Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 835) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us is a well-balanced, structured rule that provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, and makes in order only those amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. These amendments shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule for S. 878, a bill to authorize the creation of a number of much-needed Federal judgeships, as well as in strong support of the underlying legislation. This legislation already enjoys strong bipartisan support in the other body, where it was sponsored by my good friend, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, because it would greatly improve the ability of the Federal judiciary to handle its caseload and increase the number of cases and appeals that sit before them weighing the merits of each case. By passing this legislation, Congress can help to lighten the load on some of our most overworked Federal judges and reduce the amount of time it takes them to review and process cases for appeal. By adding these new judgeships, Congress will be taking a meaningful step towards making justice in the Federal Judiciary more swift and fair in the United States of America. We are bringing this legislation to the floor today in response to a survey conducted every 2 years by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Judicial Conference makes an objective, biennial review of all U.S. Courts of Appeal and U.S. District Courts to determine if additional judges are needed in the Federal Court system. Recently, the Conference determined its benchmark caseload standards for Federal courts at 430 weighted cases per judgeship for district courts and 500 weighted cases per panel for circuit courts. This benchmark was then used to recommend to Congress what new judgeships are needed according to how many cases above the benchmark a particular Federal Court is handling. The Judicial Conference process also took into account additional criteria that may influence the judgeship needs of each court, including the presence of senior judges and magistrate judges that help to relieve caseloads, geographical factors, unusual caseload complexities, and temporary caseload increases or decreases. Based upon these findings, the Conference then made a recommendation to Congress about how many new judges are currently needed to fill the judgeship gap in the Federal Judiciary. The Judicial Conference of the United States completed its last review in March of 2003 and submitted a list of recommendations to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary. The legislation that we are considering today reflects those recommendations and creates 11 new circuit court seats and 47 new district court seats. In addition, under this legislation, four other temporary district judgeships are converted to permanent status. Mr. Speaker, my father, Judge William S. Sessions, was a Federal District Judge in San Antonio, Texas, for 13 years, so I have firsthand experience in understanding how overworked judges are and the need we have for additional judges. However, this legislation is not just about making life easier for our Federal judges; it is about providing people with cases before Federal courts with the appropriate recourse to a speedy resolution of their complaints. A judicial system that is unable to complete its work in a timely fashion compromises the integrity of that system, and this bill will help to restore our Federal courts' ability to rule on matters before them in a fair, deliberative, and expedited fashion. I believe that it is our duty, as Members of Congress, to address the concerns raised by the Judicial Conference of the United States; and by passing this rule, and this legislation, Congress will help address the overwhelming backlog in our Federal Court system. I encourage all of my colleagues to stand up for our Judiciary by supporting this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 814 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The points that have been made by my colleagues on the other side, I think it is important for us to recognize that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has 48 judges. That is twice the number of total judges of the next largest circuit. The Ninth Circuit represents some 56 million people, roughly one- fifth of this Nation's population. And this is 25 million more people than the next largest circuit. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the wonderful chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary here in the House, held hearings on this subject to gain information to be able to render a reasonable observation about how important this would be; and, in fact, we do believe that addressing this problem by breaking up and adding more circuits would be beneficial, would be beneficial to not only other States and other petitioners, but also to make sure that the effective enforcement of justice was properly achieved in the United States of America. So I am proud to say that the Committee on Rules did yesterday hear the debate about the amendments that were before us. We looked at and I believe properly rendered a decision to say that we are concerned about the number of judges, we are concerned about the way the courts look in terms of the circuit courts that are available to people for litigation, and we moved forward with a bill that I believe is balanced, one which I believe will pass, one which I believe will mirror the other body to make sure that the effective use of judges, effective use of resources, and effective legislation by the United States Congress, hopefully to be signed by President George W. Bush, will be achieved with this legislation. I wholeheartedly support not only this legislation but would ask each of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. And I want to thank, for his exemplary service, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the fabulous chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for bringing forth this bill today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor one of the United States' most reliable allies, the Republic of China, on the occasion of its National Day, October 10. That great nation, better known as Taiwan, has served as a mirror on our times, reflecting the agonies and dreams of the 20th Century and the soaring aspirations of the new century. The ROC was born of the tragedy of Communist betrayal, reared in the tension of the cold war, and reached maturity during the information