Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4626, the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act, unfortunately doesn't do much. In fact, it has all the substance of a soup made by boiling the shadow of a chicken.

In his State of the Union address on January 27, President Obama challenged Congress to create a plan that ``will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses.'' The administration's health care plan does just the opposite. It increases premiums, increases taxes, and reduces Medicare benefits for seniors.

Will today's McCarran-Ferguson repeal bring down insurance premiums? No. The Congressional Budget Office says that ``whether premiums would increase or decrease as a result of this legislation is difficult to determine, but in either case the magnitude of the effects is likely to be quite small.''

So what's the point of the bill?

The CBO goes on to say that premium reductions from this bill are likely to be small because ``State laws already bar the activities that would be prohibited under Federal law if this bill was enacted.''

So what's the point of the bill?

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners pointed out that bid-rigging, price-fixing, and market allocation ``are not permitted under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, and are not tolerated under State law. Indeed, State insurance regulators actively enforce prohibitions in these areas.''

So, again, what's the point of the bill?

The McCarran-Ferguson Act's Federal antitrust exemption simply allows small and medium-sized insurers to aggregate information for underwriting purposes so they can compete effectively against larger companies. In other words, McCarran-Ferguson helps to promote competition by making small and medium-sized underwriters viable.

Eliminating the exchange of data provision that was included in earlier versions of this bill likely will impede new entry into the health insurance markets. This means that there could be less competition among health insurers.

That said, I believe, as does the Antitrust Modernization Commission, that antitrust exemptions should be rarely granted or created. Yet, if they are necessary, they should be written in as limited a way as necessary to meet a compelling public policy goal.

I can understand why some of my colleagues may want to support this bill, and given that it will have no meaningful impact, I don't oppose it. However, when repealing an existing antitrust exemption, we should be careful of the unintended consequences of our actions.

The majority has avoided one unintended consequence of this legislation by limiting its application solely to health insurers. Eliminating malpractice insurers goes a long way toward making this bill more reasonable. However, the majority should adopt further changes to this bill to demonstrate that they are more interested in legislating than in targeting an unpopular industry for no real policy reason.

Specifically, this legislation should be amended to define the term ``business of health insurance.'' Second, we should reinsert the exchange of data provision that was added to the bill in committee. Finally, we should clarify that this bill will not impinge upon State insurance regulations. None of these concepts are revolutionary. They were all included in earlier versions of this legislation that were passed by the House.

That said, if the majority really wants to help consumers, we should consider a measure that could actually achieve savings for patients: medical malpractice tort reform.

According to a study by the Harvard School of Public Health, 40 percent of all medical malpractice suits against doctors and hospitals are ``without merit.'' So every doctor must purchase malpractice insurance at great expense to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits.

A Department of Health and Human Services study found that unlimited excessive damages add $70 billion to $126 billion annually to health care costs. Doctors are so concerned about frivolous lawsuits that they have to practice defensive medicine and order unnecessary tests and procedures. HHS estimates the national cost of defensive medicine is now more than $60 billion.

All of these expenses are then passed on to patients in the costs of health care. That is why some States, including my home State of Texas, have enacted tort reform, which limits the amount of excessive damages awarded in frivolous lawsuits. The result? Insurance premiums have fallen, and the availability of medical care has expanded. But this bill will do nothing to reduce the costs of health care.

Congress should set aside this bill, and it should take up lawsuit abuse reform, which could reduce health care costs for our constituents.

Madam Speaker, I reluctantly support this, unfortunately, ineffective bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, let me say that I always appreciate what my colleagues state on the House floor, and I appreciate their good comments during debate. To the extent that they want to increase competition among insurance companies and want to reduce insurance premiums, I completely agree with them, but we should not think that any of those comments or any of those desires or any of those goals have anything to do with the bill that we are considering here today.

Once again, in case some of my colleagues missed it, let me read what the Congressional Budget Office said about this legislation. They said, ``Whether premiums would increase or decrease as a result (of this legislation) is difficult to determine, but in either case, the magnitude of the effects is likely to be quite small.'' So this bill has no point.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I just want to say that I appreciated what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee just said a minute ago to Mr. Lungren. I understood him to make very positive comments about the so-called Brooks-Lungren amendment. And I hope that that augurs well for the majority's accepting our motion to recommit at the end of this debate. At least I would expect that.

