Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a Member of Congress who has taken an active interest in this case.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider and vote on four articles of impeachment against United States District Judge G. Thomas Porteous. Thanks go to Congressman Schiff and Congressman Goodlatte for the way they have worked together in overseeing the Impeachment Task Force's very thorough inquiry into a number of serious allegations involving Judge Porteous. They have set an outstanding example of how an inquiry like this can in fact be conducted in a bipartisan manner. The Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach a sitting Federal judge. This is a very serious power which Congress does not take lightly. Impeachment by the House constitutes one of the few checks on the judiciary and is to be used only in instances when a judge betrays his office or proves unfit to hold that position of trust. In fact, only 14 Federal judges have been impeached by the House in our entire Nation's history, with four of these occurring in the past 24 years. After an extensive investigation and a series of hearings by the Impeachment Task Force, clear and convincing evidence has been developed involving a number of different actions by Judge Porteous that make him unfit to serve as a Federal judge. The report, which accompanies the articles of impeachment, sets forth in detail the various incidents of improper conduct by Judge Porteous. Though judges rule on the law, they are not above the law. To preserve equality and fairness in our constitutional democracy, we must protect the integrity of the courts. It is clear that Judge Porteous' actions are a violation of the American people's trust and a threat to the integrity of the Federal bench. The American people deserve better from their Federal judges. I also hope our vote today sends a message of encouragement to the great majority of judges who serve our Nation with distinction. We will not let a few bad actors mar the reputation of others on the Federal bench. The time has come for the House of Representatives to conclude that Judge Porteous' conduct has made him unworthy to serve on the Federal bench. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the ranking member of the Impeachment Task Force, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, here are the results of a new Investor's Business Daily public opinion poll about health care, and if you look at the chart right here, you will see those results. Asked if Congress should pass the current health care bill or start over, respondents said ``start fresh'' by a 2 to 1 ratio, by 61 percent to 32 percent, start over. For Independents, the split was 65 percent to only 24 percent. On using the budget reconciliation process to circumvent a Senate filibuster to help pass the bill, 51 percent were opposed and 35 percent in favor. Independents disliked the idea by 57 percent to 29 percent, with 39 percent opposing it strongly. By 41 percent to 27 percent, Americans were more likely to oppose than support lawmakers who voted for the current health care reform bill. The American people are right: Congress should listen, start over, and do it right.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Senate's reconciliation procedure is designed for legislation to balance the budget. Now the administration wants to use reconciliation to force a health insurance scheme on the American people. The health care scheme under reconciliation means decisions made by the government behind closed doors against the wishes of the American people. A recent New York Times article claimed that Republicans have used reconciliation in the past, but failed to acknowledge that it has never been used before to enact a massive partisan policy change like a $1 trillion government health care mandate. And the national media have largely ignored the fact that many Democratic leaders, including the President, previously voiced strong opposition to reconciliation. In fact, the nonpartisan fact checkers at PolitiFact determined that the President's support of reconciliation is a ``full flop'' from his earlier comments opposing it. The national media should give Americans the facts, not just present the Democrats' point of view.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, more than seven in ten Americans say that news sources are biased, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. This opinion is consistent across party lines. Eight in ten Republicans say the news is slanted, as do two-thirds of the Democrats and three-quarters of the Independents. Not surprisingly, this is the fifth recent poll that has found Americans don't trust the media. The reason is simple: On important issues like job creation, government spending, treatment of terrorists, and the Senate reconciliation procedure, the national media present the news from a liberal point of view. If the media wants to restore Americans' trust, they should report all the facts, not just one side.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman emeritus of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to an esteemed senior member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a senior member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, extending the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act will give our law enforcement officials and intelligence agents the authority they need to meet terrorists' threats. It is unfortunate, though, that some reject a long-term reauthorization. Refusing to reauthorize our national security laws for the long term signals weakness to our enemies. It says we are not serious about protecting American lives. Repeated extensions of this law create uncertainty for intelligence officials and increase the danger that intelligence is missed and threats unidentified. The PATRIOT Act is not broken. And if it isn't broken, we shouldn't try to fix it. Congress has already undertaken a sweeping review of the PATRIOT Act following extensive hearings in the Judiciary Committee. We approved a reauthorization in 2006 that made permanent all but three provisions and enhanced important civil liberty protections. The Obama administration, a bipartisan Senate, and House Republicans all support a long-term reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. Mr. Speaker, while I support this bill, our national interests would have been better served if we had considered a long-term extension. