabling Act. This departure
from the procedure of the Rules Enabling Act is also being
proposed without any demonstrated problem with the operation
of the Rules Enabling Act. The ABA fully supports the Rules
Enabling Act process, which is based on three fundamental
concepts: (1) the essential and central role of the judiciary
in initiating judicial rulemaking; (2) the use of procedures
that permit full public participation, including
participation by members of the legal profession; and (3)
provision for a Congressional review period. We view the
proposed rules changes to the Federal Rules in H.R. 420 as an
unwise retreat from the balanced and inclusive process
established by Congress when it adopted the Rules Enabling
Act.
In 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2072-74, Congress prescribed the
appropriate procedure for the formulation and adoption of
rules of evidence, practice and procedure for the federal
courts. This well-settled, congressionally specified
procedure contemplates that evidentiary and procedural rules
will in the first instance be considered and drafted by
committees of the United States Judicial Conference, will
thereafter be subject to thorough public comment and
reconsideration, and will then be submitted to the United
States Supreme Court for consideration and promulgation.
Finally and most importantly, the proposed rules resulting
from the inclusion of all of the stakeholders, is transmitted
to Congress, which retains the ultimate power to veto any
rule before it takes effect.
This time-proven process proceeds from separation-of-powers
concerns and is driven by the practical recognition that,
among other things:
(1) rules of evidence and procedure are inherently a matter
of intimate concern to the judiciary, which must apply them
on a daily basis;
(2) each rule forms just one part of a complicated,
interlocking whole, rendering due deliberation and public
comment essential to avoid unintended consequences; and
(3) the Judicial Conference is in a unique position to
draft rules with care in a setting isolated from pressures
that may interfere with painstaking consideration and due
deliberation.
We do not question Congressional power to regulate the
practice and procedure of federal courts. Congress exercised
this power by delegating its rulemaking authority to the
judiciary through the enactment of the Rules Enabling Act,
while retaining the authority to review and amend rules prior
to their taking effect. We do, however, question the wisdom
of circumventing the Rules Enabling Act, as H.R. 420 would
do. The fact that the proposed changes to the Rules are
flawed should give pause to those who are asked to support
the circumvention of the process of the Rules Enabling Act.
Not following the processes set forth in the Rules Enabling
Act would frustrate the purpose of the act and potentially
harm the effective functioning of the judicial system.
The ABA supports the current version of Rule 11 because it
has proven to be an effective means of discouraging dilatory
motions practice and frivolous claims and defenses. There has
been no demonstrated problem with the enforcement or
operation of Rule 11. The ABA opposes the provisions in H.R
420 to enforce a mandatory suspension of an attorney for Rule
11 violations. The filing of frivolous claims and defenses is
an important issue that deserves attention. It is appropriate
and right for courts to have the ability to sanction
attorneys for abusing the legal system by filing claims meant
to harass or intimidate litigants. It is, however, important
to remember that Rule 11 violations can be levied even when,
in hindsight, there may have been a legitimate claim,
especially for civil rights cases or environmental
litigation. Attorneys practicing in these areas may be
subject to more Rule 11 sanctions than attorneys who handle
other types of cases.
A system that provides for mandatory suspension of
attorneys with three Rule 11 violations would have an
extremely chilling effect on the justice system and could
disproportionately impact attorneys who practice in
particular areas, such as civil rights or environmental law.
This type of mandatory suspension is even more damaging when
taken in combination with efforts to require mandatory
sanctions for Rule 11 violations, which cannot be appealed
until after a judgment is rendered in a case.
Equally important, the ABA strongly opposes enactment of
H.R. 420 because Congress should not dictate venue rules for
state courts. State rules relating to venue and jurisdiction
should be developed at the state level and supported by
extensive study, vetted publicly, and made subject to comment
by the legal profession. To do otherwise would violate our
long-established principles of federalism. It should remain
solely within the purview of the individual states to
establish local rules for procedures, either through their
state legislatures or through a grant of rulemaking authority
to their state judiciaries.
