Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, here is what the Associated Press has to say about the administration's health care plan: ``Buyers, beware. President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.''

``Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say.''

``Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that's how it works.''

``The (Congressional) Budget Office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 to 13 percent.''

The rest of the national media should report the facts about health care, not cover them up.

Madam Speaker, I know many Democrats who love our country, who are dedicated public servants, and who are men and women of integrity. In the coming hours and days, I hope they will listen to their conscience, what they know in their heart is right, and take some action to stop a corruption of the legislative process.

If a new health care system is worthy of being enacted, it is worthy of being debated and voted on in an honest and straightforward way. Anything less is a stain on Congress and diminishes our great country.

How we conduct ourselves goes beyond a single bill. It will signal to those across the land, and perhaps to those in other lands, whether we deserve their respect or have justified their ridicule.

Mr. Speaker, a true bipartisan health care bill would have included real lawsuit abuse reform that provides savings for the American people. The administration refuses to consider lawsuit abuse reform because they want to protect their political piggy bank, which is filled by trial lawyers. The legal industry contributed $43 million to President Obama's 2008 campaign. More than 78 percent of the money given to Congress by lawyers, mostly from trial lawyers, went to Democrats, almost $100 million.

By bankrolling Democratic politicians, trial lawyers have succeeded in preventing any lawsuit abuse reforms from becoming part of the health care legislation, despite the overwhelming support for lawsuit reform by a great majority of the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1141 honors the accomplishments of the Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court.

Justice O'Connor was born in El Paso, Texas, in 1930, and grew up on a cattle ranch called the Lazy-B near Duncan, Arizona. She befriended cowboys who worked on the ranch, learned to drive a car and shoot a gun, and became an expert horseback rider.

Her parents decided that she needed an education, so O'Connor went to live with her maternal grandmother in El Paso. She later studied economics at Stanford University with an eye toward running the Lazy-B or another ranch. However, a legal dispute over the Lazy-B sparked her interest in the law. O'Connor enrolled in Stanford's law school, and graduated in only 2 years, third in her class, that included valedictorian and future Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist. One of her other classmates, John Jay O'Connor, became her husband.

This was the early 1950s, and despite her stellar law school record, O'Connor could not find work as a lawyer. But she was determined. She started out as a legal secretary before finding employment as the deputy county attorney for San Mateo, California. When her husband was drafted into the Judge Advocate General's Corps, she joined him in Frankfurt, Germany, where she served as a civilian attorney in the Quartermaster's Corps.

Returning to the United States in 1957, the couple settled in Phoenix and started a family. Three children arrived in the next 6 years. O'Connor eventually hung out a shingle with one partner and began a general law practice. But with the birth of her second child, she devoted herself to homemaker duties, charitable work, and local Republican politics.

Following 5 years as a full-time mother, O'Connor returned to work as an Arizona assistant attorney general. Later, the Governor appointed her to fill a vacant State senate seat, a position she successfully defended twice in two elections. In 1974, O'Connor became the first woman to serve as the majority leader in the State legislature. This achievement propelled her to the bench, first as a Maricopa County Superior Court judge and then in 1978 as a member of the Arizona Court of Appeals, the State's intermediate appellate court. Justice O'Connor distinguished herself as a smart, fair, even-tempered judge.

This compelling story intrigued President Ronald Reagan, who was searching for a successor to replace retiring Justice Potter Stewart at the United States Supreme Court. In Sandra Day O'Connor, he found his nominee.

Senate confirmations are not for the faint-hearted, but O'Connor came through like an experienced pro. She was confirmed by a vote of 99-0 and was sworn in as the 102nd member of the Court on September 21, 1981. Of obvious importance, then and now, she became the first woman to serve as an Associate Justice. So much for glass ceilings.

Justice O'Connor served on the Court for nearly a quarter of a century before retiring in 2006. Early in her tenure, she was known as a conservative jurist who preferred analyzing cases with a narrow fact- specific approach. Later, she acquired the reputation as a swing vote. Law Professor Steven Green once paid her perhaps the ultimate compliment when she ``seemed to look at each case with an open mind.''

