[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 41 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1962-H1967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 720, LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT OF 
 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 985, FAIRNESS IN CLASS 
                     ACTION LITIGATION ACT OF 2017

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 180 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 180

       Resolved, That at any time after 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. 720) 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 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 chair 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. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to 
     the bill shall be in order except those printed in part A of 
     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

[[Page H1963]]

     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. 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.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after 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. 
     985) to amend the procedures used in Federal court class 
     actions and multidistrict litigation proceedings to assure 
     fairer, more efficient outcomes for claimants and defendants, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of 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 chair 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 an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 115-5. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B 
     of 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. 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 is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), 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.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 180, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward 
this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for 
consideration of H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, and H.R. 
985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each bill, equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The 
rule also provides for a motion to recommit for both pieces of 
underlying legislation.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from 
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Congressman Steve Cohen 
on behalf of the Judiciary Committee, as well as Subcommittee on 
Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Ranking Member Hank 
Johnson.
  The Rules Committee made in order 12 amendments total--four 
amendments to H.R. 720 and eight amendments to H.R. 985, representing 
ideas from both sides of the aisle.
  I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and the Judiciary Committee staff 
for their work on both pieces of legislation. I am a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, and we had the opportunity to consider both pieces 
of legislation and enjoyed lively discussion at the markup for both 
bills.
  Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, we have worked tirelessly in this 
House to pass litigation reforms that would promote access to the 
courts for all Americans and ensure that the cost of litigation isn't 
used as a tool to force settlements.
  We have also talked about how to restore reason and remove burdens on 
hardworking Americans. These bills help us achieve those goals.
  Both bills have enjoyed thorough discussion at both the committee 
level and on the floor, both in this Congress and in previous 
Congresses.
  H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, was introduced by my 
friend from Texas, Congressman Lamar Smith. Similar legislation to H.R. 
720 has passed the House before, and I look forward to its 
consideration again.
  This legislation provides a balanced solution to frivolous lawsuits, 
based on the simple principle that if an attorney files a baseless 
lawsuit that has no grounding in fact or law, the attorney should have 
to compensate the victim of their legal action.
  This legislation does not change the standard for rule 11 sanctions; 
it simply gives this important rule some teeth by making sanctions 
mandatory instead of discretionary.
  Opponents will argue that this bill will stifle robust examinations 
of existing law by discouraging otherwise meritorious lawsuits.
  To be certain, LARA does not change in any way the existing standards 
for determining what is and what is not a frivolous lawsuit, as 
determined under rule 11. In fact, LARA expressly provides that 
``nothing in'' the changes made to rule 11 ``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.''
  H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, was introduced 
by Chairman Goodlatte. This legislation now also includes the 
Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency, or FACT, Act, authored by 
Congressman Farenthold from Texas.
  H.R. 985 provides a targeted solution to a unique problem. At its 
core, the bill addresses whether the injury suffered by named 
plaintiffs in a class action suit accurately reflects injuries suffered 
by the class.
  Let me be clear, again, this bill does not kill the class action. 
Opponents would have you believe that it does, but these claims have 
become a knee-jerk reaction to attempts to address clear abuses in the 
legal system.
  We want to make the system work for victims of these abuses and of 
other injustices. We want to make it more difficult for anyone to take 
advantage of the courts and make legal recourse more accessible for 
those who genuinely deserve relief.
  As a case in point, when Congress passed the Class Action Fairness 
Act, CAFA, in 2005, opponents claimed that its passage would mean the 
end of class action suits. Actually, it had two targeted goals: to 
reduce abusive forum-shopping by plaintiffs and, in certain 
circumstances, to require greater Federal scrutiny procedures 
throughout the review of class action settlements.
  For example, you may remember an infamous Alabama class action 
involving Bank of Boston in which the attorneys' fees exceeded the 
relief to the class members. As a result, class members lost money 
paying attorneys for their legal victory.
  Twelve years ago, opponents of CAFA made virtually identical 
arguments against that reform that they are making against H.R. 985 
today. These objections are unsupported by history.
  In fact, researchers at the Federal Judicial Center conducted a study 
on the impact of CAFA and concluded that--postenactment--there was an 
increase in the number of class actions filed in or removed to the 
Federal courts based on diversity jurisdiction, consistent with the 
congressional intent behind that law.
  We see that necessary reforms have resulted in a class action option 
that is alive and well, representing an important part of our legal 
system. And it

