Jim Ramstad

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the time, and, Mr. Chairman, as one who chaired the task force which drafted H.R. 10, the Common Sense Legal Reform Act, I rise in strong support of this legislation which derived from that initial legislation. I want to commend the respective chairmen of the Committees on the Judiciary and Commerce for ensuring that we honor our pledge to the American people to bring this legislation to the full House for a vote within the first 100 days. Chairman Hyde, Chairman Bliley, and Chairman Oxley deserve a lot of credit for their work, as well as their members. Now, I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that some Members who support tort reform are genuinely concerned about the Federalism issue; that is, whether the issue of tort reform should be left to the States. Members with this concern, I believe, should find instructive the counsel of three sources: Judge Robert Bork, State Representative Steve Flowers and last but not least, the American people. reading of the commerce clause, but he readily concludes that these reforms are well within the scope of Congress's authority under the commerce clause. I want to quote from a letter dated February 27 to the Speaker in which Judge Bork concludes that Federal intervention for this purpose is not merely constitutionally permissible. It is very important to vindicate the Framer's constitutional design. Judge Bork's basic argument is that it can no longer be disputed that abusive litigation is having a profoundly adverse impact on interstate commerce. It is, therefore, necessary for Congress to protect interstate commerce from parochial discriminatory regulation by States and localities. Also, Members should pay particular attention to State Representative Steve Flowers of Alabama. Representative Flowers once believed that tort reform should be left to the States, but not now. Why? In 1993, the Alabama State supreme court ruled that the State legislature does not have the authority to impose any cap on punitive damages and struck down the tort reform law that Representative Flowers had authored back in 1987. Even George McGovern in the Washington Post, and most Members, I am sure, agree we should cap punitive damages. Since the Alabama's supreme court's decision, Alabama's punitive damage awards have gone through the roof. Forbes magazine recently described Alabama as, ``the worst place in America in which to be a civil defendant.'' Finally, Mr. Chairman, the American people understand the need for uniformity of liability laws. In a recent survey of 1,000 adults, 84 percent--I mean, 84 percent of the people don't agree whether it is a nice day or not, what the weather is like--but 84 percent of the people agree that because State liability laws often conflict with each other and because so many lawsuits cross State lines, there should be one set of rules for the liability system instead of 50 different sets of rules. Mr. Chairman, I hope this addresses the concerns of my colleagues regarding Federalism. We must address these national problems, Mr. Chairman, with a national solution and that national solution lies in the legislation brought here tonight. And I urge its support tomorrow.

Mr. RAMSTAD. The present bill I am sure the gentleman recognizes applies to all civil actions, as it properly should.

Mr. RAMSTAD. The cap on punitive damages was in the contract.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Madam Speaker, over the last 30 years the Federal Government has only balanced its budget one time: in 1969. One balanced budget in 30 years. Madam Speaker, time and time again Congress has provided unwilling and unable to balance the budget. Time and time again, statutory scheme after statutory scheme has failed. That is why, Madam Speaker, we need the legal forces and the moral authority of a constitutional amendment. Unless we act now, the deficit is projected to be more than $200 billion each and every year through the end of the century. This year alone more than 15 cents of every dollar in the Federal budget goes to pay interest on the Federal debt of $4.8 trillion. Madam Speaker, we are spending over $235 billion this year alone to pay the interest on the debt. This insane deficit spending must stop now. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out we are headed for financial disaster unless we balance the budget now. Now, some politicians in this body are trying to scare people by playing fast and loose with the facts. They are claiming a budget amendment would require $1 trillion in budget cuts by the year 2002. What these politicians don't tell you is that the Federal Government is currently projected to increase spending each year until then on the average of 5.4 percent per year. That is a $3 trillion increase in Federal spending over the next 7 years. Only in Washington, Madam Speaker, can a smaller increase in spending be called a cut. The budget can be balanced by simply holding the spending increase to 3 percent, to an average of 3 percent per year. In other words, if we increase spending 3 percent per year until 2002, we will have a balanced budget. Or put another way, if we halted the incrase to 2 trillion instead of 3 trillion over the next 7 years, we will balance the budget. It is high time the Federal Government lived within its means the way every family in my district in Minnesota must, the way every family in America must. We simply can't keep mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's futures. We can't keep promising more than we know we can deliver. What is really mean-spirited, Madam Speaker, is to continue to promise people more than we can deliver, to promise, promise, promise to spend more than we bring in. That is why, Madam Speaker, we need the balanced budget amendment and the discipline that that provides. It is the only way to money in the taxpayers' pockets. It is also the only way to avoid an economic earthquake in America. With the unfortunate defeat of the balanced budget amendment in the other body, it is more imperative than ever that this body now exercise fiscal discipline. That is exactly what the new House majority will deliver. And, Madam Speaker, I admit it won't be easy. The President unfortunately has abdicated its responsibility, hasn't given us anything near a balanced budget. We know the American people are behind us. They understand what is at stake. They are smarter than many politicians give them credit. And working together, we will get the job done. Working together with the American people, we will balance the budget.