Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, when former President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, the television networks repeatedly described them as ``conservative,'' and used terms such as ``bedrock conservative,'' ``staunch conservative,'' and ``ultraconservative.'' In contrast, the networks rarely label President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, as ``liberal,'' according to an analysis by the Media Research Center. In fact, the networks called Justice Alito ``conservative'' 10 times more often than they called Judge Kagan ``liberal'' after their respective nominations, according to the MRC.

Perhaps that's no surprise, considering the networks' own political philosophy. These are the same networks who called Candidate Obama moderate, even though he had the most liberal voting record in the entire U.S. Senate. The networks should give Americans the facts about Supreme Court nominees, not practice double standards.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding, and I also want to thank Representative King for his good work on the Judiciary Committee. I have just been listening to his last few comments and appreciate his pointing out so many facts about immigration law and about what is going on there.

The reason I wanted to be briefly recognized is because we've had some recent developments in some poll results just in the last day or two on some of the same subjects that the gentleman from Iowa has been discussing. It's no surprise, for example, that in the latest Pew poll, it shows that only 25 percent of the American public approve of President Obama's handling of the Nation's immigration policy. The Obama administration is not enforcing our immigration laws and, in my view, has failed to protect our borders.

Arizona, which is trying to do what the Federal Government has not done, continues to enjoy strong support for its policy. According to the most recent Pew poll, 73 percent of the public support requiring people to produce documents, verifying their legal status if police ask them to do that, and 67 percent of the public support allowing police to detain anyone who can't

verify their legal status. And just today in The Wall Street Journal, there was a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll. It asked the American people a number of questions, but one of them was about the Arizona law. And 64 percent, according to the Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll that was just today in The Wall Street Journal, 64 percent of the American people support the Arizona law. Let me say that that's actually, I think, gone up from 60 percent last week to 64 percent today. Almost two-thirds of the American people support what the folks in Arizona are trying to do. And we probably ought not try to second- guess what they are doing.

The residents of Arizona know they have a problem on their hands. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the United States right now. People in Arizona see that human smuggling that crosses their border, they see the drug trafficking that comes across their border. Several thousand people have been killed within sight of the Arizona-Mexico border in the last several years. So to me, the people in Arizona are really crying out for help from the Federal Government to protect their borders, but the Federal Government is not responding, and this administration is not responding. The message from the American people and the message from the folks in Arizona is that we want to see immigration laws enforced. And believe me, the message from Arizona is not, ``We need amnesty for people in the country illegally,'' it's that we need to enforce our immigration laws.

And let me go back to that most recent poll where you have two-thirds of the American people wanting to enforce immigration laws and supporting what Arizona residents have done in regard to immigration laws. By the way, that includes, as I recall, about 60, 61 percent of all Independents. And most tellingly, it includes half of the Hispanics across the country, who are also in support of the Arizona law that was just passed, enforcing immigration laws and trying to make their best efforts to reduce illegal immigration.

So I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa yielding. I just wanted to bring everybody up to date on the most recent poll. And the poll is even more surprising. The poll, which shows that almost two-thirds of the American people support the immigration law that Arizona has just passed, is even more surprising because another Media Research poll shows that in the coverage of the Arizona law, the three networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, have actually aired 12 negative stories about the Arizona law for every one positive story. So you have a degree of media bias on the subject that has, frankly, been unseen. I think when it comes to immigration, the national media, including the three networks, probably do their worst job of reporting and show their greatest bias. This I consider to be a threat to democracy. When the networks and the national media are not giving the American people the facts and instead are trying to tell them what to think, that is a danger to democracy.

Also, according to a Media Research Center, for example, only 1 out of 10 stories have actually mentioned that a majority--70 percent of the residents of Arizona--support the Arizona law. As I said, a great majority of the American people support the Arizona law, and yet the media are not reporting it. Considering that 12 to 1 negative coverage of the law and the fact that two-thirds of the American people still support it shows how strongly people across the country feel.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to enforce immigration laws. There is nothing wrong with wanting individuals to respect law and order. The American people know that, and I thank them for knowing that, and I thank them for not being persuaded by a very liberal media bias. And also, again, I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa and his yeoman's service, hard work, diligence, and commitment to such an important issue.

The gentleman is correct. I do not believe the Attorney General answered the questions on that particular subject. And while I was out of the room, I understand in response to a question asked by a Texas colleague that he admitted that he had not even read the Arizona law. And if that's the case, that is both surprising and disturbing. Again, I thank the gentleman for his good comments on the subject.

