Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for the second time in a row, the University of Texas has won the Rose Bowl. By any definition, the 2006 victory was a classic and made the Longhorns the national champions.

Led by quarterback Vince Young, the Longhorns fought their way to a stunning 41-38 victory over the top-ranked University of Southern California Trojans.

Vince Young ran for 200 yards, passed for 267 and scored the winning touchdown with 19 seconds left on the clock. It does not get much better than that, which is why Vince Young won the Most Valuable Player trophy.

UT Coach Mack Brown and the entire Longhorn football team have a special place deep in the hearts of all Texans. Through hard work, determination and teamwork, the Longhorns beat the odds and became an example for all of us of what sportsmanship really means.

Today, appropriately, the Longhorns were honored at the White House by President and Texan George Bush. Please join me in congratulating the Longhorns on their championship season. Hook 'Em Horns.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the ``Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act of 2006.''

This bipartisan legislation provides new, explicit, and strengthened protections for the privacy of confidential telephone records, including calling logs. It establishes specific criminal penalties for the fraudulent acquisition or disclosure of these records without consumer consent.

Few things are more personal and potentially more revealing than our phone records. The records of whom we choose to call and how long we speak with them can reveal much about our business and personal lives. A careful study of these records may reveal details of our medical or financial life. It may even disclose our physical location.

To avoid unwanted invasions of their personal privacy, millions of Americans already voluntarily list their phone numbers in the ``National Do-Not-Call'' registry. Many Americans also keep their telephone number unlisted.

Currently, Federal law recognizes the right of Americans to maintain this kind of privacy by providing some limited protections for the confidential information contained in calling logs. Phone companies and others who have a legitimate interest in having this information may not release it without either consumer consent or a determination that certain narrowly prescribed conditions exist.

Unfortunately, recent investigations by law enforcement authorities, including the Chicago Police Department and the FBI, and numerous media reports have shattered the notion that this data is safe.

These reports demonstrate that current Federal statutes are woefully inadequate to protect these records. They reveal that numerous companies and individuals offer to sell confidential phone records information to virtually anyone with no questions asked.

The price for selling this sensitive private information is shocking. It averages about $100. Essentially, these companies sell the confidential personal information of American citizens as a commodity. Many of these companies have operated on the Internet under a variety of names. There may be several thousand additional companies or individuals across the U.S. who traffic in these records but who do not conduct business openly on the Internet.

Alarmed at the easy access to these records, the Chicago Police Department and the FBI have reportedly warned their personnel to take steps to safeguard their phone numbers. The potential danger to undercover operatives concerns law enforcement officials.

In recent weeks, several States have taken civil enforcement action against these kinds of companies filing suits that allege violations of various State unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes. In these suits, the evidence shows that these companies typically use a variety of fraudulent devices to obtain these records from employees of phone companies. The most common method is referred to as ``pretexting.'' A pretexter calls the phone company and poses as someone who is authorized to receive the information lawfully--perhaps the actual phone customer or another employee of the target phone company. I certainly agree this conduct is an unfair and deceptive practice. I applaud the state and federal officials who are investigating and civilly pursuing these companies.

However, I believe civil enforcement alone is not enough. New federal criminal penalties are needed to deter and punish these dishonest individuals and businesses--and to put them out of business permanently. The ``Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act of 2006'' imposes serious criminal penalties--up to 20 years in prison-- for anyone who knowingly and intentionally obtains or attempts to obtain the confidential phone records of a telephone company using a fraudulent scheme or device.

The bill further imposes up to 5 years imprisonment on anyone who:

First, either sells, transfers, or attempts to sell or transfer such records without authorization; or

Second, purchases such records knowing they were obtained without authorization.

Most importantly, the bill provides enhanced criminal penalties for anyone who: (1) engages in large-scale operations to violate the law; or (2) discloses or uses such fraudulently obtained information in furtherance of various crimes of violence or intimidation. This latter provision ensures that the bill targets the worst offenders.

The release of sensitive information like a phone record to an unauthorized individual can compromise a person's safety. Consider the tragic case of Amy Boyer, a young woman who was murdered in 1999.

In Ms. Boyer's case, the murderer hired Docusearch.com to conduct a search and identify Amy's Social Security Number and place of employment. Docusearch hired a subcontractor, who posed as an employee of Ms. Boyer's insurance company, called Amy, and confirmed her place of employment. Shortly thereafter, the killer drove to her workplace and gunned her down as she was leaving. For its service, Docusearch charged her murderer $109.

The unauthorized trade in this information not only assaults individual privacy but, in the wrong hands, can lead to violence and in the most extreme instances, even death. We must act to deter these acts by providing that anyone who seeks to wrongfully acquire or disclose these records faces serious criminal consequences.