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation even though a long-term piece of legislation would have been a much-improved situation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am prepared to close. I will reserve my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the war on terror is real, and it's all around us. Despite multiple attempted terror attacks and a warning of an imminent attack from our national security experts, apparently the best this Congress can do is a 1-year extension of our most critical national security laws. On Christmas Day Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to murder 288 innocent civilians by trying to set off an explosion aboard a Northwest flight bound for Detroit. Thankfully, he failed in his attempt at mass murder, not because of our national security procedures but because of his own ineptness and the quick response from passengers and crew. But we may not be so fortunate the next time. Last November in my home State of Texas, Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 and wounded 30 others when he opened fire at the Fort Hood Army Base. In September three terrorist plots were successfully thwarted in New York City, Springfield, Illinois, and Dallas, Texas. And now intelligence experts warn us that another terrorist attack may be imminent. Yet after all those near misses, the House majority refuses to pass a long-term extension of three essential PATRIOT Act provisions. The PATRIOT Act works. It has proven effective time and time again in preventing terrorist attacks and keeping Americans safe. The expiring provisions give national security investigators the authority to conduct roving wiretaps, to seek certain business records, and to gather intelligence on lone terrorists who are not necessarily affiliated with a specific terrorist group. We cannot afford to play dice with the security of the American people. We must continue these intelligence-gathering measures to win our fight against terrorists. The Obama administration recognized this last year when it called for Congress to authorize the expiring provisions without any changes that undermine their effectiveness. Instead of working with the administration and listening to national security experts, the House majority is only offering another short-term extension. The majority may think that by pushing the reauthorization until after the election, they will then be able to pursue legislation to water down these provisions a year from now. But if so, they are playing with fire and innocent Americans are the ones who will get burned. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas, a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Thornberry.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, an active member of the Judiciary Committee and a former city prosecutor, Mr. Harper.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the President's health care summit today was too little, too late: the Administration has already released its health care proposal without consulting Republicans. Instead of a summit on health care, we should have a summit on job creation, or a summit on cutting spending and reducing the deficit, or a summit on lawsuit abuse reform, or a summit on not treating terrorists like common criminals. The Administration's health care plan raises premiums, increases taxes and cuts Medicare benefits for seniors, according to the non- partisan Congressional Budget Office. It's no wonder 67 percent of Americans now want Congress to start over on health care. Instead of defying the wishes of Americans, the Administration should address the 15 million people who are unemployed, the millions more who have given up on finding a job, and specifically the 17 percent unemployment rate in the black community. The Administration should listen to the American people, not hold a six-hour photo-op on the wrong subject.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank Chairman Conyers for his comments. He is always gracious in making those. He is right. We have had a good discussion today about this particular piece of legislation. And I also want to say that he and I have a very good working relationship on the Judiciary Committee as well. In regard to this bill, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that as much as some might hope that it did something or hope that it accomplished something or might wish that the bill did something or might pretend that the bill did something, in point of fact, the Congressional Budget Office disagrees. Members are free to wish upon a star, but this bill is a dim bulb. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office 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 effects is likely to be quite small.'' ``Quite small.'' So, Mr. Speaker, what's the point of this bill? CBO goes on to say that premium reductions from this bill are likely to be small because ``State laws already bar the activities that would be prohibited under Federal law if this bill was enacted.'' So again, Mr. Speaker, what's the point of this bill? I could list all the reasons why this bill is ineffective, useless, unproductive, pointless, futile, and meaningless. Instead, I would like to highlight something we could do to actually drive down health care costs. Last October, the CBO concluded that a tort reform package consisting of reasonable limits on frivolous lawsuits would reduce the Federal budget deficit by an estimated $54 billion over the next 10 years. That $54 billion in savings from tort reform could be used to provide health insurance for many of the uninsured without raising taxes on those who already have health insurance policies. Also, according to the CBO, under a Republican-sponsored health care tort reform bill called the HEALTH Act, ``premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.'' And a GAO report stated that ``losses on medical malpractice claims, which make up the largest part of insurers' costs, appear to be the primary driver of rate increases in the long run.'' Mr. Speaker, rather than spend time on a bill that the CBO said would yield a ``quite small,'' if any, change in health care premiums, we should instead take up a bill the CBO concluded would save us $54 billion. The American people deserve real health care reform, not a feeble and feckless substitute. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am in its current form.