The imposition of Rule 11 mandatory sanctions upon the
individual state courts would also violate our time-honored
principles of federalism. Earlier this year, the Conference
of Chief Justices adopted a resolution in opposition to
federal usurpation of state court authority as guaranteed by
the United States Constitution. This resolution ``strongly
opposed'' the enactment of any federal legislation that would
``drastically change the traditional state role in
determining ethics, jurisdiction and venue rules in state
litigation.'' The determination of the states to establish
and operate their judicial systems in accordance with
principles important to each state is entitled to respectful
deference from the federal government. Great deference should
also be given to the views of these state court leaders.
For these compelling reasons the ABA strongly opposes the
enactment of H.R. 420. We respectfully urge you to vote
``No'' on this legislation.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Greco,
President.
____
Judicial Conference
of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 17, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to provide you with a copy
of the Federal Judicial Center's Report of a Survey of United
States District Judges' Experiences and Views Concerning Rule
11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The report was prepared
at the request of the Judicial Conference's Advisory
Committee on Civil Rules to provide information as part of
the Advisory Committee's study of proposals introduced in
Congress to amend Rule 11. The report makes it clear that the
vast majority of federal district judges believe that the
proposed changes to Rule 11 will not help deter litigation
abuses, but will increase satellite litigation, costs, and
delays.
Since 1995, legislation has regularly been introduced that
would reinstate a mandatory sanctions provision of Rule 11
that was adopted in 1983 and eliminated in 1993. The 1993
change followed several years of examination and was made on
the Judicial Conference's recommendation, with the Supreme
[[Page H9288]]
Court's approval, and after Congressional review. The 1983
provision was eliminated because during the ten years it was
in place, it did not provide meaningful relief from the
litigation behavior it was meant to address and generated
wasteful satellite litigation that had little to do with the
merits of a case. On January 26, 2005, Representative Lamar
Smith introduced the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005
(H.R. 420). The bill would restore the 1983 version of Rule
11, undoing the amendments to Rule 11 that took effect in
December 1993. The enclosed report shows a remarkable
consensus among federal district judges supporting existing
Ru1e 11 and opposing its amendment.
In 1983, Rule 11 was amended to require judges to impose
sanctions for violations that could include attorneys' fees.
The 1983 version of Rule 11 was intended to address certain
improper litigation tactics by providing some punishment and
deterrence. The effect was almost the opposite. The 1983 rule
presented attorneys with financial incentives to file a
sanction motion. The rule was abused by resourceful lawyers.
A ``cottage industry'' developed that churned tremendously
wasteful satellite sanctions litigation that had everything
to do with strategic gamesmanship and little to do with the
underlying claims or with the behavior the rule attempted
to regulate. Rule 11 motions came to be met with counter
motions that sought Rule 11 sanctions for making the
original Rule 11 motion. The 1983 version of Rule 11
spawned thousands of court decisions unrelated to the
merits of the cases, sowed discord in the bar, and
generated widespread criticism.
The 1993 amendments to Rule 11 were designed to remedy
major problems shown by experience with the 1983 rule, allow
courts to focus on the merits of the underlying cases rather
than on Rule II motions, but still provide a meaningful
sanction for frivolous pleadings. The rule establishes a
``safe harbor,'' providing a party 21 days within which to
withdraw a particular claim or defense before sanctions can
be imposed. If the party fails to withdraw an allegedly
frivolous claim or defense within the 21 days, a court may
impose sanctions, including assessing reasonable attorney
fees. Rule 11 does not supplant other remedial actions
available to sanction an attorney for a frivolous filing,
including punishing the attorney for contempt, employing
sanctions under 28 D.S.C. 1927 for ``vexatious''
multiplication of proceedings, or initiating an independent
action for malicious prosecution or abuse of process.
H.R. 420 would amend Rule 11 to restore the 1983 version,
by removing a court's discretion to impose sanctions on a
frivolous filing and by eliminating the rule's safe-harbor
provisions. The Judicial Conference opposed the Lawsuit Abuse
Reduction Act of2004 (H.R. 4571), the predecessor of H.R.
420. The Judicial Conference based its position on the
problems caused by the 1983 version of Rule 11, which H.R.