I urge my colleagues to join me and the other cosponsors in supporting this bill. It is urgently needed to preserve consumer's privacy rights and to protect the personal safety of law enforcement personnel and victims of domestic violence. Enactment of this bill will send a clear and emphatic signal that these breaches of privacy will no longer be tolerated. I look forward to the House passing this legislation without delay.

Mr. Speaker, the Bureau of Justice Assistance has acquired considerable expertise in the administration of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act since its enactment in 1976, and courts have properly accorded the Bureau's interpretations of the Act great deference.

Among other things, H.R. 3402 clarifies statutory provisions relating to the requirements that ``rescue squad or ambulance crew'' members be public employees, and that ``enforcement of the laws'' refers to the criminal laws, by making the text conform more clearly to the legislative intention, which has been correctly reflected in the Bureau's longstanding interpretation of the Act.

These clarifying changes should not be understood to effect any substantive change in the Act, as interpreted by the Bureau.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and Ms. Herseth for offering this amendment to eliminate the Diversity Visa Program. This program discriminates against people from Mexico and six other countries. It is susceptible to rampant fraud. It allows 50,000 people to enter the country whether or not they have family ties or needed skills and is unfair to immigrants who play by the rules.

Immigrant visas are usually issued to foreign nationals who have connections to U.S. employers or family members lawfully residing in the United States. Under the visa lottery program, though, visas are awarded to immigrants at random without meeting any of these criteria.

Most family-sponsored immigrants currently face a wait of years to obtain visas. Yet the lottery program pushes 50,000 randomly picked immigrants ahead of those who are sponsored by family and employers.

Madam Chairman, we should not have an immigration program that violates the principles of common sense, fairness and non- discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, the American people know the difference between legal immigration, which has made our country great, and illegal immigration, which threatens our homeland security.

This legislation represents a crucial step forward in securing our borders and protecting the lives and property of the American people. Sponsored by Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman King, the Border Protection, Antiterterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 achieves four essential goals.

It combats illegal immigrant smuggling and makes it easier to deport illegal aliens, 20 percent of all Federal prisoners, who have committed crimes. This will make our communities much safer. This legislation makes it easier to apprehend, convict and deport potential terrorists. It allows employers to determine whether a job applicant is legally in the United States. Last year, not a single employer was fined for illegally hiring someone. If we do not diminish the magnet of jobs, no amount of border enforcement alone will prevent illegal immigration. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this initiative will result in more individuals being held accountable for breaking our immigration laws.

Our hearts go out to those who want to come to this country. We are the freest, most prosperous nation in the world. It is no surprise that America welcomes more legal immigrants than all other countries combined.

But no nation can protect its residents without knowing who is entering and why. Thousands of people continue to cross our borders illegally every day instead of playing by the rules and coming into the country the right way.

No Member of Congress advocates rounding up 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants, no one really knows how many, for mass deportation. But if we enforce our laws, many either will leave voluntarily or decide not to enter illegally. Perhaps the time will come for a limited foreign worker program, but that is only after we have secured our borders and put the interests of American workers first.

Immigration is an emotional, sensitive, complex subject. But Americans, citizens and legal immigrants alike, have every right to secure borders in a safe homeland. And it is time we turned that right into reality.

Mr. Chairman, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman King deserve much credit and the thanks of the American people for bringing this legislation to the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I support this PATRIOT Act conference report, and appreciate the time and effort Chairman Sensenbrenner has put into bringing it to the floor.

We know Americans will continue to be a terrorist target as long as we stand for freedom and democracy. That lesson was learned on September 11, 2001.

We must do everything legally possible to protect Americans from attack. This conference report helps law enforcement officials prevent, investigate, and prosecute acts of terror.

The original PATRIOT Act was a long overdue measure that enhanced our ability to gather crucial intelligence information on the global terrorist network. It passed by a margin of 98-1 in the Senate and 357- 66 in the House.

But certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act expire at the end of this year. This conference report renews many of those provisions and improves on the original legislation.

It makes permanent the ability of law enforcement officials and intelligence officials to communicate about on-going investigations. It also makes permanent provisions that allow the government to do its job by obtaining warrants and gathering information during terrorism investigations.

America is a safer country today than before September 11, 2001, because of the PATRIOT Act.

Over 200 people in the United States have been charged with crimes tied to international terrorist investigations and have been convicted or have pled guilty because of the PATRIOT Act.

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies must continue to have the powers they need to protect all Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Also, I am placing in the Record an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Times on December 13, titled ``Preserving the PATRIOT Act.''

Preserving the Patriot Act

(By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.)

