Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering appropriations for The Department of Homeland Security, which was created with one mission in mind--to help protect the country. Unfortunately, it seems that not all of the agencies within the Department take that mission as seriously as they should. The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, is responsible for processing petitions for immigration benefits. This includes petitions for green cards, visa issuance, asylum status, and marriage benefits. The adjudication process must be thorough and secure to ensure that those who want to harm America are not allowed to enter the country. Monday's Washington Times included a disturbing article about a Congressional briefing by an internal CIS investigator that highlighted alleged corruption and dysfunctional practices at the Agency. If true, these practices would comprise a threat to national security. According to the article, the allegations include CIS employees exchanging immigration benefits for sex, being influenced by foreign governments to provide benefits, and not having access to the appropriate systems to do background checks on those applying for benefits. When an agency receives Federal funding it is obligated to do everything in its power to complete its job. The Department of Homeland Security needs to better protect our country from those who would do us harm.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3824. Reform of the Endangered Species Act is much needed. The law has adversely affected thousands of farmers, ranchers and homeowners whose private property has been taken without compensation. Over 90 percent of endangered plant and animal species are found on private property. There should be a balance between the rights of property owners and conservation. H.R. 3824 will allow the Secretary of Interior to compensate private property owners for the fair market value of the loss of use of their property when the Secretary concludes that the use of the property would be a taking. The compensation will be made available as aid and through a grant program. This is a fair and long-overdue process that will actually promote preservation and conservation of endangered species and at the same time protect private property rights.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 3132. It is an important bill that will help ensure the safety of American children against sexual predators. In recent months we have heard all too often about the innocent lives of children being shattered by an adult who sexually abuses the child. We are all familiar with the cases, some of which have been mentioned today, such as Jessica Lunsford who was kidnapped, held captive, abused and tortured for 3 days by a convicted sex offender who ultimately killed her by burying her alive. And there was the case of 8-year-old Shasta Groene who was kidnapped, sexually abused, and held captive for weeks by a convicted sex offender who murdered her family. These stories are atrocious and that is why Congress is acting to further protect American children with the Children's Safety Act. The bill requires jurisdiction-wide sex offender registries containing information like where the sex offender resides and is employed or attends school. The bill requires a sex offender to appear in person at least once every 6 months to verify their registration information. The bill also creates a new Federal crime for failure to register as a sex offender and sets the mandatory minimum for that offense at 5 years and a maximum of 20 years. The bill sets other mandatory minimum sentences for crimes of violence against children like murder, kidnapping, maiming, aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse or where the crime results in serious bodily injury. The statistics surrounding child sexual abuse are astonishing--1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys are sexually exploited before they reach adulthood. And one of every six sexually assaulted victims is under the age of 6. We must protect our children by every possible means. The Children's Safety Act of 2005 will help us do so and for that reason I support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3650, the Federal Judiciary Emergency Special Sessions Act of 2005. H.R. 3650 authorizes Federal courts to conduct business outside of their geographic jurisdictions during times of emergency. Congress must enact this legislation immediately so that the affected courts in the gulf region can continue to operate in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Katrina has severely damaged, perhaps ravaged is a better word, Federal courthouses in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. We must act with a sense of urgency. To illustrate why, consider the Eastern Judicial District of Louisiana, where operations are currently suspended. There is virtually no Federal district court presence there. Judges and court staff are physically scattered throughout Louisiana and other States. But crime in the district, assault, rape, and robbery, has not taken the week off. Yet there is no court that can act and no judge to preside. Criminal defendants will walk if deadlines established in the Speedy Trial Act cannot be met. In other words, we must restore the rule of law in the Eastern District of Louisiana as well as elsewhere. The bill contemplates that affected courts could use other facilities that are convenient and practicable to participants under the circumstances. The special circumstances allowing courts to operate outside their normal jurisdictions would continue only until the vacated courthouses could be restored for normal business activities. We need to enact H.R. 3650 as part of the initial effort to help the displaced citizens of the region get back on their feet.