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I will reserve my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I will reserve my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, President Obama's own doctor of over two decades also supports medical tort reform. David Scheiner was Mr. Obama's doctor from 1987 until he entered the White House. He vouched for the then- candidate's excellent health in a letter last year. This was recently reported in Forbes Magazine. Dr. Scheiner worries about whether the health care legislation currently making its way through Congress will actually do any good, particularly for doctors like himself who practice general medicine. ``I am not sure Obama really understands what we face in primary care,'' Dr. Scheiner says. One of the Nation's top surgeons, with credibility and acclaim the world over for the pioneering surgeries he has and his personal story of overcoming hardship, recently severely criticized the health care legislation before Congress. Benjamin Carson, Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center in Baltimore, Maryland, and recipient of numerous awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, criticized, in a recent interview, the current bill's lack of malpractice liability reform. He pointed to excessive litigation, pointing out how much malpractice insurance and other forms of defensive medicine to protect against lawsuits add to medical costs. In an interview with a local television station, Carson insisted that tort reform must go hand in hand as part of any true health care reform. ``We have to bring a rational approach to medical litigation. We're the only nation in the world that really has this problem. Why is it that everybody else has been able to solve this problem but us? Simple. Special interest groups like the trial lawyers association. They don't want a solution.'' As Stanley Goldfarb, MD, and Associate Dean of Clinical Education at the Pennsylvania School of Medicine has written: ``The President points to for-profit insurance companies, but for-profit insurance companies only make up 25 percent of the system, and they are not that profitable, ranking 85th among all U.S. industries. `Reform' will redistribute the money, not reduce the overall costs. There is much that can be done to make our system more efficient. Tort reform is a great place to start.'' Even prominent Democrat strategist Bob Beckel has conceded medical tort reform is essential, recently writing that CBO has reviewed the few credible reports that do exist and concluded: ``A number of those studies have found that State-level tort reforms have decreased the number of lawsuits filed, lowered the value of claims and damage awards . . . thereby reducing general insurance premiums. Indeed, premiums fell by 40 percent for some commercial policies.'' From a CBO report in June 2004, one irrefutable fact remains: Between 1997 and 2007, medical tort costs, including insurance premiums, have risen from $15 billion to $30 billion a year. That fact alone should ensure that yearly savings in the billions for medical tort reform would pass the credibility test.'' As Kimberley Strassel has written in The Wall Street Journal: Tort reform is a policy no-brainer. Experts on left and right agree that defensive medicine--ordering tests and procedures solely to protect against Joe Lawyer--adds enormously to health costs. The estimated dollar benefits of reform range from a conservative $65 billion a year to perhaps $200 billion a year. In context, Mr. Obama's plan would cost about $100 billion annually. That the President won't embrace even modest change that would do so much, so quickly, to lower costs has left Americans suspicious of his real ambitions. It's also a political no-brainer. Americans are on board. Polls routinely show that between 70 percent and 80 percent of Americans believe the country suffers from excess litigation. The entire health community is on board. Republicans and swing-State Democrats are on board. State and local governments, which have struggled to clean up their own civil justice systems, are also on board. Mr. Speaker, Republican-sponsored legislation would make Federal law the same legal reforms California implemented over 30 years ago. That legislation, called the HEALTH Act, remains the gold standard for health care legal reform, and it continues to be supported by every major medical association. The HEALTH Act does not limit in any way an award of ``economic damages'' from anyone responsible for harm. Economic damages include anything whose value can be quantified, including lost wages or home services, including lost services provided by stay-at-home mothers, medical costs, the cost of pain-reducing drugs, therapy and lifetime rehabilitation care, and anything else to which a receipt can be attached. Only economic damages, which the Federal legislation does not limit, can be used to pay for drugs and services that actually reduce pain. So, nothing in the HEALTH Act prevents juries from awarding very large amounts to victims of medical malpractice, including stay-at-home mothers and children. California's legal reforms, just like the HEALTH Act, cap noneconomic damages at $250,000 but do not cap quantifiable economic damages. The administration's health care bill not only fails to contain any of the tort reforms that CBO concluded would save at least $54 billion in health care costs, but it also contains a provision that actually deters States from enacting such reforms in the future by explicitly prohibiting tort reform ``demonstration project'' funds to States that enact limits on damages or attorneys' fees. One section of an earlier bill states that ``the Secretary of HHS shall make an incentive payment . . . to each State that has an alternative medical liability law in compliance with this section,'' but then goes on to say a State can take advantage of such funds only if ``the law does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages,'' which are precisely the tort reforms the CBO concluded yield real health care cost savings. Mr. Speaker, so not only does the administration's bill fail to contain any of the tort reforms we know bring health care costs down from decades of experience, but it even prohibits States that want to try such reforms from taking part in the government-funded tort reform demonstration projects. This is not only a blow to State reform efforts, it is a federally funded bribe discouraging States from enacting real reform, and, of course, it is a giant bailout for trial lawyers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.