Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, here is what Jeffrey Flier, dean of Harvard Medical School, has to say about the administration's health care bill: ``. . . The people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial.

``Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that's not true.

``. . . There are no provisions to substantially control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.

``Whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health care spending rather than restrain it . . . The legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health care's dysfunctional delivery system.

``Worse, currently proposed Federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care.''

Dean Flier has good advice: Congress should start over and do it right.

Mr. Speaker, today the President is hosting a jobs summit. But he is ignoring the 8 million jobs held by those in the country illegally that should go to American workers. With a 10 percent unemployment rate, the President should put the interests of Americans first.

While the administration ignores the 8 million stolen jobs, Republicans hold the lead in voter trust on immigration with a 12-point lead over the Democrats. That's nearly double the GOP's lead a month ago.

We should hold the administration accountable for its failure to enforce

the Nation's immigration laws, which allows 8 million illegal immigrants to remain in the workforce. Those jobs rightfully belong to citizens and to legal immigrants.

Enforcing the law is not only the right thing to do, it is what the American people want. Any jobs summit that doesn't address the jobs occupied by illegal immigrants ignores American workers.

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

H.R. 3570, the Satellite Home Viewer Reauthorization Act of 2009, in my judgment, is the single most important copyright bill Congress will consider this year. The legislation combines two separate bills: H.R. 3570, which was introduced by Chairman Conyers and reported by the Judiciary Committee on September 16, 2009, and H.R. 2994, which is the Energy and Commerce Committee's related measure that contains amendments to the Communications Act.

The combined bill extends the compulsory license in section 119 of the Copyright Act that authorizes satellite carriers to deliver distant network programming to subscribers. Far fewer consumers rely upon this license to receive network programming than in past years, but there still remain about 1 million households that will lose such programming if the license is not extended beyond the end of this year, which is when it is currently due to expire. To avoid this outcome, the bill extends the compulsory license an additional 5 years to December 31, 2014. My hope is that this will be the last time Congress needs to reauthorize what was originally envisioned to be a temporary license.

H.R. 3570 also contains a number of significant amendments to the cable license in section 111 of the Copyright Act governing the retransmission of both local and distant programming, and the local programming license in section 122 that governs the satellite retransmission of local-into-local programming. The most significant immediate change to the cable license is a negotiated resolution of the phantom signal liability issue that I appreciate the chairman including in this bill.

I commend Chairman Conyers for his decision to expand this reauthorization beyond the narrow limits of the expiring section 119 provisions. While circumstances prevented us from being able to iron out all the wrinkles from these related licenses, I'm pleased we were able to make substantial improvements and address some of the most urgent concerns. Among the elements for which there was bipartisan support to include in this bill are provisions that, one, modernize a license to account for digital broadcasting; two, preserve the ability of consumers to continue to receive lifeline network programming; three, make clear that copyright owners are generally entitled to a royalty for each stream of multicast programming; and four, establish a new audit right to permit copyright owners to make sure they are being paid the royalties they are entitled to.

Madam Speaker, I have strong reservations about the decision to permit DISH Network to again benefit from section 119's distant signal license in light of its prior record of willful infringement. However, I share the goal of making sure more Americans can benefit from satellite delivery of local-into-local programs. I'm grateful for Chairman Conyers' recognition of the seriousness of these concerns and his willingness to work with me and Chairman Berman to strengthen the deterrence and enforcement provisions in the bill. The enhanced penalties we've included for any future violation, along with provisions that require the GAO to audit DISH for its compliance with the law and DISH to certify its compliance to the Federal District Court, reflects substantial improvements from previous versions of the bill. The incorporation of these provisions reflect a carefully negotiated and fair compromise.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3570, the Satellite Home Viewer Reauthorization Act. When enacted, this bill will both preserve and expand the ability of Americans to view vital network and independent station programming without interruption.

Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank the chairman for working with us to come up with a good bipartisan product. And this bipartisan effort, by the way, has gone on since last February.

I would now like to recognize several staff members on both sides of the aisle who have contributed so much to the success of this legislation. Those staff members would include David Whitney, sitting to my left here on the House floor on our side; and on the majority's side it would be Stacey Dansky, the chief copyright counsel, and Elizabeth Kendall, counsel as well. I thank Chairman Conyers again for his cooperative efforts in getting this House bill to the floor today.

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a senior member of the Commerce Committee, be able to control the remainder of the time.

