Floor Statements

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.

Madam 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. 4119, as amended, currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4119, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012, strengthens current law and prohibits the construction, use, and financing of unauthorized tunnels across the U.S. border.

I thank the sponsors of this legislation, Mr. Reyes of Texas and Mr. Quayle of Arizona, for their work on this bipartisan, bicameral bill.

Similar legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent in January.

This legislation establishes the penalty for conspiracy or attempt to use, construct, or finance a cross-border tunnel. It also identifies the construction, financing, or use of a cross-border tunnel as a predicate offense for a charge of money laundering and for an application for judicial authorization to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications. H.R. 4119 also allows the criminal forfeiture of property that enters the United States through a cross- border tunnel.

Reports of drug-smuggling tunnels have increased, particularly in the past 10 years. Drug traffickers have ramped up their use of underground smuggling in light of increased border security, either real or perceived. Mexican drug-trafficking organizations have used tunnels as a smuggling method since at least 1990.

A majority of cross-border tunnels continue to be found in California and Arizona. These tunnels range in sophistication from a simple 16- inch pipe to well-engineered tunnels equipped with electricity, ventilation, and rails. Ownership of the tunnels is often attributed to the Mexican drug cartels.

To find cross-border tunnels, U.S. agents use devices that range from ground-penetrating radar to seismic sensors. Despite these efforts, drug smugglers continue to build the tunnels.

In November 2011, Federal law enforcement agents shut down two sophisticated tunnels that led from an area near Tijuana's airport to an industrial park in the U.S. About 49 tons of marijuana were seized.

Drug traffickers are also skilled at setting up front companies to rent space in busy warehouse districts in the United States. Mining engineers and architects are employed to construct the tunnel and bore directly into the foundation of the front company's rented warehouse.

The Drug Enforcement Administration describes marijuana as ``the top revenue generator for Mexican drug trafficking organizations--a cash crop that finances corruption and the carnage of violence year after year.'' The profits from marijuana trafficking finance the drug cartels' other drug enterprises, which include the construction and use of cross-border tunnels.

Border tunnels are an unfortunate testament to the ingenuity and determination of the Mexican drug cartels. It is time for Congress to enhance law enforcement's ability to fight transnational organized crime and the drug cartels' construction of cross-border tunnels. This bill reaffirms our determination to bring an end to cross-border tunnels.

When Congress enacted the border-tunnel statute in 2007, it omitted the changes contained in this bill. H.R. 4119 simply corrects this to ensure that investigators are equipped with the ability to locate and shut down these tunnels and hold these dangerous criminals accountable.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to say, we were hoping that the other author, the other cosponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), would be here. Unfortunately, he was detained. His flight was delayed from Arizona to Washington, D.C.

But in his absence, I just want to thank him for his work on this bill and for all of his efforts to reduce the amount of cross-border drug smuggling and thereby protect the lives of individuals in Arizona and all Americans. He has done great work on this particular piece of legislation. We all appreciate those efforts.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 365) to encourage, enhance, and integrate Blue Alert plans throughout the United States in order to disseminate information when a law enforcement officer is seriously injured or killed in the line of duty, as amended.

Madam 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. 365, as amended, currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, in 1962, at the request of Congress, President Kennedy proclaimed today as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. Every May 15 we honor our Nation's law enforcement officers who have been killed in the line of duty. Earlier today, on the west front of the Capitol, we honored those officers who were killed last year while protecting us and enforcing the law.

H.R. 365, the National Blue Alert Act of 2012, establishes a nationwide system for distribution of time-sensitive information to help identify a violent suspect when a law enforcement officer is injured or killed in the line of duty.

Each year, hundreds of law enforcement officers are killed or seriously injured in the line of duty. America's law enforcement officers courageously put their lives on the line every day. They often work long and irregular hours in demanding and dangerous conditions. These officers run a high risk of being injured or killed by the same criminals that prey on Americans.

