mr. speaker , while the committee on rules reported out a rule that made in order a substantive amendment offered by the gentleman from california , mr. schiff , i rise in opposition to it , h. res. 508 because the legislation underlying is pernicious . 
as i mentioned during the committee on the judiciary 's oversight hearing on this legislation during its first iteration in the 108th congress and reiterated in my statement for the markup , one of the main functions of that body 's oversight is to analyze potentially negative impact against the benefits that a legal process or piece of legislation will have on those affected . 
the base bill before the house today does not represent the product of careful analysis and therefore , it is critical that members be given the ability to offer amendments to improve its provisions . 
in the case of h.r. 4571 , the lawsuit abuse reduction act the oversight functions of the judiciary committee allowed us to craft a bill that will protect those affected from negative impacts of the shield from liability that it proposes . 
this legislation requires an overhaul in order to make it less of a misnomer -- to reduce abuse rather than encourage it . 
the goal of the tort reform legislation is to allow businesses to externalize , or shift , some of the cost of the injuries they cause to others . 
tort law always assigns liability to the party in the best position to prevent an injury in the most reasonable and fair manner . 
in looking at the disparate impact that the new tort reform laws will have on ethnic minority groups , it is unconscionable that the burden will be placed on these groups -- that are in the worst position to bear the liability costs . 
when congress considers pre-empting state laws , it must strike the appropriate balance between two competing values -- local control and national uniformity . 
local control is extremely important because we all believe , as did the founders two centuries ago , that state governments are closer to the people and better able to assess local needs and desires . 
national uniformity is also an important consideration in federalism -- congress ' exclusive jurisdiction over interstate commerce has allowed our economy to grow dramatically over the past 200 years . 
this legislation would reverse the changes to rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure , frcp , that were made by the judicial conference in 1993 such that ( 1 ) sanctions against an attorney whose litigation tactics are determined to harass or cause unnecessary delay or cost or who has been determined to have made frivolous legal arguments or unwarranted factual assertions would become mandatory rather than discretionary to the court , ( 2 ) discovery-related activity would be included within the scope of the rule , and ( 3 ) the rule would be extended to state cases affecting interstate commerce so that if a state judge decides that a case affects interstate commerce , he or she must apply rule 11 if violations are found . 
this legislation strips state and federal judges of their discretion in the area of applying rule 11 sanctions . 
furthermore , it infringes states ' rights by forcing state courts to apply the rule if interstate commerce is affected . 
why is the discretion of the judge not sufficient in discerning whether rule 11 sanctions should be assessed ? 
if this legislation moves forward in this body , it will be important for us to find out its effect on indigent plaintiffs or those who must hire an attorney strictly on a contingent -- fee basis . 
because the application of rule 11 would be mandatory , attorneys will pad their legal fees to account for the additional risk that they will have to incur in filing lawsuits and the fact that they will have no opportunity to withdraw the suit due to a mistake . 
overall , this legislation will deter indigent plaintiffs from seeking counsel to file meritorious claims given the extremely high legal fees . 
furthermore , h.r. 4571 , as drafted , would allow corporations that perform sham and non-economic transactions in order to enjoy economic benefits in this country . 
this is a bad rule that will have terrible implications on our legislative branch , and i ask that my colleagues to defeat the rule , defeat the bill , and support the substitute offered by mr. schiff . 
we must carefully consider the long-term implications that this bill , as drafted , will have on indigent claimants , the trial attorney community , and facilitation of corporate fraud . 