The proverbial rubber is about to meet the road. This week,

the U.S. Congress will determine if the U.S.A. Patriot Act--

the most important domestic security legislation since

September 11, 2001--will be re-enacted in slightly weakened

form or allowed to lapse in a number of its key provisions.

Since the consequences of the latter would be manifestly

detrimental to the War for the Free World, legislators

opposed to the Act have offered to extend it for a short

period--a gambit they hope will allow them to dumb it down

still further. But make no mistake: Additional delay and more

negotiations will not improve either the bill or the national

security. To the contrary, they likely would jeopardize both.

That would be particularly true if the Patriot Act's most

vociferous critics on the Left and their less numerous (and

most unlikely) bedfellows on the Right get their way. They

tend to characterize the Act as an assault on the basic

freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights and have sought far-

reaching changes in the tools it provides law enforcement to

detect and prevent terrorist plots inside the United States.

In reality, the Patriot Act is an eminently sensible

overhaul of the government's antiquated counterterror

arsenal, an overhaul that reflects the realization we cannot

hope to fight a 21st-century war using 20th-century legal

instruments.

Consider two elements critics have most insistently

demanded be repealed: (1) the socalled ``library records''

provision (Section 215) and (2) the authorization of what

have been derided as ``sneak-and-peek'' search warrants (Sec.

213).

The dust-up over government access to library information

is truly a manufactured controversy. For one thing, libraries

are not mentioned anywhere in the pertinent Patriot Act

provision. Moreover, law enforcement has been authorized for

decades in ordinary criminal cases to subpoena library

records (along with any other business records). This has not

had any noticeable effect on Americans' reading habits.

The Patriot Act only made business records (including those

of libraries) available on roughly the same terms in national

security cases as they have long been in criminal cases.

The reason should be obvious: It makes no sense to enshrine

libraries as safe havens for terrorist planning.

In fact, as we now know, many of the September 11 hijackers

used American and European libraries to prepare the run-up to

the attacks. Relevant literature, including bomb manuals and

jihadist materials, have been staples of terrorism

prosecutions for more than a decade. Privacy extremists of

organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

nevertheless have reacted to the Patriot Act's much-needed

business records law as if the Gestapo had seized office in

the United States.

Similarly, the PATRIOT Act did not--as its critics would

have us believe--create new and unsavory ``sneak-and-peek''

warrants. It does, however, allow agents to search premises

but delay notification of the search to subjects of a

terrorism investigation.

The PATRIOT Act's notification provision is no different in

principle from the legal notice previously required to

persons intercepted in a court-ordered wiretap. In such

situations, notification of the target has routinely been

delayed for weeks or months after the eavesdropping ends.

Doing so can be absolutely critical to the arrest and

prosecution of suspected perpetrators: Delayed notification

allows the government to complete its investigation without

giving the subjects a heads-up that would certainly cause

them to flee or destroy evidence.

The PATRIOT Act, in the so-called ``sneak-and-peek'' arena,

established consistent standards federal courts must follow

in determining whether to permit delayed notification.

Previously, a hodgepodge of different rules were applied in

various jurisdictions. This is precisely the sort of fairness

and equal protection Congress should provide--yet, it has

been criticized sharply for doing so in the PATRIOT Act.

On both the business records and delayed notification

sections of the PATRIOT Act (among others), the stance of the

American Civil Liberties Union and like-minded critics seems

to have an ulterior motive. They not only oppose such

legislation in the PATRIOT Act. They appear intent on

reopening settled case law on use of these authorities on

crimes unrelated to terror.

Congress should not encourage, let alone facilitate, such

efforts by holding open the PATRIOT Act for further revision

and adulteration. The original PATRIOT Act as a

whole infringed only modestly on our civil liberties and did

not meaningfully intrude on the privacy rights of law-abiding

Americans. We need to keep in mind, moreover, that if its

precautions fail to prevent some future terrorist attack, we

are likely to see impassioned demands for greater security

measures at the expense of our freedoms. Since few, if any of

us relish that prospect, we need to ensure the PATRIOT Act

retains its core provisions and authorities--and remains an

effective tool for securing the home front in the War for the

Free World.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I support the Private Property Rights Protection Act.

Two hundred years ago, our Founders wrote into the Bill of Rights a guarantee of the right to private property. Such a right lies at the foundation of a democracy where citizens have the freedom to buy, sell, exchange or make a profit on all forms of property.

In recent years, it has become more and more common for the government to seize private property under the guise of eminent domain for public use.

Last year, the Supreme Court gave landowners more reason to worry. They decided that State and local governments can take property from a private landowner in order to give or sell it to another private owner. This 5 to 4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London threatens the legitimate rights of landowners. We must act to protect those rights.

In the months following the Kelo decision, several different bills aimed at preventing eminent domain abuses were introduced. The Private Property Rights Protection Act is a fair and sensible combination of all of those bills.

