Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the basic pilot program was originally authorized in the 1996 Immigration Act. It allows employers in six States to verify the validity of the Social Security numbers of new hires. S. 1685 reauthorizes this program and expands it to allow employers in all 50 States to voluntarily participate in the basic pilot program. The program offers employers the opportunity to ensure that individuals they hire are eligible to work in the United States. Illegal immigrants drive down wages and take jobs from American workers. Recent studies show immigration has depressed the wages of American workers in similar jobs by more than $2,500 per year. Ninety percent of the American people believe that we should reduce illegal immigration, and 79 percent feel that the Federal Government should require employers to verify the work status of potential employees. The main attraction for the 10 to 20 million illegal aliens who have crossed our borders is work. If we want to reduce the incentive for illegal immigration and its negative impacts, we must reduce the availability of jobs for illegal immigrants. This program reduces illegal immigration because it allows employers to make sure they are only hiring someone who is eligible to work in the United States. Everyone who is concerned about lost jobs and unemployment should support the expansion of the basic pilot program. If we are serious about saving jobs for citizens and legal immigrants, we should pass S. 1685.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1588, the Department of Defense Authorization bill, which includes concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees and veterans. Currently, disabled retiree and veterans' benefits are offset by the amount of disability pay that they are eligible to receive. The legislation corrects that unfairness. Members of Congress representing hundreds of thousands of retirees and veterans came together to achieve a significant, victory for disabled retirees and veterans. We fully support our soldiers--past and present. The bill is fair, responsible, and appropriately recognizes the service of our nation's disabled retirees and veterans. It establishes a concurrent receipt for more disabled military retirees and veterans than ever before, and provides them with the retirement income they have earned and deserve. Under current law, a disabled military retiree or veteran could be entitled to $1,000 a month in military retirement and $300 a month in disability. But the amount of the disability payment is subtracted from the retirement pay, leaving the soldier with a check for $700 in retirement and $300 in VA disability. A retiree or veteran is no better off if they suffered a disability than if they didn't. The legislation eliminates this inequity. Active duty combat retirees and veterans who are 60 percent disabled and above now have full concurrent receipt. The key part of the agreement expands full concurrent receipt to all combat retirees and veterans with a Veterans Administration disability between 10 percent and 100 percent. The agreement not only provides a full concurrent receipt benefit for active duty retirees and veterans, but also for reservists and national guardsmen who currently do not qualify for concurrent receipt under either Purple Heart or combat-related disability pay. The reservists and national guardsmen will receive full concurrent receipt if their disability is between 10 percent and 100 percent. The legislation establishes benefits for those remaining retirees and veterans at 50 percent disability and above. They presently do not receive any benefits. That means every disabled military retiree and veteran with a disability greater than 50 percent will be entitled to concurrent receipt. It also creates a 13-member bi-partisan commission appointed by Congressional leaders and the White House. Under the commission, for the first time since 1946, there will be a top-to-bottom review of the disability system. The commission's goal is to review the disability system to ensure that the appropriate benefits are provided to our retirees and veterans. From World War II to Vietnam, from the Persian Gulf War to the War on Terror, we provided our active military with the tools they need to do their jobs, and our retirees and veterans with the proper benefits for their years of service. The concurrent receipt agreement follows that tradition and honors those who have served our country.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this week the Associated Press carried a biased and inaccurate story on border security. The writer said the U.S. has not prevented ``even one known militant'' from crossing our border with Mexico. I guess the person caught with a telephone number in his pocket linking him to three of the 9-11 terrorists did not count. The point of border security is to prevent would-be terrorists from entering. Of course, there is no way of knowing how many people did not come because they were worried about being caught. The reporter then tries to suggest that border security is a waste of money and blames the U.S. Border Patrol for deaths in Mexico of prospective illegal aliens. Most Americans oppose illegal immigration and support our efforts to know who is coming into our country and why. They also know better than to blame America for Mexico's failure to stop its own citizens from making a dangerous trip.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if Americans do not get the facts from the media objectively reported, they do not have a basis on which to make good decisions. For example, a few days ago The Washington Post ran a six-column page 2 story about the redistricting process that the Texas legislature completed earlier this month. The writer quoted eight Democratic Members of Congress but not one Republican official. This was obviously a one-sided report that did not give their readers a balanced accounting. A recent Gallup Poll showed that 45 percent of Americans believe the news media in this country are too liberal, while only 14 percent say the news media are too conservative. Ultimately, it is a matter of trust, whether the media trusts the American people with the unvarnished facts. They should. Let the people make up their own minds, not be told what to think.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Basic Pilot Program was originally authorized in the 1996 Immigration Act. It allows employers in six states to verify the validity of the Social Security numbers of new hires. H.R. 2359 reauthorizes this program, and expands it to allow employers in all fifty states to voluntarily participate in the Basic Pilot Program. The program offers employers the opportunity to ensure that the individuals they hire are eligible to work in the United States. Illegal immigrants drive down wages and take jobs from American workers. Recent studies show immigration has depressed the wages of American workers by more than $2,500 per year. Our education systems spend millions of dollars educating illegal immigrant children. And hospitals spend millions of dollars providing health care to illegal aliens. Ninety percent of the American people believe that we should reduce illegal immigration. Seventy-nine percent of individuals polled recently agree that the Federal government should require employers to verify the work status of potential employees. The main attraction for the 10 to 20 million illegal aliens who have crossed our borders is work. If we want to stop illegal immigration-- and its negative impacts--we must reduce the availability of jobs for illegal aliens. This pilot program combats illegal immigration because it allows employers to make sure they are hiring someone who is eligible to work in the United States. Everyone who is concerned about lost jobs and unemployment should support the expansion of the Basic Pilot Program. If we are serious about saving jobs for citizens and legal immigrants, we should pass H.R. 2359.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, several days ago President Bush observed that ``a lot of times there's opinion mixed in with news.'' The media generally present a liberal bias. For example, the three major television networks all carry more negative stories about President Bush than positive ones. Two of the country's largest dailies, The New York Times and The Washington Post, have not endorsed a Republican for President since the 1950s. The few media organizations without a liberal slant do not have nearly as many viewers or readers. For instance, Fox News has less than 1 million viewers while the three network stations have 25 million. In a democracy we cannot afford anything less than fair and accurate news coverage. The media should trust the American people with the facts, not tell them what to think.