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this Attorney Accountability Act. This is truly a historic day in the life of this body; for the first time in 40 years we have a comprehensive tort reform bill before the House. I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], and others who worked to produce this bill. With all due respect to the distinguished ranking member who brings the letter from the American Bar Association, the defenders of the status quo here, and says that we are operating with unreasonable haste by bringing this bill to the floor, Mr. Chairman, this debate has been raging in America for 40 years. Real people in the real word are finally getting heard in the People's House. They are saying enough is enough with an out-of-control legal system. Last year alone 20 million new lawsuits were filed in America. That is one lawsuit for every 10 Americans, 20 million suits in 1 year. We have been conducting this debate for 40 years. The difference is with the new Republican majority we are finally getting a bill heard and getting it to the floor, and hopefully with bipartisan support as with the other bills in the Contract With America, this bill will pass this body. The loser pays rule, more appropriately called the fairness rule, is central to the bill before us today, the Attorney Accountability Act. We are trying to restore accountability and fairness to our civil system. We must, must, discourage the filing of frivolous lawsuits and promote the settlement of a strong case. The distinguished ranking member talks about those people who are indigent, without resources, not having their day in court, and brings the letter from the American Bar Association singing the same tune. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is right in the bill, right in the bill; if the court finds that requiring the payments of such costs and expenses would be manifestly unjust, then they are waived. Then there is no requirement that the loser pays, if there is a manifestly unjust result. So that, Mr. Chairman, is a red herring. Let us get down to the nitty-gritty of this debate. Why should prevailing plaintiffs have to give up a substantial proportion of their damage awards to pay their own attorneys? Such deserving parties, people who are truly deserving of awards, are never, never fully or adequately compensated for their injuries under the present system and thus just basically wrong. Seventy years ago, Mr. Chairman, the Massachusetts Judicial Council criticized this inequity and they asked on what principal of justice can a plaintiff, wrongfully run down on a public highway, recover his doctors' bills but not his lawyers' bills, and why should defendants who are dragged into court for unwarranted claims also have to pay substantial legal fees? These defendants, Mr. Chairman, lose, even when they win, and that is wrong. For many defendants, we all know the game that is being played out there under the rule. It makes more economic sense to settle these frivolous cases than to defend themselves in a prolonged lawsuit despite full confidence in their legal position. This practice hurts all of us because it motivates the filing of more frivolous claims and we pay. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I was so pleased that the Committee on the Judiciary modified and improved the fairness rule that was contained in the original H.R. 10. I also want to thank all of those who participated in drafting this common sense legal reforms act. Mr. Chairman, I chaired the task force which drafted this bill, and so many people on our side of the aisle contributed to this effort, and I want to thank all of them for crafting this important legislation, particularly the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], who crafted the modification of the loser pays or the fairness rule. I think the most important change in the modification is the definition of who is the winner and who is the loser of a case that goes to trial. That has been clearly articulated here today. I think it is also important to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that under this bill before us today, H.R. 988, only a party that acts irresponsibly by rejecting reasonable settlement offers will have to pay the attorney's fees of the other party and, of course, H.R. 988 does more than just adopt the fairness rule. Most of the discussion here today and, in fact, in the ensuing months since H.R. 10 was drafted has centered on the loser-pays rule, but there is much more to the bill before us today. The second major provision, the honesty-in-evidence provision, will ensure that we keep junk science out of the courtroom, too many so- called experts peddling their biased testimony for contingency fees. Mr. Chairman, all we are doing with this provision, this honesty-in- evidence provision, is codifying the Daubert reliable foundation and that it be relevant to the task at hand. This bill, Mr. Chairman, prevents experts from being paid a contingency fee so as to remove incentives for their biased testimony. If we want losing parties to accept verdicts that go against them, we must make sure that trials are fair. The honesty-in-evidence provisions will ensure just that, fairness. The bill before us, H.R. 988, the Attorney Accountability Act, restores the pre-1993 version of rule 11 as has been mentioned here today of the civil procedure rules. Mr. Chairman, this rule can be one of the most effective means of curbing lawyer misconduct if we give it back its teeth. Now, I am still amazed as a lawyer formerly in practice myself that the rule was weakened in 1993 when the rule had the support of a strong majority