Providing for Consideration of H.R. 420, Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, here we go again. Whenever the Republican leadership appears to be floundering or simply needs some legislative filler, they turn to the Judiciary Committee for some kind of anti-lawyer, anti-lawsuit bill.
We recently considered a bill to ban lawsuits against people who want to sue fast food companies, even though these cases are nonexistent. Now we are here considering another bill that will pass the House and go nowhere in the Senate.
The fact is that the Republican leadership has run out of meaningful legislation to consider. They have run out of ideas. So here we are once again considering another bill that attacks America's judicial system and takes away rights from our fellow citizens.
Time after time, the Republican leadership refuses to bring necessary legislation to the floor. Where, Madam Speaker, is the legislation combating poverty or ending hunger or increasing access to affordable and comprehensive health care? Where are their priorities? There are 45 million Americans who have no health insurance in this country. Where is the increase in the minimum wage? Where is the legislation to lower gas and oil prices?
It was comical to see the Republican leadership gather at a press conference the other day in reaction to the news that oil companies are making record profits. And what was their response? They very nicely asked the oil companies to do more. Why should the oil companies do more when they have passed legislation to give oil companies more tax breaks and more oil subsidies?
Where, Madam Speaker, is the oversight into the Iraq war? Over 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq, and all we get from this leadership and all we get from this White House is ``stay the course.'' Well, stay the course is not a policy; it is a sound bite. We owe our young men and women more than just a sound bite.
Where is the genuinely independent 9/11-style commission to investigate the botched response to Hurricane Katrina and to make recommendations on how to prevent such another tragedy in the future? Where is the fully constituted, functioning Ethics Committee to look into the numerous ethics charges that are mounting in this body?
No, here we are dealing with legislation that we dealt with last year that is going nowhere.
The fact is, the Republican leadership does not care much about these issues, and I know they are out of step with the American people on these issues. So, instead, they bring us the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act once again. This is like watching a bad TV rerun. It was not good the first time; it is even worse the second time.
Remember, we considered this bill last year, and just like last year, it will pass this Republican-controlled Congress. They will do their press releases, they will send it over to the Senate, and it will go nowhere.
Later today we will hear from members of the House Judiciary Committee who have particular subject expertise on the specifics of this legislation. I will leave it to these Members to explain the intricacies of the Federal Code and the Rules of Civil Procedure and how Rule 11 fits in. I would like for a few minutes, however, to talk about the continued abuse of power that the Republican majority takes to a new level today.
Under this rule and under this bill, Republican fund-raisers are rewarded, while the majority party continues its unabashed assault on the judicial branch of this Nation. Do not just take my word for it, Madam Speaker. One of the broadest arrays of groups that I have ever seen has come together to oppose this misguided, short-sighted, mean-spirited legislation. These groups include, but are certainly not limited to, the NAACP, the Legal Defense Fund, the American Bar Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Women's Law Center, and the Consumers Union.
The one that stands out the most, however, is the opposition from the Judicial Conference of the United States. Now, what is that? What is this conference that opposes what my Republican friends will describe as a critically important piece of legislation?
The Judicial Conference was created by this very Congress in 1922. Their congressionally mandated mission is to be the principal policymaking body concerned with the administration of the United States courts. The presiding officer of this organization is none other than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. You know what the Judicial Conference has to say about this legislation? In a three-page letter to Chairman Sensenbrenner, in short, they say it is unnecessary and it is harmful. If they were less judicious in their choice of words, they would say what I say: It stinks.
But what they say, Madam Speaker, this group representing the Federal judges of this country, is that this legislation is fatally flawed. They say that Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what the underlying legislation aims to fix, is working better today than ever before. In fact, in their letter to the Judiciary Committee chairman, they say that Federal district judges are united in their opposition to any legislation which seeks to amend rule 11. They specifically urge Congress to reject this legislation.
Now, Madam Speaker, let us think this through for just a second, shall we? The organization representing President-appointed, Senate-confirmed judges thinks this legislation is unwise. Why do we think we know better than our Federal judges how to operate the Federal judiciary? Frankly, I would laugh if I did not think that the majority was so sincere in their attempts to undermine the constitutional rights of every single American. Shame on you. Shame on all of you for trying to eviscerate the Constitution, all for a few extra campaign dollars, because that is what this is about.
The underlying legislation is not sound public policy, plain and simple. On the contrary, it is outright political grandstanding. So let us be honest and let us call this bill and this debate what they really are: legislative abuse and a political charade.
The majority's reckless disregard for judicial integrity mocks our Constitution's separation of powers doctrine, and I implore my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if I could inquire from the gentleman how many more speakers he has, because I am the last speaker on my side.
Mr. GINGREY. To the gentleman from Massachusetts, we do not actually have any additional speakers at this time, so right now I am reserving the balance of my time for the purpose of closing, unless another speaker comes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the RECORD as well another letter signed by a number of groups urging a vote against H.R. 420.
I would also like to include a letter that was sent to every Member of Congress by Michael S. Greco, the President of the American Bar Association, opposing this legislation.
I would also like to insert in the RECORD the text of the letter that I mentioned in my opening speech from the Judicial Conference of the United States which very strongly opposes this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I think the reason why we have no other speakers on this side is because everything that possibly could be said was said last year. So all we need to do is just replay the tape recorder and listen to all the arguments. We just seem to be repeating the same debates over and over and over again.
Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. This is unwise policy. I understand that the genesis of this legislation is to appeal to those who like to contribute lots of money to particular campaigns, but, quite frankly, I think that is not a sound reason to pass this legislation.
As I mentioned before, the Judicial Conference of the United States has outlined very clearly why this is a bad bill. I would hope that my colleagues would listen to some of the experts and do what is right and reject this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I think the reason why we have no other speakers on this side is because everything that possibly could be said was said last year. So all we need to do is just replay the tape recorder and listen to all the arguments. We just seem to be repeating the same debates over and over and over again.
Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. This is unwise policy. I understand that the genesis of this legislation is to appeal to those who like to contribute lots of money to particular campaigns, but, quite frankly, I think that is not a sound reason to pass this legislation.
As I mentioned before, the Judicial Conference of the United States has outlined very clearly why this is a bad bill. I would hope that my colleagues would listen to some of the experts and do what is right and reject this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source