It prevents States or localities that seize private property in order to transfer it to other private owners from receiving economic development funding from the Federal Government for 2 years. But the bill is not automatically applied. It gives a State or locality the opportunity to correct any abuse of power by returning all property to the landowner or replacing any property that has been damaged. If the State or locality does so, they will still be allowed to obtain Federal funding.

Mr. Chairman, the right to private property ownership is one of the cornerstones on which this country was founded. H.R. 4128 will make sure that right continues to be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 420.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005.

Frivolous lawsuits bankrupt individuals, ruin reputations, drive up insurance premiums, increase health care costs, and put a drag on the economy.

Frivolous lawsuits are brought, for example, when there is no evidence that shows negligence on the part of the defendant. These nuisance lawsuits make a mockery of our legal system.

Of course, many Americans have legitimate legal grievances, from someone wrongly disfigured during an operation to a company responsible for contaminating a community's water supply. No one who deserves justice should be denied justice; however, gaming of the system by a few lawyers drives up the cost of doing business and drives down the integrity of the judicial system.

Let me give some examples. The chief executive officer of San Antonio's Methodist Children's Hospital was sued after he stepped into a plaintiff's hospital room and asked how the patient was doing. Of course, a jury cleared him of any wrongdoing.

A Pennsylvania man sued the Frito-Lay Company claiming that Doritos chips were ``inherently dangerous'' after one stuck in his throat. After 8 years of costly litigation, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the case, writing that there is ``a commonsense notion that it is necessary to properly chew hard foodstuffs prior to swallowing.'' But, of course, the defendants had to absorb hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

In a New Jersey Little League game, a player lost sight of a fly ball hit because of the sun. He was injured when the ball struck him in the eye. The coach, who was forced to hire a lawyer after the boy's parents sued, had to settle the case for $25,000.

Today almost any party can bring any suit in almost any jurisdiction. That is because plaintiffs and their attorneys have nothing to lose. All they

want is for the defendant to settle. This is legalized extortion. It is lawsuit lottery.

Defendants, on the other hand, can unfairly lose their lifetime savings, their careers, their businesses, and their reputations. This is simply not justice.

There is a remedy: the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. It passed the House last year by a margin of almost 60 votes. The bill applies to both plaintiffs who file frivolous lawsuits to extort financial settlements and to defendants who unnecessarily prolong the legal process. If a judge determines that a claim is frivolous, they can order the plaintiff to pay the attorneys' fees of the defendant who was victim of their frivolous claim. This will make a lawyer think twice before filing a frivolous lawsuit.

It is a problem that even the American Trial Lawyers Association has tried to address in its own code of conduct by declaring, ``No American Trial Lawyers Association member shall file or maintain a frivolous suit, issue, or position.'' However, ATLA has not disciplined a single attorney for violation of this code of conduct in the last 2 years.

This legislation also prevents forum shopping. It requires that personal injury claims be filed only where the plaintiff resides, where the injury occurred, or the defendant's principal place of business is located. This provision addresses the growing problem of attorneys who shop around the country for judges who routinely award excessive amounts.

One of the Nation's wealthiest trial lawyers, Dickie Scruggs, has told us exactly how this abuse occurs. Here is what he says about forum shopping:

``What I call the magic jurisdiction . . . is where the judiciary is elected with verdict money. The trial lawyers have established relationships with the judges that are elected; they're State Court judges; they're populists. They've got large populations of voters who are in on the deal. They're getting their piece in many cases. And so it's a political force in their jurisdiction, and it's almost impossible to get a fair trial if you're a defendant in some of these places. The plaintiff lawyer walks in there and writes the number on the blackboard, and the first juror meets the last one coming out the door with that amount of money . . . Any lawyer fresh out of law school can walk in there and win the case, so it doesn't matter what the evidence or law is.''

Forum shopping is a part of lawsuit abuse, and we must pass legislation to stop it from occurring. Even several largely recognized Democrats have acknowledged the need to end frivolous lawsuits. For instance, the John Kerry for President campaign endorsed national legislation in which ``lawyers who file frivolous cases would face tough mandatory sanctions.'' And former Vice Presidential candidate Senator Edwards stated, ``Lawyers who bring frivolous cases should face tough, mandatory sanctions.''

The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act is sensible reform that will help restore confidence to America's justice system.

Mr. Chairman, the following organizations support H.R. 420: American Tort Reform Association, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, National Restaurant Association, American Insurance Association, and the United States Chamber of Commerce. And this legislation is the top legislative priority of the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Constitutional Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the scourge of frivolous litigation mars the fabric of our legal system and undermines the vitality of our economy. As President Bush has stated, ``We have a responsibility to confront frivolous litigation head on.'' H.R. 420 would do exactly that.