Just last month, in my home State of Texas, an Austin police officer was shot and killed while responding to a call about a drunk man shoplifting at the local Walmart. What seemed to be a routine call turned out to be a dangerous and deadly situation. We cannot bring Officer Padron back, but we can honor his sacrifice by helping to apprehend and bring to justice criminals who harm our men and women in blue.

In 1789, President George Washington appointed America's first law enforcement officers, 13 United States Marshals. Since then, over 21,000 local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty.

Despite the fact that national crime rates continue to drop, in 2011, 163 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty, a 14 percent increase over the previous year. Unfortunately, criminals are becoming even more violent, and their contempt for law enforcement and the rule of law is more evident than ever.

This bill encourages expansion of an integrated Blue Alert communications network throughout the United States, much like the well-known AMBER Alert system used to locate missing and abducted children. A Blue Alert broadcasts information and speeds apprehension of violent criminals when a law enforcement officer is seriously injured or killed in the line of duty. Blue Alerts use the same principle as AMBER Alerts for missing children and Silver Alerts for missing seniors.

The Blue Alert system is a cooperative effort among local, State, and Federal authorities, law enforcement agencies, and the general public. A Blue Alert provides a description of an offender who is still at large and may include a description of the offender's vehicle and license plate information. Like AMBER Alerts, Blue Alerts will help hinder the offender's ability to escape and will facilitate their capture.

The bill directs the Department of Justice to designate an existing officer as the Blue Alert national coordinator, who will encourage those States that have not already done so to develop Blue Alert plans and establish voluntary guidelines. As of today, 14 States have Blue Alert networks in place, and Ohio will implement its network in June.

An integrated nationwide Blue Alert system ensures that when tragedy strikes, the public is on notice and suspects can be more quickly apprehended and brought to justice. A nationwide Blue Alert network will be particularly effective when a suspect flees across State lines.

I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm) and Mr. Reichert of Washington for their work on this issue. This is a bipartisan, bicameral bill. Similar legislation was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last September.

Supporters of this legislation include the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association.

Too often, criminals in our society have no respect for authority and the rule of law. The goal of the Blue Alert is to immediately notify the entire community to assist in the location and apprehension of violent criminals who injure or kill police officers. This bill reaffirms our determination to ensure the future safety of our law enforcement men and women and the communities they serve to protect every day.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time as well.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3534) to amend title 31, United States Code, to revise requirements related to assets pledged by a surety, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3534, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) who is an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time as well.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), who is the chairman of the House Administration Committee and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

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

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

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

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

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

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. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4086) to amend chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code, to clarify the exception to foreign sovereign immunity set forth in section 1605(a)(3) of such title, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4086 currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a leader on the Judiciary Committee, for introducing this legislation. I also want to thank Mr. Conyers and Mr. Cohen for their support as well.

This bill preserves the ability of U.S. museums and educational institutions to continue to borrow foreign government-owned artwork and artifacts for temporary exhibition or display. The

United States has long recognized the importance of encouraging a cultural exchange of ideas through exhibitions of artwork loaned from abroad. Cultural exchanges produce substantial benefits to the educational and cultural development of all Americans. The future success of these exchanges depends on foreign lenders having confidence that loaning artwork to U.S. institutions will not open them up to lawsuits in U.S. courts.

For 40 years, the Immunity from Seizure Act provided foreign government lenders with this confidence. However, rulings in several recent Federal cases have caused that confidence to unravel. In these decisions, the courts have determined that the Immunity from Seizure Act does not preempt the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which provides U.S. courts with jurisdiction in cases against foreign countries.

The effect has been to open foreign governments up to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts simply because they loaned artwork to an American museum or educational institution. This has seriously threatened the ability of U.S. institutions to borrow foreign government-owned artwork. It has also resulted in cultural exchanges being curtailed as foreign government lenders have become hesitant to permit their artwork to travel to the United States.

