[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 134 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6112-H6121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT OF 2015

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 420, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 758) to amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure to improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fleischmann). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 420, the bill is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 758

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act 
     of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY.

       (a) Sanctions Under Rule 11.--Rule 11(c) of the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``may'' and inserting 
     ``shall'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Rule 5'' and all that 
     follows through ``motion.'' and inserting ``Rule 5.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``situated'' and all that 
     follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting 
     ``situated, and to compensate the parties that were injured 
     by such conduct. Subject to the limitations in paragraph (5), 
     the sanction shall consist of an order to pay to the party or 
     parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred as a 
     direct result of the violation, including reasonable 
     attorneys' fees and costs. The court may also impose 
     additional appropriate sanctions, such as striking the 
     pleadings, dismissing the suit, or other directives of a non-
     monetary nature, or, if warranted for effective deterrence, 
     an order directing payment of a penalty into the court.''.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act or an 
     amendment made by this Act shall be construed to bar or 
     impede the assertion or development of new claims, defenses, 
     or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, including 
     civil rights laws, or under the Constitution of the United 
     States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 758, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  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 the 
victims of frivolous lawsuits by requiring sanctions against the filers 
of frivolous lawsuits, sanctions which include paying back victims for 
the full costs 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 for making frivolous claims and demands by 
simply withdrawing them within 21 days. This change eliminates the free 
pass lawyers now have to file frivolous lawsuits in Federal Court.

                              {time}  1530

  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 states, ``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?''
  Under the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, those who file frivolous 
lawsuits would no longer be able to get off scot-free; and, therefore, 
they could not 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 a potentially bankrupting 
frivolous lawsuit.
  As the former chairman of The Home Depot company has written, ``An 
unpredictable legal system casts a shadow over every plan and 
investment. It is devastating for start-ups. The cost of even one ill-
timed abusive lawsuit can bankrupt a growing company and cost hundreds 
of thousands of jobs.''
  The prevalence of frivolous lawsuits in America is reflected in the 
absurd warning labels companies must place on their products to limit 
their exposure to frivolous claims.
  A 5-inch brass fishing lure with three hooks is labeled ``Harmful if 
swallowed.'' A Vanishing Fabric Marker warns it ``Should not be used . 
. . for signing checks or any legal documents, as signatures will . . . 
disappear completely.''
  A household iron contains the warning ``Never iron clothes while they 
are being worn.'' A piece of ovenware warns ``Ovenware will get hot 
when used in oven.'' A hair dryer warns ``Never use while sleeping.''

[[Page H6113]]