Frivolous lawsuits have become a form of legalized extortion. Without the serious threat of certain punishment for filing frivolous claims, innocent people and small businesses will continue to confront the stark economic reality that simply paying off frivolous claims through monetary settlements is always cheaper than litigating the case until no fault is found. Frivolous lawsuits subvert the proper role of the tort system and affront fundamental notions of fairness that are central to our system of justice.

The effects of frivolous litigation are both clear and widespread. Churches are discouraging counseling by ministers. Children have learned to threaten teachers with lawsuits. Youth sports are shutting down in the face of lawsuits for injuries and even hurt feelings. Common playground equipment is now an endangered species. The Girl Scouts in the metro Detroit area alone have to sell 36,000 boxes of cookies each year just to pay for their liability insurance. Good Samaritans are discouraged. When one man routinely cleared a trail after snowstorms, the county had to ask him to stop. The supervisor of district operations wrote, ``If a person falls, you are more liable than if you had never plowed at all.''

Unfortunately, the times we are in allow for a much more litigious environment than common sense would dictate. A Federal lawsuit has even been filed against U.S. weather forecasters after the South Asian tsunami disaster.

Today results of frivolous lawsuits are written on all manner of product warnings that aim to prevent obvious misuse. A warning label on a baby stroller cautions, ``Remove child before folding.'' A five-inch brass fishing lure with three hooks is labeled, ``Harmful if swallowed.'' And household irons warn, ``Never iron clothes while they are being worn.''

Small businesses and workers suffer the most. The Nation's oldest ladder manufacturer, family-owned John S. Tilley Ladders Company near Albany, New York, recently filed for bankruptcy protection and sold off most of its assets due to litigation costs. Founded in 1855, the Tilley firm could not handle the cost of liability insurance, which had risen from 6 percent of sales a decade ago to 29 percent, while never losing an actual court judgment. The workers of John S. Tilley Ladders never faced a competitor they could not beat in the marketplace, but they were no match for frivolous lawsuits.

When Business Week published an extensive article on what the most effective legal reforms would be, it stated that what is needed are ``Penalties That Sting.'' As Business Week recommends, ``Give judges stronger tools to punish renegade lawyers.''

Before 1993, it was mandatory for judges to impose sanctions such as public censures, fines, or orders to pay for the other side's legal expenses. Then the Civil Rules Advisory Committee, an obscure branch of the courts, made penalties optional. This needs to be reversed by Congress. Today, H.R. 420 would do exactly that.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure presently does not require sanctions against parties who bring frivolous lawsuits. Without certain punishment for those who bring these suits and the threat of serious monetary penalties to compensate the victims of frivolous lawsuits, there is little incentive for lawsuit victims to spend time and money seeking sanctions for lawsuit abuse. In fact, as currently written, Rule 11 allows lawyers to entirely avoid sanctions for filing frivolous claims by withdrawing them within 3 weeks. Such a rule actually encourages frivolous claims because personal injury attorneys can file harassing pleadings secure in the knowledge that they have nothing to lose. If someone objects, they can always retreat without penalty.

H.R. 420 would restore mandatory sanctions and monetary penalties under Federal Rule 11 for filing frivolous lawsuits and abusing the litigation process. It would also extend these same protections to cover State cases that a State judge determines have interstate implications and close the loopholes of a tort system that often resembles a tort lottery.

The legislation applies to frivolous lawsuits brought by businesses as well as individuals, and it expressly precludes application of the bill to civil rights cases if applying the bill to such cases would bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims or remedies under Federal, State, or local civil rights law. The Class Action Fairness Act, which was recently signed into law after receiving broad support in both Houses, prohibits the unfair practice of forum shopping for favorable courts when the case is styled as a class action. The same policy should apply to individual lawsuits as well.

One of the Nation's wealthiest personal injury attorneys, Richard ``Dickie'' Scruggs, and I quoted him at length a while ago, but I will quote him a little bit shorter right now, described what he calls ``magic jurisdictions'' as ``What I call the `magic jurisdictions' is where it is almost impossible to get

a fair trial if you are a defendant. Any lawyer fresh out of law school can walk in there and win the case, so it does not matter what the evidence or the law is.''

America's system of justice deserves better, much better. H.R. 420 prevents the unfair practice of forum shopping by requiring that personal injury cases be brought only where there is some reasonable connection to the case; namely, where the plaintiff lives or was allegedly injured, where the defendant's principal place of business is located, or where the defendant resides.

The time for congressional action to close the loopholes that create incentives for frivolous lawsuits is now. Too many jobs have been lost and more will not be created if this legislation is not enacted into law.