Mr. Speaker, television network news stories about Arizona immigration enforcement law have been overwhelmingly negative, according to a new analysis by the Media Research Center. From April 23 to May 3, negative news reports on ABC, CBS, and NBC outnumbered positive reports by a margin of 12 to 1. This kind of extreme bias is a danger to democracy. And nowhere is it more evident than in reporting about immigration.

Only 10 percent of network reports acknowledged that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law and that

9 out of 10 say it is important to reduce illegal immigration. The networks should give Americans the facts about immigration, not just give them one side of the story.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the single most important copyright bill to be considered by this Congress to date. It represents the culmination of a legislative process that began with hearings in the House Judiciary and Energy and Commerce Committees in February 2009.

Though bearing a Senate bill number, many of the policy positions contained in this bill originated in earlier

House versions of the legislation, including H.R. 3570, which overwhelmingly passed the House last year.

The legislation that previously passed the House and is incorporated into S. 3333 actually integrates two separate bills:

H.R. 3570, introduced by Chairman Conyers and reported by the Judiciary Committee on September 16, 2009; and

H.R. 2994, which was the Energy and Commerce Committee's related measure to amend the Communications Act.

The principal purpose of this measure is to extend the compulsory license in section 119 of the Copyright Act that authorizes satellite carriers to deliver distant network programming to subscribers.

While fewer consumers rely upon the distant license to receive network programming than in years past, about 1 million households still derive some benefit from it. The absence of an immediate market alternative makes it necessary once again for Congress to extend the license temporarily until December 31, 2014. My hope is that this will be the last time Congress reauthorizes what was originally envisioned to be a temporary license.

In addition to amending the satellite license in section 119 of the Copyright Act, this bill also contains a number of significant amendments to the cable license in section 111 and a separate satellite license in section 122. The former governs the retransmission of both local and distant programming by cable providers, while the latter governs the satellite retransmission of local-into-local programming.

Perhaps the most significant amendment to the cable license is a resolution of the phantom signal issue. The provision in the bill was negotiated and is supported by both program owners and the cable industry. While circumstances prevented Congress from being able to further harmonize or eliminate these licenses, I am pleased we were able to make substantial improvements and address some of the most urgent concerns.

I thank Chairman Conyers for bringing this legislation to the floor and want to recognize Chairman Berman and Senators Leahy and Sessions for their support as well.

The inclusion of enhanced penalties for any future violation, along with provisions that require active judicial oversight and GAO review of DISH's compliance, coupled with an obligation that DISH certify its compliance to a Federal court, reflects critical and necessary improvements from prior versions of this bill.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 3333, the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act. When enacted, the bill will both preserve and expand the ability of Americans to view network and independent station programming without interruption. And it will do so while taking into account the vital property interest of those whose programming is made subject to the licensing.

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

Madam Speaker, today I'd like to honor my constituent, Mr. Glenn Biggs, a great American and Texan, who has been selected by the Texas Association of Homes and Services for the Aging as the 2010 Philanthropist of the Year.

Mr. Biggs, born in a small West Texas town in the depths of the Great Depression, has used his knowledge and experience as a banker and business leader to guide Morningside Ministries in San Antonio in establishing an innovative, progressive program, mmLearn.org. It delivers high quality training through online videos to caregivers not only in San Antonio, but also to communities as large as New York City and as small as Homer, Alaska.

Through online training, geriatric physicians can be in the homes and offices of health professionals, family caregivers, pastoral care providers and older adults who have internet connectivity. In a recent webcast, Dr. Thomas Weiss, a geriatric psychiatrist with a specialty in addiction, had a presentation about alcoholism and the elderly.

Most would never have an opportunity to benefit from Dr. Weiss' expertise, but 382 viewers joined the webcast and interacted by providing online comments and questions. The webcast is now available on demand and will continue to be a training resource. Mr. Biggs' vision, commitment and dedication have made this level of service possible.

Mr. Biggs' philanthropy and leadership are not only recognized in the field of aging, but benefit many other worthy causes. The San Antonio Business Journal has written of Mr. Biggs: ``. . . (This) gentle giant with a booming voice spends countless hours trying to get wealthy South Texans to give to causes which he believes are important. Time after time, he is called upon to advise college presidents and board chairmen who are seeking access to the network of former politicians and business millionaires who are willing to part with their fortunes for the right cause.''