  A cardboard car sun shield that keeps sun off the dashboard warns 
``Do not drive with sun shield in place.'' Not to be outdone, a giant 
Yellow Pages directory warns ``Do not use this directory while 
operating a motor vehicle.''
  Here are just a couple of examples of frivolous lawsuits brought in 
Federal court in which judges failed to award compensation to the 
victims:
  A man sued a television network for $2.5 million because he said a 
show it aired raised his blood pressure. When the network publicized 
his frivolous lawsuit, he demanded the court make them stop.
  Although the court found the case frivolous, not only did it not 
compensate the victim, it granted the man who filed the frivolous 
lawsuit an exemption from even paying the ordinary court filing fees.
  In another case, lawyers filed a case against a parent, claiming the 
parent's discipline of his child violated the Eighth Amendment of the 
Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment by the 
government, not private citizens. One of the lawyers even admitted to 
signing the complaint without reading it.
  The court found the case frivolous, but it 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, ``I'm 
willing to look at other ideas to . . . rein in 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, Congressman 
Lamar Smith, for introducing this simple, commonsense legislation that 
would do so much to prevent lawsuit abuse and to restore Americans' 
confidence in the legal system. I urge my colleagues to support it 
today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I was duly impressed with the statement and position of my chairman, 
but I find it hard to believe it is on this bill because this bill is 
not a bill that should be passed.
  This bill is an affront to the judges of this country, to the 
Judicial Conference, and to the American Bar Association.
  The American Bar Association, a conservative organization, has come 
out against it. The Judicial Conference, made up of predominantly 
appellate judges, headed by Chief Justice Roberts--mostly of 
Republican-appointed judges--came out against it because it is not 
necessary.
  It will clog the courts with unnecessary litigation, cost money, and 
make it more difficult to get your cases disposed of. It is just 
unnecessary.
  Indeed, it would amend rule 11, but in such a way that it could have 
a serious deleterious effect on civil rights claims as well as to 
increase the volume and cost 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.
  So all you have to do and all any legislative body ought to do is go 
back and look at what happened in history. These rules were in effect 
from 1983 to 1993, taking a judge's discretion away.
  Judges can order sanctions. They can make sure that those cases that 
were brought up about reading a phone book and having a wreck are out, 
gone. They can do that.
  This takes their discretion away, and they have got to give costs and 
compensation to the other side's lawyers. And then there are hearings 
and all of that stuff.
  Presently, the court has discretion, and there is a 21-day safe 
harbor provision where an attorney can withdraw or correct any alleged 
submissions that were wrong.
  This requires the courts to award reasonable attorneys' fees and 
other costs. It does not leave it to the discretion of the court.
  Currently, such awards are entirely at the court's discretion, and 
they are limited to deterrence purposes, not for the compensation of 
lawyers.
  Simply put, H.R. 758 will have a deleterious impact on the 
administration of justice for these reasons:
  First, civil rights. Think about Brown v. Board of Education. When it 
came before the court, it was a novel case, and a judge in certain 
places, especially in the South in 1954, might have said: Sorry, 
lawyer. You are out of here.
  The judge would have had no option under this but to grant costs 
against the attorney who brought the case, Mr. Marshall, and we might 
not have ever had Brown v. Board of Education.
  Civil rights cases comprise 11 percent of Federal cases filed, but 
more than 22 percent of the cases in which sanctions have been imposed 
for civil rights cases. H.R. 758 would restore this problem. Just 
imagine that result. There are other cases that are similar.

  The legal arguments in landmark cases where certain novel arguments 
are made that are not based on then-existing law would be affected. 
Litigation would be prolonged and may be too expensive to continue.
  Secondly, H.R. 758 will also substantially increase the amount, cost, 
and intensity of litigation. Experts in civil procedure are virtually 
unanimous on this point.
  By making sanctions mandatory and having no safe harbor, the 1983 
rule spawned a ``cottage industry'' of litigation. There were financial 
incentives to file rule 11s.
  Prior to the 1983 rule taking effect--this really gets me--there had 
been only 19 rule 11 proceedings over the course of 45 years, but in 
the decade that this rule was in effect, which 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 of the courts.
  One-third of all Federal lawsuits were burdened by these satellite 
litigations that came about because of this rule. It strips the 
judiciary of discretion, and it 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 to determine which sanctions might 
be appropriate. It circumvents the painstakingly thorough Rules 
Enabling Act process that Congress itself established 80 years ago.
  The 1993 amendments to rule 11 have been a tremendous success. That 
is what this would throw out. As documented by the Judicial Conference 
of the United States, these amendments resulted in a ``marked decline 
in rule 11 satellite litigation without any noticeable increase in 
frivolous filings.''
  H.R. 758, however, would undo this. That is why the American Bar 
Association and the Judicial Conference oppose it.
  It is also opposed by the Alliance for Justice, the Center for 
Justice & Democracy, the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers 
Union, and Public Citizen.
  This is a deeply flawed bill that addresses a nonexistent problem. We 
have this bill, and we have a bill on abortion. It seems like today's 
actions in Congress are Shakespearean, first, ``kill the lawyers,'' 
but, this time, it is ``kill the judges.'' The other one is ``kill the 
doctors.''
  Congress knows the answer. We can tell the judges what they need to 
do because they are not doing it, and we will tell the doctors what 
they need to do, and we will tell the women what they need to do. 
Unfortunately, that is what we have come down to, a bad bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the 
gentleman from Tennessee that no judges have to find a frivolous 
lawsuit to be a frivolous lawsuit. They have that discretion in every 
case.
  But once they find it to be a frivolous lawsuit, it is injustice to 
not award attorneys' fees under rule 11 to those who have been wronged 
by being the victims of a frivolous lawsuit.
  What about the burden on the court?
  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 was easily manageable by the courts.
  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