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague who just spoke that our separation of powers provides that all aspects of the government are limited to some extent. If juries or judges give outrageous awards, like any other exercise of government power, they should be subject to reasonable checks and balances. Mr. Speaker, I also want to remind my colleagues that unnecessary and frivolous litigation is threatening the viability of the life-saving drug industry. To encourage the development of life-saving drugs, the HEALTH Act contains a safe harbor from punitive damages from a defendant whose drugs or medical product comply with rigorous rules or regulations. The provision is manifestly fair. Why should a drug manufacturer be found guilty of malicious conduct when all they did was sell a product approved as safe under the comprehensive regulations of the FDA? Claims for unlimited economic damages and reasonable noneconomic damages could still go forward under the HEALTH Act. The safe harbor does not apply if relevant information was misrepresented or withheld from the FDA. Eight States have, in fact, provided an FDA regulatory compliance defense against damages just like this bill. Those States are Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah. Opposing this bill jeopardizes those State laws. And the Members who are from those States might want to remember that. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming. Without legal reform, patients will continue to go without needed doctors: women will continue to deliver babies on the side of the road because the nearest OB/GYN is hundreds of miles away; parents will continue to be forced to watch as their child with brain injury suffers because lawsuits forced the nearest neurosurgeon to stop practicing. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first let me say to my colleagues who are not usually concerned about States rights that if they will look at section 11 of the bill, they will find the bill respects the right of any State to set a cap of any amount, be it higher or lower, than the caps in the bill itself. Mr. Speaker, the HEALTH Act is the only proven legislative solution to the current medical liability insurance crisis. According to the Congressional Budget Office, under this bill, ``Premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.'' H.R. 5 allows unlimited awards of economic damages. These include past and future medical expenses, lost or past and future earnings, the cost of obtaining domestic services, loss of employment, and loss of business or employment opportunities. Deserving victims can be awarded tens of millions of dollars in damages, as we have already seen in the States that have similar reforms to those contained in this bill. Mr. Speaker, the Harvard Medical Practice Study found that over half of the filed medical professional liability claims they studied were brought by plaintiffs who suffered either no injuries at all or, if they did, such injuries were not caused by the health care providers, but rather by the underlying disease. H.R. 5 is modeled on California's legal reforms. Those reforms have resulted in California's medical liability premiums increasing at a rate that is only one-third the rate of those of other States. Mr. Speaker, we need to act, and we need to act now. The nonpartisan Annals of Medicine predicts that the current doctor shortage could get worse, and we could lose 20 percent of needed doctors in the coming years. Let us protect patients everywhere. Let us pass the HEALTH Act.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me share with my colleagues the result of three studies, and let me emphasize that these studies are not about hypothetical situations. They are not theoretical studies. They are studies of the actual experiences of States that have enacted reforms similar to the ones we have in this bill that we are talking about today. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, States with reasonable legal reforms including caps on noneconomic damages enjoy access to more physicians per capita: ``We found that States with caps on noneconomic damages experienced about 12 percent more physicians per capita than the States without such a cap. Moreover, we found that States with relatively high caps were less likely to experience an increase in physician supply than States with lower caps.'' Mr. Speaker, also, research shows that California reforms, which the HEALTH Act is based on, have not resulted in unfair awards to deserving victims. A recent comprehensive study of California's MICRA reforms by the Rand Institute concluded that under MICRA, ``awards generally remained quite large despite the imposition of the cap, and California's reforms have not resulted in any disparate impact on women or the elderly.'' Mr. Speaker, in another study, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health stated that ``we found no evidence that women or the elderly were disparately impacted by the cap by noneconomic damages in California under MICRA.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a valued member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I want to say I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who just spoke, voting for this legislation in the last Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary and now a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply very quickly to the point that was made, and that is that this bill does not violate any States' rights. Section 7(a), it very clearly says that if any State has any cap of any amount, be it higher or lower than the caps in the bill, then that State's cap will prevail. So this recognizes States' rights. It is friendly to States' rights. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and also chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Law. (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Miss McMorris). Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I also rise in support of H.R. 5, which will bring needed medical liability reform to health care providers in Washington State. As I travel around eastern Washington, I hear from desperate doctors and health care providers that these lawsuits are increasing costs to patients and driving doctors out of business. It is not unusual to hear that doctors are being forced to drop their insurance or stop delivering babies, or younger doctors are quitting to practice overseas. This is at a time when we have a health care personnel shortage. This has happened in areas within my district, such as Odessa, Republic, and Davenport, where we have no OB/GYNs, and pregnant women must travel over an hour now for care. Additionally, it is becoming impossible to recruit and retain specialists, such as neurosurgeons and cardiologists, when 30 to 50 percent experience lawsuits annually. Emergency care is in no better shape with over 30 percent of trauma surgeons being sued each year. This is unacceptable for 21st century health care. Skyrocketing medical liability insurance costs for doctors and health care providers has caused the American Medical Association to declare that Washington State is in a medical liability crisis. In the past 10 years, the average jury findings in my State have increased 68 percent. As well, the number of million-dollar settlements has risen almost ten times. This is an important bill that limits excessive lawsuits, but also ensures that those who are truly harmed are going to get their day in court. Over the past few years, had this law been enacted, Washington would have saved an estimated $53 million. HHS estimates that by setting reasonable guidelines for these noneconomic damage awards, we will save between $70 billion and $126 billion in national health care costs annually. H.R. 5 will bring common-sense reform to outrageous liability rates and will protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the HEALTH Act, which is identical to two other bills that passed the House during the last Congress. The HEALTH Act is modeled on California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, called MICRA, which has resulted in California's medical liability premiums increasing only one-third as much as they have in other States. MICRA's reforms, which are included in the HEALTH Act, include a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages; limits on the contingency fees lawyers can charge; a fair-share rule by which damages are allocated in direct proportion to fault; reasonable guidelines, but not caps, on the award of punitive damages; and a safe harbor from punitive damages for products that meet FDA safety requirements. According to the nonpartisan organization Jury Verdict Research, the median medical liability award has more than doubled in the last 7 years to $1.2 million. Doctors and other health care providers are being forced to abandon patients and practices, particularly in high-risk specialties such as emergency medicine, brain surgery and obstetrics and gynecology. Women are particularly hard hit, as are low-income neighborhoods and rural areas. According to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services, ``Unless a State has adopted limitations on noneconomic damages, the cost of these awards for noneconomic damages is paid by all other Americans through higher health care costs, higher health insurance premiums, higher taxes, reduced access to quality care, and threats to quality of care.'' Many doctors are no longer available to treat patients. Mary Rasar's father did not get the medical care he needed following a car accident last summer, because the only trauma center in his area closed for 10 days due to medical liability costs. Her father died from those injuries. Melinda Sallard, a 22-year-old mother, was forced to deliver her own baby on the side of the road after her physician stopped delivering babies and her hospital's maternity department closed because of rising medical liability costs. Leanne Dyess' husband Tony sustained head injuries in a car accident and could not find a neurosurgeon to treat him because rising liability costs had forced insurers to drop their coverage. Tony was airlifted to a hospital in another State that still had neurosurgeons, but 6 hours had passed, and it was too late. As a result Tony suffered permanent brain damage. In my hometown, the CEO of San Antonio's Methodist Children's Hospital has seen his premiums increase 400 percent. He has been sued three times. In one case the only interaction with the person suing was that he stepped in her child's hospital room and asked simply, how is your child doing? Each jury cleared him of any wrongdoing, and the total amount of time all three juries spent deliberating was less than an hour. But the doctor's insurance company spent a great deal of time, effort and money in his defense. It is no surprise the American College of Emergency Physicians found that large majorities of both rural and urban hospitals had inadequate on-call specialists coverage. And there has been