Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support House Resolution 150, which recognizes Asa Philip Randolph for his lifelong leadership and work to end discrimination and secure equal employment and labor opportunities for all Americans. Mr. Randolph was a leading champion of fairness in the 20th century. He is one of the most well-known trade unionists of his time and he helped found the modern civil rights movement. Mr. Randolph moved to the Harlem district of New York City in 1911, where he organized black voters in favor of labor rights. In 1917 he cofounded a magazine, The Messenger, calling for more positions for black Americans in the war industry and the Armed Forces. In 1925, Mr. Randolph organized the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. This was the first serious effort to form a labor institution for the employees of the Pullman Company, which was one of America's most powerful companies and a major employer of black Americans. The Pullman Company later negotiated with the Brotherhood in 1935 and agreed to a contract with them in 1937, winning pay increases, shorter workweeks and overtime pay for their employees. In 1941, Mr. Randolph proposed a march on Washington to protest racial discrimination in war industries and to propose the desegregation of the American Armed Forces. The march was canceled after President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, which called for an end to discrimination in defense industries and government on the basis of race, creed, or national origin. Mr. Randolph's nonviolent efforts led to the signing of another executive order on July 26, 1948, this time signed by President Truman to ban discrimination and segregation in the Armed Forces. In addition to these accomplishments, Mr. Randolph was an active participant in a number of organizations and causes, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, which he cofounded, and the Workmen's Circles. He also formed the A. Philip Randolph Institute for community leaders to study the causes of poverty. Mr. Randolph has been called ``the towering civil rights figure of the period'' in which he lived, ``the dean of American civil rights leaders'' and ``among the first leadership of the Labor movement.'' He fought for more than a half-century on behalf of the poor and deprived, securing rights not just for black workers but for employees of all races and nationalities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the White House considers business owners the opposition, but don't take my word for it. In his autobiography, Mr. Obama wrote that when he worked in the business world, he felt like a ``spy behind enemy lines.'' So it's no surprise that as President, he has appointed fewer people with business backgrounds to Cabinet positions than any other President in over a century, according to an analysis by J.P. Morgan. Maybe that explains why the President favors government control of the health care, energy, automobile, banking, insurance, and student loan industries. Perhaps the administration has forgotten that without employers, there would be no employees, and that small businesses generate 65 percent of the new jobs in America. It is the private sector, not the government, that makes America productive and prosperous. Business owners are our friends, not the enemy.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the deputy ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding me time. Madam Chairwoman, those who confront mortgage foreclosures are understandably in difficult situations, but this bankruptcy amendment will only lead to a worse situation for everyone. The number one cause of foreclosures today is job loss. The number two cause is homes which are mortgaged for more than they are worth. Sending homeowners with these problems into chapter 13 bankruptcy is no solution at all. The jobless do not have the steady incomes that are required to file for a chapter 13 bankruptcy, and those who bet wrong on a rising housing market should honor the mortgages for which they have freely contracted. Allowing bankruptcy courts to cram down mortgage principal will only lead to higher interest rates and tougher mortgage terms for all future homeowners. Why should those who have done nothing wrong have to pay that price?

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, the Administration's and this Democratic majority's legislation is a massive, politically driven, government intervention in America's economic life. Americans see this in the health care legislation that threatens government control over their lives. They see it in the cap-and-tax legislation that sacrifices the economy to the uncertain science of climate change. They see it in the Stimulus Bill and the federal budget that increases deficits and burdens our economy for generations. And they see it in the legislation before us today. This bill's giving so-called ``resolution authority'' to the federal government is a perfect example. ``Resolution authority'' is intended to address how to handle collapsing institutions that allegedly are ``too big to fail.'' Economists and legal experts point to the ``too big to fail'' mentality as the culprit that laid the groundwork for the September 2008 financial panic. A key feature of the ``too big to fail'' approach is the provision of bailouts for failing firms. But bailouts only encourage risky behavior. If Congress authorizes the bail out of Wall Street every time a gamble doesn't pay off, what will