Numerous organizations and countless individuals have benefitted from the philanthropic leadership of Glenn Biggs. He is preparing and inspiring generations to step forward and become the philanthropists for decades to come. Glenn Biggs sets an example for all of us to follow. And I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring this great man.

Mr. Speaker, here is the state of the Union:

Unemployment remains almost 10 percent. Sixteen million people have lost their jobs. Taxes are going up. The health care bill costs $300 billion more than the American people were told. The Nation's deficit has doubled in the last year because of excessive government spending. Our foreign policy also has run a deficit. The world is a more dangerous place today. Iran is closer to making a nuclear bomb. We have insulted our allies--Western Europe and Israel. There is no victory in Iraq or Afghanistan.

It's time for a change all right. We need a bipartisan balance in Washington, not a one-party monopoly.

Madam Speaker, after days of a national media pounding the new Arizona immigration law and highlighting demonstrations against it, guess what? The number of Americans who describe illegal immigration as a serious problem actually increased; and 78 percent feel that the Federal Government should do more to stop illegal immigration, according to a New York Times poll.

Another recent poll found that 84 percent of Americans are concerned that illegal immigrants burden schools, hospitals, and government services; 77 percent say that illegal immigration drives down wages; and 89 percent, 89 percent, feel it is important to halt the flow of illegal immigrants, a USA Today poll found just a couple of days ago.

So despite the media bias against immigration laws, the American people still overwhelmingly want to secure the border, save jobs for those in the country legally, and reduce the burden of illegal immigration.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the subject of immigration, The New York Times is fast losing its credibility.

A New York Times editorial says the new Arizona immigration law turns all the State's citizens into criminal suspects. Of course, that is an unbelievable exaggeration.

The New York Times says the law requires police officers to question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant. Actually, it doesn't require anyone to do anything except obey the law.

The New York Times says that Arizona should welcome and assimilate all newcomers, making no distinction between illegal and legal immigrants.

Maybe from a New York City skyscraper it is hard to see the border violence, the human smuggling, the drug trafficking, the lost jobs and the crowded schools, much of it caused by those who break our immigration laws.

Mr. Speaker, Arizona's immigration enforcement law mirrors what is already in Federal law. So why are some special interest groups in an uproar? It shouldn't be surprising. The very same people who want to throw out Arizona's new immigration law also want Congress to throw out America's immigration laws. Open borders advocates want amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, so they find fault with any law that tries to reduce illegal immigration.

Arizona has every right to protect its residents and secure the border. The message from Arizona is not to pass an amnesty bill in Washington, but to enforce immigration laws and strengthen border security.

Mr. Speaker, during the Presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama made a firm pledge that, ``No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.'' The nonpartisan fact-checkers of Politifact say the administration broke that promise, but the national media have collectively yawned in response.

In comparison, when former President George H.W. Bush broke his 1988 ``Read my lips, no new taxes'' pledge, the national media heavily criticized him. The New York Times described President Bush's pledge as ``the seminal six words of his Presidency,'' and said it helped eliminate ``any plausible leadership path.'' The L.A. Times said it was one of several factors that ``ended the GOP stranglehold on tax policy.'' The national media should hold President Obama to the same standard, not give him a free pass.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank you for yielding.

It seems to me that this bill is almost the exact opposite of self- determination. Self-determination would be allowing the people in Puerto Rico to determine whether or not to have a referendum, a plebiscite, and what the questions would be. Hopefully it would be a straightforward question, as they have had three or four times in the past, but to have Congress mandate what the people of Puerto Rico have to do, that they have to have a plebiscite, have to have these questions on the ballot, it seems to me that is the opposite of self- determination and it is as you said, a congressional mandate. Is that how you see it as well?

First of all, I thank the ranking member of the committee and the gentleman from Washington State for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, there are at least three reasons to oppose this bill, any one of which should be persuasive.

First, it rigs a proposed new referendum to force Puerto Ricans to choose what they have voted against four times in the past, statehood. It does not provide Puerto Ricans with a fair, straightforward way to choose among statehood, independence, and remaining a Commonwealth. The bill also allows U.S. citizens who are natives of Puerto Rico to vote in the referendum even if they now live in the United States.

Second, the poverty rate in Puerto Rico is almost 45 percent, twice that of our poorest State, Mississippi. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 1990 that if Puerto Rico were to become a State, Federal entitlement and welfare costs for Puerto Rico would jump by 143 percent. That was 20 years ago. If Puerto Rico does become a State, the additional cost to American taxpayers of government benefits are likely to be in the tens of billions of dollars, but no cost analyses have been released. One can only guess why.