With that, I will reserve the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, as part of a nationwide effort to pass the right kind of health care reform, a constituent from Austin, Greg Holloway, has written an open letter to Congress. He represents the organization Common Sense Texans:

``My name is Greg Holloway. I speak not only for myself and my family but also for over a hundred thousand other Texans with whom I collaborate and who I know share my views.

``You tell us that you are concerned about health care for our disadvantaged citizens. We are too. We wrote a plan, published by the Austin American-Statesman, that would immediately allow up to $100 billion annually to be sent directly to private health care and health insurance for the needy without a raise in taxes. You ignore any of our alternatives and instead raise taxes, increase costs, and draft a bill that excludes millions and provides no meaningful health care benefits until 2013.

``Stop this bill and give us health care reform that will help, not hurt, our country and its citizens.''

Mr. Speaker, workplace immigration enforcement is in a free fall. We will discuss this free fall and other ways illegal immigration adversely impacts jobs at a Republican forum today at 1:00 p.m. in 2237 Rayburn House Office Building.

Workforce enforcement has dropped across the board from 2008 to 2009. Administrative arrests fell 68 percent. Criminal arrests fell 60 percent. Criminal indictments fell 58 percent. Criminal convictions fell 63 percent.

It's hard to conceive of a worse time to cut worksite enforcement efforts by more than half. There are 16 million Americans out of work, and yet the administration has chosen to ignore the fact that there are nearly 8 million illegal immigrants in the workforce.

Those stolen jobs should be returned to out-of-work citizens and legal immigrants. The Obama administration should put citizens and legal immigrants first.

Madam Speaker, last week marked the 20th anniversary of one of the greatest triumphs of freedom and democracy in history--the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But two decades ago, the national media gave Americans a biased account of the issues surrounding this historic event, according to a new report by the Media Research Center, titled ``Better off Red?''

MRC found that many in the national media failed to portray the evils of communism and suggested that free-market capitalism was somehow worse.

Furthermore, the media's coverage often tipped in favor of the oppressors--not the oppressed--and frequently criticized those who were fighting communism rather than those who were perpetuating it.

It is just as important today as it was 20 years ago that the national media give Americans the facts, not tell them what to think.

Mr. Speaker, during the Presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama made a ``firm pledge'' that he would not raise taxes on any family ``making less than $250,000 a year.'' President Obama reversed himself on that pledge by supporting a health care bill that imposes, ``new taxes on people who don't buy qualified health insurance, including those making (much) less than $250,000 a year,'' according to the Associated Press.

Not a single network news report mentioned the President's flip-flop in the days following his reversal, according to an analysis by the Business and Media Institute, and BMI found that less than one-third of the health care stories on the three networks even mentioned the $550 million in new taxes in the health care bill.

The national media should give Americans the facts, not ignore the truth. And, Mr. Speaker, if you'll indulge me for a second more, I have noticed that several individuals today have rightfully made speeches honoring the Reverend Jesse Jackson. I think it is very appropriate and fitting that his son, a Member of Congress, is presiding over the Chamber right now as temporary Speaker. I appreciate both his presence and his father's contributions.

Mr. Speaker, with 15 million people unemployed, it's no wonder that Americans increasingly are concerned about illegal immigration. A CNN/Opinion Research poll found that only 36 percent of Americans now approve of the President's handling of illegal immigration, and 58 percent disapprove.

The poll also found that 73 percent of Americans want to see the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. decreased. This is the highest percentage since the question was first asked in 2006. In addition, Gallup reported that a percentage of Americans supporting a decrease in overall immigration levels increased from 39 percent to 50 percent in the last year.

The Obama administration should put the interests of Americans ahead of those of illegal immigrants.

Madam Speaker, for the second time in a row, Newsweek is the winner of the Media Fairness Caucus' highly uncoveted ``Lapdog Award'' for last week's most glaring example of media bias.

The poster to my left of Newsweek's cover story features former Vice President Al Gore with the caption, ``The Thinking Man's Thinking Man.'' The previous Newsweek cover featured President Obama with the caption, ``Yes He Can,'' a variation of his campaign slogan. Before that, it was Vice President Joe Biden, ``A Vice President to be Reckoned With.'' And Newsweek's latest cover features Governor Sarah Palin and says she is, ``Bad News.'' It is no wonder five out of six Americans say the national media are biased, according to a recent public opinion poll.

If you want the liberal slant, read Newsweek. If you want the facts and news, you might want to look elsewhere.

Madam Speaker, the national media give Americans a tale of two protests.

On the one hand, you have liberal protests, to which the media give extensive and positive coverage. On the other hand, you have conservative protests. The media downplay these demonstrations and demonize the protestors.

