Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this global war on terror resolution. The war on terror is being fought on two fronts, both abroad and here at home. We applaud the diplomatic and military achievements overseas, but we also need to remain vigilant here in our own country. Until the terrorists are defeated, Americans will continue to be their targets as long as we stand for freedom and democracy. One of our weapons in the war on terror is the USA PATRIOT Act. That bill, which originated in the Judiciary Committee, gives law enforcement officials and intelligence officials the ability to cooperate during investigations. More than 250 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 USA PATRIOT Act. In response to the events of September 11, 2001, we also passed legislation that created a Director of National Intelligence so that all of our intelligence capabilities would be coordinated by one official. We passed the REAL ID Act which contains several antiterrorism provisions, including one that makes certain foreign nationals deportable because of their ties to terrorism. We must continue to pass legislation that makes it more difficult for terrorists to enter the United States. That means enacting meaningful border security legislation like the bill that the House passed last December. Those who would do us harm, Mr. Speaker, respect no borders. Potential terrorists and thousands of others continue to enter our country illegally every day. In America, we are blessed to have the freedom that others only dream about, but freedom is never free. It must be nurtured and protected, sometimes at great cost in lives; but we will not surrender to terrorists. That only empowers them. We will fight them today so we can enjoy a better tomorrow. Any other course only resigns us to an uncertain future. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me pay tribute to the brave men and women of the 21st Congressional District of Texas who are fighting this war overseas. The most difficult action I have ever taken as an elected official is to call the families of the 14 servicemembers from my district who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Their families' patriotism and love of country is almost indescribable. Their faith is great because they know our cause is great. Mr. Speaker, I am glad this resolution has been brought to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the ``Solar Utilization Now (SUN) Demonstration Act of 2006.'' The ``SUN Act'' encourages state governments and private industry to team up to apply for federal grants. This will enable them to buy solar energy panels at nearly half the cost. This bill is good for our energy security, national security and environmental security. The answer to much of our energy needs comes up every morning. Solar power is clean, plentiful and has zero emissions and zero waste. All states are eligible to participate and are required to contribute at least 10 percent of the funding. The federal government matches the grant at a maximum of 40 percent. The rest of the money comes from utilities or private industry. Congress has a responsibility to help promote this new technology and I am pleased that this bill already has significant bipartisan support.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Internet has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams, in large part, because the government has not tried to regulate its growth. I sympathize with the concerns of those who want to regulate the Internet, but we do not want to destroy the wonderful tool the Internet has become in order to save it. Frankly, I do not think we have the ability to perceive how the Internet will grow or to direct that growth. I am more comfortable leaving these matters to the antitrust courts and the FCC to decide on a case-by-case basis in the context of specific factual situations, and that is what this amendment would do. It is a simple antitrust savings clause. It makes clear that the language in the bill that gives the FCC exclusive jurisdiction of network neutrality complaints does not displace the antitrust laws or the jurisdiction of the courts to hear antitrust cases in this area. These cases would be heard under existing antitrust standards. Look at what the Internet was 10 years ago and look at what it is now. It would not be anything like what it is today if we had tried to regulate it then. The courts and the FCC are sometimes slow, but they are much better equipped to work through the complicated fact situations that these issues present. We can always come back and legislate in the future if they fail in their task. This amendment makes sure that broadband service providers are subject to antitrust lawsuits. In my experience, most people would consider that to be a pretty heavy burden. If those broadband service providers lose such a suit, they are subject to the whole range of antitrust remedies, including treble damages, injunctions, and attorneys' fees. The people who are for the various provisions designed to ensure network neutrality are the same people who usually push these kinds of antitrust remedies. Some will argue you should skip over this amendment and vote for the Markey amendment. It is true that the Markey amendment includes an antitrust savings clause, and I appreciate Mr. Markey's desire to keep the Judiciary Committee involved in this area. The problem with his amendment is that it is a package deal. Not only do you get an antitrust savings clause, you also get to impose his vision of how he and the government would regulate the Internet. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, anyone is qualified to dictate how the government should control the Internet. The Internet has done pretty well on its own without any interference from any of us. So the choice is this: Do we let the Internet grow on its own, as it has for the last 10 years; or do we tie its future to government regulation? To me, that is an easy choice, and that is why I offer this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose the Markey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. If my friend will yield, the answer is yes, that is correct.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me say again that I sympathize with the concerns of those who would oppose this amendment. I want a vibrant Internet just like they do. Our disagreement is over how best to achieve that. I say let entrepreneurs develop it freely. They say let the government dictate it. It is an honest difference of opinion, but I think we have a 10-year track record and the entrepreneurs have got us to where we are today. My amendment deals only with antitrust, so I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet. Vote for the Smith amendment and against the Markey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006, H.R. 5538. This bill will help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil by promoting plug-in vehicles and advancing new vehicle technologies. It also establishes a partnership between private and public entities to focus on electric drive technology. Americans are concerned about high gas prices, our dependence on foreign oil, and global warming. These cars have the potential to alleviate all three problems. The Federal Government needs to ensure that the research and development of alternative energy vehicles continues. Congress has a responsibility to help promote this new technology, and I am pleased that this bill already has significant bipartisan support.