deter bad business decisions in the future? Rather than end billion dollar bailouts, today's legislation turns the ``too big to fail'' mentality into a cornerstone of Democrats' proposed reforms. The bill gives special treatment to big firms; encourages risk; and gives government agencies the power to determine which firms live or die. In other words, the bill institutionalizes the mistakes that led to the 2008 financial collapse. And consistent with the Democratic agenda, it empowers the federal government to intervene in the lives of our largest financial institutions. The Republican substitute amendment rejects this big government ticket back to financial ruin. It slams the door shut on the bailout era and ``too big to fail.'' It renounces the power grab that lets federal agencies and government employees determine who lives and dies in our economy. It embraces the way the experts point to as the better path towards a healthier financial future. With respect to failing financial institutions, the better way is bankruptcy reform. The Republican substitute establishes a new chapter of the Bankruptcy Code to resolve failed non-bank financial institutions. It puts responsibility into the hands of non-partisan, transparent bankruptcy courts. It adds new provisions to help courts better handle these bankruptcies so that future crises may be better avoided. The amendment creates one set of fair, predictable rules for all non- bank institutions. It rests on a long-standing body of precedent well understood by firms, investors, government and the public. And the Republican substitute guarantees that not a single taxpayer dime will ever again be paid for a Wall Street bailout. America's economy--and taxpayers' wallets--will not be safe until billion dollar bailouts and the notion that Wall Street firms are ``too big to fail'' rest in the dustbin of history.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it has taken months, but there's one thing even the national media now acknowledges--Joe Wilson was right. Illegal immigrants are covered by the health care bill. This week the Associated Press reported that the House health care bill, which was the bill under consideration at the time of President Obama's speech to Congress and Mr. Wilson's remark, will allow illegal immigrants to participate in the government-run and government-funded insurance plan. To its credit, CBS News said something similar back in September but only on a Web post. These articles are few and far between and fairly well hidden from public view. They also fail to address the other illegal immigration- related loopholes in both the House and the Senate bills. It's no wonder that only one in 10 Americans now have a great deal of faith in the media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly, according to a recent poll.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Alabama, the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, for yielding me time. Madam Chair, Congress today faces a once-in-a-generation decision. To respond to the financial meltdown of 2008, Congress can enact reforms that respond to the true causes of the calamity. Or Congress can pass legislation that flies in the face of the facts. The first course will protect America from the same fate we suffered last fall. The second will only pave the way for our next potentially worse crisis. That's what the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act does. Why? Because as we have investigated the causes of the financial crisis, one conclusion has become clear. What caused the financial crisis of 2008 was government intervention in the economy. That intervention swept from the Community Reinvestment Act to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to the Bear Stearns and AIG bailouts and beyond. It destroyed financial incentives, promoted dangerous risk-taking, and ultimately provoked full-blown market panic. Yet what does this legislation do? It provides super-sized tools for ever more invasive government control of the economy. It further entrenches the Community Reinvestment Act. It fails to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And it institutionalizes billion-dollar bailouts. For example, take the act's provisions that allow the Federal Government to take over and wind down the liabilities of financial institutions. This empowers the Federal Government to determine which of our biggest financial institutions live and die. It is backed by a $200 billion bailout fund. It has never before existed. And it should not be created now. For over 100 years, the bankruptcy code has been America's trusted means for dissolving or reorganizing failed or failing firms. The administration and this bill's sponsors send the Bankruptcy Code's remedies to the trash heap. They do so on the theory that Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy triggered the financial panic of September 2008. If bankruptcy triggered the panic, goes the argument, we have to look beyond the bankruptcy code to reform the financial system. The problem is that the so-called Lehman Brothers theory is a myth. The market took Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy more or less in stride. What triggered systemic financial panic was subsequent action by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve. These agencies' actions signaled to investors that the government anticipated a market collapse, but did not have an adequate plan of action. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, it was only after the Treasury and the Fed ratcheted everyone up into a panic that the market itself collapsed and not after their earlier decision to let Lehman Brothers go into bankruptcy. Other government actions also contributed to the panic. These included the government's inconsistent treatment of Bear Stearns and AIG, which it bailed out, and Lehman Brothers, which it did not. Yet what does today's bill do? It expands and then cements into place the government's authority to engage in wave after wave of ad-hoc bailouts. It sews the Community Reinvestment Act into the very fabric of the new consumer financial protection agency. It fails to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it throws out the one tool that has worked to resolve a giant, failing financial company. That tool is the bankruptcy code, which was used successfully to wind down Lehman Brothers. Madam Chair, we have no reason to avoid the bankruptcy code and other sound measures that can avert future financial distress. What America should renounce is the super-charged government control of our economy that the bill represents. We do not need government control that lets Federal agencies and government employees distort who gets credit, displace private enterprise, and determine behind closed doors what companies live and die. We have tried that before. It brought us the meltdown of 2008.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, ABC, CBS, and NBC are the winners of this week's Media Fairness Caucus' highly uncoveted ``Lap Dog Award'' for the most glaring example of media bias. The networks took 2 weeks to devote any coverage to the Climategate scandal on their evening news programs. We now know that prominent scientists were so determined to advance the idea of human-made global warming that they worked together to hide contradictory temperature data. But for 2 weeks, none of the networks gave the scandal any coverage on their evening news programs, and when they finally did cover it, their reporting was largely slanted in favor of global warming alarmists. The networks have shown a steady pattern of bias on climate change. During a 6-month period, four out of five network news reports failed to acknowledge any dissenting views about global warming, according to a Business and Media Institute study. The networks should tell Americans the truth, rather than hide the facts.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, here is what Jeffrey Flier, dean of Harvard Medical School, has to say about the administration's health care bill: ``. . . The people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial. ``Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that's not true. ``. . . There are no provisions to substantially control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform. ``Whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health care spending rather than restrain it . . . The legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health care's dysfunctional delivery system. ``Worse, currently proposed Federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care.'' Dean Flier has good advice: Congress should start over and do it right.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today the President is hosting a jobs summit. But he is ignoring the 8 million jobs held by those in the country illegally that should go to American workers. With a 10 percent unemployment rate, the President should put the interests of Americans first. While the administration ignores the 8 million stolen jobs, Republicans hold the lead in voter trust on immigration with a 12-point lead over the Democrats. That's nearly double the GOP's lead a month ago. We should hold the administration accountable for its failure to enforce the Nation's immigration laws, which allows 8 million illegal immigrants to remain in the workforce. Those jobs rightfully belong to citizens and to legal immigrants. Enforcing the law is not only the right thing to do, it is what the American people want. Any jobs summit that doesn't address the jobs occupied by illegal immigrants ignores American workers.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. H.R. 3570, the Satellite Home Viewer Reauthorization Act of 2009, in my judgment, is the single most important copyright bill Congress will consider this year. The legislation combines two separate bills: H.R. 3570, which was introduced by Chairman Conyers and reported by the Judiciary Committee on September 16, 2009, and H.R. 2994, which is the Energy and Commerce Committee's related measure that contains amendments to the Communications Act. The combined bill extends the compulsory license in section 119 of the Copyright Act that authorizes satellite carriers to deliver distant network programming to subscribers. Far fewer consumers rely upon this license to receive network programming than in past years, but there still remain about 1 million households that will lose such programming if the license is not extended beyond the end of this year, which is when it is currently due to expire. To avoid this outcome, the bill extends the compulsory license an additional 5 years to December 31, 2014. My hope is that this will be the last time Congress needs to reauthorize what was originally envisioned to be a temporary license. H.R. 3570 also contains a number of significant amendments to the cable license in section 111 of the Copyright Act governing the retransmission of both local and distant programming, and the local