[[Page H1964]]

will remain that way. Claims to the contrary, Mr. Speaker, are just 
simply inaccurate.
  H.R. 985 is a targeted solution that says a Federal court may not 
certify a proposed class unless the party seeking the class action 
demonstrates through admissible evidentiary proof that each proposed 
class member suffered an injury of the same type and extent as the 
injury of the named class representative or representatives.
  This requirement also exists in rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure. Unfortunately, not all courts appropriately interpret or 
apply these standards.

                              {time}  1245

  To claim that this bill, which codifies existing standards, would 
kill class action suits is just simply not supported by facts.
  Class actions exist for a reason, a reason vindicated both by 
compassion and by wisdom. The class action option exists to allow a 
group of individuals who have been similarly harmed to join together to 
seek appropriate compensation for their injuries.
  In today's world, we see abuse after abuse of that legitimate 
purpose. As a result, we have seen the rise of a class of people who 
may bear legitimate injuries, but we also see countless others who have 
suffered no injury at all yet are vying for class action spoils to 
which they have no right. The no-injury class actions are designed to 
exploit companies to achieve a quick payday through accusations that 
are not grounded in genuine injuries.
  Class actions should be preserved as a tool for those who are harmed 
to plead their case and receive just compensation. H.R. 985 will allow 
courts to focus their resources on cases in which the people have 
actually suffered injuries. This helps ensure that we hold responsible 
parties accountable for their actions.
  As I mentioned, H.R. 985 also includes the Furthering Asbestos Claims 
Transparency, or FACT, Act. The FACT Act is designed to reduce fraud 
and compensation claims for asbestos-related diseases. This is a 
critical step to preserving resources for true victims because, 
unfortunately, double-dipping has become too common in asbestos claims.
  For every dollar awarded to fraudulent claims, there is $1 less 
available to true victims who are facing mesothelioma or other 
asbestos-related illnesses. These victims are often those to whom our 
country owes its greatest debt: our veterans. Veterans currently 
comprise 9 percent of the population, yet they make up approximately 30 
percent of the asbestos victims. Veterans are uniquely positioned to 
benefit from the increased transparency that this bill offers.
  Despite the positive impact that increased transparency can have for 
veterans, detractors claim that the legislation will negatively impact 
the privacy rights of claimants. Allow me to be clear, Mr. Speaker: 
this is not true. The bill actually requires far less personal 
information from claimants than State courts currently require in their 
disclosure documents.
  This legislation will reduce fraud in the asbestos trust system to 
safeguard assets in order to compensate future asbestos victims, 
veterans or otherwise.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 985 and H.R. 720 will establish meaningful reforms 
to our litigation system. I believe the United States is the greatest 
country in the world, and our justice system is designed to be free and 
fair, yet we have seen our justice system abused by people who seek ill 
gain at the expense of actual victims. These bills that today's rule 
provides for help us to right that wrong. They may not be perfect, but 
they recognize existing flaws in the system and strive to fix those 
flaws to better serve the American public.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank my colleague and friend from Georgia for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, with this package of bills, the majority is taking a 
sledgehammer to civil litigation. I know that my colleague and I are 
not going to agree with that because I listened intently to what he had 
to say. But it is closing courthouse doors to ordinary people who are 
injured in the workplace and makes it harder for working people wronged 
by the rich and powerful to seek justice.
  First, H.R. 985 is really a solution in search of a problem. It uses 
the false notion of rampant fraud in the legal system to shield 
corporate wrongdoers and deny their victims relief.
  Second, H.R. 906 has the potential to further victimize asbestos 
victims.
  Third, H.R. 720 would roll back significant improvements to the Rules 
of Civil Procedure and repeat a failed experiment that led to a decade 
of problems in the courts. By requiring mandatory sanctions that tie 
judges' hands, we saw an avalanche of unnecessary litigation.
  The majority is wasting time and taxpayer money to make changes that 
evidence and the experts tell us are not necessary and could actually 
cause more harm than good. It doesn't make sense.
  But consider, Mr. Speaker, how the majority conducted itself on 
health care for a decade now. Almost immediately after President Obama 
signed the Affordable Care Act into law, 13 Republican State attorneys 
general filed a Federal lawsuit opposing health reform. That was back 
in 2010. Since that time, the majority has voted over and over again--
more than 60 times--to undermine the ACA.
  CBS News has highlighted that it costs the taxpayers an estimated $24 
million a week to run the House of Representatives. Think how many 
millions of dollars of legislative time the majority wasted on these 
votes that never had any chance of becoming law under the previous 
President. They wasted taxpayers' dollars and they wasted precious 
time. The majority spoke again and again about repeal and replace, and 
all the while, they didn't have a thing in the world to replace the 
health care with.
  Former Speaker John Boehner recently made that clear, and it wasn't 
until this week that the majority finally let Members of Congress and 
the American people see their latest effort--and it would be a 
catastrophe for families across the country. More and more groups and 
individuals are lining up against it.
  People would be forced to pay more for worse coverage if they could 
afford any coverage at all. The bill would also defund Planned 
Parenthood, which more than 2.5 million people, men and women, rely on 
for lifesaving preventive care, like cancer screenings and STI testing, 
every single year.
  It is truly astonishing that the majority is trying to rush through 
this bill without a Congressional Budget Office estimate about how much 
it would cost or what impact it would have on the insurance market.
  Let me quote from a Washington Post story this morning written by the 
great Karen Tumulty:

