Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the chairman of the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee and the author of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Millions of people have viewed videos of representatives of the organization Planned Parenthood, which performs some 40 percent of all abortions each year. Those videos, recorded undercover, include discussions of instances in which during the course of an attempted abortion a baby is born ``intact.'' As one doctor caught on tape said: ``Sometimes . . . if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then they''--the babies--``are intact. But that's not what we go for.'' Another business executive said: ``If you had intact cases, which we've done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety.'' A procurement manager says on a video: ``I literally have had women come in and they'll go in the OR''--the operating room--``and they're back out in 3 minutes, and I'm going, `What's going on?' `Oh, yeah. The fetus was already in the vaginal canal whenever we put her in the stirrups. It just fell out.' '' A former employee of the same company told investigators that she was shown the results of one abortion by a doctor, and she recalls: ``This is the most gestated fetus and the closest thing to a baby I've seen . . . and she''--the doctor--``taps the heart and it starts beating . . . The nodes were still firing and I don't know if that means it's technically dead or it's alive. It had a face. It wasn't completely torn up. Its nose was very pronounced. It had eyelids . . . Since the fetus was so intact, she said, `Ok. Well, this is a really good fetus and it looks like we can procure a lot from it. We're going to procure a brain . . . That means we're going to have to cut the head open.' She takes a scissors and she makes a small incision right here''--at the chin--``and goes, I would say, maybe a little bit through the mouth, and she's like, `Ok. Can you go the rest of the way?'. . . And so she gave me the scissors and told me that I have to cut down the middle of the face. And I can't even describe what that feels like.'' The House Judiciary Committee, which I chair, is undergoing a comprehensive investigation of the issues raised by these videos. But as that and other investigations continue, Congress must move immediately to protect any children born alive during the course of a failed abortion. The bill before us today is simple, yet profound, insofar as it might be a reflection of the Nation's conscience. Its operative provisions provide that, in the case of an abortion that results in a child's being born alive, any healthcare practitioner present must exercise the same degree of professional care to preserve the life of the child as he or she would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age. The bill also provides that the child must be immediately transported and admitted to a hospital. If a baby born alive is left to die, the penalty can be up to 5 years in jail. If the child is cut open for its body parts or some other overt act is taken, the punishment is that for first degree murder, which can include life in prison or the death penalty. Babies are born alive during failed abortions. Just last week, the committee heard direct testimony by two grown women who, as babies, survived attempted abortions. The mother of one of them, Gianna Jessen, was advised by Planned Parenthood to have an abortion. But, as Ms. Jessen testified, ``Instead of dying, after 18 hours of being burned in my mother's womb, I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles.'' Her medical records state clearly that she was ``born alive'' during an abortion. She continued: ``Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving me there to die. Instead, a nurse called an ambulance, and I was rushed to a hospital. Doctors did not expect me to live. I did. I was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, which was caused by a lack of oxygen to my brain while surviving the abortion. I was never supposed to hold my head up or walk. I do. And cerebral palsy is a great gift to me.'' Just think of that for a moment. Ms. Jessen says cerebral palsy is a gift to her because it came with the gift of life. Ms. Jessen presented a picture at the hearing, showing the results of the sort of abortion she survived. Today, I ask the Nation to see in its collective mind the body of a baby, much like this one, on the floor, born alive during a failed abortion. I ask that we collectively reach down into our hearts and, also, reach down to the floor. As we vote today, I ask that we, as a nation, grasp the value of life and, also, grasp that baby's back, lift its tiny body off the ground, and take it to a hospital--and not leave her with the abortionist. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 3504, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a champion of this cause.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?

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.

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 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. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).

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.

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. 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.'' 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. 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. 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 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. GOODLATTE. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

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. 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. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, for 25 years, Blue Ridge Christian School in Bridgewater, Virginia, has provided a high quality, value-based Christian education to students. I am proud to represent an excellent institution of learning like Blue Ridge Christian School in the U.S. House of Representatives. As their programs have expanded in size and scope, diversity in both denominations and heritage has also grown. Staying true to the principles of their founding families, Blue Ridge Christian School has continuously maintained a strong commitment to academic excellence. Today, the school is preparing to expand their mission by constructing a new campus. At the same time they will create a new relationship with another Christian institution of learning in the Sixth Congressional District, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. This new partnership will be beneficial to the students and further expand the opportunities available through Blue Ridge Christian School. I commend Blue Ridge Christian School as it marks its silver anniversary with an ambitious plan for growth that remains true to its Christian mission. I am hopeful that its next 25 years will be filled with fine opportunities for its students to make their mark on their hometowns, our nation, and the world beyond our borders. Go Bears!

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Royce for his outstanding leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers included in the preamble of the United States Constitution the intention of our government to provide for the common defense. Protecting and defending our Nation was not an afterthought; it was a first thought. The defense of America and our allies has always been a strategic and moral goal. The agreement we have before us today, however, primarily meets Iran's goals. Sanctions are lifted; nuclear research and development continues, and America's safety is compromised. Under this deal, in a matter of years--likely in our lifetimes, but certainly in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren--Iran will have a bomb. The President of the United States has said that this agreement is not based on trust, but on verification. I wish that was true because this agreement shouldn't be based on trust. I certainly do not trust a government that has acted as a bank for terrorists. Any agreement should be based on verification; but where is the simple assurance of anytime, anywhere inspections? We don't have verification. What we have is misplaced hope, hope that Iran has disclosed all of its past nuclear activities, hope that Iran will be transparent, hope that Iran has somehow changed. Earlier this year, 367 bipartisan Members of Congress sent a letter to the President outlining several conditions that any final nuclear agreement must address. Unfortunately, the agreement we have before us does not meet congressional standards and has numerous fatal flaws. For example, in 2012, Congress barred Iranians from coming here to study nuclear science and nuclear engineering at U.S. universities. One would think that is a good policy, given that they are seeking to get a bomb. In one of the most outrageous provisions of this deal, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State will no longer be allowed to enforce the bar. This deal will actually make the U.S. an accomplice to Iran's nuclear weapons program by granting Iranians the ability to come to the U.S. to acquire knowledge instrumental in their being able to design and build nuclear bombs. Other concerns include giving Iran a signing bonus, lifting the arms embargo, failure to cut off Iran's pathway to the bomb, and the lack of protection for not only our own safety, but for the safety of the world. A nuclear Iran is a threat to our great ally, Israel, but is also a threat to the rest of the Middle East, America, and the world. While the administration has said that any deal is better than no deal, Thomas Jefferson once said, ``Delay is preferable to error,'' and I agree with Jefferson. Had our negotiators remained at the table a while longer, perhaps we would not be where we are today; yet, as it stands, this so-called deal, if it goes through, will likely mark the pages of history as a great error.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.