programming license in section 122 that governs the satellite retransmission of local-into-local programming. The most significant immediate change to the cable license is a negotiated resolution of the phantom signal liability issue that I appreciate the chairman including in this bill. I commend Chairman Conyers for his decision to expand this reauthorization beyond the narrow limits of the expiring section 119 provisions. While circumstances prevented us from being able to iron out all the wrinkles from these related licenses, I'm pleased we were able to make substantial improvements and address some of the most urgent concerns. Among the elements for which there was bipartisan support to include in this bill are provisions that, one, modernize a license to account for digital broadcasting; two, preserve the ability of consumers to continue to receive lifeline network programming; three, make clear that copyright owners are generally entitled to a royalty for each stream of multicast programming; and four, establish a new audit right to permit copyright owners to make sure they are being paid the royalties they are entitled to. Madam Speaker, I have strong reservations about the decision to permit DISH Network to again benefit from section 119's distant signal license in light of its prior record of willful infringement. However, I share the goal of making sure more Americans can benefit from satellite delivery of local-into-local programs. I'm grateful for Chairman Conyers' recognition of the seriousness of these concerns and his willingness to work with me and Chairman Berman to strengthen the deterrence and enforcement provisions in the bill. The enhanced penalties we've included for any future violation, along with provisions that require the GAO to audit DISH for its compliance with the law and DISH to certify its compliance to the Federal District Court, reflects substantial improvements from previous versions of the bill. The incorporation of these provisions reflect a carefully negotiated and fair compromise. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3570, the Satellite Home Viewer Reauthorization Act. When enacted, this bill will both preserve and expand the ability of Americans to view vital network and independent station programming without interruption. Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank the chairman for working with us to come up with a good bipartisan product. And this bipartisan effort, by the way, has gone on since last February. I would now like to recognize several staff members on both sides of the aisle who have contributed so much to the success of this legislation. Those staff members would include David Whitney, sitting to my left here on the House floor on our side; and on the majority's side it would be Stacey Dansky, the chief copyright counsel, and Elizabeth Kendall, counsel as well. I thank Chairman Conyers again for his cooperative efforts in getting this House bill to the floor today. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a senior member of the Commerce Committee, be able to control the remainder of the time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. With that, I will reserve the balance of the time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as part of a nationwide effort to pass the right kind of health care reform, a constituent from Austin, Greg Holloway, has written an open letter to Congress. He represents the organization Common Sense Texans: ``My name is Greg Holloway. I speak not only for myself and my family but also for over a hundred thousand other Texans with whom I collaborate and who I know share my views. ``You tell us that you are concerned about health care for our disadvantaged citizens. We are too. We wrote a plan, published by the Austin American-Statesman, that would immediately allow up to $100 billion annually to be sent directly to private health care and health insurance for the needy without a raise in taxes. You ignore any of our alternatives and instead raise taxes, increase costs, and draft a bill that excludes millions and provides no meaningful health care benefits until 2013. ``Stop this bill and give us health care reform that will help, not hurt, our country and its citizens.''

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, workplace immigration enforcement is in a free fall. We will discuss this free fall and other ways illegal immigration adversely impacts jobs at a Republican forum today at 1:00 p.m. in 2237 Rayburn House Office Building. Workforce enforcement has dropped across the board from 2008 to 2009. Administrative arrests fell 68 percent. Criminal arrests fell 60 percent. Criminal indictments fell 58 percent. Criminal convictions fell 63 percent. It's hard to conceive of a worse time to cut worksite enforcement efforts by more than half. There are 16 million Americans out of work, and yet the administration has chosen to ignore the fact that there are nearly 8 million illegal immigrants in the workforce. Those stolen jobs should be returned to out-of-work citizens and legal immigrants. The Obama administration should put citizens and legal immigrants first.