Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side? And I would like to know if the other side, the minority, has any more speakers.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a former member of the Science Committee, who is still missed, a former chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, and the author of a very similar bill to this in a previous Congress.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, costly environmental regulations should only be based upon data that is available to independent scientists and the public and that can be verified. H.R. 1430, the HONEST Act, gives independent scientists an opportunity to validate the studies the EPA uses to make new regulations. What this bill does not do is roll back the laws that protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. It simply requires the EPA to base regulations on science that is publicly available. This is a nonpartisan bill. A change in administration does not change the need or justification for it. This is the same bill, virtually, introduced in the last administration, and that is evidenced by my introduction of this good-government legislation with my Democratic colleague Henry Cuellar. That shows it is a good, bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and promote a more open and honest Federal Government. We should not be afraid of letting the American people see the data that the EPA or other agencies say justifies their regulations. So let's vote for an open and honest government and support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, known as LARA, is just over one-page long, but it would prevent the filing of thousands of frivolous lawsuits in Federal courts. These absurd lawsuits cost many innocent families their savings and often ruin their reputations. Frivolous lawsuits have been filed against a weather channel for failing to accurately predict storms, against television shows people claimed were too scary, against a university that awarded a low grade, and against a high school that dropped a member from the track team. Lawyers who bring these cases have everything to gain and nothing to lose under current rules, which allow plaintiffs' lawyers to file frivolous suits without any penalty. Meanwhile, defendants are often faced with years of litigation and substantial attorneys' fees. Prior to 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. LARA requires lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits to pay attorneys' fees and court costs of innocent defendants. This will serve as a disincentive to file junk lawsuits. Further, LARA specifically requires that no changes ``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.'' So civil rights law would not be affected in any way by LARA, and that might go a long way to reassuring the ranking member's concerns about its impact on civil rights. Opponents argue that reinstating mandatory sanctions for frivolous lawsuits impedes judicial discretion, but this is 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, then they must award sanctions. This ensures that victims of frivolous lawsuits obtain compensation. But the decision to determine whether a claim is frivolous or not remains with the judge. The American people are looking for solutions to obvious lawsuit abuse. LARA restores accountability to our legal system by reinstating sanctions for attorneys who are found by a judge to have filed frivolous lawsuits. Though it will not stop all lawsuit abuse, LARA encourages attorneys to think twice before making an innocent party's life miserable. These attorneys engage in legalized extortion and try to force individuals to settle out of court instead of paying huge legal costs. There is currently no disincentive to deter attorneys from filing frivolous claims. By requiring attorneys who file junk lawsuits to pay the court costs of those they sue, such lawsuits will be discouraged. I thank Chairman Goodlatte, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for bringing this much-needed legislation to the House floor. I ask my colleagues who oppose frivolous lawsuits and who want to protect innocent Americans from false charges to support the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Judicial Conference, by its own admission, objects to any amendments to the Federal rules it doesn't propose itself, but Congress has the constitutional authority and responsibility to establish and amend the Federal rules. It also has the duty to address problems with the judicial system that fall within its enumerated powers. Reducing frivolous lawsuits and ensuring that those who face meritless filings are able to receive compensation for losses caused by frivolous claims is a significant improvement to our justice system. Also, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues, does a bill that grants the victims of corporate fraud the right to damages create satellite litigation? Of course it doesn't. What it does is create a means of guaranteed compensation for a wrong suffered. This bill does just that. It creates a means of guaranteed compensation for a wrong suffered; namely, the wrong of a frivolous lawsuit. It is the job of judges to apply the law. It is the job of Members of Congress to write the law. We are the people's representatives, and all of us have constituents who have been the victims of frivolous lawsuits. We are responsible for the lack of any redress today for the victims of frivolous lawsuits, and we aim to remedy that today by passing this bill on behalf of the constituents who sent us here. If you deny that the victims of frivolous lawsuits are real victims, then vote against this bill, but if you think the victims of frivolous lawsuits should be entitled to compensation, just like anyone else who proves their legal claims in court, you should support this bill. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago, a judicial poll was mentioned. But I would point out to all of my colleagues that only one survey was done that consisted mostly of judges who had experience under both the stronger rule with mandatory sanctions. That poll showed overwhelming support for mandatory sanctions. When judges who had experience under both the stronger and weaker versions of rule 11 were polled, they overwhelmingly supported mandatory sanctions for frivolous lawsuits. The survey of 751 Federal judges found that an overwhelming majority of Federal judges believed, based on their experience under both a weaker and stronger rule 11, that a stronger rule 11 did not impede development of the law: 95 percent; the benefits of the rule outweighed any additional requirement of judicial time: 72 percent; the stronger version of rule 11 had a positive effect on litigation in the Federal courts: 81 percent; and the rule should be retained in its then current form: 80 percent. Incredible. A 2005 survey was also mentioned. In that survey, only 278 judges responded, as opposed to the 751 who responded to the survey done in 1990. Over half of the judges who responded to the 2005 survey had no experience under the stronger rule 11 because they were appointed to the bench after 1992. So that 2005 survey tells us very little about how judges comparatively view the stronger versus the weaker rule 11. I would also point out that in the 1990 survey, roughly twice as many responded as in the 2005 survey. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first point out that this bill is being key voted by the United States Chamber of Commerce. It has been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business, and also endorsed by the Physicians Insurance Association of America. Mr. Chairman, let me remind Members what the base bill--which is just a page long--actually does. It makes it mandatory for the victims of frivolous lawsuits filed in Federal Court to be compensated for the harm done to them by the filers of frivolous lawsuits. The bill doesn't change the existing standards for determining what is or is not a frivolous lawsuit. So under the bill, mandatory sanctions would only be awarded to victims of frivolous lawsuits when those lawsuits have no basis in law or fact. The victims of frivolous lawsuits are real victims. 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. Few would ever claim that judges should have the discretion to deny damage awards to victims of legal wrongs proved in court. So why should judges have the discretion to deny damage awards to victims of frivolous lawsuits who prove in court that the case brought against them was, indeed, frivolous? A vote against LARA, including a vote for the motion to recommit, is a denial of the fact that victims of frivolous lawsuits are real victims. But they are real victims, and they deserve to be guaranteed compensation when they prove in court that the claims against them are frivolous. This bill would do just that, and for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which allows lawyers who file frivolous claims to escape any sanction. It is essential that LARA reverse the 1993 amendments to rule 11. The current rule allows those who file frivolous lawsuits to avoid sanctions by withdrawing claims within 21 days after a motion for sanctions has been filed. This loophole, which LARA closes, gives unscrupulous lawyers an unlimited number of free passes to file frivolous pleadings with impunity. Justice Scalia correctly predicted that such amendments would, in fact, encourage frivolous lawsuits. Opposing the 1993 amendments in which the 21-day rule was instated, Justice Scalia wrote: In my view, those who file frivolous suits in pleadings should have no safe harbor. The rules should be solicitous of the abused 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. LARA would eliminate the free pass lawyers use to file frivolous lawsuits. This amendment would eliminate that free pass that is so costly to innocent Americans. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me just summarize this bill in one sentence, and that is that no reputable attorney is going to have any concerns with this legislation. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which would strike the provision for penalties for frivolous lawsuits and, thus, defeat the purpose of the bill. Today, there is no guarantee that a victim of a frivolous lawsuit will be compensated, even when a court finds that the lawsuit is frivolous. This legislation gives the victims of frivolous lawsuits the ability to receive compensation from those who abuse the legal system. The underlying bill enables innocent Americans to protect themselves and their families from absolutely absurd lawsuits, which can cost them their reputations and their livelihoods. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all, that the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), has been a champion of civil rights all of his life. I recognize and respect that. For that reason, I would like to try to reassure him that the base bill already says, as I mentioned in my opening statement: ``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.'' This provision clearly preserves the right to assert claims under the civil rights laws or the Constitution. I don't know how this language could be more clear. This amendment would allow frivolous claims to be brought under civil rights laws without any of the penalties required in the base bill. If this amendment were adopted, the bill would invite the filing of frivolous civil rights claims without any penalty whatsoever. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which regrettably would expose innocent Americans to abusive and frivolous lawsuits. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chair pointing out that it is improper to impugn the integrity or damage the reputation of the President of the United States or others. I thank the Chair for pointing that out. Mr. Chairman, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act makes three important changes to rule 11 to limit lawsuit abuse by imposing sanctions for bringing frivolous lawsuits. These changes apply to all cases brought in Federal district courts. However, this amendment would change that. If this amendment is adopted, the changes to rule 11 made by LARA would not apply to lawsuits brought in relation to whistleblower claims. There is no reason to make this or other exceptions. The changes made by the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act should apply uniformly throughout the Federal courts. Because this amendment excludes certain cases from the bill's coverage and thereby allows frivolous lawsuits to be filed without any of the penalties required by the bill, I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, proponents of this amendment want to allow lawsuits with no basis in law or fact to proceed without penalty if the lawsuit relates to whistleblowers. Think about that. The proponents of this amendment support lawsuits that apparently have no basis in law or fact, and they want those frivolous lawsuits to proceed without penalty. Let me remind Members what the base bill--which is just one page long--actually does. It makes it mandatory for the victims of frivolous lawsuits filed in Federal court to be compensated for the harm done to them by the filers of frivolous lawsuits. The bill doesn't change the existing standards for determining what is or is not a frivolous lawsuit. So under the bill, mandatory sanctions would only be awarded to victims of frivolous lawsuits when those lawsuits, as determined by the judge, have no basis in law or fact, including cases related to whistleblowers that have no basis in law or fact. This amendment would allow legally frivolous whistleblower cases to go without penalty and leave their victims uncompensated, so I urge all of my colleagues to oppose it. Once again, I don't know how any reputable attorney would have any concerns with this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space for yielding me time. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017 provides bipartisan and bicameral guidance for NASA as we usher in a new era of space exploration. I support this bill and the direction it establishes for America's space program. S. 442, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent on February 17, includes almost all of the policy provisions from the House authorization bills that passed the House in the last Congress with broad bipartisan support. In fact, it authorizes the House's proposed fiscal year 2017 funding level of $19.5 billion. This bill provides a balanced NASA portfolio across all of the mission directorates. It maintains congressional direction for priority near-term programs, such as the James Webb Space Telescope, the Space Launch System, the Orion crew vehicle, the International Space Station, and the Commercial Crew and Cargo Programs. NASA's exploration projects are vulnerable to changes in the political landscape. We must have a flexible space program, but not one that is knocked off course. Successfully combining flexibility with constancy of purpose requires thoughtful planning. This bill directs NASA to create a roadmap for human exploration. An exploration roadmap will help NASA inform Congress and the President, as well as direct the future path and tempo of exploration for decades to come. This legislation also looks to the future of scientific exploration. It provides support for NASA's Mars 2020 rover, the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope, and a mission to Europa, Jupiter's icy moon that possibly harbors the building blocks of life. It establishes that one of NASA's fundamental objectives is ``the search for life's origin, evolution, distribution, and future in the universe.'' Toward that end, this legislation directs the NASA Administrator to develop both an exoplanet exploration strategy and an astrobiology strategy within 18 months after the bill is signed into law. It also directs the NASA Administrator to report on how the Administration can expand collaborative partnerships for these scientific endeavors. Just 2 weeks ago, NASA announced that it had confirmed the existence of seven planets around a nearby star, three of which are in the ``habitable zone.'' This bill builds upon these awe-inspiring discoveries and will help ``unlock the mysteries of space,'' as President Trump said in his inaugural address. Part of achieving success in space exploration is making sure that NASA is not burdened with funding other agency missions. For example, there are 17 agencies with responsibility for studying climate change, but only 1 agency, NASA, is responsible for space exploration. This bill directs the NASA Administrator to seek reimbursement whenever responsibilities are transferred to NASA from another agency or when NASA funds another agency's activities. Finally, I would like to thank my colleague and Texas friend Dr. Brian Babin, the chairman of the Space Subcommittee, for his work on the TREAT Astronauts Act, which is included in this authorization. Chairman Babin's legislation gives NASA the ability to care for our astronauts and enhance our understanding of the effects of spaceflight on the human body. I would also like to thank the Science, Space, and Technology Committee staff for their years of effort on this bill, especially the Space Subcommittee director, Tom Hammond, who has worked diligently to ensure that this bill became a reality. I also recognize the minority staff who were essential to the process as well. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, from Investor's Business Daily: ``The mainstream media's open hostility to President Trump may be starting to backfire, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll. The poll found that 55 percent of the public says they have grown `weary from the media's persistently negative coverage of President Trump.' A roughly equal share, 54 percent, also believe that the news media `has assumed the role of the opposition party, constantly opposing the president and his policies at every turn.''' ``The results are understandable, given the unusually hostile relationship the press has with Trump. ``A study by the nonpartisan group Media Tenor found that only 3 percent of network news stories in the first month of the Trump administration could be described as positive.'' ``The poll found that 57 percent back Trump's plan to hire 10,000 more immigration agents; 58 percent support the deportation of illegal immigrants charged with a crime, even if they haven't been convicted; and 53 percent back Trump's call to withhold federal aid to `sanctuary cities.''' ``Meanwhile, 42 percent say Trump is providing strong leadership for the country, which is higher than the 40 percent Obama got last October.''

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, President Trump hit a home run in the State of the Union Address last night. As he said, the way to renew the American spirit is to put Americans first--their jobs, their safety, their education, and their health. He also focused on border security. The rule of law will stop drugs and protect American jobs and lives. A recent poll found that, by a 2-to-1 ratio, voters feel that the President has kept his promises to the American people. Another poll revealed that 78 percent of Americans had a positive response to President Trump's State of the Union speech. No doubt Americans will rally behind him and support his efforts to put Americans first. President Trump's words will be long remembered: ``My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America.''

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a recent poll shows that the American people agree with all of President Trump's major executive orders, though they are not likely to learn about it from the liberal media. Fifty-five percent approve of revoking Federal funding for sanctuary cities. Only 33 percent disapprove. Fifty-five percent approve of prohibiting refugees from seven countries from entering the U.S. Only 38 percent disapprove. By wide margins, the American people side with the President on freezing regulations and Federal hiring, building pipelines, and constructing a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. As favorable to the President as this poll is, think how much more favorable it would have been if the media had not incessantly criticized his executive orders.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the media's credibility has hit a record low with the American people, according to a recent Gallup Poll. The media attacked President Trump because he proved their predictions wrong and their candidate lost. They attack him because they are mostly liberal Democrats and he is a conservative Republican. They attack him because he is reversing many of the policies of President Obama, whom they openly supported. They attack him because he is going around them, directly to the American people with his Twitter messages. They attack him because they can't intimidate or control him. The media's hate is poisoning the country. Wouldn't it be better for our country if the media gave the American people the facts rather than told them what to think? Wouldn't it be better for our country if the media treated the President fairly and without malice?