Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill presents a sensitive issue with regard to compensation for those who are suffering ailments as a result of the recovery and cleanup efforts at the World Trade Center site. No doubt there are many with legitimate claims as a result of their efforts at Ground Zero. However, this legislation as written creates a huge $8.4 billion slush fund paid for by taxpayers that is open to abuse, fraud, and waste. That is because the legislation creates an inexplicable and unprecedented 21-year long fund.

The case of the bill's namesake, James Zadroga, is indicative of the problems with this bill. Rather than finding that Detective Zadroga's death was the result of exposure to Ground Zero dust, the New York City medical examiner concluded that, ``It is our unequivocal opinion, with certainty beyond doubt, that the foreign material

in Detective Zadroga's lungs did not get there as a result of inhaling dust at the World Trade Center or elsewhere.'' So the bill is deceptive, starting with its title.

The danger here is not simply the occasional unsupported claim, as in the case of Detective Zadroga, but the creation of a massive and expensive compensation system that will be subject to pervasive problems over the unprecedented 21 years it will be open to claimants.

The legislation also vastly extends the geographic scope of the fund to cover ``routes of debris removal.'' This will result in the potential for a huge number of additional claimants with tenuous connections between their medical problems and the cleanup efforts at Ground Zero.

The bill allows claims to be filed until the year 2031, an unjustifiable length of time. As Ken Feinberg, Special Master of the original 9/11 fund and the administrator of the BP oil spill claims process stated, ``no latent claims need such an extended date.''

Additionally, the bill permits those who have settled their lawsuits to reopen their claims and seek additional taxpayer-funded compensation through the 9/11 fund. This is contrary to both the terms of the original 9/11 fund and to normal legal principles regarding final settlements.

By greatly expanding the fund's eligibility criteria, these proposed changes not only will increase the cost of the fund, but will present more opportunities for fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars.

Also the bill does little, if anything, to limit the special master's unbounded authority. The amount of discretion given to the Special Master may have been acceptable under the original 9/11 fund because it was designed to compensate a limited number of claimants with relatively noncontroversial claims as soon as possible. However, this amount of discretion will not work for the 21-year-long fund created by this bill with its larger set of potential claimants who have injuries with more ambiguous causation. If nothing else, this structure will be an open invitation for spurious claims.

The original 9/11 fund was an understandable expression of a nation's compassion and generosity following the deaths of thousands of innocent people. It was designed to settle the claims of those covered once and for all. Maybe that claim should be reopened to protect the construction contractors from the financially ruinous litigation they now face. But if we are going to reopen the funds, we should do so in a much more narrow way, with far less discretion for the Special Master than that provided for in H.R. 847.

It is hard to explain spending billions of additional taxpayer dollars when Special Master Ken Feinberg has emphatically stated that the $1.5 billion in taxpayer money, charitable contributions, and insurance coverage currently available for distribution is ``more than sufficient to pay all eligible claims, as well as lawyers' fees and costs.''

Why does Congress continue to overreach and consider taxpayers to be their personal slush fund? There is no excuse for this kind of legislation, and I hope thoughtful Members will want to oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close on this side; so at the appropriate time I will do so. Meanwhile, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents an irresponsible overreach and does not contain the protections necessary to safeguard valuable taxpayer dollars from abuse, waste, and fraud. Ken Feinberg, Special Master of the original 9/11 Fund, testified twice before the Judiciary Committee on this legislation. Both times Mr. Feinberg advocated reenacting the 9/11 fund, but doing so on a much more limited basis than is done in this legislation. Why are we ignoring his advice?

Mr. Feinberg stated that if the fund is reenacted, it should be for ``a window of 5 years,'' not 21, and that it should be done with ``the understanding that there would be no changes in the rules and regulations governing the original fund and that the new law would simply be a `one line' reaffirmation of the original 9/11 fund.'' Mr. Feinberg warned that ``any attempt to modify the statutory provisions and accompanying regulations of the original fund will undercut political consensus.''