I urge my colleagues to return a measure of fairness to America's legal system by passing the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan manager's amendment I am offering today reflects the important contributions of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). It incorporates into the base bill provisions imposing sanctions for the destruction of relevant documents in a pending Federal court proceeding, an amendment setting standards for a court's determination that certain court records should be sealed, and an amendment providing for a presumption on a Rule 11 violation when the same issue is repeatedly relitigated.

This manager's amendment also makes clear that in the antiforum- shopping provisions, if there is no State court in the county in which the injury occurred, the case can be brought in the nearest adjacent county where a court of general jurisdiction is located.

Finally, the manager's amendment makes clear that the legislation does not affect personal injury claims that Federal bankruptcy law requires to be heard in a Federal bankruptcy court. This reasonable request was made by the National Bankruptcy Conference Committee on Legislation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute amendment. And I have to point out that this same substitute amendment was defeated in the last Congress. Mr. Chairman, where to begin. I will begin with the title of the first section of the substitute. It is entitled, ``Three Strikes and You're Out.'' But the title of section 1 does not reflect the text it contains.

In fact, the substitute provides that following three violations of its provisions: ``The court shall refer each such attorney to one or more appropriate State bar associations for disciplinary proceedings.''

The substitute does not say the attorney shall be suspended from the practice of law. However, the base bill explicitly provides for such a sanction. Specifically, the base bill states that after three strikes: ``The Federal district court shall suspend that attorney from the practice of law in that Federal district court.''

The base bill contains a substantive three-strikes-and-you-are-out provision that will prevent attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits from getting into the courtroom. The substitute merely requires that repeat offenders be reported to State bar associations.

But it gets worse. Not only are filers of frivolous lawsuits not out after three strikes under the substitute, but the substitute even changes what constitutes a strike under existing law. Currently, Rule 11 contains four criteria that can lead to a Rule 11 violation.

The substitute references only three. Currently, Rule 11 allows sanctions against frivolous filers whose denials of factual contentions are not warranted on the evidence or are not reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

The substitute removes this protection for victims of frivolous pleadings under existing law. In addition, the substitute for the first time without penalty allows defendants to file papers with the court that include factual denials of the allegations against them that are not warranted by the evidence and not reasonably based.

Instead, the substitute provides additional protection for defendants filing frivolous defenses that are not warranted by the evidence and not reasonably based.

This is a step backward for victims of frivolous lawsuits under both State and Federal law. So the substitute not only undermines the clarity of the three strikes and you're out rule, it purports to establish, it dramatically expands the potential for even more frivolous lawsuits.

Furthermore, the base bill provides that those who file frivolous lawsuits can be made to pay all costs and attorneys' fees that are ``incurred as a direct result of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper that is the subject of the violation.'' The substitute does not include that critical language which is necessary to make clear that those filing frivolous lawsuits must be made to pay the full costs imposed on their victim by the frivolous lawsuit.

The proponent of this amendment claims that the anti-forum shopping standards in H.R. 420 regarding where a personal injury lawsuit can be brought are somehow unfair, even though they are the very same standards contained in the vast majority of State venue laws. In fact, the gentleman from California's own State venue law provides as follows: ``If the action is for injury to person or personal property or for death from wrongful act or negligence, the superior court in either the county where the injury occurs or the injury causing death occurs or the county where the defendants, or some of them reside at the commencement of the action, is the proper court for the trial of the action.''

Insofar as foreign corporations cannot be sued in some limited circumstances in this country, that is not the fault of H.R. 420, nor is it the fault of California's venue law. It is a result of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process Clause.

Mr. Chairman, the substitute does not provide for three strikes and you're out. It provides for three strikes and you get referred to a State bar association that can continue to let the offending attorney practice law.

The Democratic substitute weakens existing law that protects plaintiffs from defendants that file frivolous denials that are not warranted by the evidence and not reasonably based. This substitute amendment includes provisions that are unconstitutional and penalizes those who would challenge those unconstitutional rules. That is more than three strikes against the substitute, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to return it to the bench and vote yes for the job- protecting and job-creating Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act when it gets to final passage.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the gentleman from Wisconsin who just spoke that I could have saved him a lot of time. And I would like to remind him that he might want to take a look at the language of H.R. 420, that it applies just as much to businesses as it does individuals, despite statements to the contrary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the chairman of the Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, and I am the remaining speaker on this side, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California who spoke previously to the gentleman from California who just finished used a couple of words that I would like to return to and clarify. She used the word ``madness,'' but anyone listening to this debate or anyone having a firsthand knowledge of frivolous

lawsuits knows that the real madness is the filing of thousands of frivolous lawsuits across this country that unfairly tarnish the reputations of innocent citizens, that unfairly destroy the businesses of small business owners across the country. That is the type of madness that this bill addresses.

