[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 163 (Friday, November 15, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1677]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT OF 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. JARED HUFFMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 14, 2013

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2655, the so-
called ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.''
  This is a misleading title and a misleading bill. A plaintiff 
courageously seeking to stand up to civil rights violations, equal 
protections violations, or voting rights infringement IS NOT abusing 
anything: she's exercising her rights enshrined in the Constitution.
  When I practiced law in California, I know that those I represented--
from victims of workplace discrimination to women athlete scholars 
looking for equal opportunities--would have been hurt by this bill, and 
their cases may never have been heard.
  Ordering sanctions should be at the discretion of the judge, not 
Congress. This bill would reverse the good judgment and counsel of the 
Judicial Conference of the United States and the Supreme Court, both of 
which recommended the change twenty years ago.
  Our Courts are a great equalizer; the courtroom is often the only 
place that a plaintiff can find a fair and equal footing with 
employers, corporations, and even their government.
  This bill would have a chilling effect on the ability of Americans to 
find justice for civil rights violations, employment discrimination 
claims, privacy suits, equal protection violations, voting rights 
claims, consumer protection claims, and so much more.
  The changes proposed in this bill would negatively impact cases where 
the bulk of the evidence rests with one party, disproportionately 
impacting plaintiffs in civil rights and consumer protection 
litigation.
  This bill would also negatively impact civil cases that involve new 
legal theories, meaning that landmark cases in our nation's history may 
never have made it to the Supreme Court; cases like Brown v. Board of 
Education, Griswald v. Connecticut, Massachusetts v. EPA.
  If my colleagues are serious about reforming the legal system, I 
would be very interested in working with them. There are abusive 
litigation tactics by both plaintiffs and defendants, and we could work 
in a responsible, bipartisan manner to address those. But this bill is 
not a serious attempt to level the playing field or to curb real 
abuses. Instead, it puts Congress' thumb on one side of the scale of 
justice.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

                          ____________________