[[Page H6114]]

judge per year, one per judge per year. That is not an unreasonable 
burden on our Federal judiciary to see justice done.
  Quite frankly, if that were done more often today, we would see a lot 
fewer frivolous lawsuits to begin with and, therefore, fewer requests 
for attorneys' fees.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith), the author of the legislation, the former chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee and the current chairman of the House Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for bringing this legislation to the House 
floor.
  I appreciate all of his efforts to do so, and I appreciate his taking 
the initiative on this and on so many other issues as chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, known as LARA, is just 
over one-page long, but it would prevent the filing of hundreds of 
thousands of pages of frivolous lawsuits in Federal court.
  For example, frivolous lawsuits 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 gained weight.
  In other cases, prison inmates have sued alcohol companies, blaming 
them for a life of crime. A teacher sought damages from her school 
district based on her fear of children. A father demanded $40 million 
in compensation after his son was kicked off the track team for 
excessive absenteeism. There are many, many more examples.
  Frivolous lawsuits have simply become too common. Lawyers who bring 
these cases 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 whatsoever. 
Meanwhile, defendants are often faced with years of litigation and 
substantial attorneys' fees.
  These cases have wrongly cost innocent Americans their reputations 
and their 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 Towers Watson, 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 for the other side's legal expenses when lawyers filed 
frivolous lawsuits.
  Then the Civil Rules Advisory Committee, an obscure branch of the 
courts, made penalties optional. This needs to be reversed by Congress.

                              {time}  1545

  As Chairman Goodlatte noted, even President Obama has expressed a 
willingness to limit frivolous lawsuits. If the President is serious 
about stopping these meritless claims, he should support mandatory 
sanctions for frivolous lawsuits to avoid making frivolous promises.
  LARA requires lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits to pay the 
attorneys' fees and court costs of innocent defendants. It reverses the 
rules that made sanctions discretionary rather than mandatory.
  Further, LARA expressly provides that no claim under civil rights 
laws would be affected in any way, and I trust this will address the 
concerns expressed by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen). I would 
like to direct his attention to page 2 of the bill, lines 18 to 23, 
which explicitly protect civil rights lawsuits.
  Opponents argue that reinstating mandatory sanctions for frivolous 
lawsuits impedes judicial discretion. This is patently false. Under 
LARA, judges retain the discretion to determine whether or not a claim 
is frivolous. If a judge determines that a claim is frivolous, they 
must award sanctions. This ensures that 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 strain 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, again, 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 hard-working 
Americans from false claims to support the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.
  Now, furthermore, Mr. Speaker, similar bills to this have passed in 
the last several Congresses, and I hope this legislation will be 
approved today.
  Mr. COHEN. 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 an amendment made by this act, shall be 
construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, 
defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, including 
civil rights laws or under the Constitution of the United States.
  That is the same thing as the committee having--if they would have 
accepted the amendment that we offered to specifically exempt civil 
rights laws. That was not accepted.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COHEN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. This particular rule of construction was a 
bipartisan effort led by Bobby Scott, a former member of the Judiciary 
Committee, to avoid the problem that you are concerned about, and that 
is that this bill in any way would seem to dampen or prohibit civil 
rights legislation.
  Again, this rule of construction was put in there to address the very 
problem that the gentleman is concerned about.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, at the same time, I would submit the rule of 
construction is not the same thing as if the committee would have 
accepted the amendment offered that said specifically civil rights laws 
would not be affected by this because you could still offer a rule 11 
under this. It just says nothing in this action will be construed to 
borrow or impede the assertion.
  It doesn't borrow or impede the assertion of a new claim, but it 
doesn't say the court cannot find a rule 11 violation and then the 
mandatory imposition of costs would take place. It doesn't do what you 
are submitting, I would suggest.
  The bottom line is the court felt that this wasn't necessary. The 
court said, in all those cases he talked about that seem so absurd--I 
don't understand--and particularly as lawyer--why a lawyer would waste 
his time doing it because there is no chance of success and no chance 
of remuneration in cases like that.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Cartwright), who can explain easily and in a very facile fashion why 
those arguments are not good.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. 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 have 
represented companies, consumers, defendants, and plaintiffs in all 
sorts of civil litigation; and I have done this before and after the 
1993 changes that led to the current rule 11.
  Where I come out on it is that this really is an attack on the 
Federal judiciary. Yes, they have discretion on whether to decide 
whether there has been a rule 11 violation of in initio, but this is 
something that encourages rule 11 motion litigation.
  It encourages rule 11 motion practice, and that is why the Federal 
judges oppose it. The Judicial Conference surveyed the Federal judges 
of this Nation, and fully 87 percent of United States district judges 
prefer the current version of rule 11. After all, it already allows 
monetary sanctions for silly lawsuits.