She also used the phrase ``special interests,'' but again, I think anyone listening to this debate today and anyone knowing firsthand the agony and the losses and the destruction caused by frivolous lawsuits realizes that the special interests that this bill hopes to protect are really the special interests of the American people who have stuttered and staggered and been burdened by frivolous lawsuits too many times and much too often in our history.

The special interests, if there are any, involved in this legislation again are obvious to those who listened to the debate, the trial lawyers of America; and, Mr. Chairman, let me take a minute here just to dwell on that subject because I happen to believe the vast majority of trial lawyers or personal injury lawyers are honorable people and they are members of an honorable profession.

I think one of the aspects of the debate that most troubles me is, in fact, the lack of sanctioning lawyers who engage in frivolous lawsuits by the Trial Lawyers of America. Their own code of conduct reads as follows: ``No ATLA member shall file or maintain a frivolous suit, issue or position.'' We checked and not a single member of the Trial Lawyers Association, not a single lawyer, had been sanctioned in the last 2 years; and, in fact, no one can even tell us when the last time any attorney was sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

I think the trial lawyers would have a lot more credibility on this subject if, in fact, they had monitored their own ranks and, in fact, had sanctioned just a single trial lawyer for filing one of those tens of thousands of frivolous lawsuits that have been filed.

That, as I say, is discouraging; and I hope the Trial Lawyers of America will see fit in the future to sanction some attorney somewhere, somehow who has filed a frivolous lawsuit.

Mr. Chairman, anyone who is worried about what frivolous lawsuits will do to them, their family, their friends or their businesses ought to oppose this substitute amendment. It is an amendment that would do very little to prevent frivolous lawsuits. The underlying bill, however, will deter lawyers from filing those frivolous lawsuits.

Let me give some examples of actual suits that are frivolous, but that would be allowed under the Democratic substitute amendment.

A New Jersey man filed suit against Galloway Township School District claiming that assigned seating in a school lunchroom violated his 12- year-old daughter's right to free speech.

A Florida high school senior filed suit after her picture was left out of the school's yearbook.

An Arizona man filed suit against his hometown after he broke his leg sliding into third base during a softball tournament.

An Alabama person sued the school district after his daughter did not make the cheerleading squad, claiming that the rejection caused her humiliation and mental anguish.

The families of two North Haven, Connecticut, sophomores filed suit because of the school's decision to drop the students from the drum majorette squad.

A Pennsylvania teenager sued her former softball coach, claiming that the coach's incorrect teaching style ruined her chances for an athletic scholarship.

After a wreck in which an Indiana man collided with a woman who was talking on her cell phone, the man sued the cell phone manufacturer.

A Knoxville, Tennessee, woman sued McDonald's, alleging that a hot pickle dropped from a hamburger burned her chin and caused her mental injury.

A Michigan man filed suit claiming that television ads that showed Bud Light as the source of fantasies involving tropical settings and beautiful women misled him and caused him physical and mental injury, emotional distress, and financial loss.

A woman sued Universal Studios trying to get damages because the theme park's haunted house was too scary.

In every one of these instances and in thousands of others, the individuals sued were forced to spend considerable amounts of money, time and effort to defend themselves. This is a travesty of justice, and it is simply wrong.

H.R. 420 will end the filing of frivolous lawsuits. Unfortunately, the substitute amendment will still allow small businesses, churches, schools, hospitals, sports leagues, cities and others to be burdened with these meritless and frivolous claims.

This substitute amendment provides no disincentive to file a frivolous lawsuit. It would still subject small business owners to the cost of frivolous lawsuits and subject individuals to the cost of rising insurance premiums and health care costs that result from frivolous lawsuits.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, this substitute amendment does not provide any relief to those who would be unfairly targeted by frivolous lawsuits. The underlying bill would.

The substitute includes no real consequences for the attorney who repeatedly files frivolous lawsuits. The underlying bill does.

The substitute includes nothing to address the problem of forum shopping which is also a large part of the problem. The underlying bill does.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the substitute amendment and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill, which, in fact, would deter lawsuit abuse.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this completely irrelevant motion to recommit. First, nothing in H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, prohibits anyone from being sued for fraud to the full extent of Federal law. Second, the motion to recommit relates to contract claims when the section of the bill that it modifies relates only to personal injury claims.

There is no flaw in the bill that needs to be corrected, but even if there were, the motion to recommit fails to correct it because it relates to contract claims rather than personal injury claims.