Unfortunately, Mr. Feinberg's sound advice was ignored there, too. Instead, we are considering a bill that creates a fund with an unnecessary 21-year long duration and that contains special protections for trial lawyers; unnecessarily extends the original fund's eligibility criteria; and does not include the protections necessary to safeguard the fund from abuse, waste, and fraud. This is another example of Congress' insatiable appetite for the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, more Americans than ever distrust the mass media, according to a new Gallup public opinion poll.

Just 12 percent say they have ``a great deal'' of confidence in the media to report the news ``fully, accurately, and fairly.''

A majority have little or no confidence in the media.

And by a margin of more than 3 to 1, Americans say the media are too liberal rather than too conservative, tying the highest mark of this decade.

Americans have good reason to be skeptical of the media. They repeatedly promote a liberal agenda and give the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats a free pass.

If the national media want to restore the public's trust, they should give Americans the facts, not tell them what to think.

Madam Speaker, for journalists who criticize Democrats, the punishment can be severe.

ABC's Washington, DC affiliate recently fired veteran anchorman Doug McKelway after he broadcast a negative report about President Obama and congressional Democrats, according to the Washington Post.

During the Gulf oil spill, McKelway reported that an anti-oil demonstration attracted protesters from ``far-left environmental groups.''

He also mentioned that President Obama accepted over $77,000 in campaign contributions from BP.

And he said that the Senate was unlikely to pass cap-and-trade legislation this year because Democrats don't want to ``propose a huge escalation in your electric bill'' before Election Day.

Although McKelway's comments were true, he was subsequently fired.

This is yet another example of the media protecting President Obama.

The media should give Americans the facts, not fire journalists who tell the truth.

Madam Speaker, the national media label political candidates and organizations ``conservative'' far more often than ``liberal.''

For example, during the last year, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times used the word ``conservative'' almost twice as often as ``liberal'' in political news stories, according to an internet search.

Furthermore, by margins of 3 to 1, the newspapers used the term ``far right'' more often than ``far left'' and ``right wing'' more frequently than ``left wing.''

And the term ``extreme right'' appeared five times more often than ``extreme left.''

This disparity shows the media's liberal perspective. To them, ``liberal'' is actually ``mainstream,'' and therefore not worth mentioning.

But Americans describe themselves as conservative rather than liberal by a margin of 2 to 1.

The national media should give Americans the facts, not use biased language.

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

The Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010 contains a number of useful spelling, grammatical, and other purely technical amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. These amendments will facilitate the work of bankruptcy lawyers and judges.

When any provision of law is unclear or its text inaccurate, judges and lawyers may become confused about how Congress intends for the law to operate. Sometimes legislative inaccuracies even open the door to judicial activism. It is particularly important that the Bankruptcy Code be error free, as the number of bankruptcy filings continues to rise.

Last week, economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research told us that the recession technically ended in June 2009, but the American people have not seen the end of the recession's effects. The number of bankruptcy filings by small businesses and individuals continues to increase at a rate of about 30 percent per year.

The bill under consideration today adopts many amendments suggested by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The Administrative Office suggested these changes in consultation with bankruptcy practitioners and judges. As a result, I expect this bill to yield a more user-friendly Bankruptcy Code.

It is important to highlight on the record that this bill does not, and is not intended to, enact any substantive change to the Bankruptcy Code. The changes made to the Code by this bill are purely technical in nature.

No Federal judge should interpret any provision of this bill to confer, modify, or delete any substantive bankruptcy right, nor should anyone infer a congressional intent to alter substantive rights from the bill's attention to one section of the Bankruptcy Code but not another.

With this understanding, I am pleased to cosponsor the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The Federal Courts and Venue Clarification Act brings more clarity to the operation of jurisdictional statutes and facilitates the identification of the appropriate State or Federal court in which action should be brought.

I support this legislation and appreciate the bipartisan effort that has been made on the part of Mr. Scott, the gentleman from Virginia.