Third, let's acknowledge that to some this bill is a Democratic power play. The Pew Hispanic Center reported in 2008 that 61 percent of Puerto Rican registered voters were Democrats, 11 percent were Republicans, and 24 percent were independents.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill for any or all of these reasons.

Mr. Speaker, in a recent editorial praising Arizona for its action to enforce immigration laws, Investor's Business Daily said the following: ``There are 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, a number that increases daily, placing an undue burden on the State's schools, hospitals, and law enforcement. Arizona has a window seat to an illegal invasion and on the escalating and violent drug war in Mexico that has put American lives and society at risk.

``President Obama calls Arizona's tough new law `irresponsible' and `misguided.' But it wouldn't be necessary if the Federal Government fulfilled its responsibilities to secure the border. We are a Nation of immigrants--legal immigrants--but we are also a Nation of laws that 70 percent of Arizonans and most Americans want to see enforced. The first duty of the Federal Government is to protect the rights, property, and lives of U.S. citizens.''

I couldn't agree more.

Madam Speaker, the national media have given mostly negative coverage to Arizona's new immigration enforcement law, which Arizonans support overwhelmingly.

A CBS report gave the perspective of opponents of the law, one of whom called it ``mean-spirited'' and compared it to Nazi repression. The report featured video of signs that read, ``Veto Racism'' and ``Stop the Hate.''

NBC asked an Arizona sheriff, ``Are you worried that it affects the image of your state?'' and questioned whether the new policy will ``distract law enforcement'' and ``take valuable resources away from cracking down on more serious crimes.''

An MSNBC headline curiously read, ``Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant.''

The national media should tell Americans the truth: Arizona's new law mirrors what is already federal law. Then Americans can decide for themselves what to think.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he might consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a former chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

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

Madam Speaker, the purpose of House Resolution 1208 is to congratulate the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO, for its work and to support the goals of World Intellectual Property Day. This day includes teaching the importance of intellectual property as a tool for economic, social, and cultural development.

WIPO is considered the most important international organization for the promotion of intellectual property. Among other responsibilities, WIPO administers treaties, such as the Berne and Paris Conventions, that protect intellectual property globally. The United States, of course, is a WIPO member.

Nine years ago, WIPO member states commemorated the founding of the organization by establishing World Intellectual Property Day. April 26, 1970 is the date on which the convention that created WIPO took effect. This resolution commemorates the achievements of WIPO and its designation of April 26, 2010 as World Intellectual Property Day for the current year. In addition, the resolution contains background information on the extent to which intellectual property generates jobs, sales, and exports for the United States, while contrasting these benefits with the problems related to piracy and anti-counterfeiting.

I support this resolution and I urge its adoption.

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

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

Madam Speaker, at the outset I want to thank the sponsor of the bill, Representative Aderholt, for his persistence and patience. This is the third time the full House has considered his bill to streamline the use of notarized documents across State lines, and I hope this will be the last, followed by the Senate, and then enactment.

H.R. 3808 eliminates unnecessary impediments in handling the everyday transactions of individuals and businesses.

Many documents executed and notarized in one state, either by design or happenstance, find their way into neighboring or more distant states.

If ultimately needed in any one of the latter jurisdictions to support or defend a claim in court, that document should not be refused admission solely on the ground it was not notarized in the state where the court sits.

H.R. 3808 ensures this will not happen.

A notarization in and of itself neither validates a document nor speaks to the truthfulness or accuracy of its contents.

The notarization serves a different function--it verifies that a document signer is who he or she purports to be and has willingly signed the document.

By executing the notarial certificate, the notary public, as a disinterested party to the transaction, informs all other parties relying on or using the document that it is the act of the person who signed it.

Consistent with the vital significance of the notarial act, H.R. 3808 compels a court to accept the authenticity of the document even though the notarization was performed in a state other than where the forum is located.

Madam Speaker, much of the testimony we received at our Subcommittee hearing on the bill in 2006 addressed the silliness of one state not accepting the validity of another state's notarized document in an interstate legal proceeding.

Some of the examples were based on petty reasons. For instance, one state requires a notary to affix an ink stamp to a document, an act that is not recognized in a sister state that requires documents to be notarized with a raised, embossed seal.

Passing the bill will streamline interstate commercial and legal transactions consistent with the guarantees of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 3808.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

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