[[Page H6115]]

  I think something of a false picture was presented a little bit 
earlier, the implication that Federal judges don't have the power to 
impose monetary sanctions. Court costs and legal fees of the so-called 
victims of frivolous lawsuits, that is in the current practice of rule 
11. They can do that now.
  If a Federal judge decides that he or she thinks that a lawsuit has 
been frivolous and dismissed, on that basis, they can fully award all 
defense costs and defense fees. As a result, this is completely 
unnecessary and superfluous legislation. It offends the Federal 
judiciary. After all, we are talking about limiting the discretion of 
Federal judges.
  Federal judges are folks that are appointed. We work very, very hard 
here on Capitol Hill in 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.
  To say that we cannot and we should not repose full discretion in our 
Federal judges is what is being said here, and I think it is a 
misguided attempt to take away the discretion of our Federal judges.
  Not only that, it leads to unnecessary litigation. Everybody in court 
who ever won a motion or threw out a case thinks that the opposition's 
position was frivolous.
  When you say 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.
  When you make it a mandatory sanction like this, you create this 
compulsion to file rule 11 motions, and 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 type of a rule that 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 am filing a rule 
11 motion.
  Guess what--rule 11 motions themselves are subject to rule 11 so that 
they could be frivolous so that the receiving end says: Well, your rule 
11 motion was frivolous, so I am filing my own rule 11 motion against 
you.
  That is something that happened.
  In fact, a United States district judge from the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, Robert S. Gawthrop, in the suburban Philadelphia area, he 
termed that ``zombie litigation.'' That is something that gets spawned 
by this type of litigation. We don't need zombie litigation in this 
country.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just ask the gentleman this: What other sorts of legal claims 
should a victim be able to prove in court--prove in court, but be 
denied damages by the judge?
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I am afraid I am not following the gentleman from 
Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. It is a simple question. What other sorts of legal 
claims should a victim be able to prove in court--because they are 
allowed to do this under 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 time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this is 
misguided legislation.
  More ominously, it disproportionately hurts the people filing 
claims--civil rights claims, consumer rights claims--and 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.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 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 am getting at is that in no other area of the law can a person 
prove to a judge that they are a victim under the standards that define 
the wrong they have suffered, 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.
  I would continue to ask: In what other area of the law can a person 
prove to the 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 merit to the case. They are not going 
to find it frivolous.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The answer is that, every time somebody with damages proves his or 
her case in front of a jury, the jury has the discretion to award 
whatever they think is proper damages. 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 is the kind of discretion a Federal judge 
should retain.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, 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 are not going to award any 
damages where the case is found to be frivolous and, in fact, damages 
have been incurred.
  Obviously, the judge has a discretion to determine what those actual 
damages are, but he doesn't have the discretion to simply say: I am not 
going to award damages, even though I found the case to be frivolous.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Farenthold), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, 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, Mr. Lamar Smith. The legal system in 
the United States needs to driven by justice, not by dollars.
  Right now, there are too many lawyers out there throwing their money 
at frivolous lawsuits to manipulate and abuse the system. No one should 
be able to abuse our system.
  It is 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 costs of attorneys' 
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, these attorneys will no longer be able to exert 
power over their victims with these suits that are not based on facts 
or in law, but are 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 one of my classes 
said something that has stuck with me for all these years about a 
lawsuit: You may be able to beat the wrap, but you can't beat the ride.