       While it is not uncommon for panels to consider legislation 
     without the Congressional Budget Office first weighing in, 
     veterans of the process say that doing so on bills as far-
     reaching as the healthcare overhaul is rare and ill-advised.

  We don't have any idea how many people would gain or lose coverage 
without the CBO estimate, but we do know that this bill would take us 
back to the days before the Affordable Care Act when American people 
were on their own to try and get health care without any real 
safeguards in place at all; when families were liable to go bankrupt 
from heavy healthcare costs in a year's time, and the ACA protects them 
from that by saying that once an insured person has spent $4,500 a year 
on health care, the insurance company will pay the rest, and for a 
family, $12,500 to insure them. That is something so rarely talked 
about that is in this bill that I think is of vast importance, and we 
would lose that.
  Billionaires would get a tax break, but working families probably 
couldn't afford health care.
  We are rushing through this healthcare bill without a proper 
understanding of its cost or its impacts. The majority completely 
skipped the hearing process and, therefore, hasn't heard from experts 
or doctors or people battling an illness--except, I guess, what is 
going on torturing people over in the Energy and Commerce Committee 
where they have been there since, what, over 24 hours now.
  So we were encouraged yesterday when we learned at the Rules 
Committee that White House Secretary

[[Page H1965]]

Sean Spicer had said at a briefing yesterday:

       Every Member of the House and the Senate will be able to 
     have their opportunity to have amendments offered through the 
     committee process and on the floor.