On Thursday, thousands of people from around the country gathered in front of the Capitol to voice their opposition to a Government takeover of health care. The New York Times buried its coverage of the protest on page A15.

A couple of months ago, the Times buried its coverage of the conservative September 12 protests on page A37.

In contrast, the Times has given much better coverage to protests regarding amnesty, gay rights, and other liberal causes.

The New York Times and the national media should give fair coverage to protests on both sides, not just the ones they agree with.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member of the committee, for yielding me time.

According to CBO estimates, this bill will cost $1.3 trillion and includes $750 billion in new taxes and $500 billion in Medicare cuts. It increases premiums, increases taxes, cuts benefits, and leads to health care rationing. The government, rather than patients and doctors, will make many health care decisions. The bill represents a loss of freedom and more government control for the American people.

I support health care reform to help the long-term, low-income uninsured, but it can be achieved without a government takeover of health care. The House Republicans have a better health care bill that lowers premiums for families and small business owners, cuts the deficit by $68 billion, and includes tort reform.

Mr. Speaker, although the Democratic Leadership has had several months to address the concerns voiced by countless Americans, the latest health care reform bill is no better than the last.

I support health care reform; however, this bill goes far beyond fixing the problems we all know need to be addressed and it fails to enact true health care reform.

Skyrocketing costs have crept into our health care system, creating uncertainty about the future of health care for employers, working Americans, and the uninsured. Americans need more, not fewer, choices for something as important and personal as health care.

Americans are concerned with cost, choice, quality and access of health care and Congress should work to address these concerns. Any legislation considered should attempt to make our health care system more accountable and accessible to patients.

This legislation expands coverage with a government takeover of the health care industry funded by new taxes and massive cuts to Medicare.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that H.R. 3962 would require over $550 billion in new taxes on individuals and small businesses.

CBO also estimates that this legislation will lead to $33 billion in penalties for uninsured

individuals and $135 billion in penalties for employers under the government mandate or ``pay or play'' requirements.

Raising income taxes on hard-working Americans and threatening small businesses with penalties to fund a government takeover of health care is a terrible prescription for a troubled economy.

In order to pay for this government takeover of health care, Democrats also have proposed cutting more than $500 billion in Medicare spending. The plan also includes an expansion of Medicaid that will cost cash-strapped States $34 billion over the next 10 years.

I believe Congress should pursue reform in terms of costs and access, but the legislation advanced by Democratic leaders is equal parts faulty premise and flawed logic. Their legislation will increase health care spending, limit choice, and cut Medicare benefits.

The current health care proposal being considered by Congress will lead to higher costs, rationing of care, higher taxes on families and small businesses, elimination of jobs through punitive taxes on small businesses, granting of unchecked power to a new ``health care choices commissioner,'' elimination of choices for patients, tax-payer funded abortions and a government panel placed between doctors and patients.

Americans deserve the freedom to choose the type of health care that is best for them and their families.

During his campaign, then-Senator Obama promised that he would ``have all the negotiations around a big table'' and ``televised on C-SPAN'' to ``allow people to stay involved in this process.'' Yet the negotiations and decisionmaking process have taken place behind closed doors with the media and American people shut out.

That is why the bill lacks bipartisan support. In fact, there is bipartisan opposition to the House Democrats' government take-over.

Rather than increasing taxes and rationing care, the President needs to address medical liability reform, which is one of the biggest sources of waste and added cost.

Frivolous lawsuits force physicians to practice defensive medicine and carry expensive malpractice insurance, the cost of which is passed on to patients. Uncapped lawsuit awards paid by insurance companies also get passed on to patients as higher premiums.

It is a disservice to the American people that this legislation fails to include the legal reforms that are necessary to make any expansion of health care coverage financially sound.

Unlimited lawsuits enrich trial lawyers while increasing the cost of health care for everyone. Unfortunately, we now know that opposition by trial lawyers is the reason tort reform has been excluded from all the Democrats' health care proposals, including the one we will be voting on today. Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the following publicly at a recent town hall meeting: ``[T]he 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 . . . and that is the plain and simple truth.''

That political opposition, which Governor Dean admitted is not based on the merits but on raw self-interest, flies in the face of the facts.

The CBO estimates that enacting tort reforms nationwide would result in a reduction of medical malpractice insurance rates by 25 percent to 30 percent. And according to the Government Accountability Office, rising litigation awards are responsible for skyrocketing medical professional liability premiums.

Lower premiums mean Americans will pay less to have better health care.

