Floor Statements

I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding, and I also thank my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 3632 is to implement noncontroversial administrative provisions that the Judicial Conference and the House Judiciary Committee believe are necessary to improve the operations of the Federal judiciary and to provide justice for the American people.

The Judicial Conference is the policymaking body of the Federal judiciary, and through its committee system, it evaluates court operations. The Conference endorses all of the provisions in the bill.

H.R. 3632 affects a wide range of judicial branch programs and operations, including those pertaining to financial administration, process improvements and personnel administration.

The bill incorporates nine separate items, which, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record at this point.

A section that clarifies that senior judges must satisfy

minimum work thresholds to participate in court government

matters, including the selection of magistrates.

A section that eliminates the references to divisions and

counties in the statutory description of the Judicial

District of North Dakota, which enables the court to better

distribute the workload between two active district judges

and reduce travel for litigants in the northern central area

of the district.

A section that authorizes the ``statement of reasons'' that

judges must issue upon sentencing to be filed separately with

the court. Current law requires the statement to be bundled

with other information in the case file distributed to the

Sentencing Commission, where it can be difficult to maintain

a seal related to confidential information.

A section that specifies that federal pretrial services

officers can provide the same services to juveniles as they

do for adult offenders. An example would be drug treatment.

And a section that applies an inflationary index to the

threshold amount requiring approval by the chief judge of

reimbursements for the cost of hiring expert witnesses and

conducting investigations for indigent defendants. The dollar

thresholds are statutorily fixed and erode over time. This

means chief judges must devote greater time approving what

are otherwise not genuine ``high-dollar'' requests.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3632 is necessary to improve the functioning of the U.S. courts, which will ultimately benefit the American people. This is a noncontroversial bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, the White House plays favorites with the media. They attack one cable news network for telling the truth and reward another for giving the President a free pass.

The White House recently said Fox News won't get equal access to administration officials. Just days later, the President invited liberal news hosts from rival network MSNBC to the White House for a private, off-the-record meeting. The reason for the double standard is that while MSNBC acts as a shill for the President, Fox reports the stories that the national media ignore.

For example, without Fox News, you might not have heard about the recent ACORN scandal. You might not have heard about the troubling political associations of the President's former green jobs czar, which eventually led to his resignation. And you might not have heard that the President's communications director said Chairman Mao is one of her favorite political philosophers.

The White House should treat all news organizations with professionalism, not just the ones that give them a free pass.

Madam Speaker, a friend and constituent of mine, Adriel ``Squeaky'' McGill, from San Antonio, Texas, has given me a quote that I feel has present-day application. I submit it for the benefit of my colleagues and citizens everywhere.

The following quotation, from 1790 by Dr. Alexander Tytler, Professor of General History, University of Edinburgh, is still instructive:

A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

It can only exist until the voters discover that they can

vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that

moment on the majority always votes for the candidate

promising the most benefits from that public treasury, with

the result that a democracy will always collapse from a loose

fiscal policy (burden of large public debt), always to be

followed by a dictatorship.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Senate majority leader announced his decision to push health care legislation with a public option, better known as government control. He said, ``We've spent countless hours over the last few days in consultation with Senators.''

What the Senate majority leader did not say was that these negotiations took place behind closed doors with the media and American people shut out. Recent polls show when the American people have the facts, they oppose the Democrats' proposals by a wide margin.

During his campaign, then-Senator Obama promised he would, ``have all the negotiations around a big table'' and ``televised on C-SPAN'' to ``allow people to stay involved in this process.''

Democratic leaders have failed to be open and candid with the American people about the decisionmaking process. The public deserves to have all of the facts regarding a health care plan that would raise premiums and cut benefits.

Madam Speaker, the President's approval by the American people has dropped faster than any other President in over 50 years, according to Gallup. Let me offer five reasons why:

One, the President said he would cut the deficit in half; instead, it has tripled.

Two, the White House claimed the $787 billion stimulus bill would keep unemployment below 8.5 percent; instead, it has jumped to 9.8 percent.

Three, Democratic leaders told us the energy bill would cost families only $153 a year; instead, the Treasury Department admitted it could cost $1,700 a year.

Four, the President said the health care bill would be negotiated in open meetings; instead, the decisions are being made behind closed doors.

Five, the President promised that if you like your health care insurance, you can keep it; instead, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that, in fact, you can lose it.

Madam Speaker, it is no wonder that a majority of the American people now disagree with the President's policies, according to a recent CNN poll.

Mr. Speaker, a recent survey by Rasmussen Reports shows that a growing majority of Americans want our immigration laws enforced.

Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed believe law enforcement officers should conduct surprise visits at locations where illegal immigrants are employed. Only 19 percent opposed the visits, compared to 24 percent last April. By a 13-point margin, Americans believe that the Federal Government should not prevent local law enforcement officers from checking on individuals' immigration status.

The Phoenix Business Journal and the Washington D.C. Examiner both reported the poll's findings, but coverage in news outlets that regularly cover immigration issues was glaringly missing.

Mr. Speaker, the media should report all of the facts, not omit those they disagree with.

Mr. Speaker, during the Presidential campaign, Senator Obama ran an ad attacking Senator Clinton because her ``health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance and you pay a penalty if you don't.'' If that sounds familiar, it should. That's exactly what the Obama administration is now forcing on the American people. What Senator Obama once criticized, President Obama now embraces.

Democrats' health care bills penalize people who don't buy the government's designated kind of health insurance, and the fine or tax can be close to $2,000 per person. Just as bad, most people who do buy health insurance will pay higher premiums, and seniors, especially, will see their benefits cut according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Senator Obama was right. President Obama is wrong. Why have so few in the national media pointed out the about-face, flip-flop, backtrack, and 180?

Madam Speaker, a poll is reliable only if its questions are unbiased.

A new ABC/Washington Post poll says that most Americans support a public option for health insurance, but the poll question was slanted and characterized a public option as a way to increase competition. There is no mention that a public option could increase premiums, reduce choices, and raise taxes.

In June, the same poll also asked respondents whether they would still support a public option if it made private health insurers go out of business. Support dropped to 37 percent. It's no wonder ABC and the Washington Post omitted that question from its most recent poll.

Furthermore, though it wasn't emphasized, the poll actually revealed that the American people oppose the Democrats' changes in the health care system by 48 to 45 percent. The media should present the facts, not slant the questions and the news.

Mr. Speaker, with unemployment at a 26-year high, a record budget deficit, and a looming health care bill that punishes taxpayers and bankrupts the government, what is the White House doing? They are attacking Fox News for telling the truth.

The White House spokesman says that Fox News ``is not a news organization.'' We need to fact-check the White House on whatever they say about Fox and any legislation since they are not being straight with the American people.

Separate studies by the Pew Research Center and the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that Fox News coverage is more balanced than any other network. The White House has no problem with other national news outlets because they offer biased reports and give the administration a free pass. In fact, network news programs have favored proponents of the administration's health care proposal over critics of the plan by a margin of more than 2-1, according to the Business and Media Institute.

The White House, like the national media, should let the American people make up their own minds, not try to control what they hear.

Madam Speaker, the New York Times once again misses the mark with its latest immigration editorial, ``Wrong Paths to Immigration Reform.''

The Times wrongly suggests that the 287(g) program should be used only for serious criminals.

As one of the authors of the legislation that created 287(g), I can testify that Congress created 287(g) to let state and local law enforcement officials help enforce all immigration laws, not a select few.

When it comes to Sheriff Arpaio, the Times laments that his ``raids use minor infractions like broken tail lights as pretexts for mass immigration arrests.''

In fact, minor infractions can ensnare major bad guys. As the Times itself reported in another story, accused Dallas terrorist Hosam (Maher Husein) Smadi was pulled over for ``a broken tail light'' before he was arrested for terrorist activities.

This is a powerful reminder that enforcing immigration laws against all those who violate them can prevent crime.

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

The purpose of H.R. 3632 is to implement non-controversial administrative provisions that the Judicial Conference and the House Judiciary Committee believe are necessary to improve the operations of the Federal judiciary and provide justice for the American people.

The Judicial Conference is the policy-making body of the Federal judiciary and through its committee system evaluates court operations. The Conference endorses all of the provisions in the bill.

H.R. 3632 affects a wide range of judicial branch programs and operations, including those pertaining to financial administration, process improvements, and personnel administration.

The bill incorporates nine separate items, including:

A section that clarifies that senior judges must satisfy minimum work thresholds to participate in court government matters, including the selection of magistrates.

A section that eliminates the references to divisions and counties in the statutory description of the Judicial District of North Dakota, which enables the court to better distribute the workload between two active district judges and reduce travel for litigants in the northern central area of the district.

A section that authorizes the ``statement of reasons'' that judges must issue upon sentencing to be filed separately with the court. Current law requires the statement to be bundled with other information in the case file distributed to the Sentencing Commission, where it can be difficult to maintain a seal related to confidential information.

A section that specifies that federal pretrial services officers can provide the same services to juveniles as they do for adult offenders. An example would be drug treatment.