At this point, Madam Speaker, I will yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a member of the Budget Committee and the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

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

Madam Speaker, the bipartisan and very credible Congressional Budget Office has said that this bill will have little or no effect on insurance premiums. It further says that if there is any effect, it will be ``quite small.''

So I do appreciate all the comments that Members are making today, and I agree with a lot of them. But we should not think that any of them pertain to this bill, or that this bill is going to have any kind of a major impact on premiums.

However, I would like to discuss one subject that will have a major impact on insurance premiums, and that is health care tort reform.

The American medical liability system, quite frankly, is broken. According to one study, 40 percent of claims are meritless; either no injury or no error occurred. Attorneys' fees and administrative costs amount to 54 percent of the compensation paid to plaintiffs. The study found that completely meritless claims account for nearly a quarter of total administrative costs.

The American civil litigation system is the most expensive in the world, more than twice as expensive as nearly any other country.

Defensive medicine is widely practiced and it is very costly. Skyrocketing medical liability insurance rates have distorted the practice of medicine. Costly but unnecessary tests have become routine as doctors try to protect themselves from lawsuits.

According to a 2008 survey conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society, 83 percent of Massachusetts physicians reported that they practiced defensive medicine. Another study in Pennsylvania put that figure at an astounding 93 percent.

While estimates vary, the Pacific Research Institute has put the cost of defensive medicine at $124 billion. Others have arrived at even higher figures. A new study by the Pacific Research Institute estimates that defensive medicine costs $191 billion a year, while a separate study by PricewaterhouseCoopers puts the number even higher, $239 billion every year.

Lawsuit abuse drives doctors out of practice. There is a well- documented record of doctors leaving the practice of medicine and hospitals shutting down, particularly practices that have high liability exposure. This problem has been particularly acute in several fields as well as in the rural areas of our country.

The absence of doctors in vital practice areas is, at best, an inconvenience; at worst, it can have deadly consequences. Hundreds or even thousands of patients may die annually due to a lack of doctors.

According to the Massachusetts study, 38 percent of physicians have reduced the number of higher risk procedures they provide, and 28 percent have reduced the number of higher risk patients they serve out of fear of liability. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have concluded that the ``current medico-legal environment continues to deprive women of all ages, especially pregnant women, of their most educated and experienced women's health care providers.''

Excessive litigation damages the doctor-patient relationship and impairs care. Beyond the dollars and cents, when doctors begin to see their clients as potential litigants, the quality of care patients receive is seriously compromised. In a recent survey, 76 percent of doctors said that their concern about being sued has hurt their ability to provide quality patient care. Nearly half of nurses say they are prohibited or discouraged from providing needed care by rules set up to avoid lawsuits.

The States have proven that legal reform works. While some in Washington talk about the need to study the problem, States have actually acted to address it. Several States have limited noneconomic damages such as those for pain and suffering and dramatically lessened the burden of lawsuits. In States with such limits, premiums are 17 percent lower than they are in States without them.

Madam Speaker, I'll reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, on October 9, the Congressional Budget Office pronounced that a tort reform or civil justice reform package would reduce the Federal budget deficit by an estimated $54 billion over 10 years.

CBO recognizes that civil justice reforms also have an impact on the practice of defensive medicine. Defensive medicine is when doctors order more tests or procedures than are necessary just to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits. Studies show that defensive medicine does not advance patients' care or enhance a physician's capabilities, that billions of dollars in savings from tort reform could be used to provide health insurance for the uninsured without raising taxes on those who already have insurance policies.

As the administration rushes to enact a massive government takeover of health care, Congress must remember that there is the option of saving between $54 billion and more than $200 billion by embracing tort reform, but it will take the leadership to stand up to personal injury lawyers instead of taxing Americans and cutting Medicare benefits.

According to CBO, under the HEALTH Act, which includes tort reform, premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.

Also, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, found that rising litigation awards are responsible for skyrocketing medical professional liability premiums. The report stated that GAO found that losses on medical malpractice claims--which make up the largest part of insurers' costs--appear to be the primary driver of rate increases in the long run.

The GAO also concluded that insurer profits are not increasing, indicating that insurers are not charging and profiting from excessively high premium rates, and that in most States insurance regulators have the authority to deny premium rate increases they deem excessive.