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.''

And the President's own doctor of over two decades supports tort reform. He said regretfully that ``I once briefly talked to [the President] about malpractice, and he took the lawyers' position.''

In the handful of States that have enacted tort reform, health care costs have fallen, and the availability of medical care has expanded. In my home State of Texas, premiums fell by 30 percent, and more than 14,000 doctors returned or set up new practices in the state.

To give just one example, a charitable hospital group in Texas that serves the poor and underserved reported that since Texas enacted tort reform, its legal costs have gone from $153 million per year to just $2.3 million last year.

Doctors are so concerned about frivolous lawsuits that they order unnecessary--and expensive--tests and procedures that are of no benefit to the patient.

HHS estimates the national cost of defensive medicine is more than $60 billion. The Congressional Budget Office just issued a report that concludes it costs $54 billion. The costs of litigation and defensive medicine are then passed off to the patient in the price of health care.

If tort reform were enacted, trial lawyers would stand to lose one of their primary sources of income: medical malpractice suits, which are often just a form of legalized extortion. But all Americans would gain, and tens of billions of dollars would suddenly be freed up and could be used to help provide health insurance to the uninsured.

Regrettably, the Democrats' health care bill not only fails to contain any of the tort reforms the CBO concluded would save at least $54 billion in health care costs, but also contains a provision that bribes States with Federal taxpayer dollars not to enact such reforms in the future. It explicitly prohibits tort reform ``demonstration project'' funds from going to States that put limits on damages or attorneys' fees.

Section 2531 of the Democrats' 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 exactly the tort reforms the CBO concluded yield real health care costs savings.

That is not only a blow to State reform efforts. It is a federally funded bribe discouraging states from enacting real reform and a giant bailout for trial lawyers.

H.R. 3962 also contains two antitrust provisions that are within the House Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction: Sec. 262, which repeals the McCarran-Ferguson Act for health and medical malpractice insurers, and Sec. 2573, which codifies a ban on settlements between name brand and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation. Neither provision was given due consideration in the Judiciary Committee, and their unintended consequences could have significant negative impacts on the cost and availability' of both insurance and medications.

My basic concerns with Sec. 262 are its breadth, the possible unintended consequences, and the fact that the provision will do no good and may do much harm. For more than 60 years, the States have regulated the business of insurance and built a record that provides guidance about permissible activity. By inviting Federal intervention, this bill creates a dual regulatory system that only confuses the health insurance and medical malpractice industry.

The bill presents a wholesale repeal of McCarran-Ferguson for health insurers and medical malpractice insurers. Further, the protections for information gathering by a State insurance commission or other State regulatory entity that were included in the similar bill (H.R. 3596) reported by the Judiciary Committee over my opposition have been completely eliminated from the legislation.

The uncertainty caused by this provision threatens small and large insurers alike, but the smaller ones that depend on sharing information, under oversight by State regulators, are most at risk. Thus the bill threatens to reduce competition among health and medical malpractice insurers. With no demonstrable benefits and many potential adverse effects, Sec. 262 should not have been included in the bill.

Section 2573 raises different concerns. When a generic drug manufacturer files an Abbreviated New Drug Application under the Hatch- Waxman Act with the Food and Drug Administration, it indicates its intention to infringe on a brand manufacturer's patent. This means that the generic company is trying to enter into the brand manufacturer's drug market before the branded pharmaceutical's existing patent has expired. This notice usually results in a lawsuit by the brand company that leads to a settlement about the date on which the generic manufacturer can begin selling a generic version of the branded company's drug. This is nothing new. Most cases in the United States, whether civil or criminal, antitrust or patent, settle. The reasons for this are simple: litigation is expensive and its outcomes are uncertain.

The supposed problem is when a settlement in the Hatch-Waxman context involves a payment in lieu of or in addition to an agreement on the date of entry into the market by the generic manufacturer. Such payments are said to frustrate the intent of Hatch-Waxman by allowing the brand company to ``pay to delay'' entry of the generic competitor.

The proposed solution to this problem, incorporated in Sec. 2573, goes too far. The bill calls for a ban on all Hatch-Waxman settlements that feature any consideration, such as cash or an exchange of patents, in addition to the date of entry. Such a ban dramatically reduces the ability of companies to settle these cases. After all, if the parties could not agree on date of entry, then they would effectively be forced to litigate the case to the bitter end. This means that, in some cases, a settlement would have resulted in generic entry into that particular drug market much earlier than if the brand company wins its patent suit.