Judges believe the current rules force them to waste time determining jurisdictional issues at the expense of adjudicating the underlying litigation. The contents of this bill are based on recommendations developed and approved by the United States Judicial Conference.

The first version of the bill was developed in 2006, when I chaired the Courts Subcommittee. At the time, we confined our review to jurisdictional issues. Following a hearing and bill introduction, the Courts Subcommittee favorably reported the legislation to the full Judiciary Committee, but no further action was taken.

Since then, jurists, legal scholars, bar groups, and policy-makers rekindled interest in resurrecting the project. This led to a rewriting of the bill to include a second title pertaining to venue.

Given the press of legislative business, the Judiciary Committee was unable to conduct a hearing or markup of H.R. 4113. Instead, we processed, reviewed, and amended the bill informally, working closely with the judiciary and various stakeholders.

In this regard, I thank the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which functioned as a clearinghouse to vet the bill with the Judicial Conference's Federal-State Jurisdiction Committee, academics, and interested stakeholders.

The groups that assisted in this effort include the American Bar Association, Lawyers for Civil Justice, the Federal Bar Association, the American Association for Justice, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Legal scholars from the law schools at Houston, Chicago-Kent, Loyola, and Duke endorse suggested changes to the original text as developed by Professor Arthur Hellman of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, who testified at the 2005 Subcommittee hearing and contributed substantially to the project in the 111th Congress.

The result is a thoroughly processed, well-conceived bill that addresses important if mundane jurisdictional and venue issues.

It's legislation that helps federal judges process their work more promptly and fairly while clarifying what litigants should expect as they prepare their cases.

H.R. 4113 contains a number of revisions to federal jurisdictional and venue law. Among the changes, the bill--

clarifies the definition of ``citizenship'' for foreign corporations and domestic corporations doing business abroad;

separates the removal provisions governing civil cases and those governing criminal cases into two statutes;

promotes timeliness of removal by giving each defendant 30 days after service to file a notice of removal;

creates a general venue statute that unifies the approach to venue in diversity and federal question cases, while maintaining current venue standards;

eliminates the outdated ``local action'' rule, which unnecessarily restricts venue choices for certain real-property actions; and

stipulates that a natural person is deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled.

Mr. Speaker, it's taken us about 5 years to reach this point, but the wait was worth the journey. The ``Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act'' illustrates how Congress can work with the Judiciary and stakeholders to pursue legislative initiatives that enhance the practice of law and the operations of our federal courts.

This is a bill that ultimately benefits American citizens who use our legal system in defense of their legal rights and civil liberties.

I urge the Members to support H.R. 4113.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5932, the Organized Retail Theft Investigation and Prosecution Act of 2010, is an important step in combating a crime that costs retailers and taxpayers billions of dollars every year. I am pleased to join my Judiciary Committee colleagues Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, and Congressman Goodlatte as an original sponsor of this legislation.

Organized retail theft involves the theft of large quantities of merchandise from retail stores. Unlike shoplifters, these thieves steal the merchandise with the intention of selling it back into the marketplace.

In the past, the majority of these stolen goods were resold at swap meets, flea markets, or pawn shops. Today, the most popular venue for selling stolen goods is the Internet. Web sites such as eBay, Craigslist, and Amazon are being exploited by organized retail thieves to sell their stolen goods with relative ease and anonymity. This dynamic makes it increasingly more difficult for retailers and law enforcement agents to identify and apprehend these thieves.

According to FBI estimates, organized retail theft rings cost businesses more than $30 billion in losses annually. A recent survey conducted by the National Retail Federation found that nearly 90 percent of the retailers surveyed have been victimized by organized retail theft, an 11 percent increase from 2007. The survey also found that roughly 6 out of 10 retailers have seen an increase in organized retail theft in just the last 12 months.