The reason the administration continues to refuse to add serious medical lawsuit reform to their health care legislation remains purely political, as was recently revealed by former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean. At a recent health care town hall meeting, Mr. Dean responded to an angry constituent who wondered why a supposedly comprehensive reform of the health care system doesn't include tort reform to lower costs of malpractice insurance and reduce defensive medicine.

Mr. Dean responded, being remarkably candid, as follows: ``This is the answer from a doctor and a politician. Here is why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that, the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth.''

Medical malpractice premiums have risen more than 80 percent each year in some parts of the country and can cost almost half a million dollars a year in some specialties.

Regarding the offer of HHS demonstration projects--and this is what the administration has proposed--that offer rings hollow given that the Cabinet Secretary tasked with implementing this proposal for demonstration projects is Kathleen Sebelius. Before she was Governor of Kansas and the Insurance Commissioner of Kansas, she spent 8 years as the head of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association, now the Kansas Association for Justice. And she is also the State executive who, according to The New York Times, ``failed to make significant improvement in health coverage or costs during her two terms as Governor.''

The top contributor to President Obama's Presidential campaign was the legal industry, whose donations came to more than $43 million. More than 80 percent of the money given to Congress by lawyers, mostly from the plaintiff's bar, went to the Democrats--almost $22 million.

More recently, when President Obama spoke to the American Medical Association in June of this year, he told the audience, ``I'm not advocating caps on malpractice awards.''

But the American people are demanding legal reform. A recent survey found that 83 percent of Americans believe that reforming the legal system needs to be part of any health care reform plan. As the Associated Press recently reported, most Americans want Congress to deal with malpractice lawsuits driving up the costs of medical care. Yet, Democrats are reluctant to press forward on an issue that would upset a valuable political constituency, trial lawyers, even if President Barack Obama says he's open to changes. The AP poll found that 54 percent of Americans favor making it harder to sue doctors and hospitals for mistakes made while taking care of patients.

Support for limits on malpractice lawsuits cuts across political lines, with 58 percent of Independents and 61 percent of Republicans in favor. Democrats are more divided. Still, 47 percent said they favor making it harder to sue. The survey was conducted by Stanford University with the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. In the poll, 59 percent said they thought

at least half the tests doctors order are unnecessary and ordered only because of fear of lawsuits.

That is the end of the AP story.

Madam Speaker, the USA Today editorial board also came out in support of tort reform, and USA Today wrote, A study last month by the Massachusetts Medical Society found that 83 percent of its doctors practice defensive medicine at a cost of at least $1.4 billion a year. Nationally, the cost is $60 billion-plus every year, according to the Health and Human Services Department--and that's the HHS of this administration. And a 2005 study in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 93 percent of Pennsylvania doctors practice defensive medicine.

The liability system is too often a lottery; excessive compensation is awarded to some patients and little or none to others. As much as 60 percent of awards are spent on attorneys, expert witnesses, and administrative expenses. The current system is arbitrary, inefficient, and results in years of delay.

Madam Speaker, discussing the need for tort reform, the president of the American Medical Association said, If the health care bill doesn't have medical liability reform in it, then we don't see how it is going to be successful in controlling costs.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

I will reserve my time.

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

Madam Speaker, President Obama's own doctor of over two decades also supports medical tort reform. David Scheiner was Mr. Obama's doctor from 1987 until he entered the White House. He vouched for the then- candidate's excellent health in a letter last year. This was recently reported in Forbes Magazine. Dr. Scheiner worries about whether the health care legislation currently making its way through Congress will actually do any good, particularly for doctors like himself who practice general medicine. ``I am not sure Obama really understands what we face in primary care,'' Dr. Scheiner says.

One of the Nation's top surgeons, with credibility and acclaim the world over for the pioneering surgeries he has

and his personal story of overcoming hardship, recently severely criticized the health care legislation before Congress. Benjamin Carson, Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center in Baltimore, Maryland, and recipient of numerous awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, criticized, in a recent interview, the current bill's lack of malpractice liability reform.

He pointed to excessive litigation, pointing out how much malpractice insurance and other forms of defensive medicine to protect against lawsuits add to medical costs. In an interview with a local television station, Carson insisted that tort reform must go hand in hand as part of any true health care reform.

