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 can not 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 . 