age. The ROC was the first casualty of Imperial Japanese aggression and our staunch ally in the fight to free the Pacific of that tyranny. In 1949, Chinese Communists seized power on the mainland and the central government of the Republic of China relocated to Taiwan. Since that time, we have rightfully considered Taiwan's security of vital interest to the United States. In 1950, President Truman ordered the Seventh Fleet to protect Taiwan from attack by the Chinese Communists and we have maintained a presence in the area ever since. Moreover, the Congress has consistently expressed its support of the ROC since the passage of Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. Mr. Speaker, Taiwan has developed into a premier Asian democracy, having peacefully evolved from one party rule to the vibrant home of multi-party elections. Taiwan's political development has been complemented by its economic rise as one of Asia's ``Four Tigers,'' along with Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea. Since 1949, the ROC's economy has moved from a leader in agricultural exports, to a major manufacturer of small electronics and consumer goods, to today's premier Asian producer of capital- and technology-intensive commodities, such as personal computers and machinery. Because its economy has achieved such rapid growth, Taiwan boasts one of the world's highest standards of living, with only 1 percent of its population below the poverty line in 2000. Today, the ROC is an irreplaceable part of the world economy and vital to continued growth here in the U.S. I know that my colleagues will join me in wishing Taiwan's President Chen Shuibian, its Representative here in the U.S., Dr. David Tawei Lee and the 23 million people of Taiwan a most happy National Day and continued peace and prosperity.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his diligent work on this issue and others who are also doing so, and I want to thank him for his hard work on behalf of all Americans. And I thank the gentleman for engaging in this colloquy.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for yielding to me for the opportunity to engage in a colloquy. As the chairman knows, I have done a great deal of work on waste, fraud, and abuse in the Congress. And in particular, I rise today to discuss the efforts that are underway in our government to address ongoing fraud that is costing our highway trust fund untold sums. There is a significant problem going on in every State of this great Nation that is not only taking money from desperately needed transportation projects but funding organized crime activities and quite possibly terrorist activities. The issue is not glamorous and it is not dangerous. It is not punishable by high criminal penalties and, therefore, receives little attention. The issue is the fraudulent use of off-road untaxed diesel fuel as taxable on-road diesel. This type of fraud leads to a profit of nearly 50 cents a gallon in combined Federal and State taxes. It may not sound like much. Some estimates, however, have shown that well over $1 billion a year is lost in tax revenue. In the scope of our national budget, some think $1 billion or $2 billion does not seem like a great amount, and it is not the type of thinking that will ensure the problems like these will ever get resolved. Fortunately, the Internal Revenue Service has been examining technologies for the past few years that will give them better tools to fight this type of fraud. Make no mistake, those involved in this type of fraud are well financed, smart business people that leverage technology at every opportunity. I think it is time that we respond in kind. In order to support the IRS's efforts in finishing this fight, requests have been submitted to the chairman to fund a pilot program to put technology out in the field. What is so unique about this pilot project is that we will see immediate returns. The last time the IRS implemented a program to combat this type of fraud, there was a 22.5 percent increase in tax collections in the first 12 months. This pilot project will pay for itself and will lead to a national program that will recover potentially billions of dollars that are so desperately needed for our highways. I would like the chairman, if he could, to comment on this pilot project, please.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We had the opportunity to hear from the gentleman from Missouri to enunciate not only what was in his heart about this Pledge of Allegiance, and I believe he supported very strongly the belief of exactly why we are here today for the Flag Protection Act. I think that there are many people in the United States that simply do not like the Pledge of Allegiance and would wish and choose to change that. We have heard the gentleman from Florida suggest that the world and this country will be much different in the future, and while I cannot argue with the gentleman that I think change is incumbent and will always happen, I think that there are some things that are worthy of keeping, that we should hold dear and important to this Nation. And one of them is the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I think it is one of the reasons why, when new citizens come to this country and they become citizens, that tears stream down their eyes as they raise their hand, as a Federal judge or a Federal magistrate will administer their oath, and then they will say the Pledge of Allegiance. And people who are today fighting terrorism and represent our United States military, they stand up at attention before our flag. They understand that the United States of America is not perfect, and there may be changes in our future. But I believe that they also believe that one thing should not change, and that is the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Every day, when we open the United States Congress, we respectfully give our thanks not only to God, and certainly the words right over your head there, Mr. Speaker, ``in God we trust'' are stated from the podium up front, but also we say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. This body has been used as an attempt to publicize and perhaps politicize the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I think that it is a right thing that we will stand up for the Flag Protection Act. I think it is the right thing to do, and I encourage all of my colleagues to not only stand up for this flag but for this wonderful legislation, for traditional American values and our Founding Fathers' intent. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have had a very eloquent opportunity to hear from the gentleman from Florida as he spoke about his desire not to support this legislation. We should also remember that there are many judges around this country who have the same opinion that the gentleman has, and they would wish a case to come forth to them where they could change this Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America, one Nation under God, indivisible. And this is one of the reasons why this is an important issue. The gentleman correctly talked about the things which we have now achieved or not achieved, in his opinion, for the last year-and-a-half of this Congress, the 108th Congress. We had votes on taxes. We had votes on opportunities to limit lawsuits, lawsuit abuse. And every single time, we have had an opportunity to vote on these very important issues. So I am proud of what we have done. But I would also say that the Pledge of Allegiance is something that is worth fighting for on the floor of the House of Representatives and to protect. So I know and recognize that there are my friends in the other party that do not agree with us on this, that they would call it un-American that we would not allow some Federal judge to hear a case and then to legislate against the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe that is what Congress is here to do, and I believe that judges are there to rule on the law, not to make law. That is why we offer this bill, this very important bill, that we have here tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 781 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. The resolution before us is a well-balanced, structured rule providing 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. They shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Finally, it waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and its underlying legislation, the Pledge Protection Act of 2004. This legislation offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) follows up and improves upon the work that the House has already accomplished on behalf of protecting the Pledge of Allegiance from those whose ultimate goal is to undermine and devalue the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance by stripping the words ``under God'' from it. Since June 27, 2002, the House has voted three times to protect the Pledge from those fringe and radical elements in our country who dislike its content and its meaning as it is currently written. Twice the House has overwhelmingly voted through House resolutions to express its opinion that the 9th Circuit Court's decision in Newdow v. The United States Congress is incorrect, and once to limit the use of Federal funds from enforcing this onerous judgment. Today, Congress has the opportunity to once again stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance and the values that it imparts to the millions of patriotic Americans who recite it every day by supporting this carefully crafted resolution. H.R. 2028 would amend the Federal judicial code to deny jurisdiction to any court established by an act of Congress to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the first amendment of the Constitution. This legislation would prevent Federal judges from legislating from the bench and striking down the historic and heartfelt meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance. My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), has clearly stated, ``A remedy to abuses by Federal judges has long been understood to lie, among other places, in Congress's authority to limit Federal Court jurisdiction.'' I too understand this, as my father was a Federal judge for many years, and I know that not all judges are interested in legislating from the bench, but there are those occurrences and abuses that do occur. I believe that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) is correct. Mr. Speaker, the choice posed by this legislation is stark and it is very clear: Should Congress allow those activist judges to decide by fiat how patriotic Americans across our great country may pledge their allegiance to our country; or should Congress, which is directly accountable and speaks to and for the people of this great Nation, exercise its authority to act as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution as envisioned by our Founding Fathers? I believe that this choice is simple. It is very important for every Member of the House to place themselves on record as sharing the values of the majority of Americans in our country that believe that America is one Nation under God and that the opinion of a few liberal judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can never change that fact. There may be some who come to the floor today to argue that Congress is not competent enough to address this issue. They will argue, I am sure, in an attempt to confuse the issue, that only Federal courts can decide on constitutionality and that this legislation represents some kind of affront to the separation of powers doctrine which our government is based upon. This attempt to divert attention from the real matter is not only deceptive, I believe it would be patently wrong. The Pledge of Allegiance Act does not dictate how the courts should come to a decision. Instead, it carefully limits the jurisdiction of the Federal courts clearly within the constitutional powers of the Congress to hear a case calling into question the pledge's constitutionality. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to protect this very important right that we have in our country to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and to stand up for values upon which our great Nation was founded by supporting this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay a special tribute to an admired colleague and dear friend of mine, Dr. Mike Moses, as he departs from the Superintendent post of the Dallas Independent School District. Mike is not only admired by those in Dallas, but commands the respect of his peers throughout the state. Dr. Moses' dedication to educating our youth is evidenced by his service to the Dallas Independent School District and as the Texas Commissioner of Education under then Governor George W. Bush. Mike has presided over years of improvement and progress for the district. During his tenure, the Dallas Independent School District passed the largest school bond issue in Texas, providing $1.37 billion for 20 schools, 40 additions and renovations to 218 existing campuses in the district. Mike is rightly credited with improving the district's accountability ratings, reducing the number of low-performing schools by half. Mike Moses' service has been truly outstanding and for that I wish to thank him here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. It has been my honor and pleasure to work with him over the last several years, and I know I speak for the entire Dallas ISD staff, faculty, and administration when I say he will be greatly missed. I wish Mike, and his family, all the very best as they move into the next stage of their life.