In 2003, the FBI established an Organized Retail Crime Initiative to identify and dismantle large multijurisdictional organized retail crime rings. This initiative included the formation of a National Retail Federation FBI intelligence network. The network is intended to establish an effective means of sharing organized retail crime information and intelligence to discuss trends as they relate to specific sectors and regions of the retail market, and to identify and target the more sophisticated criminal enterprises.

Earlier this year, the National Retail Federation partnered with eBay to develop greater information sharing between eBay and participating retailers. This partnership is a significant step forward in the fight against organized retail theft. Bringing these two industries together will hopefully increase the likelihood of linking thefts from retail stores to goods offered for sale on eBay's Web site.

H.R. 5932 builds upon these efforts by increasing the Federal resources dedicated to organized retail theft investigation. The bill requires the Attorney General to establish an Organized Retail Theft Investigation and Prosecution Unit within the Department of Justice. This unit will include representatives from the FBI, ICE, the U.S. Secret Service and postal inspectors, as well as prosecutors.

The unit will investigate and prosecute large-scale organized retail thefts and provide assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies. The unit will also work in consultation with retailers and online marketplaces to gather information about and identify trends in organized retail thefts.

H.R. 5932 instructs the Attorney General to prepare a report to Congress on how retailers and law enforcement agencies can best combat OCR. The bill authorizes $5 million a year over 5 years to operate the unit.

This legislation is supported by the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the Coalition Against Organized Retail Crime, the Food Marketing Institute, the National Association of Chain Drugstores, eBay, and the Entertainment Merchants Association.

I would like to thank my colleagues again, Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, and Congressman Goodlatte for their dedication to this issue and for working together to draft this bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the individual I just mentioned, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, is on his way to the floor, and I hope he will be able to speak on this bill shortly. So I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), but since our expected speaker is not yet on the floor and I am not entirely certain of the time of his arrival, although I am stalling slightly, I will yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, Americans are abusing prescription drugs at alarming rates and a major source for this abuse is the unused or expired drugs in our medicine cabinets, nursing homes, and hospitals. Prescription drugs are now surpassing most illegal drugs as the drug of choice for abusers across America.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that ``prescription drugs account for the second most commonly abused category of drugs, behind marijuana, and ahead of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drugs.''

The most commonly abused prescription drugs are opioid painkillers, such as Oxycontin and Percocet and morphine. Accidental deaths caused by the abuse of such opioid painkillers now outnumber deaths caused by the use of cocaine and heroin.

Today, an estimated seven million Americans abuse prescription drugs. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that the non-medical use of prescription drugs increased by 12 percent in 2009. Pain killers and other highly addictive prescription drugs have become increasingly popular with America's teenagers.

The Centers for Disease Control reports that 20 percent of teens have admitted to taking prescription drugs without a prescription. Unfortunately, many teens believe these drugs, because they are available by prescription, are less dangerous than illegal drugs. Sadly, this can often be a deadly misconception.

And a major source of prescription drugs is leftover, unused and expired drugs in our own homes and healthcare facilities. The Justice Department reports that prescription drug abuse is most prevalent among 18- to 25-year-olds, and most of these drugs are acquired for free from family and friends.

The solution is safe and accessible drug disposal. Law enforcement agencies and pharmacies across the country are now sponsoring drug disposal or ``take-back'' programs to collect unused and expired prescription drugs.

But these programs are at the mercy of a loophole in federal law that prevents individuals from legally disposing of controlled prescription drugs. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 or ``CSA'' utilizes a registration system for the distribution of controlled substances.

Individuals are exempted from the registration requirement in order to receive a prescription from their doctor to fill at their local pharmacy. But the CSA does not authorize individuals to dispose of their unused or expired drugs to a ``take-back'' program.

H.R. 5809, the Safe Drug Disposal Act, introduced by Mr. Inslee, Mr. Stupak, and myself, corrects this anomaly in the law. Once this bill is enacted, patients and long-term care facilities will be able to legally dispose of their controlled prescription drugs.