                              {time}  1600

  LARA helps with that. You are not going to be able to stop the 
emotional

[[Page H6116]]

roller coaster ride the defendant and his family, his partners, his 
employees, his friends all go through as a result of the lawsuit that 
is 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 is what we need to do.
  Frivolous lawsuits drain victims of their money and damage their 
reputations. Let's stop them before they start by putting the lawyers 
at risk for filing frivolous lawsuits.
  In many countries, there is a loser pay system. We are not proposing 
we go that far here in the United States, but we do want justice for 
those who are victims of clearly frivolous lawsuits, and this 
legislation will make sure that that happens. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), who was a distinguished barrister 
before becoming a Congressman.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, is Constitution Day. How is the House GOP 
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 
branch because they believed the judges should be able to interpret the 
law without interference. They believed that only when judges were 
shielded from the 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 a 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--or kept this version that we use 
today of this rule--20 years ago, and they remain strongly in support 
of it today. That is because today's rule, Mr. Speaker, 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' vision of an 
independent judiciary. It strips our 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 have 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.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 758.
  This is not an attack on the Federal judiciary. This is an attack on 
those unscrupulous lawyers and con artists who are bilking the American 
people out of hundreds of millions of dollars that they have had to 
earn and work hard in order 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.
  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 in California 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 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 is a frivolous lawsuit, encourages more people to have more 
lawsuits and encourages certain lawyers to go down a route where they 
are 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 that threaten all Americans, honest citizens, 
but it especially will take care of another concern that I have had, of 
course, and Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Smith have 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 deal with the 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. 758, combined with the 
actions of the FTC 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.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. 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 hard-working 
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 is defined, 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 a finding of a 
frivolous lawsuit. That just doesn't make sense, and it is not fair to 
the victims of frivolous lawsuits.
  The bill that we are voting on here stands for something very basic. 
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 has been said--and I practiced law--what is the nuisance value of 
this claim? In other words, what would you advise your client to just 
pay the other side to make a frivolous lawsuit go away because of how 
costly it is and how much time you spend worrying and preparing?
  Lawsuits can be very 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 is 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.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I just want to go back to the Judicial Conference of the 
United States and their committee on rules of practice and procedure, 
which came out against this. They were just against it totally. In a 
letter signed by Judge Jeffrey Sutton and Judge David

[[Page H6117]]

Campbell, they said it is going to cost money, going to impede justice, 
and is not necessary.
  Now, we have heard this is common sense and all these frivolous cases 
and how absurd it is and how wrong it is and how terrible it is. Well, 
the two judges that wrote this letter to Mr. Goodlatte and said that 
this was unnecessary, that we should just keep the rule we have got, 
that the rule that we are adopting was an error in 1983 to 1993, it 
cost a lot of money in frivolous litigation, satellite lawsuits, 
explosion of satellite litigation, and it just didn't work.
  Judge Sutton was appointed to the bench by President Bush after 
clerking for Justices Scalia and Powell. I would assume that if you 
were appointed by President Bush, approved by the United States Senate, 
and you clerked for Justices Scalia and Powell, you are not some kind 
of a big supporter of frivolous lawsuits in the plaintiffs' bar.
  The other gentleman is Judge Campbell from Arizona, also appointed by 
President Bush. They were pretty adamant that this was a bad idea. They 
took some surveys, and 80-some-odd percent of folks said it was a bad 
idea. The bar association said it was a bad idea. The bar association 
had a group of 200 lawyers, litigants, judges, and academics who 
participated in the 2010 conference at Duke University Law School 
convened by the advisory committee to search for ways to address the 
problem. Not one of the 200 people proposed a return to the 1983 
version. So 200 lawyers, litigants, judges, and academics met, and none 
of them suggested this type of bill.
  The Judicial Conference, headed up by two people appointed by 
President Bush, conservative judges, said this is a very bad idea. The 
bar association says it is a terrible idea. Yet we are to come here and 
think that Congress has got the best idea, better than all these 
specialists. That is one of the things that is wrong with this 
Congress. People realize that we are not respecting logic, expertise, 
and history.
  In their letter, the judges 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, the House and Senate, but they 
certainly had the House.
  In 2005, this bill came up, and they came out against it. The 
Republicans had the House and maybe the Senate, I don't know. The bill 
came up again in 2011 and 2013. So this bill has been here in 2004, 
2005, 2011, and 2013, and the Judicial Conference, the judges, the 
lawyers, and the experts almost two to one have said it is a bad idea. 
I know it is throwback Thursday, but that is no reason to bring this 
bill forward.

