Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, according to the American Enterprise Institute, the labor force participation rate has dropped to its lowest level in 30 years. The only reason the unemployment rate fell slightly to 8 percent is because another 522,000 adults quit looking for work and are no longer counted. Of course, it's no surprise that the liberal national media attempted to spin the numbers. Bloomberg dismissed the lack of new jobs as being a ``rounding error.'' Time magazine described the negative reports as being ``statistical noise.'' The liberal media fed this narrative with misleading statements like the economy is ``gaining steam,'' as The New York Times headlined the news, or that the economy was on a ``hiring surge,'' as the Associated Press claimed. The liberal media show its bias when it ignores the President's failed promises and failed attempts to create jobs. Americans are concerned about the lack of jobs and deserve the facts. When will the national media put their responsibility to the people ahead of protecting the President?

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters regarding H.R. 4119. May 15, 2012. Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith, On March 21, 2012, the Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 4119, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012, as amended, favorably to the House. The Committee on Ways and Means received an additional referral on the bill as a result of section 5(b) dealing with civil asset forfeiture, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. As a result of your Committee's agreement to remove section 5(b) of the bill, I agree to discharge the Committee on Ways and Means from further consideration of the bill so that a suspension version, incorporating the amendments to which we have agreed, may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor. The Committee on Ways and Means takes this action with our mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4119 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in section 5(b) in this or similar legislation, and that our Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved if that provision moves forward in any legislation so that we may address any issues that arise and fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. Our Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this provision, and requests your support for any such request. Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration thereof. Sincerely, Dave Camp, Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and we are prepared to close.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4119) to reduce the trafficking of drugs and to prevent human smuggling across the Southwest Border by deterring the construction and use of border tunnels, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and honor a great Texan, Mr. Thomas W. Luce III, for his years of leadership and contributions to improving our public schools, strengthening higher education and supporting business and economic growth. Mr. Luce was a founding and managing partner of the law firm of Hughes and Luce, LLP until his retirement from the firm in 1997. In addition to his active law practice, Mr. Luce has served on the boards or as guest lecturer at a number of schools of higher education, including the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, the LBJ School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin, and Southern Methodist University. Mr. Luce also has been appointed five times to major posts by Texas governors, including Chief Justice pro tempore of the Texas Supreme Court. He is perhaps best known for his role as the Chief of Staff of the Texas Select Committee of Public Education, which produced one of the first major reform efforts among public schools in 1984. Mr. Luce served on the Dell Inc. Board of Directors from 1991 to 2005, until he was appointed United States Assistant Secretary of Education for Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development by President George W. Bush. He then served as Chief Executive Officer of the National Math and Science Initiative, Inc. from 2007 to 2011. In addition, following his resignation from the Department of Education, Mr. Luce rejoined the board of Dell Inc. He is the longest serving outside board member of this Texas-based company and will leave the board when his term ends on July 13, 2012. During his time on the Dell Board of Directors, Mr. Luce served on all four board committees and oversaw a period of rapid growth for Dell, a great American success story. In 1991, Dell reported $890 million of revenue and debuted on the Fortune 500 rankings the following year. Today, Dell is a $62 billion company and ranked No. 41 on the Fortune 500 list. Michael Dell, founder, chairman and CEO of Dell, said, ``Tom is a great friend and trusted advisor to us all here at Dell, and it's been a true privilege to know him and benefit from his wise counsel for so many years. During his long service as a member of the Dell Board, Tom has contributed to our success in countless ways and has helped shape the strategies that have allowed us to develop and deliver the very best in technology solutions to our customers. On behalf of the global Dell team and my fellow Board members, it is my distinct honor to thank Tom for his commitment to our country and to Dell, and to wish him the very best in everything the future holds.'' I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Luce and thanking him for his service to our country and his business leadership. We wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the American workforce is increasingly mobile. Fifty years ago, most people worked in the communities in which they lived. Today, many more Americans travel to other