I fear this ban will itself frustrate the intent of Hatch-Waxman by limiting the incentives for

generics to challenge these patents and for brand companies to innovate.

The best way to reach the appropriate balance is through a case-by- case analysis by a neutral third party of the competitive effects of these settlements using the rule of reason. This, in essence, is the conclusion that the majority of the Courts of Appeals, including the Second, Eleventh, and DC Circuits, have reached in these cases, and we should uphold the judgment of these courts.

The only saving grace of Sec. 2573 is that it creates a cause of action separate and apart from the antitrust laws and will not affect how those laws are interpreted in the future. This also means that the provision, as written, did not come before the Judiciary Committee, even though it remains, at heart, a competition issue. By keeping the Judiciary Committee from considering this legislation, we are eliminating the incentives for drug invention and generic competition that have served American consumers so well. Innovative new drugs, after all, are created in the laboratory, not the courtroom.

Sec. 1640 of the bill also contains a provision that allows the Department of Health and Human Services to issue administrative subpoenas to insurance companies during investigations of decisions to exclude benefits. The standard for issuing an administrative subpoena under the bill is extremely low. The information sought must simply ``relate to'' the matter under investigation.

It is highly ironic that we are considering this bill with this administrative subpoena language during the same week the Judiciary Committee approved the Democrats' revision of the FBI's authority to issue National Security Letters, which are the functional equivalent of administrative subpoenas used in foreign intelligence and terrorism investigations.

The Democrats' bill reported this week by the Judiciary Committee replaces the current ``relevance'' standard for issuing a National Security Letter with a heightened standard, requiring the FBI to show ``specific and articulable facts'' in order to seek particular information using a National Security Letter. House Democrats want to make it easier for the government to investigate insurance companies than to investigate terrorists plotting to kill Americans.

In the end, this 1,990-page bill will raise premiums and health care costs on all Americans. It imposes mandates and new taxes on the middle class and small businesses. It fails to address tort reform and it dumps a huge unfunded expansion of Medicaid on the states. Combined with budget gimmicks to hide $245 billion in costs and massive cuts to senior benefits, this is simply bad medicine.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that tort reform would save Americans $54 billion over the next decade. But reducing frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals is not in the health care bill. That is because, according to former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, White House officials ``don't want to take on the trial lawyers.'' Tort reform eliminates the billions of dollars spent on meritless lawsuits and defensive medicine.

If Congress enacted tort reform, we could then provide catastrophic health care coverage to the long-term low-income uninsured. To reduce health care costs and help the uninsured, tort reform should be the first item in any health care bill.

Madam Speaker, a recent Rasmussen Report shows that 68 percent of U.S. voters oppose the creation of sanctuary cities that give safe haven to illegal immigrants. And by a 5-2 margin, voters say sanctuary policies that protect illegal immigrants lead to an increase in crime.

Not only are sanctuary cities unpopular, they are illegal. They are specifically prohibited in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. But the Obama administration has not held any jurisdictions that adopt and maintain sanctuary policies responsible.

It's no wonder that a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 58 percent of respondents disapproved of the President's handling of illegal immigration while only 36 percent approve. And his poll numbers aren't going to be helped if taxpayers subsidize illegal immigrants in the health care bill that we are considering this week.

Rather than flout the will of the American people, the White House should heed their advice and enforce our Nation's immigration laws.

Madam Speaker, according to a Harvard School of Public Health study, 40 percent of medical malpractice suits in the U.S. are ``without merit.'' These frivolous lawsuits enrich trial lawyers while increasing the cost of health care for everyone.

Despite the fact that tort reform would help reduce health care costs, the administration refuses to propose this commonsense solution. Why is that?

According to former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, ``Tort reform is not in the (health care) bill because the people who wrote it don't want to take on the trial lawyers.''

In the handful of States that have enacted tort reform, health care costs have fallen, and the availability of medical care has expanded.

Tort reform and reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits against hospitals and doctors would help all Americans.

Madam Speaker, the poster to my left is the winner of the Media Fairness Caucus' ``Worst of the Week'' award for media bias.

The poster says, ``Yes, He Can,'' a variation of the President's campaign slogan. While it appears to be a campaign poster, it actually is this week's cover of Newsweek magazine. The poster provides an astounding example of the national media's liberal bias. Newsweek is the same magazine that during the Presidential campaign featured then- Senator Obama on its cover three times as often as Senator McCain.

No wonder 7 out of 10 Americans say the national media are intent on promoting the Obama administration, according to a recent public opinion poll. The national media should report the facts, not provide free advertising for the White House.