mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. chairman , i oppose this bill because it will not reduce frivolous lawsuits , but will instead increase the cost of litigation at the state and federal level , set back the fairness of civil rights litigation , and favor foreign corporate defendants at the expense of their domestic competitors . 
as a result of this misguided legislation , satellite litigation , costs and delays will result , and litigation abuses will not be reduced . 
h.r. 420 makes significant changes to rule 11 sanctions without following the statutory rulemaking process . 
the association of chief justices of the states and the federal judicial council have both criticized skipping the statutory rulemaking process . 
this bill would revert rule 11 back to the 1983 version and unduly affects plaintiffs in civil rights cases . 
the current rule 11 was adopted in 1993 specifically to correct abuses by defendants in civil rights cases . 
by rolling back this rule and requiring a mandatory sanctions system to civil rights cases , h.r. 420 will chill many legitimate and important civil rights actions . 
although the bill states that the proposed rule 11 changes shall not be construed to `` bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims or remedies under federal , state , or local civil rights law , '' the language does not clearly and simply exempt civil rights and discrimination cases , as it should . 
determining what a new claim or remedy is will be a daunting and complex issue for most courts and clearly does not cover all civil rights cases . 
the honorable robert carter , united states district court judge for the southern district of new york , who was one of the pioneers in civil rights legislation and worked on the brown v. board of education case , stated , `` i have no doubt that the supreme court 's opportunity to pronounce separate schools inherently unequal in brown v. board of education would have been delayed for a decade had my colleagues and i been required , upon pain of potential sanctions , to plead our legal theory explicitly from the start. '' this is a good example of the dreadfully detrimental effect of this rule on civil rights cases . 
furthermore , this bill will operate to benefit foreign corporate defendants at the expense of their domestic counterparts . 
section 4 , the `` forum shopping '' provision , would operate to provide a litigation and financial windfall to foreign corporations at the expense of their domestic competitors . 
this is because instead of permitting claims to be filed wherever a corporation does business or has minimum contacts , as most state long-arm statutes provide , the bill permits the suit to be brought only where the defendant 's principal place of business is located . 
in the case of a foreign corporation , that does not exist in the united states . 
if a u.s. citizen is harmed by a product manufactured by a foreign competitor , under this bill the injured u.s. citizen would have no recourse against a foreign corporation , whereas he or she would have recourse against the comparable u.s. mr. chairman , this bill has another deleterious effect . 
because it provides for reasonable attorneys ' fees in the case of a sanction , because many rule 11 sanctions are minor , and in any complex case there are almost invariably going to be some , the current law , first of all , permits the judge discretion whether to impose sanctions or not . 
this makes it mandatory for even the most picayune infractions . 
second of all , the current law says that if it is pointed out to an attorney that he has done something that would fall under rule 11 , he has 21 days to correct it . 
if he does not correct it , he is subject to sanctions . 
this would say they have no time to correct it . 
they get automatic sanctions . 
that is unfair . 
thirdly , because under those circumstances this bill provides for attorneys ' fees , they had better have their head examined if they want to sue a large corporation , because if they are the little guy , and they have one attorney , and he is paid a reasonable fee , and they can afford the litigation , they hope ; but if they are suing the big company , and general motors has 32 attorneys lined up over there , and they are all charging $ 800 an hour , then reasonable attorneys ' fees are going to be a lot of money , and they have to anticipate , if they file that suit , that because of the mandatory nature of the rule 11 sanctions that this bill would impose , because of the lack of an ability to correct it , because of the automatic sanctions and mandatory sanctions , they have to assume that they are going to have to pay those sanctions , and they are going to have to pay the mandatory attorneys ' fees , so they had better not sue the big boys . 
what this bill is really saying is big corporations shall be exempt from lawsuits by people who can not afford to pay huge attorneys ' fees of the big corporations , because we have to assume that will happen , and because this bill leaves no discretion to the judge . 
it is no surprise that the united states judicial conference , the national association for the advancement of colored people , the alliance for justice , public citizen , people for the american way , the american association of people with disabilities , the lawyers committee for civil rights in law , the american bar association , the national conference of state legislatures , national partnership for women , national women 's law center , the center for justice and democracy , consumers union , the national association of consumer advocates , and the naacp legal defense fund all oppose the bill . 
in other words , if members care about civil rights , if they care about the ability of the consumer to have justice with a large corporation , if they care about civil liberties , if they care about people being able to use the federal or state courts , they must vote against this bill . 
i urge my colleagues to vote against this poorly drafted and unfair legislation . 
mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time . 