The bill addresses this situation. It provides that if artwork is granted immunity by the State Department under the Immunity from Seizure Act, then the loan of that artwork cannot subject a foreign government to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

This is very narrow legislation. It only applies to one of the many grounds of jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It requires the State Department to grant the artwork immunity under the Immunity from Seizure Act before the provisions of the bill apply. And in order to preserve the claims of victims of the Nazi government and its allies during World War II, the bill has an exception for claims brought by these victims.

If we want to encourage foreign governments to continue to lend artwork to American museums and educational institutions, we must enact this legislation. Without the protections this bill provides, rather than lending artwork to U.S. institutions, foreign governments will simply deny American loan requests. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is the author of this legislation and an active member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, we have no other speakers on this side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3992) to allow otherwise eligible Israeli nationals to receive E 2 nonimmigrant visas if similarly situated United States nationals are eligible for similar nonimmigrant status in Israel.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3992 currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 3992 is legislation that was introduced by our colleague, Howard Berman, which I have cosponsored, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue. The Judiciary Committee approved this legislation by voice vote. The bill adds Israel to the list of countries eligible for E 2 visas.

E 2 visas are temporary visas available for foreign investors. A foreign national may be admitted initially for a period of 2 years under an E 2 visa and can apply for extensions in 2-year increments. The U.S. has entered into treaties of commerce that contain language similar to the E 2 visas since at least 1815, when we entered into a Convention to Regulate Commerce with the United Kingdom.

Currently, the nationals of over 75 countries are eligible for E 2 status, from Albania to the Ukraine. In fiscal year 2010, over 25,000 aliens, including dependents, were granted E 2 visas.

In the past, countries became eligible for the E 2 program through treaties signed with the U.S. However, in 2003, the Judiciary Committee reached an understanding with the U.S. Trade Representative that, from now on, no immigration provisions were to be included in future trade agreements. As a result, specific legislation would be required to add countries to the E 2 program.

In order to qualify for an E 2 visa, an investor has to have a controlling interest in and demonstrate that they will develop and direct the enterprise. In addition, the investor has to invest and put at risk a substantial amount of capital. This is measured by a proportionality test: the higher the cost of the business, the lower the proportion of its total value the investment has to represent. In addition, the investment has to be large enough to ensure the investor's financial commitment to the enterprise and that the investor will successfully develop and direct it.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3992, and I again thank my colleague, Congressman Berman of California, for introducing a commonsense bill that helps spur job creation and economic growth here at home and also invest in our relationship with one of our closest allies. The investments in business enterprises fostered by this bill benefit the economies of both the United States and Israel, and they also will create jobs and strengthen the already strong friendship between the United States and Israel.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the Business and Media Institute found that news coverage of rising gas prices are four times less likely during the Obama administration than the previous Bush administration.

The study found that news sources--such as ABC, CBS, and NBC--only covered the rising prices 21 times during the Obama administration compared to 97 times under the Bush administration.

The quantity of coverage was not the only difference. The tone of the coverage was different as well. Under the Bush administration, gas prices were ``skyrocketing'' as people's ``wallets were running on empty.'' Now, ``gas prices creep up.''

The national media owe it to Americans to provide the facts and let the people make their own decisions. Democracy is threatened when the national media report in a biased manner.

Mr. Speaker, last week we lost a true patriot for the conservative cause, Andrew Breitbart. Mr. Breitbart was a pioneer in conservative activist media and dedicated much of his life to exposing media bias and keeping the media honest.

Mr. Breitbart started his own news aggregation site, Breitbart.com, and five other websites, including Big Journalism.

In February 2010, Mr. Breitbart received the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award.

Andrew Breitbart recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation:

I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I

love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that

the Complex refuses to report. . . .

Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who

linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered

what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for

what I believe in. I've lost friends, perhaps dozens. But

I've gained hundreds, thousands--who knows?--of allies. At

the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I

sleep very well at night.

He was a tireless patriot and will truly be missed by many.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1433) to protect private property rights, as amended.