420 would restore. The Judicial Conference noted that these
problems included:
creating a significant incentive to file unmeritorious Rule
11 motions by providing a possibility of monetary penalty;
engendering potential conflict of interest between clients
and their lawyers, who advised withdrawal of particular
claims despite the clients' preference;
exacerbating tensions between lawyers; and
providing little incentive, and perhaps a distinct
disincentive, to abandon or withdraw--and thereby admit error
on--a pleading or claim after determining that it no longer
was supportable in law or fact.
The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules regularly monitors
the operation of the Civil Rules, inviting the bench, bar,
and public to inform it of any problems. The Committee stands
ready to address any deficiency in the rules, including Rule
II. Although the Committee is mindful of Congressional
concerns about frivolous filings addressed in pending
legislation, the Committee has not received any negative
comments or complaints on existing Rule II from the bench,
bar, or public. To gain a clearer picture of the operation of
Rule 11, the Committee asked the Federal Judicial Center to
survey the experience of the trial judges who must apply the
rules. The survey sought responses from judges with
experience under the 1983 version as well as judges serving
only after the 1993 version was adopted. The results of the
Federal Judicial Center's survey show that judges strongly
believe that Rule 11, which was carefully crafted to deter
frivolous filings without unduly hampering the filing of
legitimate claims or defenses, continues to work well. The
survey's findings include the following highlights:
More than 80 percent of the 278 district judges surveyed
indicate that ``Rule 11 is needed and it is just right as it
now stands'';
87 percent prefer the existing Rule 11 to the 1983 version
or the version proposed by legislation (e.g., H.R. 4571 or
H.R. 420);
85 percent strongly or moderately support Rule 11's safe
harbor provisions;
91 percent oppose the proposed requirement that sanctions
be imposed for every Rule 11 violation;
84 percent disagree with the proposition that an award of
attorney fees should be mandatory for every Rule 11
violation;
85 percent believe that the amount of groundless civil
litigation has not grown since the promulgation of the 1993
rule, with 12 percent noting that such litigation has not
been a problem, 19 percent noting that such litigation
decreased during their tenure on the Federal bench, and 54
percent noting that such litigation has remained relatively
constant; and
72 percent believe that addressing sanctions for discovery
abuse in Rules 26(g) and 37 is better than in Rule 11.
The judges' experiences with the 1993 version of Rule 11
point to a marked decline in Rule 11 satellite litigation
without any noticeable increase in the number of frivolous
filings. H.R. 420 would effectively reinstate the 1983
version of Rule 11 that proved so contentious and wasted so
much time and energy of the bar and bench. Rule 11 in its
present form has proven effective and should not be revised.
The findings of the Federal Judicial Center underscore the
Federal district judges' united opposition to legislation
amending Rule 11. I urge you on behalf of the Judicial
Conference to oppose legislation amending Rule 11.
The Judicial Conference appreciates your consideration of
its views. If you have any questions, please feel to contact
me. I may be reached at (202) 273-3000. If you prefer, you
may have your staff contact Karen Kremer, Counsel, Office of
Legislative Affairs, Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, at (202) 502-1700.
Sincerely,
Leonidas Ralph Mecham,
Secretary.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I think the reason why we have no other
speakers on this side is because everything that possibly could be said
was said last year. So all we need to do is just replay the tape
recorder and listen to all the arguments. We just seem to be repeating
the same debates over and over and over again.
Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
This is unwise policy. I understand that the genesis of this
legislation is to appeal to those who like to contribute lots of money
to particular campaigns, but, quite frankly, I think that is not a
sound reason to pass this legislation.
As I mentioned before, the Judicial Conference of the United States
has outlined very clearly why this is a bad bill. I would hope that my
colleagues would listen to some of the experts and do what is right and
reject this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I might point out that the people that
oppose this legislation, as the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned
earlier, are the very ones that support his party. So I think that
there is a little balance there, if that be true in either instance.
Madam Speaker, I would first like to close this debate by thanking my
colleagues for a very productive discussion of both the rule and H.R.
420. The opportunity before this House today is another example of how
this Congress has improved our legal system and preventing frivolous
lawsuits from closing the doors of justice for those who have truly
been harmed.