of Federal judges who were surveyed by the Federal Judicial Center. In fact, Mr. Chairman, at that time, with respect to rule 11, 95 percent of the judges said the old rule did not impede development of law. Seventy-two percent of the judges said the benefits of rule 11 far outweighed the expenditure of their time. Eighty-one percent of the Federal judges said that the overall effect of rule 11 had a very positive impact on litigation in the Federal courts. And most telling, over 80 percent of the judges said we should retain the original rule 11. That is what we are trying to do here today is to restore that form of rule 11. H.R. 988, the bill before us today, will reestablish the system of mandatory as opposed to discretionary sanctions which is very, very important in restoring accountability on the part of lawyers in our system. Also, Mr. Chairman, the bill mandates the use of attorney's fees as part of this sanction. Third, it puts a larger emphasis on the rule's compensatory function by clarifying the sanctions should be sufficient to deter repetition and to compensate the parties that were injured. Finally, it eliminates a safe-harbor provision of the current rule 11(c) which permits a lawyer to withdraw a challenged pleading without penalty prior to an award of sanctions. Clearly, clearly the rule should be solicitous of the abused, not of the abuser. Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that this bill would return to the pre-1993 practice of having rule 11 apply to discovery. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, when you look at the various elements of the Attorney Accountability Act, I predict we are going to again have a large bipartisan vote in favor of this important reform legislation. Why? Because this legislation finally, finally gives us real tort reform, finally brings us concrete steps to restore accountability, efficiency, and fairness to our Federal civil justice system. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge strong support of the Attorney Accountability Act of 1995. Let us have this real tort reform which is so long overdue.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the McDermott amendment and in strong support of H.R. 831. This measure restores the extremely important 25-percent deduction for health insurance costs for self-employed. Mr. Chairman, it is grossly unfair that farmers, small business owners, and other self-employed Americans can't fully deduct health care expenses like other businesses. Hundreds of thousands of self-employed Americans across the country are already preparing their 1994 tax forms. They need relief now. This measure also rectifies a problem in the current tax code that has given a Federal agency unprecedented authority to craft tax policy. That is why it is important to vote against the McDermott amendment, which fails to adequately close the section 1071 loophole, which costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Let us move quickly to pass the legislation and restore certainty and fairness to the lives of America's self-employed I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 831.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 607. The Speaker pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the city of Bloomington as it kicks off its seventh annual ``Bloomington Loves Its Kids'' month on January 31. This month-long celebration, which fosters community and family development, is a way of rewarding and honoring contributions to the community, both individually and through civic organizations. The emphasis will be on celebrating youths who contribute to the community and the way organizations can make a difference for our youth. The celebration will feature entertaining and informative exhibits from over 50 community groups. There will be performances from dance companies, theater groups, bands and orchestras. Businesses will be sponsoring activities such as a coloring contest, a treasure hunt, and a celebration of outstanding students. By creating a community event which provides entertainment and enrichment for its citizens, from toddlers through seniors, the city of Bloomington, MN, has provided a model for American community enhancement. This is a terrific example of the type of program from which everyone benefits. By uniting the entire civic and business community around celebrating children, future generations will be well served. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the city of Bloomington for making the concerted and successful effort to enhance its community and the lives of its citizens. I am proud to announce February as Bloomington Loves Its Kids month.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, what a long way we have come in dealing straight with the American people. Less than 17 months ago, this body cast aside basic fairness and imposed unprecedented retroactive tax increases. American taxpayers were aghast to learn that the tax increases were made effective to a date before President Clinton had even assumed office! Today, we are restoring credibility with the American people. If this proposed rule is adopted, it will be against the rules of the House to consider any legislation that contains a retroactive tax increase. In the last Congress, I authored House Resolution 2147 to incorporate this ``taxpayer-protection'' provision in our House rules. All told, 165 of our colleagues either cosponsored that resolution or signed Discharge Petition No. 11. Today, thanks in no small part to Chairman Solomon, we are finally getting our chance to adopt this rule change. Mr. Speaker, last summer, while not speaking on the wisdom of retroactive taxes, the Supreme Court gave Congress a green light to raise taxes in this patently unfair manner, putting all tax-paying Americans at risk of having their own fiscal houses thrown in disorder. It is not only appropriate--but absolutely necessary in light of the Court's ruling--that the House take this action to stop retroactive taxes. I urge all of my colleagues, in a bipartisan way to vote for this important reform. The American taxpayers deserve nothing less.