                              {time}  1615

  I find it hard to be against my good friends, Mr. Smith and Mr. 
Goodlatte. They are fine gentlemen. Mr. Rohrabacher was here. He is my 
buddy. But it is a bad bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank Chairman Goodlatte for yielding.
  A couple of things. First of all, we have found in the past that the 
judiciary, of course, always opposes anyone else changing these rules 
except for themselves. That is no surprise, that they object to this 
change that we propose today.
  That doesn't mean the change isn't a good one, but that is their 
history. If they didn't think of the change, they don't like it. 
Clearly, this is good for the American people because it reduces the 
number of frivolous lawsuits.
  The gentleman from Tennessee mentioned a poll a few minutes ago. I 
would like, first of all, to mention a poll that was taken when this 
rule was 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. Over half of the judges who responded had no 
experience under this 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 is just amazing to me to hear individuals try to justify these 
frivolous lawsuits. There is no effort in this bill to deny individuals 
the right to file lawsuits if they have legitimate claims.
  But to try to justify frivolous lawsuits and lawsuits that are found 
to be frivolous by judges, to me, is so contrary to 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. I think we 
ought to do everything we possibly can to reduce the number of these 
frivolous lawsuits.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I respect Mr. Smith and understand what he is saying about judges 
wanting to control their own courtrooms and control the system, but 
they have the expertise.
  The bar association is not the judges. The bar association is against 
this, too. So you have got the bar association and the Judicial 
Conference, both of which are conservative organizations, against it.
  In the study, yes, some of those folks might not have been there in 
1983 to 1993, but they still knew what the rule was and they were able 
to study and they were able to understand things.
  They weren't there when cases were filed. They didn't know the facts 
of the case. They learned. They have got minds that are capable of 
absorbing information, analyzing it, synthesizing it, and coming to 
decisions.
  You didn't have to be alive when slavery was around to know slavery 
was bad. You didn't have to be on the bench from 1983 to 1993 to know 
that rule 11 was working and that this bill which brings back that old 
rule would be a failure.
  So I think 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 talk as if there is no 
way to get rid of a frivolous lawsuit. If you bring a frivolous 
lawsuit, you are going to get a motion for summary judgment. A court 
can order that. It can find a motion to dismiss. You don't even have to 
go into discovery.
  The courts are the ones that suffer the most. You said that, sure, 
sometimes the defendants do from defending these cases, but the courts 
have to put up with it.
  The courts don't want frivolous litigation at all. They probably are 
one of the first groups that don't want frivolous litigation.
  I know some people that serve in this Congress who have been judges. 
They are outstanding men. They understand how important judges are and 
that their opinions should be revered and respected.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say that sometimes I see Mr. Rohrabacher and I think 
about the fact that we have traveled some together. One of the things I 
have learned on those travels is the thing people in foreign countries 
appreciate most about the United States of America is our justice 
system, the fact that you have got a system where you go in and get a 
case heard. That is one of the things that is best about our country.
  What this is about is taking power from judges and giving financial 
incentives. The defendants have got the heavy pockets, and it will end 
up squeezing plaintiffs from bringing actions. If they are so 
frivolous, the judges will dismiss them on summary judgments or motions 
to dismiss.
  The judges can still have sanctions and damages, but just not have 
all power taken from them. And there are other rules where they can 
have sanctions if you are just messing with discovery and violating the 
rules.
  I just think this is going to help close our courts, and that is not 
the right way to go, particularly on Constitution Day.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Tennessee, who 
is

[[Page H6118]]

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.
  Here is 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 would ``render 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 Rules 
should be solicitous of the abused (the courts and the opposing party), 
and not of the abuser. Under the revised Rule, parties will be able to 
file thoughtless, reckless, and harassing pleadings, secure in the 
knowledge that they have nothing to lose: If objection is raised, they 
can retreat without penalty.''
  So I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Tennessee 
and I agree on one of the great hallmarks of this country, and that is 
our judicial system. The hallmark of our judicial system is that, when 
you are victimized in this country, you have a place where you can go 
and seek justice.

