John Barrow: “if bills in this Chamber required names that accurately describe their consequences, this bill would best be called the…”

“if bills in this Chamber required names that accurately describe their consequences, this bill would best be called the Frivolous Litigation Proliferation Act and not the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. Many of us who oppose the underlying bill do so because it will actually increase the volume of frivolous litigation. For example, some sort of Rule 11 procedure exists in virtually every State in the country. To impose a new Federal law in every State court action will make State courts conduct a minilawsuit on Federal validity before conducting a minilawsuit on State law validity, before they ever get to the merits of the case. A lawsuit within a lawsuit within a lawsuit. Mr. Speaker, that is as absurd as it sounds. If Members think that there are too many frivolous lawsuits against good, honest corporations, and the only way to fix this is to make it harder for everyone to sue anyone, and that this bill is the only way to do it, then vote for the bill. But if there is one area where we do not have a problem with too many frivolous lawsuits, it is with lawsuits against price gougers. And if there is any area where we want to make it easier to get to the merits of the underlying claim, not harder, it is an area of lawsuits against Federal contractors who are engaged in defrauding the public. Right now the government is awash in government contracts awarded on a no-bid basis.…”