[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 56 (Tuesday, April 20, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E588]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF H.R. --, THE ``FAIR PAYMENT OF COURT FEES ACT OF 2010''

                                 ______
                                 

                  HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 20, 2010

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 
--, the Fair Payment of Court Fees Act of 2010. This legislation is 
vital to preserve democracy and fair access to the courts.
  It has come to my attention that provisions in the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, while 
well intentioned to discourage abuses to the appeal process and 
encourage settlement, have been shown in practice to unfairly and 
indiscriminately punish parties for declining an offer for settlement 
made before trial or seeking appellant review.
  That policy quite simply goes too far, creating perverse results, and 
inevitably will prevent litigants from pursuing legitimate cases or 
appeals for fear of excessive penalties.
  Recently, there was a national outcry when a Federal court ordered 
the family of a fallen soldier, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Synder of 
Westminster, Maryland, to pay $16,000 to the people who picketed the 
funeral of this hero who died in service to his country in Iraq.
  You heard me correctly, the dead soldier's family was ordered to pay 
thousands of dollars to the people who picketed their son's funeral and 
who shouted ``You're going to Hell'' and ``Thank God for dead 
soldiers.''
  This is not adding insult to injury; this is outrageous and cannot be 
allowed to stand.
  The family of Matthew Synder's supposed ``fault'' was to defend the 
decision of the lower court when the picketers appealed.
  Preposterous and outrageous. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
Subcommittee on Courts and Competition policy, I cannot wait for the 
multi-year process of the Rules Enabling Act to correct this injustice. 
This problem must be corrected now.
  The rules, as they stand, are a blanket policy to discourage pursuit 
of justice through the appeals process. That policy quite simply goes 
too far, creating perverse results, and inevitably will prevent 
litigants from pursuing legitimate appeals or encourage the parties to 
settle when they want a court to hear the case for fear of excessive 
penalties.
  The bill I have introduced today will stop this travesty and open the 
court house doors to parties who are acting in the interest of justice.
  Specifically, the ``Fair Payment of Court Fees Act of 2010'' would 
amend two procedural rules to ensure access to the Federal courts. My 
bill would amend Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 
and Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to give a court 
discretion to evaluate whether the payment should be waived in the 
interest of justice including instances where constitutional or other 
important precedent are at issue.
  Strict application of the Rules has been detrimental to the public 
interest. So we would allow our Judges to use their discretion to 
determine when these fees should be waived. Our courthouse doors must 
remain open to pursue legitimate claims.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation.

                          ____________________