  That is 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 are 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.
  And, yet, I challenge again the other side of the aisle and those who 
oppose this legislation to name one other sort of legal claim--just 
one--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 the people today 
should pass this legislation and give justice to victims of frivolous 
lawsuits.
  I urge my colleagues to support this great legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 758, the ``Lawsuit Abuse 
Reduction Act of 2015.''
  This bill is substantially identical to bills that we considered in 
the 112th and 113th Congresses, and we have considered even earlier 
versions of this bill going back at least a decade.
  H.R. 758, like its predecessors, is a solution in search of a problem 
that would threaten to do more harm than good if enacted.
  H.R. 758 would restore the 1983 version of Rule 11 of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure by making sanctions for Rule 11 violations 
mandatory and by eliminating the current safe-harbor provision that 
allows a party to withdraw or correct any allegedly offending 
submission to the court within 21 days after service of such 
submission.
  Moreover, the bill would go beyond the 1983 Rule by requiring a court 
to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs related to Rule 11 
litigation. Current Rule 11 makes such awards entirely discretionary.
  Yet no empirical evidence suggests any need for a change to the 
current Rule 11.
  In fact, there were good reasons why the Judicial Conference of the 
United States amended the 1983 version of Rule 11. For these same 
reasons, H.R. 758 is ill-advised.
  The 1983 Rule caused excessive litigation. Many civil cases had a 
parallel track of litigation--referred to as ``satellite litigation''--
over Rule 11 violations because having mandatory sanctions and no safe-
harbor provision caused parties on both sides of a Rule 11 motion to 
litigate the Rule 11 matter to the bitter end.
  The dramatic increase in litigation spawned by the 1983 Rule not only 
resulted in delays in resolving the underlying case and increased costs 
for the litigants, but also strained judicial resources.
  In light of this history, it is clear that H.R. 758 will result in 
more, not less, litigation and will impose a great burden on the 
federal judiciary.
  Ultimately, the type of Rule 11 sanctions regime that H.R. 758 
envisions will only favor those with the money and resources to fight 
expensive and drawn out litigation battles.
  H.R. 758 also threatens judicial independence by removing the 
discretion that Rule 11 currently gives judges in determining whether 
to impose sanctions and what type of sanctions would be most 
appropriate.
  It also circumvents the painstakingly thorough Rules Enabling Act 
process, recklessly attempting to amend the rules directly, even over 
the Judicial Conference's objections.
  Finally, we know that the 1983 Rule had a disproportionately chilling 
impact on civil rights cases, and there is no reason to think H.R. 758 
would not have a similar chilling effect if it is enacted.
  Civil rights cases in particular depend on novel arguments for the 
extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
  Not surprisingly, a Federal Judicial Center study found that the 
incidence of Rule 11 motions was higher in civil rights cases than some 
other types of cases when the 1983 Rule was in place, notwithstanding 
the fact that the 1983 Rule was neutral on its face.
  Even the decision in Brown v. Board of Education arguably may have 
been delayed or stopped had H.R. 758's changes to Rule 11 been in 
effect at the time, given the novel nature of the plaintiffs' arguments 
in that case.
  At a minimum, the defendants could have used Rule 11, as amended by 
H.R. 758, as a weapon to dissuade the plaintiffs or weaken their 
resolve.
  H.R. 758 is a flawed bill for many reasons. I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary 
Committee and a strong defender of the civil rights and liberties of 
all Americans, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 758, the ``Lawsuit 
Abuse Reduction Act of 2015,'' which can more accurately be described 
as the ``Denial of Access to Civil Justice Act.''
  This ill-considered and misguided legislation would rescind the 
current version of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 
which has been in effect since 1993, and reinstate the disastrous 1983 
version of the rule.
  I strongly oppose H.R. 758 because it hampers the ability of federal 
district courts to deter frivolous litigation--while preserving access 
to the courts--by limiting the ability of judges to exercise discretion 
in imposing sanctions for Rule 11 violations.
  Under H.R. 758, federal district judges would be required to impose 
sanctions for all violations of Rule 11, even in cases in which it 
would be manifestly inappropriate to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason the version of Rule 11(c) in effect from 
1983-1993 was rescinded is because the results of its 10-year 
experiment proved conclusively that it did not work.
  Instead of reducing frivolous litigation, mandatory imposition of 
sanction actually had the opposite effect of increasing litigation.
  Indeed, according to the American Bar Association, ``during the 
decade of that the 1983 version of the Rule requiring mandatory 
sanctions was in effect, an entire industry of litigation revolving 
around Rule 11 claims inundated the legal system and wasted valuable 
court resources and time.''
  Studies by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the 
administrative arm of the federal judiciary, found that the 1983 
version of Rule ii(c) quickly became a tool of abuse.
  Aggressive filings of Rule 11 sanctions motions required expenditure 
of tremendous resources on Rule 11 battles having nothing to do with 
the merits of the case and everything to do with strategic 
gamesmanship.
  Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 758 would undermine civil rights 
cases.
  During the decade between 1983 and 1993, mandatory sanctions under 
Rule 11 were disproportionately imposed in civil rights cases.
  A leading study on this issue showed that although civil rights cases 
made up 11.4% of federal cases filed during this period, 22.7% of the 
cases in which sanctions had been imposed were civil rights cases.
  If this bill were to be enacted, once again, as happened between 1983 
and 1993, defendants in civil rights cases could wield Rule 11 as a 
weapon against legitimate plaintiffs, tying up civil rights cases in 
long and costly satellite litigation on Rule 11 and preventing 
legitimate civil rights cases from moving forward.
  For these reasons, I urge all Members to vote against H.R. 758.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. DelBENE. I am opposed, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.

