mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time . 
mr. chairman , i rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of the lawsuit abuse reduction act . 
i am going to tell the members why i support this legislation and what the key components of this legislation is . 
first , why do we need this legislation ? 
we need tough mandatory sanctions to crack down on frivolous lawsuits . 
we need to care about each other more and sue each other less . 
we need to get back to the old-fashioned principles of personal responsibility and get away from this new culture where people play the victim and blame others for their problems . 
most importantly , we need to protect those small business people who are out there creating 70 percent of all new jobs in america . 
these small business people work hard and play by the rules , but they can not afford to defend themselves from meritless litigation . 
for example , if they have a suit brought against them , to take it to trial to successfully win the suit , they often have to pay over $ 100 , 000 to a defense attorney . 
so what do they do ? 
they have to pay about 10 grand to settle the case to get rid of it for strictly business reasons even though they did nothing wrong . 
this bill will help crack down on these frivolous suits by doing three key things . 
first , it provides tough mandatory sanctions , not discretionary sanctions , if a judge finds that we have a violation of rule 11 , which may include the payment of the other side 's attorneys ' fees . 
second , this bill has teeth in it by having a three-strikes-and-you're-out penalty . 
three strikes and you 're out means if a judge finds that they have violated rule 11 bringing a frivolous claim on three separate occasions , they will be suspended from practicing law in that particular federal court for 1 year and will have to reapply for practice there . 
that is a tough sanction . 
i happen to be the author of it . 
but it is key for members to know that there is a bipartisan idea , three strikes and you 're out . 
to my left here , you see a quote from senator john edwards , himself a lifelong well-known personal injury lawyer , a former senator from north carolina and former vice presidential candidate . 
he said in newsweek magazine , december 15 , 2003 , `` frivolous lawsuits waste good people 's time and hurt the real victims . 
lawyers who bring frivolous cases should face tough mandatory sanctions with a three-strikes penalty. '' senator edwards is not the only one who holds that view . 
you will see that senator edwards ' running mate , senator john kerry , told the associated press on october 10 , 2004 , `` lawyers who file frivolous cases would face tough mandatory sanctions , including a three-strikes-and-you're-out provision that forbids lawyers who file frivolous cases from bringing another suit for the next 10 years. '' president george w. bush , back when he was a candidate , february 9 , 2000 said , `` as president , i will bring common sense to our courts and curb frivolous lawsuits . 
if a lawyer files three junk lawsuits , he will lose the right to appear in federal court for 3 years . 
three strikes and you 're out. '' the austin american statesman summarized president bush 's plan as saying , `` bush 's plan includes stiffer penalties for lawsuits determined by judges to be frivolous , including a three-strikes-and-you're-out rule for lawyers who repeatedly file such claims. '' on the day before we marked up this bill in the judiciary committee , may 24 , 2005 , i visited with president bush in his personal residence and asked him , mr. president , do you still stand by this policy that we need three strikes and you 're out to crack down on frivolous lawsuits ? 
he said , i absolutely do . 
that is the policy of the white house . 
so we have the democrat presidential candidate , mr. kerry ; the democrat vice presidential candidate , mr. edwards ; the president of the united states ; and the judiciary committee on a voice vote adopted this three-strikes-and-you're-out provision . 
the third key element of this lawsuit abuse reduction act is language to avoid forum shopping . 
it is the same language that we had in the class action legislation , which was approved on a bipartisan basis by both the house and the senate and signed into law . 
essentially , if there is an accident , the claim will be brought where the accident is or where the plaintiff resides or where the defendant resides . 
for example , if you lived in orlando , florida , like i do , and you went to your local mcdonald 's and you slipped on a puddle of water , you could bring your suit in orlando , where it should be . 
what you could not do is say , well , i know that madison county , illinois is a judicial hellhole , and there are lots of plaintiff-friendly judges , and mcdonald 's does business up in madison county , illinois . 
we are going to go file our suit there and do a little forum shopping . 
that is the kind of thing that is not going to be allowed here . 
in short , this is a commonsense bill that provides tough mandatory sanctions to crack down on frivolous suits and includes provisions that enjoy bipartisan support . 
this bill has already passed the house . 
i urge my colleagues to vote `` yes '' on this important legislation . 