a 40 percent reduction in medical students entering obstetrics and gynecology. According to the chair of the OB/GYN department at the Yale School of Medicine, ``Within 2 years we will be faced with a very real possibility of having to shut down our high-risk obstetrical practice, a practice that cares for the sickest mothers in the State.'' As for legitimate cases of medical malpractice, nothing in the HEALTH Act prevents juries from awarding very large amounts to victims, including children. The HEALTH Act does not limit in any way an award of economic damages to injured victims. Economic damages include lost wages or home services, medical costs, the cost of pain-reducing drugs, therapy and lifetime rehabilitation care. In fact, in just the last few years, juries in California have awarded the following damages to medical malpractice victims: An $84 million award to a 5-year-old boy, a $59 million award to a 3-year-old girl, a $50 million award to a 10-year-old boy, a $12 million award to a 30-year-old homemaker, and a $27 million award to a 25-year-old woman. Other examples include damages of $7, $22, $25, $30, and $49 million, all in just the last few years. Awards of these same sizes would be available under the HEALTH Act. Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health stated that ``we found no evidence that women or the elderly were disparately impacted by the cap'' on noneconomic damages in California under MICRA. The HEALTH Act will work. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ``Under the HEALTH Act, premiums from medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.'' The American people support the HEALTH Act. The Gallup poll found that 72 percent of those surveyed favor a limit on the amount patients can be awarded for noneconomic damages. The HEALTH Act also respects the judgments of State legislatures because it does not preempt any State law that limits damages, be they higher or lower than the limits provided for in the HEALTH Act. Finally, this legislation is supported by some 200 organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Council of Women's and Infant's Specialty Hospitals. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of those who need health care, for the sake of health care providers who simply want to practice their professions, please join me and these selfless organizations in supporting the HEALTH Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on the HEALTH Act.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit must be defeated because it contains zero legal protections for doctors beyond current law, and in some cases it actually makes the current crisis even worse. The Democratic alternative would require that before a health care lawsuit is filed, the claimant file an affidavit declaring that a qualified specialist has been consulted and has issued a written report that says the filing is meritorious. Mr. Speaker, the definition is so broad it is meaningless. The Democratic alternative also imposes another wasteful layer of bureaucracy on the health care system, mandatory mediation, which simply has no binding effect. The motion to recommit even makes the situation of OB/GYNs worse than it is today by allowing someone as old as 21 to file a lawsuit claiming the doctor who delivered them caused their injury 21 years before. The motion to recommit would subject OB/GYNs to even more nuisance suits and drive even more of them out of business. So the Conyers-Dingell substitute contains zero legal reforms and would make the current litigation crisis even worse; yet legal reforms are needed to solve the current crisis in medical liability insurance and increase access to health care. H.R. 5 is the only proven legislative solution. According to the Congressional Budget Office under the HEALTH Act, ``premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.'' Mr. Speaker, for the sake of health care providers and the people who need them, let us keep doctors practicing their profession and defeat this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), who is an expert on this subject.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) the primary author of the bill itself.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), a subcommittee Chair of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a member of Committee on the Judiciary and an expert on this subject.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, what was just said was actually contradicted by the Government Accountability Office. The GAO found that rising litigation awards are responsible for skyrocketing medical professional liability premiums. The report stated that ``GAO found that losses on medical malpractice claims, which make up the largest part of the insurers' costs, appear to be the primary driver of rate increases.'' The GAO found that insurers are not to blame for skyrocketing medical professional liability premiums. The GAO report states that insurer ``profits are not increasing, indicating that insurers are not charging and profiting from excessively high premium rates.'' Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that the opponents of this legislation are forgetting, I hope not ignoring, a study by the Harvard Medical Practice. What this study found is that over half, over half of the filed medical professional liability claims they studied were brought by plaintiffs who suffered either no injuries at all or, if they did, such injuries were not caused by their health care providers, but rather by the underlying disease itself. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).