``We have to bring a rational approach to medical litigation. We're the only nation in the world that really has this problem. Why is it that everybody else has been able to solve this problem but us? Simple. Special interest groups like the trial lawyers association. They don't want a solution.''

As Stanley Goldfarb, MD, and Associate Dean of Clinical Education at the Pennsylvania School of Medicine has written: ``The President points to for-profit insurance companies, but for-profit insurance companies only make up 25 percent of the system, and they are not that profitable, ranking 85th among all U.S. industries. `Reform' will redistribute the money, not reduce the overall costs. There is much that can be done to make our system more efficient. Tort reform is a great place to start.''

Even prominent Democrat strategist Bob Beckel has conceded medical tort reform is essential, recently writing that CBO has reviewed the few credible reports that do exist and concluded: ``A number of those studies have found that State-level tort reforms have decreased the number of lawsuits filed, lowered the value of claims and damage awards . . . thereby reducing general insurance premiums. Indeed, premiums fell by 40 percent for some commercial policies.''

From a CBO report in June 2004, one irrefutable fact remains: Between 1997 and 2007, medical tort costs, including insurance premiums, have risen from $15 billion to $30 billion a year. That fact alone should ensure that yearly savings in the billions for medical tort reform would pass the credibility test.''

As Kimberley Strassel has written in The Wall Street Journal: Tort reform is a policy no-brainer. Experts on left and right agree that defensive medicine--ordering tests and procedures solely to protect against Joe Lawyer--adds enormously to health costs. The estimated dollar benefits of reform range from a conservative $65 billion a year to perhaps $200 billion a year. In context, Mr. Obama's plan would cost about $100 billion annually. That the President won't embrace even modest change that would do so much, so quickly, to lower costs has left Americans suspicious of his real ambitions.

It's also a political no-brainer. Americans are on board. Polls routinely show that between 70 percent and 80 percent of Americans believe the country suffers from excess litigation. The entire health community is on board. Republicans and swing-State Democrats are on board. State and local governments, which have struggled to clean up their own civil justice systems, are also on board.

Mr. Speaker, Republican-sponsored legislation would make Federal law the same legal reforms California implemented over 30 years ago. That legislation, called the HEALTH Act, remains the gold standard for health care legal reform, and it continues to be supported by every major medical association.

The HEALTH Act does not limit in any way an award of ``economic damages'' from anyone responsible for harm. Economic damages include anything whose value can be quantified, including lost wages or home services, including lost services provided by stay-at-home mothers, medical costs, the cost of pain-reducing drugs, therapy and lifetime rehabilitation care, and anything else to which a receipt can be attached.

Only economic damages, which the Federal legislation does not limit, can be used to pay for drugs and services that actually reduce pain. So, nothing in the HEALTH Act prevents juries from awarding very large amounts to victims of medical malpractice, including stay-at-home mothers and children. California's legal reforms, just like the HEALTH Act, cap noneconomic damages at $250,000 but do not cap quantifiable economic damages.

The administration's health care bill not only fails to contain any of the tort reforms that CBO concluded would save at least $54 billion in health care costs, but it also contains a provision that actually deters States from enacting such reforms in the future by explicitly prohibiting tort reform ``demonstration project'' funds to States that enact limits on damages or attorneys' fees.

One section of an earlier bill states that ``the Secretary of HHS shall make an incentive payment . . . to each State that has an alternative medical liability law in compliance with this section,'' but then goes on to say a State can take advantage of such funds only if ``the law does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages,'' which are precisely the tort reforms the CBO concluded yield real health care cost savings.

Mr. Speaker, so not only does the administration's bill fail to contain any of the tort reforms we know bring health care costs down from decades of experience, but it even prohibits States that want to try such reforms from taking part in the government-funded tort reform demonstration projects. This is not only a blow to State reform efforts, it is a federally funded bribe discouraging States from enacting real reform, and, of course, it is a giant bailout for trial lawyers.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard several speakers in the last few minutes say that there are only two industries exempted from the antitrust laws, insurance and baseball. This, of course, is not true. There are more than 20 such exemptions. If the majority is intent on eliminating simple exemptions, perhaps they would be willing to eliminate the labor union's antitrust exemption as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the former Attorney General of that State, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on this side, and I am prepared to close at the appropriate time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank Chairman Conyers for his comments. He is always gracious in making those. He is right. We have had a good discussion today about this particular piece of legislation. And I also want to say that he and I have a very good working relationship on the Judiciary Committee as well.