Mr. Speaker, I just received a statement of administration policy from the executive office of the President which I would like to read, because it provides a good summary of H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005. This statement reads as follows:

``The administration supports House passage of H.R. 420 in order to address the growing problem of frivolous litigation. H.R. 420 would rein in the negative impact of frivolous lawsuits on the Nation's economy by establishing a strong disincentive to file such suits in Federal and State courts. Junk lawsuits are expensive to fight and often force innocent small businesses to pay exorbitant costs to make these claims go away. These costs hurt the economy, clog our courts, and are burdening the American businesses of America. The administration believes the bill is a step in the right direction toward the goal of ending lawsuit abuse.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this absolutely irrelevant motion to recommit and support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, my home State of Texas is well known for the number of residents who enjoy hunting and value their right to own a gun. Today firearms are found in half of all Texas households. A State law similar to S. 397 which protects the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits, in fact, is already in effect.

Texans, like most Americans, use guns for recreation, hunting, and personal protection. Unfortunately, there are some people who want to make gun manufacturers liable for what other others do with their firearms.

Our courts are already overloaded with frivolous lawsuits designed to topple industries that manufacture products a few individuals in our society have decided are not safe or appropriate for Americans to have.

It is the typical liberal mindset. They know better than other people what is best for them.

If this bill does not pass, Texans and other Americans will be less able to protect themselves from burglars, rapists, and murderers.

The Department of Justice estimates that 1.5 million Americans every year defend themselves using a firearm.

The Constitution protects all Americans' right to bear arms. The second amendment states, ``The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''

Mr. Speaker, to allow frivolous lawsuits to constrain the right of Americans to lawfully use guns is both irresponsible and unconstitutional.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment but support the underlying bill, H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act.

It is an important piece of legislation that continues a series of tort reform measures considered in Congress this year. We passed this bill during the 108th Congress, and we should pass it again today. I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 554, which will prevent a few lawyers from seeking to destroy another industry that employs millions of people and provides a welcome service to individuals who choose to use it.

In general, the bill prohibits weight gain related claims against the food industry. It allows such claims only

where a person gained weight as a result of the food industry breaking a State or Federal law. I remember in 2002, when individuals filed a lawsuit against McDonald's alleging that the fast food chain had made them overweight and unhealthy.

I remember thinking that people should take responsibility for their own eating habits. But it is no longer just one suit against one company. Now there are suits against all types of the 900,000 restaurants in the food industry from small local eateries to giant fast food chains.

We must set a limit as to what litigation is allowed. A nonfrivolous claim should proceed, but a suit dictating the food choices of Americans should be stopped before it is even filed.

The reality is that restaurant meals will change according to what people prefer to eat. In recent years we have seen fast food chains add more healthy choices, like salad and fruit, to their menus, but people should have the freedom to eat what they want.

Mr. Chairman, we should encourage personal responsibility and healthy eating in our society, but we should not encourage lawsuits that blame others for our own choices and that could bankrupt entire industries. Because Americans should have the freedom to eat what they want and because we should take responsibility for our own actions, I support the passage of the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2290.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 457) recognizing the importance and positive contributions of chemistry to our everyday lives and supporting the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 457, the resolution now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 457, a resolution recognizing the importance of chemistry and honoring National Chemistry Week.

The importance of chemistry in our lives cannot be overstated. As H. Res. 457 recognizes, advances in chemistry impact every one of us, from the creation of a safer child's toy to the search for potential cures for cancer. Without a fundamental understanding of the chemistry that undergirds all modern technologies and products, we would not have the success of space travel or the promise of nanotechnology.

Those who work in the chemical sciences are as important as the products that they produce. Chemical scientists are vital to numerous industries, including the pharmaceutical, agricultural, and automotive sectors. This large and diverse workforce is composed of millions of Americans who work to maintain our global leadership in these and other areas.

In addition, the United States has a history of success in the chemical sciences. Since 1992, every Nobel Prize in chemistry has included at least one scientist from the United States. Most recently, the 2005 Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded to two American scientists for developing a chemical process that has resulted in the production of cheaper and more environmentally friendly products.

Yet future accolades and our continued global and economic leadership depend on our ability to inspire the next generation of chemical scientists and engineers.

It is for this reason that H. Res. 457 celebrates the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week. This week, children of all ages will be exposed to the wonders of chemistry. This year's theme, The Joy of Toys, was chosen to highlight the impact of chemistry on the creation and improvement of toys. Why do rubber balls bounce and why do paper boats float are just some of the interesting questions that will be explored through hands-on experiments and demonstrations.

These activities will both educate and inspire participants by creating a fun atmosphere in which to understand the role of chemistry in our daily lives.

In conclusion, I thank the American Chemical Society for its ongoing efforts to educate children and adults about the benefits of chemistry. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for their steadfast leadership on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of chemistry in our daily lives and the positive impact of National Chemistry Week by voting in favor of H. Res. 457.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.