Since retiring from the Court, Justice O'Connor really hasn't retired. She selflessly devoted herself to caring for her husband, John, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1990 and passed away last November.

In addition to travel and spending time with other family members, Justice O'Connor has worked on an American Bar Association project to educate Americans about the role of judges, served as the chancellor of the College of William and Mary, and performed trustee duties for the National Constitution Center.

In recognition of her life's work, President Obama awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor of the United States, on August 12, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, Sandra Day O'Connor is a pioneer for women and an inspiration to all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 1141, which honors her many accomplishments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 1147, the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, or PACT, Act of 2009, is bipartisan legislation that will help Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials combat cigarette smuggling and trafficking.

Today, the House considers the Senate version of this legislation. The House passed similar bipartisan legislation last May, which I cosponsored with my colleague from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Tobacco smuggling has become one of the most prevalent forms of smuggling in recent years, and its effects are felt not only in America but around the world. The World Health Organization estimates that illegal cigarettes account for over 10 percent, or approximately 600 billion cigarettes, of the almost 6 trillion cigarettes sold globally each year. According to a study by the World Bank, cigarettes are appealing to smugglers because taxes typically account for a large portion of the sale price for cigarettes. Smugglers are, therefore, able to sell contraband cigarettes at a significantly lower price, making it highly profitable to traffic them for resale.

Tobacco smuggling traditionally involves the diversion of large quantities of cigarettes from wholesale distribution into the market. This usually occurs during shipment of the cigarettes, thus allowing the traffickers to avoid most, if not all, of the taxes that will be imposed at retail. The profits from tobacco trafficking can be used to finance illegal activities, such as organized crime and drug trafficking syndicates. In addition, the sale of smuggled tobacco on the market deprives States of significant amounts of tax revenue each year.

California officials estimate that taxes are unpaid on about 15 percent of all tobacco sold in its markets at a cost of $276 million a year. In a recently released study, the State of New York, for example, put its losses at more than $576 million per year. Recently, my home State of Texas raised its cigarette taxes. This increase is supposed to generate an additional $800 million in revenue for the State. This revenue could be lost if smugglers continue to divert cigarettes for resale on the underground market.

The PACT Act will help to ensure that States like California, New York, and Texas receive or recover tax revenue that is due to them. This bipartisan legislation closes loopholes in current tobacco trafficking laws and provides law enforcement officials with ways to combat the innovative methods being used by cigarette traffickers to distribute their products.

Mr. Speaker, S. 1147 is supported by the Lung Cancer Alliance, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and more than 20 public health advocacy organizations. A number of tobacco manufacturers and a majority of State attorneys general also support passage of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, here are 10 reasons why the administration's health bill makes no sense according to Investor's Business Daily. Number one, the people don't want it. In fact, the majority of Americans are opposed to it. Two, doctors don't want it. Three, people are happy with the health care they have. Four, it doesn't cover the people they set out to cover. Five, costs will go up, not down. Six, real cost controls are nowhere to be found. Seven, insurance premiums will rise, not fall. Eight, Medicare is already bankrupting us. Nine, medical care will also deteriorate. And, ten, rationing of care is inevitable.

Madam Speaker, the conclusion is clear: Congress should start over and get it right.

Madam Speaker, in a recent Washington Post op-ed, here is what two Democratic pollsters had to say about the media's spin on the administration's health care proposal:

``Nothing had been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats' current health care plan.

``A solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health reform plan. Many more Americans believe the legislation will worsen their health care, cost them more personally, and add significantly to the national deficit.

``Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self- deluding misconstruction of survey data.''

Madam Speaker, despite the media spin, the American people are sending a clear message about health care: Congress should start over and get it right.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times each featured a news story about President Obama's trip to Missouri to promote his health care plan. Combined, the three articles feature 16 quotes from individuals who support the administration's plan compared to just two quotes from those opposing it. This is a high level of bias considering that most Americans oppose the health care proposal and about two-thirds of Americans want Congress to start over and get it right.

The national media continue to be an unpaid public relations firm for this administration's health care scheme. To restore their credibility, the national media should give Americans the facts on health care, not just the administration's opinions.

Mr. Speaker, here are the results of a new Investor's Business Daily public opinion poll about health care, and if you look at the chart right here, you will see those results.