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, last week marked the 20th anniversary of one of the greatest triumphs of freedom and democracy in history--the fall of the Berlin Wall. But two decades ago, the national media gave Americans a biased account of the issues surrounding this historic event, according to a new report by the Media Research Center, titled ``Better off Red?'' MRC found that many in the national media failed to portray the evils of communism and suggested that free-market capitalism was somehow worse. Furthermore, the media's coverage often tipped in favor of the oppressors--not the oppressed--and frequently criticized those who were fighting communism rather than those who were perpetuating it. It is just as important today as it was 20 years ago that the national media give Americans the facts, not tell them what to think.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, during the Presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama made a ``firm pledge'' that he would not raise taxes on any family ``making less than $250,000 a year.'' President Obama reversed himself on that pledge by supporting a health care bill that imposes, ``new taxes on people who don't buy qualified health insurance, including those making (much) less than $250,000 a year,'' according to the Associated Press. Not a single network news report mentioned the President's flip-flop in the days following his reversal, according to an analysis by the Business and Media Institute, and BMI found that less than one-third of the health care stories on the three networks even mentioned the $550 million in new taxes in the health care bill. The national media should give Americans the facts, not ignore the truth. And, Mr. Speaker, if you'll indulge me for a second more, I have noticed that several individuals today have rightfully made speeches honoring the Reverend Jesse Jackson. I think it is very appropriate and fitting that his son, a Member of Congress, is presiding over the Chamber right now as temporary Speaker. I appreciate both his presence and his father's contributions.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, with 15 million people unemployed, it's no wonder that Americans increasingly are concerned about illegal immigration. A CNN/Opinion Research poll found that only 36 percent of Americans now approve of the President's handling of illegal immigration, and 58 percent disapprove. The poll also found that 73 percent of Americans want to see the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. decreased. This is the highest percentage since the question was first asked in 2006. In addition, Gallup reported that a percentage of Americans supporting a decrease in overall immigration levels increased from 39 percent to 50 percent in the last year. The Obama administration should put the interests of Americans ahead of those of illegal immigrants.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, for the second time in a row, Newsweek is the winner of the Media Fairness Caucus' highly uncoveted ``Lapdog Award'' for last week's most glaring example of media bias. The poster to my left of Newsweek's cover story features former Vice President Al Gore with the caption, ``The Thinking Man's Thinking Man.'' The previous Newsweek cover featured President Obama with the caption, ``Yes He Can,'' a variation of his campaign slogan. Before that, it was Vice President Joe Biden, ``A Vice President to be Reckoned With.'' And Newsweek's latest cover features Governor Sarah Palin and says she is, ``Bad News.'' It is no wonder five out of six Americans say the national media are biased, according to a recent public opinion poll. If you want the liberal slant, read Newsweek. If you want the facts and news, you might want to look elsewhere.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the national media give Americans a tale of two protests. On the one hand, you have liberal protests, to which the media give extensive and positive coverage. On the other hand, you have conservative protests. The media downplay these demonstrations and demonize the protestors. On Thursday, thousands of people from around the country gathered in front of the Capitol to voice their opposition to a Government takeover of health care. The New York Times buried its coverage of the protest on page A15. A couple of months ago, the Times buried its coverage of the conservative September 12 protests on page A37. In contrast, the Times has given much better coverage to protests regarding amnesty, gay rights, and other liberal causes. The New York Times and the national media should give fair coverage to protests on both sides, not just the ones they agree with.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, although the Democratic Leadership has had several months to address the concerns voiced by countless Americans, the latest health care reform bill is no better than the last. I support health care reform; however, this bill goes far beyond fixing the problems we all know need to be addressed and it fails to enact true health care reform. Skyrocketing costs have crept into our health care system, creating uncertainty about the future of health care for employers, working Americans, and the uninsured. Americans need more, not fewer, choices for something as important and personal as health care. Americans are concerned with cost, choice, quality and access of health care and Congress should work to address these concerns. Any legislation considered should attempt to make our health care system more accountable and accessible to patients. This legislation expands coverage with a government takeover of the health care industry funded by new taxes and massive cuts to Medicare. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that H.R. 3962 would require over $550 billion in new taxes on individuals and small businesses. CBO also estimates that this legislation will lead to $33 billion in penalties for uninsured individuals and $135 billion in penalties for employers under the government mandate or ``pay or play'' requirements. Raising income taxes on hard-working Americans and threatening small businesses with penalties to fund a government takeover of health care is a terrible prescription for a troubled economy. In order to pay for this government takeover of health care, Democrats also have proposed cutting more than $500 billion in Medicare spending. The plan also includes an expansion of Medicaid that will cost cash-strapped States $34 billion over the next 10 years. I believe Congress should pursue reform in terms of costs and access, but the legislation advanced by Democratic leaders is equal parts faulty premise and flawed logic. Their legislation will increase health care spending, limit choice, and cut Medicare benefits. The current health care proposal being considered by Congress will lead to higher costs, rationing of care, higher taxes on families and small businesses, elimination of jobs through punitive taxes on small businesses, granting of unchecked power to a new ``health care choices commissioner,'' elimination of choices for patients, tax-payer funded abortions and a government panel placed between doctors and patients. Americans deserve the freedom to choose the type of health care that is best for them and their families. During his campaign, then-Senator Obama promised that he would ``have all the negotiations around a big table'' and ``televised on C-SPAN'' to ``allow people to stay involved in this process.'' Yet the negotiations and decisionmaking process have taken place behind closed doors with the media and American people shut out. That is why the bill lacks bipartisan support. In fact, there is bipartisan opposition to the House Democrats' government take-over. Rather than increasing taxes and rationing care, the President needs to address medical liability reform, which is one of the biggest sources of waste and added cost. Frivolous lawsuits force physicians to practice defensive medicine and carry expensive malpractice insurance, the cost of which is passed on to patients. Uncapped lawsuit awards paid by insurance companies also get passed on to patients as higher premiums. It is a disservice to the American people that this legislation fails to include the legal reforms that are necessary to make any expansion of health care coverage financially sound. Unlimited lawsuits enrich trial lawyers while increasing the cost of health care for everyone. Unfortunately, we now know that opposition by trial lawyers is the reason tort reform has been excluded from all the Democrats' health care proposals, including the one we will be voting on today. Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the following publicly at a recent town hall meeting: ``[T]he reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers . . . and that is the plain and simple truth.'' That political opposition, which Governor Dean admitted is not based on the merits but on raw self-interest, flies in the face of the facts. The CBO estimates that enacting tort reforms nationwide would result in a reduction of medical malpractice insurance rates by 25 percent to 30 percent. And according to the Government Accountability Office, rising litigation awards are responsible for skyrocketing medical professional liability premiums. Lower premiums mean Americans will pay less to have better health care. The President of the American Medical Association said ``If the [health care] bill doesn't have medical liability reform in it, then we don't see how it is going to be successful in controlling costs.'' And the President's own doctor of over two decades supports tort reform. He said regretfully that ``I once briefly talked to [the President] about malpractice, and he took the lawyers' position.'' In the handful of States that have enacted tort reform, health care costs have fallen, and the availability of medical care has expanded. In my home State of Texas, premiums fell by 30 percent, and more than 14,000 doctors returned or set up new practices in the state. To give just one example, a charitable hospital group in Texas that serves the poor and underserved reported that since Texas enacted tort reform, its legal costs have gone from $153 million per year to just $2.3 million last year. Doctors are so concerned about frivolous lawsuits that they order unnecessary--and expensive--tests and procedures that are of no benefit to the patient. HHS estimates the national cost of defensive medicine is more than $60 billion. The Congressional Budget Office just issued a report that concludes it costs $54 billion. The costs of litigation and defensive medicine are then passed off to the patient in the price of health care. If tort reform were enacted, trial lawyers would stand to lose one of their primary sources of income: medical malpractice suits, which are often just a form of legalized extortion. But all Americans would gain, and tens of billions of dollars would suddenly be freed up and could be used to help provide health insurance to the uninsured. Regrettably, the Democrats' health care bill not only fails to contain any of the tort reforms the CBO concluded would save at least $54 billion in health care costs, but also contains a provision that bribes States with Federal taxpayer dollars not to enact such reforms in the future. It explicitly prohibits tort reform ``demonstration project'' funds from going to States that put limits on damages or attorneys' fees. Section 2531 of the Democrats' 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 exactly the tort reforms the CBO concluded yield real health care costs savings. That is not only a blow to State reform efforts. It is a federally funded bribe discouraging states from enacting real reform and a giant bailout for trial lawyers. H.R. 3962 also contains two antitrust provisions that are within the House Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction: Sec. 262, which repeals the McCarran-Ferguson Act for health and medical malpractice insurers, and Sec. 2573, which codifies a ban on settlements between name brand and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation. Neither provision was given due consideration in the Judiciary Committee, and their unintended consequences could have significant negative impacts on the cost and availability' of both insurance and medications. My basic concerns with Sec. 262 are its breadth, the possible unintended consequences, and the fact that the provision will do no good and may do much harm. For more than 60 years, the States have regulated the business of insurance and built a record that provides guidance about permissible activity. By inviting Federal intervention, this bill creates a dual regulatory system that only confuses the health insurance and medical malpractice industry. The bill presents a wholesale repeal of McCarran-Ferguson for health insurers and medical malpractice insurers. Further, the protections for information gathering by a State insurance commission or other State regulatory entity that were included in the similar bill (H.R. 3596) reported by the Judiciary Committee over my opposition have been completely eliminated from the legislation. The uncertainty caused by this provision threatens small and large insurers alike, but the smaller ones that depend on sharing information, under oversight by State regulators, are most at risk. Thus the bill threatens to reduce competition among health and medical malpractice insurers. With no demonstrable benefits and many potential adverse effects, Sec. 262 should not have been included in the bill. Section 2573 raises different concerns. When a generic drug manufacturer files an Abbreviated New Drug Application under the Hatch- Waxman Act with the Food and Drug Administration, it indicates its intention to infringe on a brand manufacturer's patent. This means that the generic company is trying to enter into the brand manufacturer's drug market before the branded pharmaceutical's existing patent has expired. This notice usually results in a lawsuit by the brand company that leads to a settlement about the date on which the generic manufacturer can begin selling a generic version of the branded company's drug. This is nothing new. Most cases in the United States, whether civil or criminal, antitrust or patent, settle. The reasons for this are simple: litigation is expensive and its outcomes are uncertain. The supposed problem is when a settlement in the Hatch-Waxman context involves a payment in lieu of or in addition to an agreement on the date of entry into the market by the generic manufacturer. Such payments are said to frustrate the intent of Hatch-Waxman by allowing the brand company to ``pay to delay'' entry of the generic competitor. The proposed solution to this problem, incorporated in Sec. 2573, goes too far. The bill calls for a ban on all Hatch-Waxman settlements that feature any consideration, such as cash or an exchange of patents, in addition to the date of entry. Such a ban dramatically reduces the ability of companies to settle these cases. After all, if the parties could not agree on date of entry, then they would effectively be forced to litigate the case to the bitter end. This means that, in some cases, a settlement would have resulted in generic entry into that particular drug market much earlier than if the brand company wins its patent suit. I fear this ban will itself frustrate the intent of Hatch-Waxman by limiting the incentives for generics to challenge these patents and for brand companies to innovate. The best way to reach the appropriate balance is through a case-by- case analysis by a neutral third party of the competitive effects of these settlements using the rule of reason. This, in essence, is the conclusion that the majority of the Courts of Appeals, including the Second, Eleventh, and DC Circuits, have reached in these cases, and we should uphold the judgment of these courts. The only saving grace of Sec. 2573 is that it creates a cause of action separate and apart from the antitrust laws and will not affect how those laws are interpreted in the future. This also means that the provision, as written, did not come before the Judiciary Committee, even though it remains, at heart, a competition issue. By keeping the Judiciary Committee from considering this legislation, we are eliminating the incentives for drug invention and generic competition that have served American consumers so well. Innovative new drugs, after all, are created in the laboratory, not the courtroom. Sec. 1640 of the bill also contains a provision that allows the Department of Health and Human Services to issue administrative subpoenas to insurance companies during investigations of decisions to exclude benefits. The standard for issuing an administrative subpoena under the bill is extremely low. The information sought must simply ``relate