In regard to this bill, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that as much as some might hope that it did something or hope that it accomplished something or might wish that the bill did something or might pretend that the bill did something, in point of fact, the Congressional Budget Office disagrees. Members are free to wish upon a star, but this bill is a dim bulb.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office says that ``whether premiums would increase or decrease as a result of this legislation is difficult to determine, but in either case, the magnitude of the effects is likely to be quite small.'' ``Quite small.''

So, Mr. Speaker, what's the point of this bill? CBO goes on to say that premium reductions from this bill are likely to be small because ``State laws already bar the activities that would be prohibited under Federal law if this bill was enacted.''

So again, Mr. Speaker, what's the point of this bill?

I could list all the reasons why this bill is ineffective, useless, unproductive, pointless, futile, and meaningless. Instead, I would like to highlight something we could do to actually drive down health care costs.

Last October, the CBO concluded that a tort reform package consisting of reasonable limits on frivolous lawsuits would reduce the Federal budget deficit by an estimated $54 billion over the next 10 years. That $54 billion in savings from tort reform could be used to provide health insurance for many of the uninsured without raising taxes on those who already have health insurance policies.

Also, according to the CBO, under a Republican-sponsored health care tort reform bill called the HEALTH Act, ``premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.''

And a GAO report stated that ``losses on medical malpractice claims, which make up the largest part of insurers' costs, appear to be the primary driver of rate increases in the long run.''

Mr. Speaker, rather than spend time on a bill that the CBO said would yield a ``quite small,'' if any, change in health care premiums, we should instead take up a bill the CBO concluded would save us $54 billion. The American people deserve real health care reform, not a feeble and feckless substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I support this motion to recommit on H.R. 4626, the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act. As I stated in my earlier comments, this legislation does little, if anything. However, if you are going to do nothing, you might as well do it better.

This motion corrects three drafting errors that create problems with the bill. First, it adds a definition for health insurers that was absent from the base bill. If we are going to eliminate McCarran- Ferguson for a limited subset of insurers, then we should clarify who those insurers are.

Second, this motion to recommit includes the exchange of data provision that Mr. Lungren added at the Judiciary Committee markup of a similar bill. It is necessary to ensure that small and medium health insurers can in fact compete in the marketplace.

Third, the motion to recommit includes language that protects the rate gathering and rate setting activities of State insurance commissions. The majority assumes this will be protected by the State action doctrine. But if Congress is going to repeal a 65-year-old law, shouldn't we make clear that we do not want this to undermine State insurance commissions?

Finally, the motion to recommit includes a GAO study on the impact of this legislation on competition in the health insurance market. Specifically, the GAO must report on whether or not this legislation has enhanced competition, resulting in lower prices and new competitors in the market. Let's put political rhetoric aside and see what the bill really does. We shouldn't be afraid of the truth.

In short, this motion to recommit includes definitions and clarifications that the majority has already included in earlier versions of this legislation that either were reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee or were passed by the full House. This isn't much of a bill, but let's try to improve what little there is.

I yield to the gentleman from California, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, network news coverage of the administration's so-called stimulus package has been overwhelmingly one-sided, according to a recent analysis by the Business and Media Institute. Since the President signed it into law a year ago, ABC, CBS, and NBC have featured supporters of the stimulus over those who oppose it by a margin of 2 to 1. Incredibly, about half of the network news reports have shown no opposing opinions about the stimulus bill.

Americans are not buying the media's spin. Three out of four say the stimulus money has been wasted, and only 6 percent think it has created jobs, according to a CBS/New York Times poll. In fact, 3.3 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was signed.

The national media should give Americans the facts about jobs; not tell them what to think.

Madam Speaker, a New York Times columnist who is revered by liberal Democrats recently wrote, ``We've always known that America's reign as the world's greatest nation would eventually end.''