  It looks like we are not going to have that opportunity. And I do not 
have enthusiasm for the notion that we will have an open rule since, 
under this Speaker we have not had any, and the Democrats long to be 
able to offer some amendments to this bill. I certainly hope that that 
might be the case.
  Now, the only way that happens is through the open rule. As I said, 
we haven't seen one of those in Speaker Ryan's leadership. I hope the 
majority follows through with the White House's promise of an open rule 
because, more than anything on this, the American people deserve an 
open and transparent process as this bill moves forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Sometimes it is often said that we discuss the issues that come to 
the floor, and there are real debates taking place across the street 
right now dealing with our discussions around health care. But I want 
to go back to actually the bills that we are dealing with in the rule 
and discuss the part of where do sometimes these issues come from, 
especially when we are discussing things like H.R. 985 and class act 
litigation.
  This came, actually, from outside the walls here and outside into the 
real world where this is being practiced. One of the things that is 
happening is that Federal judges have been looking to Congress to 
reform the class action system which currently allows lawyers to fill 
classes with hundreds of thousands of unmeritorious claims and use the 
artificially inflated classes to force defendants to settle the case.
  As the Supreme Court has recognized, ``even a small chance of a 
devastating loss'' inherent in most decisions to certify a class 
produces an ``in terrorem'' interim effect that often forces settlement 
independent of merits of the case.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that fear because what we are dealing with 
many times in these class actions--and I know the Speaker and others 
are aware--is the definition of the class that really depends on the 
case itself, not as much of the merits of the case because of the 
potential of a devastating loss. So the actual class certification 
becomes something that is the main driver in these cases.
  Notice what Ruth Bader Ginsberg said about this. She recognized this 
when she said: ``A court's decision to certify a class . . . places 
pressure on the defendant to settle even unmeritorious claims.'' That 
is pretty powerful from a Supreme Court Justice talking about these 
issues.
  Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit Court of appeals, appointed 
by President Clinton back in the day, has explained that class 
certification ``is, in effect, the whole case.''
  Then-Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit Richard Posner explained that 
certification of a class action, even one lacking merit, forces 
defendants ``to stake their companies on the outcome of a single jury 
trial, or be forced by fear of the risk of bankruptcy to settle even if 
they have no legal liability.''
  Mr. Speaker, listen to what these judges are saying. They are saying, 
number one, that the class certification is the most important thing 
because it depends on the outcomes and forces settlements. Notice what 
was said here by Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg, ``unmeritorious 
claims.'' Judge Diane Wood, Seventh Circuit, talked about it being 
``the whole case.'' Judge Posner says that, in actuality, they are 
forced to settle ``even if they have no legal liability.''
  In another Seventh Circuit Court decision, the court wrote: ``One 
possible solution to this problem is requiring judges to do some 
threshold level of review of the merits of a class action before 
allowing certification, that is, approval of a class . . . It is cases 
like the one before us that demonstrate precisely why the courts, and 
Congress, ought to be on the lookout for ways to correct class action 
abuses. Given the complexity of our legal system, it is impossible to 
develop perfect standards for identifying and quickly disposing 
of frivolous claims. Inevitably this court and other courts will be 
faced with the cases that waste the time and money of everybody. Beyond 
addressing the legal claims before us as we would in any ordinary case, 
we must frankly identify situations where we suspect the lawyers, 
rather than the claimants, are the only potential beneficiaries.''

  Again, not coming in a vacuum, it is coming from the courts who see 
this on a regular basis, from Judge Ginsberg on down, saying: This is 
the whole deal. This is why we do these things.
  Mr. Speaker, this is something that does need to be taken up. It is 
something that we are proud to bring to the floor. In doing so, I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule that would require a CBO cost estimate to be made publicly 
available for any legislation that amends or repeals the Affordable 
Care Act which may be considered in the Energy and Commerce or Ways and 
Means Committees or on the House floor.
  The Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce are marking 
up repeal legislation today. Legislation this significant should not 
advance through the committee process, let alone the House, without 
first hearing from our nonpartisan budget experts at CBO on what the 
cost and overall impact would be.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the most enduring symbols of fairness is Lady 
Justice, who is depicted holding the Scales of Justice that represent 
fairness in our courts. That central idea is embodied in the fact that 
justice in the United States of America is supposed to be delivered 
fairly, without any bias toward wealth or privilege.
  It is no secret that sometimes we do struggle to live up to that 
ideal. We have seen evidence of that far too often recently. But, Mr. 
Speaker, this Chamber shouldn't be actively working to tilt those 
scales toward the rich and the powerful, but that is what this 
legislation would do. Considering these bills wastes their money and 
fritters away the time we should be spending addressing our crumbling 
infrastructure and the skyrocketing cost of education.
  And, Mr. Speaker, today we got from the American Society of Civil 
Engineers the new grades on our infrastructure. This year we get a D 
minus, and we should certainly do better than that.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what we are hearing today--and I think what we 
are going through in the process--is issues of real change, issues of 
discussions that have been going on in our country for really now 
almost 8 years. It has been 7 years since the Affordable Care Act, 
ObamaCare, was passed.
  We are seeing the changes that have taken place, Mr. Speaker, from 
your time here and my time here on really dealing with the American 
people and dealing with the substances of what their concerns and fears 
are. The things that I have come before this body and debated many 
times were what does the view look like from outside of this Chamber.
  Inside this Chamber, we have raucous debates. We have discussions on 
things. And at the end of the day, I believe sometimes, Mr. Speaker, 
those sitting at home say: Does anybody listen to me? Does anybody hear 
my call?
  Over the past few years, we have seen through election results and we 
have seen through times of change here in this body that the Affordable 
Care Act is nothing like affordable. In fact, as many have described 
it, it has been in a death spiral. We are beginning to work on that.