to'' the matter under investigation. It is highly ironic that we are considering this bill with this administrative subpoena language during the same week the Judiciary Committee approved the Democrats' revision of the FBI's authority to issue National Security Letters, which are the functional equivalent of administrative subpoenas used in foreign intelligence and terrorism investigations. The Democrats' bill reported this week by the Judiciary Committee replaces the current ``relevance'' standard for issuing a National Security Letter with a heightened standard, requiring the FBI to show ``specific and articulable facts'' in order to seek particular information using a National Security Letter. House Democrats want to make it easier for the government to investigate insurance companies than to investigate terrorists plotting to kill Americans. In the end, this 1,990-page bill will raise premiums and health care costs on all Americans. It imposes mandates and new taxes on the middle class and small businesses. It fails to address tort reform and it dumps a huge unfunded expansion of Medicaid on the states. Combined with budget gimmicks to hide $245 billion in costs and massive cuts to senior benefits, this is simply bad medicine.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member of the committee, for yielding me time. According to CBO estimates, this bill will cost $1.3 trillion and includes $750 billion in new taxes and $500 billion in Medicare cuts. It increases premiums, increases taxes, cuts benefits, and leads to health care rationing. The government, rather than patients and doctors, will make many health care decisions. The bill represents a loss of freedom and more government control for the American people. I support health care reform to help the long-term, low-income uninsured, but it can be achieved without a government takeover of health care. The House Republicans have a better health care bill that lowers premiums for families and small business owners, cuts the deficit by $68 billion, and includes tort reform.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that tort reform would save Americans $54 billion over the next decade. But reducing frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals is not in the health care bill. That is because, according to former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, White House officials ``don't want to take on the trial lawyers.'' Tort reform eliminates the billions of dollars spent on meritless lawsuits and defensive medicine. If Congress enacted tort reform, we could then provide catastrophic health care coverage to the long-term low-income uninsured. To reduce health care costs and help the uninsured, tort reform should be the first item in any health care bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, a recent Rasmussen Report shows that 68 percent of U.S. voters oppose the creation of sanctuary cities that give safe haven to illegal immigrants. And by a 5-2 margin, voters say sanctuary policies that protect illegal immigrants lead to an increase in crime. Not only are sanctuary cities unpopular, they are illegal. They are specifically prohibited in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. But the Obama administration has not held any jurisdictions that adopt and maintain sanctuary policies responsible. It's no wonder that a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 58 percent of respondents disapproved of the President's handling of illegal immigration while only 36 percent approve. And his poll numbers aren't going to be helped if taxpayers subsidize illegal immigrants in the health care bill that we are considering this week. Rather than flout the will of the American people, the White House should heed their advice and enforce our Nation's immigration laws.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, according to a Harvard School of Public Health study, 40 percent of medical malpractice suits in the U.S. are ``without merit.'' These frivolous lawsuits enrich trial lawyers while increasing the cost of health care for everyone. Despite the fact that tort reform would help reduce health care costs, the administration refuses to propose this commonsense solution. Why is that? According to former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, ``Tort reform is not in the (health care) bill because the people who wrote it don't want to take on the trial lawyers.'' In the handful of States that have enacted tort reform, health care costs have fallen, and the availability of medical care has expanded. Tort reform and reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits against hospitals and doctors would help all Americans.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the poster to my left is the winner of the Media Fairness Caucus' ``Worst of the Week'' award for media bias. The poster says, ``Yes, He Can,'' a variation of the President's campaign slogan. While it appears to be a campaign poster, it actually is this week's cover of Newsweek magazine. The poster provides an astounding example of the national media's liberal bias. Newsweek is the same magazine that during the Presidential campaign featured then- Senator Obama on its cover three times as often as Senator McCain. No wonder 7 out of 10 Americans say the national media are intent on promoting the Obama administration, according to a recent public opinion poll. The national media should report the facts, not provide free advertising for the White House.