And a section that applies an inflationary index to the threshold amount requiring approval by the chief judge of reimbursements for the cost of hiring expert witnesses and conducting investigations for indigent defendants. The dollar thresholds are statutorily fixed and erode over time. This means chief judges must devote greater time approving what are otherwise not genuine ``high-dollar'' requests.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3632 is necessary to improve the functioning of the U.S. courts, which will ultimately benefit the American people. This is a non-controversial bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, two recent surveys, one of Mexicans and one of Americans, addresses policies that encourage illegal immigration. The first, from Rasmussen, reveals that 56 percent of U.S. voters surveyed believe the policies of the Federal Government encourage people to enter the United States illegally. Also, 64 percent believe law enforcement officers should conduct surprise visits at locations where illegal immigrants seek employment.

The second, from Zogby, reveals that 56 percent of people in Mexico think granting legal status to illegal immigrants in the United States would encourage more illegal immigration to America. Of Mexicans with a member of their immediate household in the United States, two-thirds-- two-thirds--said a legalization program would make people they know more likely to go to America illegally.

Madam Speaker, these are more reasons to oppose amnesty for those in the country illegally.

Madam Speaker, I plan to support the conference to H.R. 2892; however, I have serious concerns about some of the language in the conference report.

Specifically, the conference report directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to ``prioritize the identification and removal of aliens convicted of a crime by the severity of that crime.''

If an individual is in this country illegally, they should be deported. We shouldn't wait for them to commit a crime before we remove them from the country.

Unfortunately, across the United States, illegal immigrant criminals are being released onto the streets and into our neighborhoods every day instead of being deported. In 2006, the DHS Inspector General found that most of the foreign-born criminal aliens in state and

local jails ``are being released into the U.S. at the conclusion of their respective sentences due to the lack of [DHS] resources.''

In January 2007, 22-year-old Nashville, Tennessee, resident Joycelyn Gardiner was killed by illegal immigrant Victor Benitez who was driving drunk, ran a red light and hit Gardiner. Ms. Gardiner was a track star at Tennessee State University and planned to go to law school after graduation. Benitez had prior convictions for car burglary, public intoxication, and resisting arrest.

Are burglary, public intoxication, and resisting arrest convictions considered severe enough to warrant deportation under this conference report? Had Benitez been detected by immigration authorities before committing even his first few crimes, wouldn't it have been better to deport him based solely on his immigration violations then?

American taxpayers deserve to be protected. They deserve to have those of us in Congress do everything possible to prevent them from becoming victims. And they deserve to have the laws of the United States followed by the enforcement wing of our government.

This misguided prioritization is not the only concern I have with the conference report to H.R. 2892.

The Senate bill provisions that made E-Verify permanent allowed employers to use it to check the work eligibility of current employees, required over 700 miles of pedestrian fencing along the southwest border and prevented funding from being used to rescind the ``no- match'' rule should have been retained in the conference report.

And some of the reports required by the conference report could be attempts to slow implementation of REAL ID and the deportation of illegal immigrants. Yet another report should have required a validation of the success of use of Alternatives to Detention prior to nationwide use of such alternatives.

So I am troubled by several provisions of the bill. However I appreciate the inclusion of the 3-year extensions of the E-Verify, religious worker visa, EB-5 Investor Visa Regional Center and Conrad J- 1 Physicians' Waiver programs. These are good immigration programs that should be extended.

Madam Speaker, in Pittsburgh and Washington, DC, the national media have given us a tale of two protests.

The media's coverage of the conservative September 12 protests intentionally tried to paint a negative picture of the protestors, even though there were no arrests or acts of violence.

The Washington Post described the 9/12 protests as an outpouring of a ``spectrum of conservative anger.''

The New York Times used words like ``angry'' and ``profane'' to describe the protests.

Fast forward to the radical-left G-20 protests in Pittsburgh recently.

The New York Times headline called the protests a ``Peaceful March.''

CNN described the protests as ``more peaceful, less confrontational,'' even though there were dozens of arrests and businesses damaged.

The national media should give fair coverage to protests on both sides, instead of demonizing conservatives and praising radical liberals.

Madam Speaker, the New York Times reported recently that President Obama has ``considerable political strength.''

The Times' based this statement on its own poll, which found the President has an approval rating of 56 percent--a higher number than any other poll has found recently.

One reason for this might be that the Times weighted the poll in favor of Democrats.

Among those who actually responded to the poll, there were more Democrats than Republicans by 6 percentage points.

But when the Times finished computing the results, they had increased the gap to an unreasonable and inexplicable 15 percentage points.

With so many more Democrats in the sample, it should come as no surprise that the President's approval rating is a higher than other polls have found.

The Times would do well to show more balance in their polling--and their reporting.