Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 491, a resolution to applaud the goals and activities of National Cyber Security Awareness Month. Computers and the Internet have been integrated into our daily routine in our businesses, schools and homes. These information and communication systems underpin our government and they increase the productivity of our industries, financial institutions, and transportation systems. However, our increasing dependence on computers and computer networks exposes our society to the risk of cyber attacks, destructive viruses, malicious hacking and identity theft. This is why the National Cyber Security Alliance, a cooperative effort between government, academia, and industry, has organized National Cyber Security Awareness Month for this October. As is only proper for a cybersecurity-related effort, there is a central website with online resources that offers tips and tools to help computer uses protect themselves from viruses, worms, hacker attacks, phishing, identity theft, spyware and more. In addition to these online resources, there are weekly events all over the country on specific cybersecurity topics aimed at consumers, students, children, parents, small businesses, and educational institutions. Thirty Governors across the United States have issued proclamations declaring their support and observance of National Cyber Security Awareness Month. And as part of these activities, Texas State University hosted a ``Cyber Security Awareness Day'' on October 6. In New York, the Governor will host a conference on protecting our children on the Internet. Of course, cybersecurity is not just an issue in October but year- round. National Cyber Security Awareness Month is a chance not only to raise awareness about computer vulnerabilities and threats, but also to inform people about programs that exist throughout the U.S. to educate students, parents, business people, law enforcement and government employees about cybersecurity. These include programs like a cybersecurity camp for high school students in Rome, New York, and an Information Technology and Security Academy for high school juniors at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Cybersecurity is an important part of homeland security. Just last month, the Science Committee heard testimony from energy, electric power and telecommunications companies about their dependence on information systems and their concerns about the Nation's vulnerability to cyber attacks. The connectedness of the Internet means that each person not only must protect himself in cyberspace, but each person's cybersecurity efforts contribute to the Nation's overall status of cyber and homeland security. Progress is being made, but we as a Nation still have a long way to go. In conclusion, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for their leadership on this issue. We applaud the associations, companies, organizations, and agencies involved in National Cyber Security Awareness Month for their efforts to help all of us become more responsible, safer computer users. I urge my colleagues to support adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 491) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to raising awareness and enhancing the state of computer security in the United States, and supporting the goals and ideals of National Cyber Security Awareness Month.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. Res. 491, the resolution under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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.