Politics in Action: H.R. 3134, H.R. 348 and H.R. 758

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 3134 – Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015

(Rep. Black, R-TN, and 176 cosponsors)

H.R. 3504 – Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

(Rep. Franks, R-AZ, and 82 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 3134 and H.R. 3504 because the bills, while different, would have the same consequence of limiting women’s health care choices. 

H.R. 3134 would defund Planned Parenthood based on its provision of abortion services.  Planned Parenthood uses both Federal and non-Federal funds to provide a range of important preventive care and health services, including health screenings, vaccinations, and check-ups to millions of men and women who visit their health centers annually.  Longstanding Federal policy already prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the woman would be endangered.  By eliminating Federal funding for a major provider of health care, H.R. 3134 would limit access to health care for men, women, and families across the Nation, and would disproportionately impact low-income individuals. 

H.R. 3504 would impose new legal requirements related to the provision of abortion services in certain circumstances, which would likely have a chilling effect, reducing access to care.

If the President were presented with H.R. 3134 or H.R. 3504, he would veto them. 

H.R. 348 – Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015

(Rep. Marino, R-PA, and 21 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 348, which would undercut responsible decision-making and public involvement in the Federal environmental review and permitting processes.  As the Administration said when virtually identical legislation was considered previously, H.R. 348 would increase litigation, regulatory delays, and potentially force agencies to approve a project if the review and analysis cannot be completed before the proposed arbitrary deadlines.  This legislation would complicate the regulatory process and create two sets of standards for Federal agencies to follow to review projects – one for "construction projects" and one for all other Federal actions, such as rulemakings or management plans.

This Administration is committed to modernizing the Federal permitting and review process for major infrastructure projects to provide certainty for project applicants, reducing the aggregate time it takes to conduct reviews and make permitting decisions, and producing measurably better environmental and community outcomes.  However, the Administration strongly rejects the legislation's premise that public input and responsible agency decision-making under current law hinders job creation.  The Administration believes that H.R. 348, if enacted, would lead to more confusion and delay, limit public participation in the permitting process, and ultimately hamper economic growth. 

The Administration supports efforts to improve the efficiency of the environmental review processes without diminishing requirements for rigorous analyses, agency consultation, and public participation.  Since 2011, the Administration has prioritized improving the environmental review process and continues to make advancements in this space that will improve interagency coordination and synchronization of reviews to increase decision-making speed; improve project siting and application quality; expand innovative mitigation approaches; and drive accountability and transparency through the expanded use of an online permitting dashboard.  For example, under Executive Order 13604, the interagency infrastructure permitting steering committee established the permitting dashboard, which makes project schedules transparent to the public and is designed to improve the timeliness and environmental outcomes of the permitting process.  In the coming months, additional projects requiring complex permitting actions will be posted to the dashboard in an effort to improve project delivery.

If the President were presented with H.R. 348, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

H.R. 758 – Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015

(Rep. Smith, R-TX, and 6 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 758 because it is both unnecessary and counterproductive.  H.R. 758 would limit the discretion of courts for violations of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Rule 11 requires attorneys to certify pre-filing that pleadings are not presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.  H.R. 758 would require courts to impose monetary sanctions, including court costs and attorney fees, for any Rule 11 violation.  The bill would eliminate the safe harbor provision that currently allows attorneys to correct or withdraw a filing before Rule 11 proceedings commence.  H.R. 758 would also circumvent the usual procedure for amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

H.R. 758 was introduced to curb a perceived increase in frivolous litigation; however, the proposed changes to Rule 11 will actually increase litigation.  By creating an automatic financial incentive, and by removing the safe harbor provision, the proposed changes to Rule 11 could dramatically increase the number of sanctions motions, including those filed against Federal government attorneys, and correspondingly increase the risk of financial exposure for any conduct that might be considered a Rule 11 violation.  In short, H.R. 758 would raise the amount and cost of civil litigation and provide more opportunity for unnecessary delay and harassment.

The Administration is particularly concerned that the new requirements could be used to target consumer and civil rights plaintiffs.  Consumer abuse and civil rights cases can rely heavily on the discovery process to prove the merits of their claims.  In addition, civil rights cases often seek to challenge the law or to extend existing precedents.  The threat of mandatory sanctions for failure to withstand a Rule 11 challenge could chill meritorious claims by deterring worthy plaintiffs, who often lack the financial resources to pay costs and fees, from challenging existing laws or seeking novel interpretations of them.

The bill is also opposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the principal policymaking body for the Judicial Branch charged with proposing amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the careful, deliberate process outlined in the Rules Enabling Act.  The Congress has tasked the Judicial Conference to serve as the principal policymaking body for the Judicial Branch.  The Congress has thus empowered the Federal judiciary to make its own procedural rules, retaining the right to review those rules and to accept, modify, or reject them.  H.R. 758 is an attempt to amend the rules directly, over the objections of the Judicial Conference.

Source: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget