Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the national media strongly criticized former President George W. Bush for cracking down on leaks of classified information to the media.

Now, as the Obama Administration intensifies efforts to prosecute media leaks, the national media are mostly silent.

Even the New York Times noticed the double standard:

``In 17 months in office, President Obama has already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions. His administration has taken actions that might have provoked sharp political criticism for his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was often in public fights with the press.''

The national media should give Americans the facts, not practice a double standard.

. Madam Speaker, Americans' confidence in President Obama has reached a new low, according to an ABC News/ Washington Post poll. But ABC and The Post found a way to spin the poll's results and point out negatives for Republicans.

Six in 10 Americans say they lack faith in the President to make the right decisions for the country, according to the poll. A majority disapprove of his handling of the economy.

And those most likely to vote in the midterm elections prefer Republican leadership over continued Democratic rule by a 15-point margin.

These results are indisputably bad news for Democrats. But during ABC's coverage of the poll, George Stephanopoulos, a former Democratic adviser, claimed that ``there's still . . . not a lot of confidence in the Republican Party.''

The Washington Post highlighted a misleading graphic that indicated Americans have more trust in Democrats than Republicans. In fact, a greater number of poll respondents said they had at least some trust in Republicans rather than Democrats.

ABC and the Washington Post should give Americans the facts, not spin their poll results.

Madam Speaker, it's hard to find any organization that is less trusted than the national media. Just 8 percent of Americans trust the media, according to a new Zogby public opinion poll. Eighty-eight percent say they have little or no trust in the media--by far the worst rating of any organization mentioned. In comparison, the poll found that Americans trust major high-tech companies and even the social networking Web site Facebook more.

This is the latest of many recent polls showing the public has lost faith in the national media. If the media want to restore Americans' trust, they should stop the liberal spin and report the facts.

Madam Speaker, Mort Zuckerman, the chairman and editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report and publisher of the New York Daily News, admitted on Fox News that he ``voted for [President] Obama'' and ``helped write one of his speeches.''

Perhaps the real surprise is not that a prominent member of the national media helped President Obama, but that he actually admitted to it on national television.

Mr. Zuckerman is not the only member of the media who has worked for President Obama. An astonishing 15 journalists have left a national media outlet to join either the Obama administration or a liberal group, according to a recent tally by the Media Research Center.

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

The national media should give Americans the facts, not cover for the Obama administration.

Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of Americans say they are ``angry'' at the national media, according to a new Rasmussen public opinion poll. The poll suggests that Americans are angry because of the national media's clear liberal bias.

By a margin of more than 3-1, Americans say the average reporter is more liberal than they are, rather than more conservative. By almost the same margin, Americans think reporters are trying to help President Obama pass his agenda. Seven in 10 say most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win. And a majority think employees would hide information that might hurt a candidate they wanted to win.

Americans will continue to be angry until the national media report the facts and stop telling the American people what to think.

Mr. Speaker, an Associated Press poll found that only 36 percent of Americans approve of the President's handling of immigration, and only 42 percent approve of the way he is handling employment. This is no coincidence. Illegal immigration and unemployment are directly linked. There are 15 million unemployed Americans in the United States and 8 million illegal immigrants in the labor force. We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers.

President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people when it comes to immigration. The President should support policies that help jobless citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than not enforce immigration laws.

President Obama has failed to protect American jobs.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, although I believe this legislation is well-intended, I have serious concerns about H.R. 5503 and about the process under which it is being considered today.

It is important that BP and other responsible parties pay all costs associated with the oil spill and that they be

held fully accountable for this catastrophe and for the 11 lives tragically lost in the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon. However, H.R. 5503 will have unintended consequences that will reach well beyond the gulf coast disaster. In fact, very little in this bill is directed solely at oil spill-related liability.

It is incredible that the sweeping changes this bill makes have made their way to the House floor without the benefit of even one legislative hearing. It is also incredible that we are considering this bill under suspension of the rules, denying those with concerns the opportunity to offer even one amendment.

Had this bill been considered under regular order, I would have offered an amendment to limit it to claims arising out of oil spills. This amendment would ensure that those responsible for oil spills would be held fully accountable while, at the same time, restricting the bill's unintended consequences. Because H.R. 5503 is not limited to oil spills, its unintended consequences will be severe.

For example, the changes it makes virtually rewrite U.S. maritime liability law; and in some instances, the changes make it out of step with the laws of nearly every other maritime nation. Maritime actions usually involve numerous parties with competing claims--loss of life or personal injury--and multiple jurisdictions in which claims may be filed. The Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act addresses these problems by allowing for the consolidation of all claims arising out of a maritime accident into one Federal forum.

It also creates a fund to pay personal injury and death claims over and above the act's general liability limit.

This bill repeals the act without adopting any replacement legislation to fill the void. This introduces uncertainty and in many cases may lead to inadequate compensation to personal injury and wrongful death claimants, since repealing the act repeals the personal injury fund.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker: This bill repeals the personal injury fund which every vessel owner is required to create to pay personal injury claims over and above the act's general liability gap.

Other sections of this bill are also questionable. Section 3 allows for recovery of non-economic damages in wrongful death actions under the Jones Act. While this may seem like a fair result, it actually creates inequities, because the Jones Act is the equivalent of land- based worker's compensation statutes, which do not apply at sea. But worker's compensation laws do not allow for the recovery of noneconomic damages, thus Jones Act seamen will receive greater recoveries than are provided to nearly every other American worker.

This change is being made without the benefit of a legislative hearing to understand its full impact on injured workers, employers, shippers, and consumers. These extensive changes to U.S. maritime liability law, which apply well beyond oil spills, threaten to increase dramatically the cost of shipping goods, an increase that will be borne by all American consumers.

Finally, by giving Oil Pollution Act claimants veto power over bankruptcy asset sales of companies with OPA liability, the bill effectively gives these claimants control of the bankruptcy process. However, giving OPA claimants this veto power seriously curtails the rights of other bankruptcy claimants, included secured creditors, pension funds, and other tort victims, and State and local governments.

Because this legislation applies retroactively, there is no reason to push this bill through on suspension without having conducted a single legislative hearing on its sweeping changes.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. Republicans do not want to give BP a free pass. That is why we offered amendments in committee to narrow the scope of this legislation to cover companies like BP that are responsible for oil spills. These amendments were voted down by the majority. But in the Democrats' haste to act before the Fourth of July recess, they are pushing for a bill that would punish all other maritime industries for the faults of BP. That is not fair, and it is not good policy. It would also be a job-killer for many hardworking Americans who had nothing to do with the oil spill.

Rather than cave to political gamesmanship and vote for a bad bill, Congress should do what is best for the American people. As we amend the Federal law to ensure that BP and other responsible parties are held accountable for the full extent of the harm they have caused, we must avoid harming the national interests.

Because we have had no legislative hearings on this bill, we cannot be sure that it does not harm the economy, maritime industries, and American jobs. The bill should be sent back to committee to be examined and amended properly before being brought again to the floor for a vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my colleague from Texas, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to what my chairman said just a minute ago and set the record straight. We did not have a single legislative hearing on this bill, so we never even went over it one time to fully appreciate the consequences and the unintended consequences of this bill.

For example, this bill changes maritime law for everyone, not just those involved in the oil spill. Clearly we should have explored the consequences of that.

Beyond that, and I want to emphasize this, this bill, and it is too late to

make any changes because no amendments have been made in order, repeals the vessel owner personal liability fund. That alone is enough of a reason to oppose this bill, that it repeals the personal liability fund that vessel owners today have to have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the deputy ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the National Bankruptcy Conference, a nonpartisan organization of lawyers, professors, and judges, opposes the bankruptcy provisions in this bill. According to the Conference, ``the proposed amendments are not likely to achieve their purpose and instead are likely to have pernicious, unintended, and counterproductive consequences.''

The nonpartisan National Bankruptcy Conference explains that ``by granting a preference to holders of oil spill claims at the expense of other innocent and equally deserving creditors, the provisions in this bill represent bad bankruptcy policy.'' Moreover, according to the Conference, one of the effects of the bankruptcy provisions in this bill will be to ``entrench the very management that presided over the spill and led the company into bankruptcy.''

Mr. Speaker, you wonder how anyone can even consider voting for this bill. In short, we should not be rushing these bankruptcy provisions through Congress today. The unintended consequences will be severe, as the National Bankruptcy Conference just told us.

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

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

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

As I mentioned in my opening statement, repealing the Limitation of Liability Act hurts victims of maritime accidents. The Limitation of Liability Act provides for the orderly resolution of claims arising out of a maritime accident in one Federal court. It also creates a compensation fund for personal injury claims. Repealing the act eliminates these two important provisions. In many cases, this will result in victims of maritime accidents receiving less compensation than they would under current law.

First, victims will receive less compensation because cases will no longer be consolidated in one Federal court. Consolidation allows victims to share litigation and expert costs and allows for proportional allocation of damage awards. Second, victims will potentially receive less compensation because repealing the act will repeal the personal injury fund. The personal injury fund requires vessel owners to provide compensation over and above the liability cap.

Again, a vote for this bill is a vote to repeal the personal injury fund. Let's not rush this bill through the House today and hurt the very people we're supposed to be trying to help but send it back to committee to be examined and amended properly.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, in summary, this bill should be opposed for four reasons:

First, the bill repeals the Limitation of Liability Act, which will actually hurt the victims of maritime accidents. Repealing the act eliminates important protections for maritime victims, including the fund for compensating personal injury victims. This bill, incredibly, repeals the personal injury fund;

Second, the bill amends the Bankruptcy Code in a manner that the National Bankruptcy Conference, a very bipartisan organization, believes will create ``pernicious, unintended, and counterproductive consequences'' that benefit oil spill claimants ``at the expense of other innocent and equally deserving creditors'';

Third, the bill was rushed through committee without a single legislative hearing and is being rushed through the House on suspension, without giving Members the opportunity to offer amendments; and

Fourth, because this bill is being rushed through the House, Congress has not been fully informed of the unintended consequences this bill creates for the U.S. maritime industry, which is a large part of the economy of the gulf coast region; the American economy, which relies on U.S. shipping to take goods to and from market; and the victims of maritime accidents, who, in many cases, will actually be hurt by this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, send it back to committee. Let's improve it, let's amend it, and then bring it back to the floor. I hope my colleagues will vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to the inclusion of the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act'' in H.R. 4899.

Most cases in the United States, whether civil or criminal, antitrust or patent, settle. The reasons for this are simple. Litigation is expensive and its outcomes are uncertain.

The supposed problem involves a payment of cash in a settlement of a patent case brought by a generic drug manufacturer. Such payments are said to frustrate the intent of Federal law by allowing the brand name pharmaceutical company to pay to delay entry of the generic competitor into the market.

The proposed solution to this problem incorporated in this bill goes much too far. It creates a presumption that all such settlements are unlawful. The bill sets forth the criteria that a court may use to determine whether to uphold the settlement. However, the validity of the underlying patent is not one of those specified criteria.

Also, the bill dramatically reduces the ability of the companies to settle these cases. If the parties cannot agree on the date of entry into the market, then in many cases they would effectively be forced to litigate the case. This means that the entry of the generic into a particular drug market could be delayed significantly.

The majority of Federal courts, including the Second, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, have upheld the validity of these settlements. Congress should uphold the well-reasoned judgment of these courts. Innovative new drugs, after all, are created in the laboratory, not in the courtroom.

I urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to legislate an unrelated domestic issue on a bill that is intended to pay for our troops overseas.

Mr. Speaker, a recent NBC News survey found that over half of all Americans disapprove of how President Obama is handling the immigration issue; an overwhelming 73 percent support imposing new fines on businesses that hire illegal immigrants; 71 percent support increasing border security by building a fence along the border and training more Border Patrol agents.

So it's no surprise that Republicans are viewed more favorably when it comes to enforcing the border. In fact, their survey found that only 26 percent of registered voters are likely to vote for a Democratic candidate who opposes the Arizona immigration enforcement law. The American people are not

going to forget about the Obama administration's failure to secure our borders and enforce our Nation's immigration laws.

I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, over a long history rooted in our Constitution, we have relied on the rule of law and on impartial bankruptcy courts to resolve the debts of failed enterprises. History has proven us correct.

Exhibit 1, for the benefits of the bankruptcy system, is the recent case of Lehman Brothers. As the peak of the 2008 financial crisis approached, Lehman declared bankruptcy. Within a week, it had sold its core business. Within 6 weeks, its third-party credit default swaps had been dissolved. That sealed off risk to other firms.

Experts have shown that the Lehman case didn't cause the financial system to melt down. This bill discards our proven bankruptcy system for something the American people forcefully reject: government- sponsored bailouts. The roller coaster bailout ride of 2008 is what caused the financial meltdown. Yet this bill just builds a bigger, faster bailout roller coaster. The bill's sponsors openly admit that they don't know if it will work, but they urge us to build it anyway.

The question is why, and the answer is simple: When government picks the winners and losers, government becomes more powerful. So do the Wall Street winners that government picks. Meanwhile, Main Street and free enterprise lose.

This administration and its congressional allies embrace what the Founders fought against, ever-expanding government power over the lives of free men and women. The Founders rejected this approach, the American people reject it, and so should we.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the ranking member of this committee, and my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down several provisions of Federal law on the grounds they violated organizations' First Amendment rights. Yet the DISCLOSE Act would subject corporations and other organizations to yet more regulations that unduly restrict their freedom of speech. It would do this while unfairly sparing unions and other preferred groups from the same regulations.

This legislation is plainly unconstitutional. The DISCLOSE Act would unconstitutionally ban political speech by government contractors and companies with as much as 80 percent ownership by U.S. citizens. It would unconstitutionally limit the amount of information that organizations can include

in ads stating their political opinions. It would unconstitutionally require the disclosure of an organization's donors, in violation of their right to free association. And it would unconstitutionally exempt favored organizations from its requirements.

The DISCLOSE Act is unconstitutional, and it should be soundly rejected by the House today.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would add to H.R. 5175 the same expedited judicial review process that Congress approved as part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. Because H.R. 5175 raises the same constitutional issues that were at issue in the Citizens United case, expedited review should be included in this legislation as well.

The base bill does not contain the reference to 28 U.S.C. 2284 that Congress specifically designed and has used repeatedly to assure the prompt resolution of constitutional claims. Judicial review may not have been included because the base bill was designed to stall judicial review by the Supreme Court until after the 2010 elections. I hope that is not the case. But this House can only dispel that suspicion and facilitate the prompt constitutional review of this legislation by approving this motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, most Americans say President Obama lacks a clear plan to deal with the oil spill in the gulf, energy issues, and job creation, according to a new CBS News-New York Times poll. By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say the President does not have a clear plan to handle the oil spill; 6 in 10 say his response to the disaster was too slow; and less than one-third of Americans have a lot of confidence in the President's ability to handle the crisis. Just 4 in 10 say the President has a clear plan for developing new sources of energy, and only one-third say he has a clear plan to create jobs. But for some reason, CBS News downplayed the results of their own poll.

Monday's CBS Evening News failed to even mention these findings and instead focused on Americans' disapproval of BP's handling of the oil spill. CBS should give Americans all the facts, not conceal their own poll results to protect the President.

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the current House majority leader said enacting a budget was ``the most basic responsibility of governing.''

Now he says that the Democratic majority will not even pass a budget this year. The House has passed a budget every year since the Budget Act became law in 1974. If House Republicans had failed to pass a budget during an economic crisis such as this, it would be the lead story on every network news program and the lead editorial in every newspaper.

Instead, the national media have collectively yawned and have given the Democrats a free pass. The Democratic majority doesn't want to pass a budget because it will expose their run-away spending.

Americans want Congress to pass a responsible budget that will get government spending under control and reduce the national debt.

Madam Speaker, the media recently covered a meeting between Attorney General Holder and police chiefs who oppose Arizona's new immigration enforcement law. The stories left readers with the impression their views were representative of law enforcement officers.

That's not the case, as Investor's Business Daily has pointed out:

The meeting was ``staged by a liberal Washington lobby group . . .'' that ``describes itself as a `progressive' organization `challenging traditional police practices.' ''

They are ``partnered with the ACLU and [have] lobbied against even federal enforcement of immigration laws.''

If a group of self-described ``conservative'' law enforcement officers had met with Attorney General Holder, the media would have mentioned their bias in the news coverage--if they bothered to cover the story at all.

Mr. Speaker, Americans say the growing national debt is the greatest threat to our country, according to a recent Gallup poll. Since Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, the national debt has grown by $3.5 billion a day. Since President Obama took office, the debt has increased by $4.8 billion a day.

To control spending and reduce the national debt, we need a responsible budget that addresses our fiscal crisis. But as American families make tough choices with their household budgets, the Democratic majority in the House has yet to even propose a national budget. If a budget is not approved this year, it will be the first time since the Budget Act became law in 1974.

Congress should listen to the American people, get government spending under control, and approve a national budget.