Contrary to what the opponents of legal reform might say, the
underlying bill, as well as other recent bills, do not demonstrate
contempt for our legal system or the esteemed profession of attorneys,
but rather demonstrate respect for the important and historic role of
our judicial system in defending the rights and ensuring the
constitutional application of the laws. Frivolous lawsuits have not
only driven up costs and destroyed economic opportunity for the
American people, but they have also damaged the image of the courts.
When the American people stop respecting the decisions of the
judiciary, the courts begin to lose their effectiveness, and they cease
to perform their constitutionally mandated role.
For the sake of the courts and for the sake of the American people,
we in this House need to push forward with this additional meaningful
and genuine reform. Therefore, I would like to urge all of my
colleagues on both sides of the center aisle to support this rule and
the underlying bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, while the Committee on Rules
reported out a rule that made in order a substantive amendment offered
by the Gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, I rise in opposition to
it, H. Res. 508 because the legislation underlying is pernicious.
As I mentioned during the Committee on the Judiciary's oversight
hearing on this legislation during its first iteration in the 108th
Congress and reiterated in my statement for the markup, one of the main
functions of that body's oversight is to analyze potentially negative
impact against the benefits that a legal process or piece of
legislation will have on those affected. The base bill before the House
today does not represent the product of careful analysis and
[[Page H9289]]
therefore, it is critical that Members be given the ability to offer
amendments to improve its provisions.
In the case of H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act the
oversight functions of the Judiciary Committee allowed us to craft a
bill that will protect those affected from negative impacts of the
shield from liability that it proposes. This legislation requires an
overhaul in order to make it less of a misnomer--to reduce abuse rather
than encourage it.
The goal of the tort reform legislation is to allow businesses to
externalize, or shift, some of the cost of the injuries they cause to
others. Tort law always assigns liability to the party in the best
position to prevent an injury in the most reasonable and fair manner.
In looking at the disparate impact that the new tort reform laws will
have on ethnic minority groups, it is unconscionable that the burden
will be placed on these groups--that are in the worst position to bear
the liability costs.
When Congress considers pre-empting state laws, it must strike the
appropriate balance between two competing values--local control and
national uniformity. Local control is extremely important because we
all believe, as did the Founders two centuries ago, that State
governments are closer to the people and better able to assess local
needs and desires. National uniformity is also an important
consideration in federalism--Congress' exclusive jurisdiction over
interstate commerce has allowed our economy to grow dramatically over
the past 200 years.
This legislation would reverse the changes to Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, FRCP, that were made by the Judicial
Conference in 1993 such that (1) sanctions against an attorney whose
litigation tactics are determined to harass or cause unnecessary delay
or cost or who has been determined to have made frivolous legal
arguments or unwarranted factual assertions would become mandatory
rather than discretionary to the court, (2) discovery-related activity
would be included within the scope of the Rule, and (3) the Rule would
be extended to state cases affecting interstate commerce so that if a
state judge decides that a case affects interstate commerce, he or she
must apply Rule 11 if violations are found.
This legislation strips State and Federal judges of their discretion
in the area of applying Rule 11 sanctions. Furthermore, it infringes
States' rights by forcing State courts to apply the rule if interstate
commerce is affected. Why is the discretion of the judge not sufficient
in discerning whether Rule 11 sanctions should be assessed?
If this legislation moves forward in this body, it will be important
for us to find out its effect on indigent plaintiffs or those who must
hire an attorney strictly on a contingent--fee basis. Because the
application of Rule 11 would be mandatory, attorneys will pad their
legal fees to account for the additional risk that they will have to
incur in filing lawsuits and the fact that they will have no
opportunity to withdraw the suit due to a mistake. Overall, this
legislation will deter indigent plaintiffs from seeking counsel to file
meritorious claims given the extremely high legal fees.
Furthermore, H.R. 4571, as drafted, would allow corporations that
perform sham and non-economic transactions in order to enjoy economic
benefits in this country .
This is a bad rule that will have terrible implications on our
legislative branch, and I ask that my colleagues to defeat the rule,
defeat the bill, and support the Substitute offered by Mr. Schiff. We
must carefully consider the long-term implications that this bill, as
drafted, will have on indigent claimants, the trial attorney community,
and facilitation of corporate fraud.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________