states for work. The complexity and variation among state income tax laws is a burden on interstate commerce. In some states, for example, a non-resident employee must pay income tax if they work there for only one day. But in other states, income tax liability is not triggered until the 60th day. Under this current patchwork system, employees who travel out of state for work must file tax returns in other jurisdictions even if their ultimate tax liability to a state is a few dollars. In addition to burdening our interstate employees, different state income tax laws require employers to comply with a wide variety of tax withholding laws. Many of those employers are small businesses who can least afford these administrative costs. This bipartisan bill, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act, is sponsored by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, Howard Coble. I also appreciate Congressman Hank Johnson's cosponsorship of this legislation. This bill simplifies state income tax policies without infringing on the rights of states to set their own tax rates. The bill provides that a state may not impose its income tax on non-resident employees unless they earn wages in the state for more than 30 days. The employee would still owe an income tax to their state of residence for wages earned during the first 30 days they work in a non-resident state. This bill eases the burden that the current patchwork of state income tax laws places on traveling employees and small businesses. So rather than increasing the expense of navigating the maze of tax rules, businesses can use their resources to invest in creating jobs for American workers. Finally, the bill we consider today reflects a few changes that were made at the request of state taxing authorities. I am pleased that the sponsors of the legislation were able to work cooperatively with all interested parties to bring a compromise version to the floor. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today the House continues its effort to restore the financial security of our country with consideration of H.R. 3534, the Security in Bonding Act of 2011. I thank Mr. Hanna for his sponsorship of this bill and Mr. Gowdy and Mr. Polis, both members of the Judiciary Committee, for their support as well. This bill protects the federal government from financial loss as it improves the effectiveness of surety bonds contractors must post when they perform construction projects for the United States. Also, this bill protects small business subcontractors and enhances the financial security of the United States. The bill amends federal acquisition law to requre individual sureties to post only low-risk collateral to back up their bonds. If the prime contractor defaults, the government and subcontractors will have recourse to real, stable, valuable assets to make them whole. The Miller Act, enacted in 1935, requires a contractor to obtain surety bonds in favor of the government when the contractor undertakes a construction job worth more than $150,000. These surety bonds protect not only the United States but also subcontractors whom the prime contractor hires. Unlike in the private sector, subcontractors on federal projects have no mechanic's lien rights; surety bonds are their sole protection. A bid bond assures the federal contracting officer that the contractor bids in good faith and will complete the job if it is the winning bidder. Similarly, a performance bond guarantees the United States that the contractor will not walk away from the job even if, for instance, the contractor found a more lucrative opportunity elsewhere. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) currently allows a contractor to obtain a surety bond through a corporate surety or an individual surety. Alternatively, a contractor may deposit low-risk collateral, like T-bills or other cash equivalents, with the government to cover the project cost. Corporate surety companies are regulated by the Treasury Department, which requires the sureties to be sufficiently funded in an amount over the risk of default on the bonds they underwrite. But individual sureties are not approved by the Treasury, and they may pledge collateral whose value may fluctuate. For example, the FAR allows an individual surety to pledge stocks and bonds or real property. The lax collateral requirements for individual sureties have seriously harmed subcontractors and the federal government. At a hearing on this bill in the Courts, Commerical and Administrative Law Subcommittee, the President of a minority-owned construction company in Colorado, testified that they lost $100,000 because the prime contractor's individual surety bond was backed by valueless assets. The federal government cannot afford to be left in the lurch because an individual surety bond proved to be worthless. American taxpayers deserve a government that acts carefully and with fiscal responsibility when it spends their money on construction projects. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and many thanks to my good friend and fellow Texan, Ralph Hall, for bringing H.R. 3834 to the House floor as part of cyber-week. Just about every aspect of our lives is somehow connected to the internet in one way or another. My hometown of San Antonio is often referred to as ``Cyber-City USA,'' due to the work of the Air Force, private industry, and the University of Texas at San Antonio's Institute for Cybersecurity. Cyber-crimes risk our personal finances, proprietary business information, and national security know-how. Hackers have sought to physically damage our air traffic control system, DoD and NASA satellites, and electrical grid. Hackers from a variety of countries, especially China and Russia, as well as those working inside the United States, cause a great deal of damage to our nation's economy and national security. The GAO reported this week that cyberattacks on the federal government have exploded by 680 percent in the past five years. The NITRD program is a unique collaboration among Federal research and development agencies that coordinate Federal R&D projects to advance information technologies such as computing, networking, and software, while avoiding duplication of efforts. One of the primary goals of the NITRD program is to accelerate development and deployment of these technologies to maintain American leadership in the IT field. The NITRD program was first authorized in 1991, and the House Republican Task Force on Cybersecurity, chaired by my Texas colleague, Mac Thornberry, identified it as in need of an update. This is a good bill for which I thank Science, Space and Technology Chairman Ralph Hall and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson for bringing to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today's so-called ``mainstream'' media is not mainstream. The modern encyclopedia, Wikipedia, says, ``The term `mainstream' media denotes those media generally reflective of the prevailing currents of thought, influence, or activity.'' But the opinions expressed by the media are neither widespread nor accepted by the majority of Americans. For example, journalists and the public have very different views regarding illegal immigration. According to a Pew Research Center poll, less than one in five journalists said they thought ``reducing illegal immigration'' was a ``top priority.'' Yet over half the American people rate illegal immigration reduction as a ``top priority.'' The national media should not be considered ``mainstream'' until the majority of Americans and journalists are on the same page. The bias of the national media's journalists has caused them not only to be on a different page but also to be in an entirely different publication than the typical American. To call today's national media ``mainstream'' is simply inaccurate. The national media is better described as the ``liberal'' national media.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the City of Castle Hills, Texas and mayor Bruce Smiley-Kaliff for proclaiming April as ``Genocide Awareness and Prevention'' month. The City of Castle Hills supports the Texas Holocaust and Genocide Commission and its dedication to ensure that individuals and communities have access to information about the history of genocide. The City of Castle Hills joins with the Texas State Legislature in emphasizing the need to heighten public awareness of genocide and to honor victims and those touched by genocide as a reminder to practice vigilance in protecting human rights. Mayor Smiley-Kaliff signed this proclamation on March 13, 2012.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, 2 years ago, during the debate over the Obama administration's unconstitutional health care bill, this House considered a measure similar to this amendment. During that debate, I argued that the repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption for health insurers had ``all the substance of a soup made by boiling the shadow of a chicken.'' However, I reluctantly supported that bill because I believed that it would have no meaningful effect. Compared to the administration's health care bill, a bill that does nothing looked like a great idea. As I noted during the debate 2 years ago, the repeal of the McCarran- Ferguson exemption for health insurers will not bring down premiums. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that ``whether premiums would increase or decrease as a result of this legislation is difficult to determine, but in either case the magnitude of the effect is likely to be quite small.'' The effects of the repeal of this exemption will be small. The CBO says, ``State laws already bar the activities that would be prohibited under Federal law if this bill was enacted.'' Every State's insurance regulations ban anticompetitive activities like bid rigging, price fixing and market allocation. Every State has insurance regulators who already actively enforce these prohibitions. This amendment, like the bill we considered 2 years ago, will have no meaningful impact and may have minor negative unintended consequences. But I will once again reluctantly support this measure because this amendment takes important steps to limit its unintended consequences and to reaffirm the McCarran-Ferguson exemption for non-health lines of insurance. This amendment contains language that clearly limits its application to the business of health insurance. While the repeal of the McCarran- Ferguson exemption for health insurance does essentially nothing, repealing it for other types of insurance could be disastrous. One of the main benefits of the McCarran-Ferguson exemption is that it allows insurance companies, subject to state regulation, to share historical and actuarial data. The antitrust laws generally frown on competitors that share data. But in the insurance market, sharing data improves competition. This is because a shared pool of data about the risks and loss rates of various kinds of insurance allows small and medium-sized insurers to enter the market and compete. If insurance companies did not pool data, only the largest insurers would have access to enough data to account for risk and price their policies. For a number of reasons, which include the size of most health plans, the availability of health care data from various public and private sources, and the relative predictability of health care costs, health insurers rely much less on sharing data than other insurers. This amendment contains a clear definition that limits its application to the business of health insurance. It clarifies that the McCarran-Ferguson exemption continues to apply to life insurance, annuities, property and casualty insurance, and other non-health types of insurance. It is an improvement over other proposals that are not so limited, defined and clear about their intent. This amendment also prevents private class action antitrust lawsuits against health insurers. This limits the possible unintended negative effects. Because this amendment is much improved in ways that will limit its unintended consequences, and because it reaffirms the importance of the McCarran-Ferguson exemption to non-health lines of insurance, I support the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we have no other speakers as well, and I am prepared to close on this side.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reemphasize again that, under this bill, awards are possible that far exceed the $250,000 cap in noneconomic damages. That's because under the economic damages provision, there is simply no cap. As a result of that, States like California and Texas, which have adopted reforms very similar to the reforms in this particular piece of legislation, there have been numerous awards of multimillion dollars awarded to individuals who have been injured. So even though we had that $250,000 noneconomic cap, that is not an absolute cap on the awards that have been made. A minute ago, Dr. Gingrey mentioned that in California, for example, several years ago, I believe it was 2007, there was a $96 million award. And in the last year for which we have records, in 2010, there were awards, I think, for over $6 million, over $10 million, over $14 million. So an individual is able to be reimbursed for the costs and the injuries that that individual may have incurred. Mr. Chairman, I also want to say that America's medical liability system increases the cost of health care and decreases access to care as doctors abandon their practices and avoid high-risk specialties out of fear of being sued. Medical liability reform, this bill tonight will solve this problem. According to the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 5 years after tort reform legislation passed in my home State of Texas, the number of physicians in the State increased by 24 percent. That is twice the rate of growth in population over the same period of time. Other States have seen similar results. But most States have not enacted meaningful reforms and, as a result, frivolous lawsuits have created a medical liability crisis. This crisis has forced women to drive great distances to deliver their babies because their local hospital doesn't have an OB GYN. It has resulted in those who need complicated procedures being placed on waiting lists for months because the only available specialist has too many patients who seek care, and it has caused accident victims to lose their lives because their local emergency room no longer has a trauma center. America's broken medical liability system has caused patients to lose access to high-quality health services. The liability reforms contained in the HEALTH Act will do these things: lead to a significant savings in health care expenses, reduce the practice of defensive medicine, halt the departure of doctors from high-litigation States and medical specialties, improve access to health care, and increase the affordability of health insurance. Also, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation will reduce the Federal deficit by more than $45 billion over the next 10 years. This is a significant savings in a time of escalating deficits and debt. We've seen the positive effects that similar medical liability reforms have had at the State level. Reforms in States like California and Texas have enhanced patient care, reduced doctor shortages, and decreased cost. It's time for Congress to enact these reforms for the benefit of all Americans. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back the balance of my time, I'd like to thank the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, who has spoken so well so many times tonight, for introducing this piece of legislation that is going to help so many people across America. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), who is an active member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, most Americans still oppose ObamaCare yet support medical liability reform of the kind that we are considering tonight. A recent survey found that 83 percent of Americans believe that reforming the legal system needs to be part of any health care reform plan. As the Associated Press recently reported, most Americans want Congress to deal with malpractice lawsuits driving up the cost of medical care, says an Associated Press poll. Yet Democrats are reluctant to press forward on an issue that would upset a valuable political constituency--trial lawyers--even if President Barack Obama says he's open to changes. The AP poll found that support for limits on malpractice lawsuits cuts across political lines, with 58 percent of independents and 61 percent of Republicans in favor. Democrats were more divided. But still, 47 percent said they favor making it harder to sue while 37 percent are opposed. The survey was conducted by Stanford University with the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. In the poll, 59 percent said they thought at least half the tests doctors order are unnecessary--ordered only because of fear of lawsuits. In a poll done by the Health Coalition on Liability and Access in October, 2009, 69 percent of Americans said they wanted medical liability reform included in health care reform legislation. Seventy- two percent said their access to quality medical care is at risk because lawsuit abuse forces good doctors out of the practice of medicine. Mr. Chairman, let's support a bill that is so strongly endorsed by the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, lawsuit abuse drives doctors out of their practices. There's a well-documented record of doctors leaving the practice of medicine and of hospitals shutting down, particularly practices that have high liability exposure. This problem has been particularly acute in the fields of OB/GYN and trauma care as well as in rural areas. The absence of doctors in vital practice areas is, at best, an inconvenience; at worst, it can have deadly consequences. Hundreds or even thousands of patients may die annually due to a lack of doctors. According to one State study, 38 percent of physicians have reduced the number of higher-risk procedures they provide, and 28 percent have reduced the number of higher-risk patients they serve, all out of fear of liability. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has concluded that: The current legal environment continues to deprive women of all ages, especially pregnant women, of their most educated and experienced women's health care providers. A study from Northwestern University School of Medicine polled residents and found that many wished to leave the State to avoid its hostile malpractice environment. The study concluded that: Approximately one-half of graduating Illinois residents and fellows are leaving the State to practice. The medical malpractice liability environment is a major consideration for those that plan to leave Illinois to practice. Without a uniform law to control health care costs, many States will continue to suffer under doctor shortages. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, who happens to be the sponsor of the legislation we're considering tonight, the HEALTH Act.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairwoman, America's medical liability system is broken and in desperate need of reform. Frivolous lawsuits drive physicians out of the practice of medicine. Limitless liability discourages others from high-risk medical specialties and substantially increases the cost of health care. The solutions to this crisis are both well known and time tested, but the President's recent health care legislation did nothing to address the problems in our medical liability system. We cannot wait any longer to fix the problem. We should pass this bipartisan medical liability reform legislation to cut health care costs, spur medical investment, create jobs, and increase access to health care for all Americans. H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act, is modeled after California's decades-old and highly successful health care litigation reform. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the rate of increase in medical professional liability premiums in California since 1976 has been nearly three times lower than the rate of increase experienced in other States. By incorporating California's time-tested reforms at the Federal level, the HEALTH Act saves taxpayers billions of dollars, encourages health care providers to maintain their practices, and reduces health care costs for patients. It especially helps traditionally underserved rural and inner-city communities and women who seek obstetrics care. The reforms in H.R. 5 include a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages and limits on the contingency fees lawyers can charge, and it allows courts to require periodic payments for future damages in order to ensure that injured patients receive all of the damages they are awarded without bankrupting the defendant. The HEALTH Act also includes provisions that create a fair share rule by which damages are allocated fairly in direct proportion to fault, and it provides reasonable guidelines on the award of punitive damages. The HEALTH Act allows for the payment of 100 percent of plaintiffs' economic losses. These unlimited economic damages include all their medical costs, their lost wages, their future lost wages, rehabilitation costs, and any other economic out-of-pocket loss suffered as a result of a health care injury. The HEALTH Act also does not preempt any State law that otherwise caps damages. This bill is a commonsense and constitutional approach to reducing the cost of health care. Whereas, the HEALTH Act allows doctors to freely practice nationwide, the ObamaCare individual mandate dictates that all people buy a particular product, whether they want it or not. Unlike ObamaCare, the HEALTH Act saves the American taxpayers money. The Congressional Budget Office recently determined that the President's health care law will cost almost double its original $900 billion price tag. Another CBO report estimates that premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 30 percent below what they would be under current law. These are just a few reasons why organizations like Americans for Tax Reform support this legislation. The HEALTH Act also reduces the cost of health care as it decreases the waste in our system caused by defensive medicine. This practice occurs when doctors are forced by the threat of lawsuits to conduct tests and prescribe drugs that are not medically required. According to a Harvard University study, 40 percent of medical malpractice lawsuits filed in the United States lack evidence of medical error or any actual patient injury. That's 40 percent. Many of these suits amount to legalized extortion of doctors and hospitals. But because there are so many lawsuits, doctors are forced to conduct medical tests simply to avoid a lawsuit in which lawyers claim not everything possible was done for the patient. This wasteful defensive medicine adds to our health care costs without improving the quality of patient care. In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama said: I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits. Let's help the President keep his word and put this legislation on his desk. Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).