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. James A. Spriggs on the occasion of his retirement as President of the Greater Irving-Las Colinas Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Spriggs became President of the Greater Irving-Las Colinas Chamber of Commerce in April of 1995, and the organization has seen massive growth under his experienced leadership and dedication. The Greater Irving-Las Collins Chamber of Commerce now has a budget in excess of $1.2 million and plays a vital role in assisting the promotion of business in the 32nd Congressional District of Texas. Mr. Spriggs's involvement in the community is not limited to his role with the Greater Irving-Las Colinas Chamber of Commerce; however, he is an active volunteer for a number of societal organizations. Among his commitments include: the United Cerebral Palsy of Arkansas, Irving Hospital Foundation, Dallas Easter Seal Society for Children, Former President of the Irving Symphony Orchestra, Member of the Board of Councilors for the University of Dallas in Irving along with many more contributions that are too many to mention. His active presence will be greatly missed, but he has the thanks of the greater Irving community for his many years of dedication and volunteer service. Mr. Speaker, I wish Mr. Spriggs, his wife Carolyn, and the rest of the Spriggs family all the best on this occasion.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today, as I had stated, this is balanced legislation that is important to consumers. It is important to judges who sit to make themselves ready for those lawsuits that are necessary to make wise decisions on. But frivolous lawsuits are clogging our courts. Mr. Speaker, I would remind this body that we have debated numerous tort reform issues, and one which was decided as a local issue in Texas was about medical malpractice, tort reform for medical malpractice. It was passed last year. It became law in January of this year. And one of the most important health care systems in Texas, a company called Christus HealthCare Systems, has announced earlier this month that as a result of those tort reform changes in Texas, they are able to put $21 million that previously they had set aside for lawsuits, that would go right back into their hospitals, to health care, to retraining of their employees, to make their system better, to make health care work better for every single consumer, and most of all to hire more nurses which is where the shortage was in their hospital. Tort reform issues and ideas work but so do those things like we are doing today, H.R. 4571, that says we are going to alleviate and stop frivolous lawsuits from clogging our courts. I would remind this wonderful body that the young chairman, the gentleman from San Antonio, Texas (Mr. Smith), has worked very diligently to ensure that this is balanced legislation that was brought to the floor, as he appeared yesterday in the Committee on Rules to talk about the need for this. I think we are listening to the special interests and we admit in the Republican Party we do have a specialty interest, they are call consumers. They are called taxpayers. And those special interest people that the Republican Party represents, we will continue to do so with common sense legislation that will allow the United States Congress to speak on issues that are important. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to stand up to support not only this rule but also the underlying legislation that is good for consumers. It is good for small businesses. It is good to ensure that America's economic growth continues. And most of all, it is good for the people, like Senator Edwards noted, who are there on the front line in our courts who say that frivolous lawsuits must end. The United States Congress will speak today. Every single Member of this body will have a chance to make that firm decision whether we want to end frivolous lawsuits or whether we are going to allow the status quo. I urge my fellow Members to please support this underlying legislation and we will make a strong statements on behalf of consumers.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am pleased to respond. First of all, I would like to say that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) requested its removal. Secondly, I would like to say that the provision actually allows a covered company under this provision that they have the absolute right not only to remove their case to Federal court, but they can remove the case to any Federal court in the country that they would like, and that they can pick the Federal court if they have one, wherever the Federal court is, and have the case there; whereas our bill prevents unfair forum shopping by making sure that cases are actually brought in States that actually have a connection to the case. As the gentleman may be aware, there are abuses that take place all across this country, including in Illinois and Mississippi, where there are cases that are accepted by courts where no one actually even lives in those jurisdictions. I thank the gentleman for asking for a response.