Asked if Congress should pass the current health care bill or start over, respondents said ``start fresh'' by a 2 to 1 ratio, by 61 percent to 32 percent, start over.

For Independents, the split was 65 percent to only 24 percent.

On using the budget reconciliation process to circumvent a Senate filibuster to help pass the bill, 51 percent were opposed and 35 percent in favor.

Independents disliked the idea by 57 percent to 29 percent, with 39 percent opposing it strongly.

By 41 percent to 27 percent, Americans were more likely to oppose than support lawmakers who voted for the current health care reform bill.

The American people are right: Congress should listen, start over, and do it right.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider and vote on four articles of impeachment against United States District Judge G. Thomas Porteous. Thanks go to Congressman Schiff and Congressman Goodlatte for the way they have worked together in overseeing the Impeachment Task Force's very thorough inquiry into a number of serious allegations involving Judge Porteous. They have set an outstanding example of how an inquiry like this can in fact be conducted in a bipartisan manner.

The Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach a sitting Federal judge. This is a very serious power which Congress does not take lightly. Impeachment by the House constitutes one of the few checks on the judiciary and is to be used only in instances when a judge betrays his office or proves unfit to hold that position of trust. In fact, only 14 Federal judges have been impeached by the House in our entire Nation's history, with four of these occurring in the past 24 years.

After an extensive investigation and a series of hearings by the Impeachment Task Force, clear and convincing evidence has been developed involving a number of different actions by Judge Porteous that make him unfit to serve as a Federal judge. The report, which accompanies the articles of impeachment, sets forth in detail the various incidents of improper conduct by Judge Porteous.

Though judges rule on the law, they are not above the law. To preserve equality and fairness in our constitutional democracy, we must protect the integrity of the courts. It is clear that Judge Porteous' actions are a violation of the American people's trust and a threat to the integrity of the Federal bench. The American people deserve better from their Federal judges.

I also hope our vote today sends a message of encouragement to the great majority of judges who serve our Nation with distinction. We will not let a few bad actors mar the reputation of others on the Federal bench.

The time has come for the House of Representatives to conclude that Judge Porteous' conduct has made him unworthy to serve on the Federal bench.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the ranking member of the Impeachment Task Force, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a Member of Congress who has taken an active interest in this case.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a distinguished and senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, today's vote on the Articles of Impeachment against Judge Porteous is necessary to ensure justice is applied to a corrupt Federal judge. When a judge is given a lifetime appointment, it is a tremendous honor and responsibility. They serve the ideals of justice. But when a judge abuses this authority, they must be held accountable for any violation of those same principles of justice. Congress has an obligation to put an end to Judge Porteous' abuse of authority and remove him from the bench.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of each of the four Articles of Impeachment being considered today and to help restore integrity to the Federal bench. I also hope the Senate will act quickly to conduct the trial of Judge Porteous.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Senate's reconciliation procedure is designed for legislation to balance the budget. Now the administration wants to use reconciliation to force a health insurance scheme on the American people. The health care scheme under reconciliation means decisions made by the government behind closed doors against the wishes of the American people.

A recent New York Times article claimed that Republicans have used reconciliation in the past, but failed to acknowledge that it has never been used before to enact a massive partisan policy change like a $1 trillion government health care mandate. And the national media have largely ignored the fact that many Democratic leaders, including the President, previously voiced strong opposition to reconciliation. In fact, the nonpartisan fact checkers at PolitiFact determined that the President's support of reconciliation is a ``full flop'' from his earlier comments opposing it.

The national media should give Americans the facts, not just present the Democrats' point of view.

Madam Speaker, more than seven in ten Americans say that news sources are biased, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. This opinion is consistent across party lines. Eight in ten Republicans say the news is slanted, as do two-thirds of the Democrats and three-quarters of the Independents. Not surprisingly, this is the fifth recent poll that has found Americans don't trust the media.

The reason is simple: On important issues like job creation, government spending, treatment of terrorists, and the Senate reconciliation procedure, the national media present the news from a liberal point of view.

If the media wants to restore Americans' trust, they should report all the facts, not just one side.