[[Page H1966]]

  Now, I understand how that can make the other side, the ones who gave 
us the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, not want to see that changed. I 
can appreciate that.
  Reality must set in at some point, and reality says that to defend 
something that is failing is asking for a status quo that hurts people. 
Now, I believe my friends across the aisle don't want to do that, but 
that is what they are doing, holding onto a legacy that is only a 
legacy for many of heartbreak and problems.
  Did it help in some ways? Are we finding some? Did we address issues 
over the past few years and begin the discussion of preexisting 
conditions, keeping our children on until 26, and removing caps? Those 
were all discussed and could have been handled in many different ways 
besides the government takeover of health care.
  Instead, we chose to use an ideological position to begin the process 
of moving forward, and moving forward in which government will put its 
fingers on the scale and government will begin to say what is right and 
what is wrong. What we found in the whole process was our individual 
mark is destroyed.
  I have had some of my colleagues actually say: Let's just start over 
and go back to the way it was. That would be nice, except that land 
doesn't exist anymore.
  Even if you wanted to--and I don't think we need to--we need to move 
forward with free-market solutions that put access to affordable health 
care for all Americans on the table, so that we can actually bend the 
cost curve so that we can actually work to help people. That is what we 
are working on. We are going to continue to work on making a smooth 
transition from the disaster that many of us have seen over the past 
few years. When we do that, change will come, and change is hard.
  My folks back home are looking for change that helps, by Brittany 
Ivey, who joined me here for the joint session just a few weeks ago, 
who had employer-based health coverage with her family taken. She had 
to make choices about healthcare coverage and staying home. These 
choices make families' decisions harder because they would rather make 
the decision to stay with family, but are having to work because health 
care became unaffordable. It is these kind of choices that we are 
laying out for the American people to listen and to say: What do we 
need to do and how do we need to go forward?
  So when we look ahead, we take issues of health care seriously. The 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is a friend. She states her 
position eloquently. It is always good to be on the floor with her. We 
disagree, and this is the place for this disagreement. This is a time 
in which we share; this is a time in which we come together. And what 
the Republican majority will do, Mr. Speaker, is keep its promises.
  Now, I have had a moment of sharing what we are doing in health care, 
but also let's get back to why we are here, for the rule. The rule 
deals with abuses in the system; it deals with fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing reforms to our litigation system 
that increase fairness, balance, and transparency. These principles are 
part of our larger goals as House Republicans to create a system that 
works better for the American people and restores accountability to the 
system.
  We agree that there are legitimate lawsuits and legitimate class 
action suits. No one is arguing against that. In fact, I firmly believe 
that Americans should have access to a robust legal system that 
protects them.
  We encounter a problem, however, when frivolous lawsuits are lobbed 
against small businesses and employers in attempts to profit without 
warrant and at the expense of jobs.
  The bills provided for by the underlying rule help us address this 
challenge and to ensure that the litigation system functions as 
intended, rather than being manipulated to improperly target 
individuals or entities for profit.
  The rule itself provides for robust debate on the legislation and 
amendments from both sides of the aisle.
  I would encourage my colleagues to look favorably on these bills as a 
step toward reining in unnecessary and burdensome litigation and making 
the legal system work better to address true grievances and harms.
  Mr. Speaker, that last statement probably sums up what we need to be 
about here. Let's look at the truth. Let's help people. Let's remember 
why we are here and, that is, those who sent us.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 180 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3. In rule XXI add the following new clause:
       13. (a) It shall not be in order to consider a measure or 
     matter proposing to repeal or amend the Patient Protection 
     and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and the Health Care and 
     Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (PL 111-
     152), or part thereof, in the House, in the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union, or in the Committees 
     on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, unless an easily 
     searchable electronic estimate and comparison prepared by the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office is made available 
     on a publicly available website of the House.
       (b) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order 
     that waives the application of paragraph (a).
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

[[Page H1967]]

  

                          ____________________