{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221010041/http://vanhollen.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=361666", "Statement of Representative Chris Van Hollen (MD-08) regarding H.R. 2655", "2013-11-14", "2013", "2013-11", "Democrat", "House", "MD", "Chris Van Hollen", "V000128", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Mr. Speaker\u2014\nI rise in opposition to H.R. 2655, the misleadingly-named \u201cLawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.\u201d\u00a0 This legislation would amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to reinstate a previous, failed version of the rule that was in place from 1983-1993.\nRule 11 allows for the imposition of sanctions on the plaintiff in a civil case if it is determined that a claim lacks sufficient evidence.\u00a0 Currently, Rule 11 allows judges to exercise discretion in determining when to impose these sanctions.\u00a0 This bill, H.R. 2655, mirrors the policy from 1983-1993, when Rule 11 was amended to mandate that sanctions be automatically applied regardless of the specific circumstance of a Rule 11 violation.\u00a0 This policy erodes judicial discretion by forcing judges to apply sanctions in every instance of a violation regardless of the merits.\u00a0 The effect of this change was\u2014and would be under H.R. 2655\u2014disastrous for our judicial system and victims alike.\u00a0 For this reason, the Judicial Conference, the American Bar Association, and the American Association for Justice all strongly oppose this legislation.\nAs the Judicial Conference Chairs wrote to Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. in July, from 1983-1993, the \u201c\u2026mandatory sanctions provision quickly became a tool of abuse in civil litigation.\u00a0 Seeking to use mandatory sanctions to their advantage, aggressive lawyers filed motions for Rule 11 sanctions in response to virtually every filing in a civil case.\u00a0\u00a0 Much time and money was spent in Rule 11 battles that had everything to do with strategic gamesmanship and little to do with underlying claims.\u201d\u00a0 The Judicial Conference also points out that the 1993 rule changes that corrected this misguided policy \u201c\u2026followed years of examination and were made on the Judicial Conference\u2019s strong recommendation, with the Supreme Court\u2019s approval, and after congressional review.\u201d\nUnfortunately, we are wasting precious legislative days in this Congress re-litigating this already-solved issue.\u00a0 All empirical evidence from the 1983-1993 existence of the mandatory sanctions points to increased litigation costs and a distraction from the administering of justice.\nI urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2655.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221010041/http://vanhollen.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=361666"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.7547509633004665, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}