[[Page H6119]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. DelBene moves to recommit the bill H.R. 758 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

     SEC. 3. PROTECTING EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not 
     apply in the case of any action brought under employment 
     discrimination laws, including laws that ensure that women 
     receive equal pay for equal work.

  Ms. DelBENE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Washington is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to 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 women who are 
denied equal pay for equal work.
  The harmful effects of this bill are not speculative. 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 imposed against plaintiff's in civil 
rights and antidiscrimination cases. The old rule's onerous provisions 
created a chilling effect on civil rights litigation, created time-
consuming and costly satellite litigation, and gave rise to needless 
delay and 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 women 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, making it nearly impossible for workers who suffered 
discrimination to seek justice.
  Because she was prohibited from discussing her salary with coworkers, 
Lilly didn't find out she was making significantly less than her male 
counterparts until her retirement.
  The court ruled that she waited too long to file her lawsuit. 
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 percent less take-home pay than 
their male counterparts.
  That is why it is 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 is 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, save 
for retirement, and pay for their children's education. It is estimated 
that the pay gap costs 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 three named Adriana. She told me 
that, while working her way through college as a waitress, she had to 
approach her manager after discovering her less-experienced male 
colleague made more than $1 an hour than she did.
  Adriana said she felt lucky that she worked for a small, family-run 
business. Otherwise, she might have been too intimidated to ask for 
equal pay.
  She said it seemed ``criminal and ridiculous'' to pay people unfairly 
and that lawmakers should think about their wife, sister, or daughter 
and the effect this financial barrier would have on them. I agree. I 
hope everyone in this Chamber does as well.
  For women seeking justice under employment discrimination laws, the 
Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act would be a disaster.
  Women taking on huge corporations with limitless funds and armies of 
attorneys will face an uphill battle in court, at best, or may be 
completely deterred from even pursuing their day in court.
  We have come a long way in expanding opportunities for women, but 
there is no question that 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 in our communities who we were sent here 
to represent.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. 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 is 
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 
evidentiary 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 has 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 and that 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 this motion to recommit 
and support the base bill, and join me in taking a clear stance against 
frivolous lawsuits.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit 
and to support the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, ordering the 
previous question on House Resolution 421, and adopting House 
Resolution 421, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 179, 
nays 239, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 500]

                               YEAS--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra

[[Page H6120]]


     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Barr
     Carter (TX)
     Cleaver
     Dingell
     Fincher
     Gutierrez
     Johnson, Sam
     Lewis
     Olson
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sewell (AL)
     Smith (WA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Wagner
     Waters, Maxine
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1702

  Messrs. POE of Texas, PALMER, ZINKE, NUNES, WITTMAN, KELLY of 
Pennsylvania, MULLIN, and BARTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. HASTINGS, Ms. LEE, Messrs. PETERS and SCHRADER, Mses. KAPTUR 
and VELAQUEZ, and Mr. PASCRELL changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 497-500, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on 497, 498, 
499 and ``no'' on 500.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 185, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 501]

                               AYES--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--185

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings

[[Page H6121]]


     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cleaver
     Dingell
     Fincher
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (WA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Wagner
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1711

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________