H.R. 5809 establishes a public education campaign within the Office of National Drug Control Policy to increase awareness of the availability of drug take-back programs in their communities. The bill also directs the General Accountability Office to study the availability and effectiveness of drug disposal programs.

Finally, the bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency to study the environmental impacts of the disposal of prescription drugs.

It is imperative that Congress provide for the safe disposal of these highly-addictive and dangerous drugs. Without this change to our federal drug laws, prescription pain killers and sedatives will linger in medicine cabinets across the country, easily accessible to teenagers wishing to experiment or adults who become dependent.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the immigration tide has turned against the administration. A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 60 percent of voters disapprove of the way President Obama is handling illegal immigration. Fifty percent of Democrats and 87 percent of Republicans now agree that immigration reform should, quote, ``move

in the direction of stricter enforcement of laws against illegal immigration.''

While the Obama administration sues to stop Arizona's immigration enforcement law, a CBS poll shows that 73 percent of Americans now say the law is just right or doesn't go far enough.

Across the country, candidates are running on pro-enforcement, no amnesty platforms. While the Obama administration is moving in one direction, the American people are moving in the other.

Madam Speaker, for a revealing example of the national media's liberal bias, just follow the money.

During the 2010 election cycle, journalists have given to Democrats over Republicans by

a margin of almost 2 to 1, according to a new report by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The list includes employees of news outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Reuters, among many others.

Furthermore, during the 2008 election cycle, 88 percent of campaign contributions from television network employees went to Democrats, according to The Washington Examiner.

It's no wonder only 8 percent of Americans trust the media, according to a Zogby public opinion poll.

The national media should give Americans the facts, not give Democrats more money.

Madam Speaker, 20 million people are out of work or have given up looking for work. Contrary to history and common sense, the Democratic Party actually thinks that raising taxes is going to create jobs.

The national debt has set a new record, but congressional Democrats still want to spend more, yet they won't offer a budget this year to tell the American people how they want to spend their money. That's disrespectful of hardworking Americans.

How bad does it have to get before voters say we've had enough? America's values, America's economy, and America's greatness are threatened. It's time to end the one-party monopoly in Washington.

I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee, a former member of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1375, recognizing the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I support House Resolution 1375, which recognizes the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment and honors the contributions of women in United States politics.

The 19th Amendment prohibits the Federal Government and the States from denying a citizen's right to vote on account of sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.

For more than a century after our Nation's founding, women lacked the right to vote. However, throughout this time women participated in politics. Their many contributions paved the way for the eventual ratification of the 19th Amendment.

Many women played significant roles in the abolitionist movement, for example. It was after Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were denied admission to an anti-slavery conference that they organized the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848.

The convention's Declaration of Sentiments stated that ``all men and women are created equal.'' This served as a foundational document in the women's suffrage movement that followed.

After the 15th Amendment in 1870 outlawed the denial of a citizen's right to vote on account of race, women sought an amendment for women's suffrage.

Such an amendment would not come for another 50 years. During this period, women continued to remain active in politics. They voiced their concerns not only with regard to women's rights, but also on behalf of other causes such as the temperance movement.

In 1916, Jeannette Rankin, a Republican from Montana, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. She became the first female Member of Congress. While many women still did not have the right to vote throughout the country, Montana afforded women the right to vote at that time.

Finally, in 1918 President Woodrow Wilson announced his support for a women's suffrage amendment. Congress passed the proposed amendment in 1919. On August 18, 1920, the Tennessee General Assembly became the 36th State legislature to ratify it, making it the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In the decades that followed, women not only voted, but they slowly began to enter politics as State and Federal legislators and holders of elective executive posts.

In 1931, Hattie Wyatt Caraway (Democrat, Arkansas) was appointed to the U.S. Senate, succeeding her late husband. She later became the first woman ever elected to the Senate, where she served two full terms.

The women's rights movement grew significantly in the 1960s and 1970s. But in 1979, women still only occupied 3 percent of the seats in Congress, 10 percent of the seats in State legislatures, and 11 percent of statewide elective executive offices, according to the Center for American Women and Politics.

Today, while there is still room for much progress, women hold nearly 17 percent of the seats in Congress and the number of women in State legislatures and statewide elective offices has more than doubled.

House Resolution 1375 recognizes that the full participatory rights of women are vital to democracy in the United States.

This resolution honors the historic impact of the 19th Amendment and the achievements of women in politics.

It also reaffirms the commitment of the House of Representatives to pursuing this equality for women.

I am pleased to support this resolution. I urge my colleagues to share their support as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment Congressman Serrano for his creative idea to allow Members to administer the oath of allegiance to individuals being naturalized as citizens.

H.R. 4862 gives Members of Congress the ability to play a significant role in the naturalization ceremony, which can be and should be an inspiring experience for those becoming U.S. citizens.

Citizenship is the highest honor our Nation can bestow and naturalization ceremonies give us the opportunity to honor individuals who have come to contribute to America. Americans who take the oath of allegiance know the importance of swearing to ``support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' It is a solemn, yet joyful and patriotic, experience.

I appreciate the majority leader and Congressman Serrano making some improvements to the initial bill. The revised language clarifies that Members, whether Representatives or Senators, can only administer the oath to individuals from their own congressional district or, in the case of Senators, from their own State.

In order to prevent this privilege from being used for political purposes, no Member can administer the oath of allegiance during the 90 days prior to any election in which that Member is a candidate. The 90- day period parallels the House rules that prohibit House-funded mailings 90 days before an election.

And, finally, I requested that language be added to ensure that the Member can only administer the oath at a naturalization ceremony set up, conducted, and overseen by the Department of Homeland Security, which is the current practice.

The many redrafts of the language do show why legislation should be subjected to proper process where Members can participate in hearings and learn from experts in the issue area.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which gives Members of Congress the ability to more fully participate in naturalization ceremonies. It is appropriate for Members of Congress, who wrote our naturalization laws, to play an expanded role in helping individuals become a part of the most free and most prosperous country in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment Congressman Serrano and Congressman Kennedy as well. They so beautifully described why these naturalization ceremonies are so important and why they are so meaningful to our newest citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, most Americans don't believe the national media's reporting, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center.

Only about 2 in 10 say they ``believe all or most information'' from news outlets such as the New York Times, ABC, CBS, and NBC. For the television networks, this marks a 10-point drop from a decade ago.

Americans have good reason to be skeptical of the media. A total of 17 journalists have left a national media outlet to join either the Obama administration or another liberal organization, according to the Media Research Center. It is no wonder that, by a margin of 3 to 1, Americans describe the average reporter as more liberal than they are rather than more conservative, according to a public opinion poll.

If the national media want the public to believe their reporting, they should give Americans the facts and not tell them what to think.

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following.

Rick Levin, the President of Yale University, recently delivered this year's commencement address, ``Reclaiming Politics.''

While his comments were directed to graduating seniors, they speak more broadly to all those interested in public service and in improving our political system.

I hope my colleagues and others will appreciate a reasoned and articulate discussion of such a timely subject.

Baccalaureate Address: Reclaiming Politics

(By President Richard C. Levin)

What a journey you have had! Four years of exploring a

place so rich with treasure: courses taught by some of the

world's most brilliant and creative scholars and scientists,

a library with few peers, museums that expose you to the full

variety of nature and human cultures, musical and theatrical

performances of the highest quality, vigorous intercollegiate

and intramural athletic programs, and classmates whose

excellence never ceases to astonish--and all this set within

the imposing and inspiring architecture of a campus that is

itself a museum. You have had the chance to interact with

classmates from 50 states and 50 nations, and the great

majority of you have taken advantage of Yale's abundant

international programs to spend a semester or a summer

abroad.