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act is being considered today. Accountability and transparency with respect to the lobbying profession is necessary to ensure public confidence in how Members and staff of this House interact with the outside world. And I further believe that this legislation will help brighten the lines for Members and staff in terms of what is permissible behavior and what is not. Consistent with this need to have such bright line, I want to make certain that some of the language in the bill is understood to mean what it says and nothing more. Under Section 105(7), lobbyists would be required to disclose ``the date, recipient, and amount of funds contributed by the registrant or an employee listed as a lobbyist by the registrant under paragraph (2)(C); (A) to, or on behalf of, an entity that is named for a covered legislative branch official, or to a person or entity in recognition of such official; or (B) to an entity established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a covered legislative official.'' Members have a longstanding history, and one that I respect, of raising money for and being otherwise involved with charitable organizations. This provision would apply to charities when such charity is named for a covered legislative branch official, or when a charity recognizes a covered legislative official. It would also apply to a charity that is established, financed, maintained or controlled by a covered legislative official. It would not apply in any other circumstance. It would not apply, for instance, when the spouse of a Member engages in such activity independent of his or her spouse's official position. Mr. Chairman, this is good legislation. The Republican record is long, and it is strong on the issue of lobbying reform. Republicans have delivered on ethics reform time and time again. In 1989, we enacted a Bush Administration proposal that included numerous ethics reforms. We cleaned up the House banking and post office scandals. When we became the majority in 1995, we instituted more reforms, including the first significant lobbying disclosure bill. And remember it is a Republican Justice Department that is prosecuting the cases that have led to this legislation. This reform package represents a great improvement over the current system. It will deter wrongful behavior by giving the public a better view of what their elected officials are doing in Washington. These reforms will shine a light on Congress by making lobbying disclosure reports more frequent, accurate and accessible to the public. This legislation is a welcome change in the rules governing lobbying and ethics. I thank Chairman Dreier and the Congressional leadership for their worthwhile efforts.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation. We all know that port security has been news across the United States in recent weeks, and it should be. The U.S. ports are on the front lines of homeland security. My home state of Texas has several major seaports, including Galveston, Brownsville and Houston, that offer potential routes for dangerous cargo and terrorist weapons. This bill, the SAFE Ports Act of 2005, will help ensure that Americans feel confident that the U.S. Government is protecting them from yet another threat. It does so by imposing security requirements on overseas shippers and ports where cargo starts its journey to the United States, on cargo transportation while enroute to the United States, and at the ports within the United States--the last staging area before cargo makes its way into the country. Also, this bill requires the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to employ standards for sealing all containers entering the Unites States within two years of enactment. It also requires the Secretary to deploy nuclear and radiological detection systems at 22 U.S. seaports by the end of fiscal year 2007. These are good ways to ensure port security, and there are many more included in the bill. I thank Chairman King of Iowa, Chairman Daniel E. Lungren of California, and ranking member Harman for their work on much-needed legislation, and urge my colleagues to support the Rule.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, since I introduced this legislation, I rise in strong support of the Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006, the TRAPP Act. And I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership and continuing support of this bicameral and bipartisan bill. Madam Speaker, few things are more personal and potentially more revealing than our telephone records. Who we call can reveal much about our business and personal lives, including intimate details about one's medical or financial condition. Calling records can even be used to identify a caller's location. In some cases the unauthorized release of personal information like a phone record can lead to a tragic result. Unfortunately, existing Federal statutes that could be used to target data thieves are inadequate. These statutes have clearly not deterred data burglars from treating confidential phone record information as a commodity to be bought and sold over the Internet without the consent of consumers, sometimes for as little as $100. The underlying bill targets companies and individuals who traffic in fraudulently obtained confidential phone records and provides new protections for the privacy of calling logs themselves. It establishes a new section, 1039, in title 18 of the United States Code, that will provide explicit penalties for those who use fraud to obtain confidential phone records. Madam Speaker, the bill imposes a prison sentence of up to 10 years and a fine of up to $500,000 on any person who, in interstate commerce, sells, transfers, purchases or receives confidential phone records of a telephone company without the prior consent of the consumer. The bill includes enhanced penalties for cases where the information is used in furtherance of crimes of domestic violence or a threat to law enforcement officials or their families. We need to pass this bill to demonstrate that we take seriously the obligation to protect the confidentiality of consumer telephone records and to make clear to data thieves that their conduct will result in a felony conviction. This legislation supports crime victims, prosecutors, and companies and individuals who have been the targets of this fraud. A companion measure is expected to be introduced soon in the Senate. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, since I introduced this legislation, I rise in strong support of the ``Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006 (the TRAPP Act).'' And I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership and continuing support of this bicameral and bipartisan bill. Madam Speaker, few things are more personal and potentially more revealing than our phone records. Who we call can reveal much about our business and personal lives, including intimate details about one's medical or financial condition. Calling records can even be used to identify a caller's location. In some cases, the unauthorized release of personal information like a phone record can lead to a tragic result. Unfortunately, existing Federal statutes that could be used to target data thieves are inadequate. These statutes have clearly not deterred data burglars from treating confidential phone records information as a commodity, to be bought and sold on the Internet, without the consent of consumers, for about $100. The underlying bill targets companies and individuals who traffic in fraudulently obtained confidential phone records and provides new protections for the privacy of calling logs. It establishes a new section 1039 in Title 18 of the United States Code that will provide explicit penalties for those who use fraud to obtain confidential phone records. The bill imposes a prison sentence of up to 10 years and a fine of up to $500,000 on any person who in interstate commerce sells, transfers, purchases or receives confidential phone records of a telephone company without the prior consent of the customer. The bill includes enhanced penalties for cases where the information is used in furtherance of crimes of domestic violence or threat to law enforcement officers or their families. We need to pass this bill to demonstrate that we take seriously the obligation to protect the confidentiality of consumer telephone records and to make clear to data thieves that their conduct will result in a felony conviction. This legislation supports crime victims, prosecutors, and companies and individuals who have been the targets of this fraud. A companion measure is expected to be introduced soon in the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

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