This may be the logical conclusion if we follow President Obama's policies, but it doesn't have to be true. We can reclaim America's greatness--not lose it--if we focus on creating jobs in the private sector, not the government; reducing the deficit, not doubling it; providing health care to the long-term, low-income uninsured, not mandating a government takeover; and treating terrorists like terrorists, not local bank robbers.

Let's listen to the American people and get our financial house in order and our priorities straight. Then we will stay the greatest nation.

Madam Speaker, according to a new Zogby poll, senior executives, business owners, and members of union households think the best way to deal with illegal immigration is to enforce the law. When asked to choose between enforcement or a pathway to citizenship with conditions, 59 percent of executives, 67 percent of small business owners, and 58 percent of union households chose enforcement. When asked whether more immigrants are needed to address our job needs or if there are enough Americans to fill them, 61 percent of executives, 65 percent of small business owners, and 72 percent of union households said there are plenty of Americans available to fill unskilled jobs.

These findings are no surprise. Citizens and legal immigrants should not be forced to compete with illegal immigrants for scarce jobs.

Madam Speaker, recent polls show that the public is very concerned with the Obama administration's handling of national security.

The latest Investor's Business Daily poll findings show that Americans believe President Obama's policies are soft on terror. The percentage of Americans who feel safe has declined significantly--from 82 percent a year ago, to 67 percent this month.

Additionally, the Pew Research Center recently released findings showing terrorism is the third most important issue to American voters, after jobs and the economy.

This is due in part to the mishandling of the Christmas Day terrorist attempt. Instead of gaining valuable intelligence, Abdulmutallab was given Miranda rights, a move that 61 percent of Americans disagree with. Additionally, Americans continue to overwhelmingly oppose closing Gitmo 2-to-1.

It is clear President Obama's policies have made Americans less safe. And according to the polls, the American people know it.

Madam Speaker, the national media gave President Obama about twice as much favorable news coverage as they gave former President George W. Bush during the first year of their presidencies, according to a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

The analysis revealed that while around half the stories about President Obama were positive, just 25 percent of stories about President Bush were favorable.

Not surprisingly, the New York Times gave President Obama the most favorable coverage, followed by Time Magazine and Newsweek.

It's no wonder seven out of ten Americans say the national media are promoting the Obama presidency, according to a recent public opinion poll.

The national media should give Americans the facts, not tell them what to think.

Mr. Speaker, in a recent interview with ABC World News, President Obama referred to the Christmas Day bomber as a Nigerian student. But he is not just a student. He's a terrorist, a would-be mass murderer who almost killed 288 innocent civilians.

The administration is so concerned about being politically correct that they water down the truth about the terrorist threat facing Americans. Last year, the Obama administration instructed officials to replace the term ``global war on terror'' with ``overseas contingency operation.'' Around the same time, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano started referring to ``terrorist attacks'' as ``man-made disasters.'' The administration also abandoned the use of ``enemy combatants'' when referring to terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay.

It's time to stop watering down our words and start calling terrorists what they are, terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, the President's budget proves once again that the Obama administration is not serious about enforcing our Nation's immigration laws. They found money for 25 new positions in the Secretary of Homeland Security's management office, but there is no funding for a single new immigration detention

bed, no new money to find and deport immigration fugitives or criminal aliens, no additional special agents to investigate workplace immigration violations, and no money to expand the visa security program. The President ought to use immigration enforcement to open up jobs for American workers. Instead, the administration maintains the status quo. Citizens and legal immigrants will be forced to continue to compete with 8 million illegal immigrants for very scarce jobs.

Mr. Speaker, on January 27, 2010, I voted ``yea'' on rollcall 20 for H. Res. 1024. Please let the Record show that my intention was to vote ``nay'' on agreeing to this resolution.

Madam Speaker, President Obama says that closing the terrorist detention center in Cuba will help America's image abroad and make America safer. This idea is contrary to common sense, nonsensical, irrational, counterintuitive, and dangerous. Since the President has announced his intention to close the military prison, there have been more attempted terrorist attacks, not fewer. The terrorists sense weakness, not strength.

Keeping terrorists locked up in Cuba, rather than transferring them to the U.S. or other countries, is the only way to protect Americans. If they go to other countries, they can be released. If they go to the U.S., they can get constitutional rights, like citizens, which they certainly don't deserve. The administration should treat terrorists like terrorists and leave them in Cuba.