Madam Speaker, the President's health care summit today was too little, too late: the Administration has already released its health care proposal without consulting Republicans.

Instead of a summit on health care, we should have a summit on job creation, or a summit on cutting spending and reducing the deficit, or a summit on lawsuit abuse reform, or a summit on not treating terrorists like common criminals.

The Administration's health care plan raises premiums, increases taxes and cuts Medicare benefits for seniors, according to the non- partisan Congressional Budget Office. It's no wonder 67 percent of Americans now want Congress to start over on health care.

Instead of defying the wishes of Americans, the Administration should address the 15 million people who are unemployed, the millions more who have given up on finding a job, and specifically the 17 percent unemployment rate in the black community.

The Administration should listen to the American people, not hold a six-hour photo-op on the wrong subject.

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

Mr. Speaker, the war on terror is real, and it's all around us. Despite multiple attempted terror attacks and a warning of an imminent attack from our national security experts, apparently the best this Congress can do is a 1-year extension of our most critical national security laws.

On Christmas Day Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to murder 288 innocent civilians by trying to set off an explosion aboard a Northwest flight bound for Detroit. Thankfully, he failed in his attempt at mass murder, not because of our national security procedures but because of his own ineptness and the quick response from passengers and crew. But we may not be so fortunate the next time.

Last November in my home State of Texas, Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 and wounded 30 others when he opened fire at the Fort Hood Army Base. In September three terrorist plots were successfully thwarted in New York City, Springfield, Illinois, and Dallas, Texas. And now intelligence experts warn us that another terrorist attack may be imminent. Yet after all those near misses, the House majority refuses to pass a long-term extension of three essential PATRIOT Act provisions.

The PATRIOT Act works. It has proven effective time and time again in preventing terrorist attacks and keeping Americans safe. The expiring provisions give national security investigators the authority to conduct roving wiretaps, to seek certain business records, and to gather intelligence on lone terrorists who are not necessarily affiliated with a specific terrorist group.

We cannot afford to play dice with the security of the American people. We must continue these intelligence-gathering measures to win our fight against terrorists. The Obama administration recognized this last year when it called for Congress to authorize the expiring provisions without any

changes that undermine their effectiveness. Instead of working with the administration and listening to national security experts, the House majority is only offering another short-term extension.

The majority may think that by pushing the reauthorization until after the election, they will then be able to pursue legislation to water down these provisions a year from now. But if so, they are playing with fire and innocent Americans are the ones who will get burned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman emeritus of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a senior member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to an esteemed senior member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, an active member of the Judiciary Committee and a former city prosecutor, Mr. Harper.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas, a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Thornberry.

I am prepared to close. I will reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, extending the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act will give our law enforcement officials and intelligence agents the authority they need to meet terrorists' threats. It is unfortunate, though, that some reject a long-term reauthorization. Refusing to reauthorize our national security laws for the long term signals weakness to our enemies. It says we are not serious about protecting American lives.

Repeated extensions of this law create uncertainty for intelligence officials and increase the danger that intelligence is missed and threats unidentified. The PATRIOT Act is not broken. And if it isn't broken, we shouldn't try to fix it.

Congress has already undertaken a sweeping review of the PATRIOT Act following extensive hearings in the Judiciary Committee. We approved a reauthorization in 2006 that made permanent all but three provisions and enhanced important civil liberty protections. The Obama administration, a bipartisan Senate, and House Republicans all support a long-term reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Speaker, while I support this bill, our national interests would have been better served if we had considered a long-term extension. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation even though a long-term piece of legislation would have been a much-improved situation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the administration's health care bill fails to include a Republican solution that could actually achieve savings for patients--lawsuit abuse reform.

Forty percent of medical malpractice suits against doctors and hospitals are without merit, according to a study by the Harvard School of Public Health. And excess damages add $70 billion to $126 billion annually to health care costs, the Department of Health and Human Services has found. These costs, of course, are passed on to patients.

The administration has only suggested a pilot program for tort reform. But some States, including my home State of Texas, have already enacted tort reform. These States have seen insurance premiums fall and access to medical care expand.

We don't need a pilot program. We need to enact medical malpractice lawsuit abuse reform.