In the classroom, you were encouraged to engage thoroughly

and rigorously in thinking independently about the subjects

you studied. You were challenged to develop the powers of

critical reasoning fundamental to success in any life

endeavor. Outside the classroom, as you worked productively

in the hundreds of organizations you joined or founded, you

exercised the skills of teamwork and leadership. In your

overseas experiences, you deepened your capacity for

understanding those whose values and cultures differ from

your own--preparing you for citizenship in a globally

interconnected world. You may not recognize this in

yourselves, but you are ready for what is next.

Understandably, you may be uncertain and a bit anxious

about what lies ahead. But, if history is to be trusted, you

will find many paths open to you. Because of the talent you

possessed before you came here, as well as the intellectual

and personal growth you have experienced here, you will find,

with high likelihood, success in your chosen endeavors. And

we expect you to stay connected. The vibrant life of this

university is greatly enriched by the deep commitment and

active participation of its graduates--think of all the

master's teas and guest lectures and college seminars offered

by our alumni. And keep in mind that when you thanked your

parents a few moments ago, you might also have been thanking

the generations of Yale graduates whose gifts past and

present supported half the total cost of your education.

Perhaps I am overconfident about your prospects for

personal fulfillment and professional success, but I don't

think so. If you will concede my point for the sake of

argument, let's ask the next question, one so deeply rooted

in Yale's mission and tradition that for most of you,

fortunately, it has become ingrained. And that question is:

how can I serve? How can I contribute to the wellbeing of

those around me, much as we all have done in building

communities within the residential colleges and volunteering

in so many valuable roles in the city of New Haven? Now is an

important time to be asking this question. Let me suggest

why, and then let me suggest an answer.

Aristotle tells us that we are by nature political animals.

But one wonders whether he would recognize the species that

we have become. Eighteen months ago, the United States

elected a new president who was prepared to address,

intelligently and collaboratively, the most pressing problems

confronting the nation--education, health care, climate

change, and improving America's image in the rest of the

world. Late in the election campaign, the financial crisis

intervened, and economic recovery and financial sector reform

were added to this ambitious agenda.

What has happened since does not inspire great confidence

in the capacity of our system to deal intelligently with

important problems. We legislated a stimulus package that was

less effective than it should have been, and far less

effective than the corresponding measures undertaken in

China. Fifteen months later, unemployment in the United

States is still 9.9%. After months of stalemate, Congress

enacted a health care bill that extends care to millions of

uncovered individuals and families, but takes only the most

tentative steps toward containing the escalating costs that

will create an unsustainable burden of public debt within the

next decade or two. We failed to address climate change in

time to achieve a meaningful global agreement in Copenhagen.

And, although financial sector reform now seems to be a

possibility, the debate has been replete with

misunderstanding of what actually went wrong and a misplaced

desire for revenge.

Why is this happening? Let me make two observations, and

then trace their implications for how you might conduct

yourselves as citizens and participants in political life.

First, contemporary political discussion is too often

dominated by oversimplified ideologies with superficial

appeal to voters. And, second, political actors in the United

States give too much weight to the interests of groups with

the resources to influence their re-election, and too little

attention to the costs and benefits of their actions on the

wider public.

In The Federalist (No. 10), James Madison addresses the

second of these observations, in the context of the fledgling

republic established by the U.S. Constitution. He notes that

the tendency to pursue self-interest can never be entirely

suppressed, but it can be mitigated by the proper design of

political institutions. In contrast to a direct democracy

where individuals would tend to vote their own interests, a

republican form of government, Madison argues, will have a

greater tendency to select representatives who attend to the

broader interests of the whole. And, he further argues,

representatives in a large republic constituted of a wide

range of divergent interests will find it easier to rise

above parochialism than those in a smaller republic comprised

of a small number of competing factions.

The protections that our form of government offers against

ideology and faction have attenuated greatly since Madison's

time, for at least two reasons. First, mass communication

increases the opportunity to sway voters by appeal to simple

formulations. Of course, the rise of mass communication could

be a tool for raising the level of discourse through more

effective education of the electorate. But it interacts with

the second attenuating factor: that the money required to win

elections through the media has created a dependence on

funding from special interest groups. And it is these

interest groups who distort reasoned dialogue by sponsoring

oversimplified messages.

It is easy to see how these developments have thwarted

recent efforts to shape responsible public policy. For

example, the interest groups opposing health care reform

defeated efforts to contain costs by labeling them ``death

panels,'' and they defeated the creation of a new public

vehicle for providing health insurance by insisting that we

must ``keep government out of the health care business,''

when in fact Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans

Administration already pay nearly 40 per cent of the nation's

health care bill. I am not taking sides here, only pointing

to the fact that intelligent debate on these subjects was

crowded out by ideological distortion.

How can we create a national and global dialogue that

transcends such oversimplification and parochialism? Let me

suggest that we need each of you to raise the level of

debate. You came here to develop your powers of critical

thinking, to separate what makes sense from what is

superficial, misleading, and seductive. Whether you have

studied literature, philosophy, history, politics, economics,

biology, physics, chemistry, or engineering, you have been

challenged to think deeply, to identify the inconsistent and

illogical, and to reason your way to intelligent conclusions.

You can apply these powers of critical discernment not simply

to fulfill personal aspirations, but to make a contribution

to public life.

Every signal you have received in this nurturing community

has been unwavering in its message that the growth of your

competencies is not to benefit you alone. You have learned in

your residential colleges that building a successful

community has required you to respect and value one another,

and, when appropriate, to moderate your own desires for the

benefit of the whole. And so it should be in your lives after

Yale. If you are to help to solve this nation's problems--or

work across national boundaries to address global problems

such as climate, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation--you

will need to draw upon both these fruits of a Yale education:

the capacity to reason and the ethical imperative to think

beyond your own self-interest.

I know that many of you are taking advantage of these first

years after graduation to take up public service, and I hope

that even more of you will consider this path. There are

plenty of jobs in the public sector for enterprising recent

graduates; many are short-term but others may lead to

careers. Many of you have signed up to be teachers. Others

will enter business or the professions. But whatever choice

you make, you can help to strengthen the nation and the

world--by treating political choices not as triggers for an

ideological reflex and not as opportunities to maximize self-

interest. To combat reflexive ideologies, you must use the

powers of reason that you have developed here to sift through

the issues to reach thoughtful, intelligent conclusions. To

combat parochialism, you must draw upon the ethical

imperative that Yale has imbued in you--an imperative that

begins with the golden rule. Whether you serve in government

directly or simply exercise your responsibilities as a

citizen and voter, recognize that we will all be best served

if we take account not merely of our own self-interest, but

the broader interests of humanity. To move beyond ideology

and faction, we need to raise the level of political

discourse. You, as the emerging leaders of your generation,

must rise to this challenge.

In first paragraph of The Federalist (No. 1), writing about

the infant republic whose constitution he was endeavoring to

defend, Alexander Hamilton asserts:

It has frequently been remarked, that it seems to have been

reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and

example, to decide the important question, whether societies

. . . are really capable or not, of establishing good

government from reflection and choice . . .

There is much in America's history of the past two and a

quarter centuries that would incline us to conclude that

Hamilton's question has been answered in the affirmative. Our

institutions of representative government have proven

themselves to be durable; the rule of law has prevailed, and

the scope of personal liberty has expanded far beyond what

the founders envisioned. But today, in the face of

oversimplified ideology and the dominance of narrow

interests, we must wonder again whether Hamilton's question

is still open.

Women and men of the Yale College class of 2010: It falls

to you, the superbly educated leaders of your generation, to

rise above ideology and faction, to bring to bear your

intelligence and powers of critical thinking to elevate

public discourse, to participate as citizens and to answer

the call to service. Only with your commitment can we be

certain that our future will be decided by ``reflection and

choice'' in the broad best interest of humanity. You can do

it. Yes you can.