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. The resolution before us is a well-balanced, modified closed rule that provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and also makes in order the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) or his designee. This amendment shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the opponent. Finally, this rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in that report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule for H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004, as well as the underlying legislation. This bill offered by the gentleman from San Antonio, Texas (Mr. Smith), my good friend, is carefully constructed legislation that will create a disincentive for attorneys and plaintiffs to file many of the frivolous lawsuits that currently clog our court system and act as a drain on our Nation's economy. Just 6 months ago almost to the day, I came to the floor to manage the rule for H.R. 339, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. Later that day the House voted overwhelmingly by a vote of 267 to 139 to require courts to dismiss frivolous lawsuits seeking damages for injuries resulting from obesity and its intended health problems that are filed against the producers and sellers of food. Through passing this legislation today, we have another opportunity to help bring our tort system back to reality by amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to impose greater attorney and client accountability for pursuing other frivolous or nuisance lawsuits. Our current tort system costs American consumers well over $200 billion a year, the equivalent of a 5 percent tax on wages. Our courts today handle cases ranging from legitimate claims to those that are highly suspect and wasteful of time and resources. Some of these examples of lawsuit abuse include a woman in Knoxville, Tennessee, who sought $125,000 in damage against McDonald's, claiming a hot pickle dropped from a hamburger, burned her chin and caused her mental injury. Her husband also sued for $15,000 for loss of consortium. Or the case of the Girl Scouts of America in metro Detroit, who have to sell 36,000 boxes of cookies each year just to pay for their liability insurance. In fact, according to a former Girl Scout from the greater Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area, frivolous litigation is making it increasingly hard for them to even sell their cookies and their local convenience stores will no longer allow these girls to set up their booths anymore for fear of liability issues. This economic drain, created by frivolous lawsuits on American productivity, is unacceptable and prevents the American economy from being as competitive as it should be with the rest of the world. H.R. 4571 will help to discourage the filing of frivolous lawsuits by restating several important provisions to rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that were changed in 1993 and add several new deterrents against baseless claims. In short, this legislation will make rule 11 sanctions against attorneys or parties who file frivolous lawsuits mandatory rather than discretionary. It will remove rule 11 safe harbor provisions that currently allow parties and their attorneys to avoid sanctions for making frivolous claims by withdrawing them within 21 days after motions for sanctions that have been filed. It implements a ``three strikes and you're out'' provision that would disbar any lawyer for at least 1 year that filed three frivolous lawsuits in Federal court. It allows for rule 11 sanctions for frivolous or harassing conduct during discovery, and it allows monetary sanctions, including attorney fees and compensation against a represented party. The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act also provides new protections against frivolous lawsuits such as extending rule 11 sanctions to State cases that affect interstate commerce, and reducing forum shopping by requiring that a plaintiff in a civil tort action may sue only where he or she lives or was injured or where the defendant's principal place of business is located. A recent poll found that 83 percent of likely voters believe that there are too many lawsuits in America and 76 percent believe that lawsuit abuse results in higher prices for goods and services. Another poll found that 73 percent of Americans support requiring sanctions against attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits, just as H.R. 4571 would do. Small businesses, the engine of job growth in our economy, rank the cost and availability of liability insurance as second only to the costs of health care as their top priority, and both problems are fueled by frivolous lawsuits. A recent report by AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies has concluded: ``The tort liability price tag for small businesses in America is $88 billion a year'' and that ``small businesses bear 68 percent of the business tort liability cost but only take in 25 percent of the business revenue.'' The small businesses studied in this report account for 98 percent of the total number of small businesses with employees in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time for Congress to listen to what the average Americans say about frivolous lawsuits. It is time for us to hear the concerns of small businessmen and -women in our communities, along with consumers, who list frivolous lawsuits as one of their greatest impediments to success. And it is time for us to get serious about encouraging economic growth, job creation, and international competitiveness by ending the practice that keeps our economy from thriving. The choice presented by this legislation is stark and clear and will demonstrate whether we support the frivolous actions of the trial lawyer and the drain that they place on the American economy or whether we support American workers and businesses. I encourage all of my colleagues to stand up for our economy and for consumers by supporting this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Republicans do listen to Democrats, and we have had a number of times where the Republican Party, the majority party, has talked about tort reforms and other issues that are important to consumers. One of the persons that we have listened to repeatedly in this debate is perhaps one of the most successful trial lawyers who is now a United States Senator, and his name is John Edwards. Senator Edwards has written in Newsweek that ``lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits should face tough mandatory sanctions with the `3-strikes' penalty.'' That is what Mr. Edwards has said. Senator Edwards has also said that he ``believes we need a national system in place that will weed out meritless lawsuits.'' That is exactly what H.R. 4571 would do. We are listening to the American people. We are listening to people who are lawyers who are engaged in the business of advocating on behalf of people who have been harmed. But sometimes those people know most about the system, as Senator John Edwards, who knows best that we need to reform the system. That is what we are doing here today. I do appreciate the opportunity to have Senator Edwards' remarks that were in Newsweek magazine included today, because I think it is important for the American public to hear that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Bristol, Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 766 and ask for its immediate consideration.