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 materials on H.R. 1433, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congresswoman Waters for introducing 1433, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, to restore vital property rights protections following the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

This bipartisan legislation passed the House during the 109th Congress by a vote of 376 38 with 99 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Democrats present voting in favor of final passage. Unfortunately, the bill was never voted on in the Senate. Today, over 6 years later, the Kelo decision continues to call out for congressional action.

Our Founders realized the fundamental importance of property rights. Property rights protections are enshrined throughout the Constitution, including in the Fifth Amendment, which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Despite these protections, in Kelo the Supreme Court held that the government may take private property from one owner and transfer it to another for private economic development. The dissenting Justices sharply criticized the Court's decision, writing that the result of the majority opinion was:

Effectively to delete the words ``for public use'' from the

takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The specter of

condemnation hangs over all property. The government now has

license to transfer property from those with few resources to

those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this

perverse result.

This legislation essentially reverses this result and prohibits State and local governments that receive Federal economic development funds from abusing eminent domain for private economic development. It also prohibits the Federal Government from using eminent domain for economic development purposes.

This bill restores Americans' faith in their ability to build, own, and keep their property without fear of the government taking their homes, farms, or businesses to give to other people. It tells commercial developers that they should seek to obtain property through private negotiation, not by public force.

Too many Americans have lost homes and small businesses to eminent domain abuse, forced to watch as private developers replace them with luxury condominiums and other upscale uses. Local governments often approve the use of eminent domain for private economic development in order to expand their tax basis.

Federal law currently allows Federal funds to be used to support condemnations for the benefit of private developers, which encourages this abuse nationwide.

As the Institute for Justice's witness observed during our hearing on this bill:

Using eminent domain so that another richer, better-

connected person may live or work on the land you used to own

tells Americans that their hopes, dreams, and hard work do

not matter as much as money and political influence. The use

of eminent domain for private development has no place in a

country built on traditions of independence, hard work, and

protection of property rights.

Americans' homes are their castles. Federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund the battering ram of eminent domain abuse.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation to restore the Constitution's broad protections for private property rights.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the sponsor of this legislation and also a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

After that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) be allowed to control the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 347) to correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.

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 materials on the Senate amendment to H.R. 347, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, introduced by Congressman Tom Rooney, makes commonsense improvements to an existing Federal law that prohibits unlawful access to the White House, the Vice President's residence, and other restricted areas.

Current law prohibits unlawful entries upon any restricted building or ground where the President, Vice President, or other protectee is temporarily visiting. However, there is no Federal law that expressly prohibits unlawful entry to the White House and its grounds or the Vice President's residence and its grounds. The United States Secret Service must therefore rely upon a provision in the District of Columbia Code, which addresses only minor misdemeanor infractions when someone attempts to or successfully climbs the White House fence or, worse, breaches the White House, itself.

H.R. 347 remedies this problem. It specifically includes the White House, the Vice President's residence, and their respective grounds in the definition of restricted buildings and grounds. The bill also clarifies that the penalties in section 1752 of title 18 apply to those who knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so. Current law does not include this important element.

The House passed this bill 1 year ago by a vote of 399 3. Earlier this month, the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent. The Senate also clarified that the revised law applies to individuals the Secret Service is required to protect by statute or by Presidential memorandum.

H.R. 347 ensures that the President, the First Family, the Vice President, and others are protected whether they are in the White House or attending an event in a convention center or meeting hall.

I commend my colleague from Florida (Mr. Rooney) for sponsoring this legislation, which enjoys overwhelming bipartisan and bicameral support.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney), who is a sponsor of this legislation and also a member of the Armed Services and a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted last month, more viewers feel the national media are biased than ever before. The survey found that 67 percent of Americans say there is a ``fair amount'' or a ``great deal of bias'' in news coverage. Only 10 percent responded that there is ``no bias at all'' in the national media.

These percentages show a significant increase in the number of Americans who believe that they receive biased coverage of current events by the national media. The national media owe it to the American people to be honest and fair. Americans' distrust of the national media will continue to grow until the media adhere to the highest standards of their profession and provide the American people with facts, balanced stories, and objective coverage of the news.