Madam Speaker, for the second time in a row, CBS is the winner of the Media Fairness Caucus' highly un-coveted ``Lap Dog Award'' for the week's most glaring example of media bias.

During CBS' coverage of the special election in Massachusetts on Tuesday evening, two hours before the polls closed, political analyst John Dickerson claimed that if Republican candidate Scott Brown won the election, it would ``get a lot uglier in Washington.''

Brown went on to say that Republicans ``feel excited and they see glory in attacking the President.''

It's no wonder just 2 in 10 Americans say reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of political campaigns, according to a recent Rasmussen poll.

CBS and the national media should give Americans the facts, not tell them what to think.

Mr. Speaker, the United States Senate special election in Massachusetts offers many lessons for both Democrats and Republicans. Surely among them are these:

All true reform starts with the voice of the people.

Moderation beats extremism.

Common sense triumphs partisanship.

Voters can exercise real independence.

One-party control leads to arrogance.

There are few guaranteed election results.

Listen to the people, don't defy them.

Of course some will say there are no lessons to be learned or that the result of this special election should be ignored or can be explained away. But those who don't listen to the people, Democrats or Republicans, will pay a steep political price.

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

I support House Resolution 1010. This resolution celebrates the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It also celebrates the 30th anniversary of the release of Stevie Wonder's song tribute to Dr. King entitled ``Happy Birthday.'' Dr. King was the leading champion of a historic nonviolent revolution in the United States. Throughout his life, he fought for racial harmony and equal justice. While advancing this historic movement, Dr. King endured many forms of hatred and even suffered physical abuse. Despite this violence, Dr. King peacefully continued to pursue justice and equality for all.

As a pastor, Dr. King's religious beliefs were essential to the success of his nonviolent efforts. It is doubtful that such a long and enduring movement could have survived without the power of religious inspiration and conviction behind it. From 1957 to 1968, Dr. King traveled over 6 million miles and spoke thousands of times about justice and equal freedom under the law. During those years, he led large protests that drew the attention of the world.

On August 28, 1963, Dr. King led a peaceful march of 250,000 people through the streets of Washington, D.C.; and it is here in this city where he delivered a speech that spoke for all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin. ``I have a dream,'' he said, ``that my four little children will one day live in a Nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.''

Dr. King opened the door of opportunity for millions of Americans. In his ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. King called the march the ``greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our Nation.'' Four days after the assassination of Dr. King, Representative John Conyers, now our Judiciary Committee chairman and the cosponsor of the resolution we are now considering, introduced legislation to recognize Dr. King's life's work with a Federal holiday that coincided with Dr. King's birthday, January 15.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say today that I think Chairman Conyers has been too modest about his significant role in establishing that holiday. In 1980, Stevie Wonder released his song tribute to Dr. King called ``Happy Birthday'' to bring attention to the movement to enact a Federal holiday in honor of Dr. King. Stevie Wonder sang that Dr. King's vision of peace should be celebrated throughout the world and that a holiday would help achieve Dr. King's dreams of integration and love and unity for all of God's children. On November 3, 1983, legislation was signed into law, designating the third Monday of January as a Federal holiday in observance of Dr. King.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

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

Madam Speaker, the Administration's health care plan will affect every single American and impact one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

But congressional leaders have taken the critical negotiations behind closed doors, even though President Obama repeatedly promised a transparent process.

The Administration claims Congress needs to pass a health care plan to cover 47 million people who are uninsured.

But that 47 million figure includes 4 million people who are eligible for public health insurance but not yet enrolled, 10 million illegal immigrants, 9 million people who are only temporarily uninsured, and 10 million people who can afford health coverage but choose not to purchase it.

We should focus on the long-term, low-income uninsured, about 14 million people, not a government takeover of the entire private health care delivery system.

Mr. Speaker, Americans see the media as biased, liberal, and too powerful, according to a new Rasmussen survey.

Just two in ten Americans say reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of political campaigns. More than seven in ten say reporters try to help the candidate they want to win.

Furthermore, a majority of voters believe, ``The average reporter is more liberal than they are.'' And two-thirds think the media have too much power and influence over government decisions.

This is the fourth public opinion poll in the last few months that has found that Americans don't trust the media. If the national media want to restore Americans' confidence, they should report the facts and not tell people what to think.