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the E-Government Act I introduced improves the information management of the Federal Government by authorizing upgrades to enhance systems management, information technology, and security. It also includes provisions that ensure greater citizen access to Federal Government information. Section 205 of the Act instructs the Federal courts to establish and maintain a Web site with information such as courthouse locations, relevant telephone numbers, court rules, docket listings, written opinions, and case filings. In addition, it requires the Judicial Conference to prescribe rules to protect privacy and security concerns relating to electronic filing of documents and the public availability of documents filed electronically. After the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property marked up H.R. 1303, the Department of Justice raised concerns that under H.R. 1303, the Judicial Conference could adopt rules that might prevent the Department from using certain information necessary to prosecute cases, such as credit card numbers in a fraud prosecution. At the Committee on the Judiciary markup of H.R. 1303, I offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that addressed the concerns of both the Department of Justice and the Judiciary. H.R. 1303 will protect privacy of Federal litigants, provide for public access to information, limit party error, and ensure the introduction of evidence necessary for the prosecution of certain cases. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1303 is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Leadership and Members of the Committee on Appropriations for bringing the FY 2004 Defense Appropriations Conference Report to the House floor. In addition to addressing the necessary and priority manpower and equipment needs of our armed forces, the bill provides critical resources for advancing the scientific, research and advanced technology initiatives that will insure that the United States maintains its military primacy in the years ahead. As a Member of the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Research, I continue to take a special interest in the emerging technologies that promise quantum breakthroughs in research and development efforts that will enhance our national security. These promising new technologies offer new dimensions to our military capabilities while also providing significant benefits to the civilian sector. Many of the programs in this legislation rely upon the transition of an enabling technology from the laboratory, R&D stage to viable military applications. Special enabling technologies are currently being developed in Texas that have great potential for a broad range of military applications and offer significant advances to our future national security capabilities. The House is bipartisan in its support for the increased resources devoted to DARPA and the RDT&E accounts. The DOD research portfolio is broad, comprehensive, diverse and focused on mission-related objectives to further assure U.S. security and international stability. I strongly urge Department of Defense policy and program officials to continue investing resources into innovative field technology.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. If the gentleman would continue to yield, that is exactly right, but they are all legal permanent residents. They are not illegal immigrants.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time with the understanding that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) has the right to close.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to clarify for the record that only a legal permanent resident can serve in the Armed Services. Someone who is in the country illegally cannot serve in the armed forces. They have to be a legal permanent resident. We may have given the impression that some individuals were here illegally and were allowed to serve but that is not government policy.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. If the gentleman would continue to yield, we have looked at some of those cases and have found in almost every instance they had taken advantage of some legalization program so that when they actually enlisted they were legal permanent residents. I just would not want us to give the false impression that people who were in the country illegally can expect to enlist in the Armed Services.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we will be happy to help out, and I have to point out to the gentleman that all of the provisions which we support were in the House-passed bill, and I am surprised that this motion we are considering now would actually endorse some provisions that I consider to be not as good for individuals who are serving in the military who we want to grant citizenship to. I mentioned in my opening statement a while ago, for example, that the Senate bill that is endorsed by this motion requires them to have served in the military 2 years. The House bill that I support requires them to have only served 1 year. The House bill says that they could be killed while in training, while on their way to the front lines. The Senate bill that this motion endorses says they have to be killed in combat, and the Senate bill that this motion supports says they can be awarded citizenship even if they were dishonorably discharged.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I understand that, I acknowledge that. They are legal permanent residents. They are not citizens, but they also are not in the country illegally.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees addresses the military naturalization provisions that were included in the Department of Defense authorization bill. On June 4, this Chamber passed H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003, with overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. This military naturalization measure has a number of good provisions. It was sent to the Senate for consideration where it was passed favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. While the Senate has not taken up H.R. 1954, similar provisions were included in the Senate-passed DOD authorization bill. The motion before us today urges conferees to adopt the provisions contained in the Senate-passed DOD authorization bill. I think this motion underscores the importance of this military naturalization legislation to both Houses and to Republicans and Democrats alike. However, the Senate should move this bill separately rather than include it in the DOD authorization. This would give the committees with relevant jurisdiction an opportunity to fully examine the differences between the House- and the Senate-passed version and to make informed decisions about these naturalization provisions. Most of us agree that we should expedite the naturalization process for those who have served our country and provide immigration benefits to family members of those who died. I believe H.R. 1954 accomplished those goals. I would like to point out, however, some of the reasons why I am concerned about supporting the Senate version contained in the DOD authorization bill. First, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, grants permanent resident status to the immediate relatives of U.S. citizen soldiers and soldiers granted posthumous citizenship if they die as a result of injuries incurred during active duty. The provisions supported by this motion to instruct conferees would only grant benefits to immediate family members if a soldier died in combat. The family of a soldier who died in training or in being transported to the front would not be granted these citizenship provisions. Second, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, allows the spouse of a soldier granted posthumous citizenship to immediately naturalize. This is another important provision omitted from the Senate provisions supported by this motion. Third, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, does not grant expedited naturalization during peacetime to a soldier who is discharged less than honorably. I do not believe we should extend the benefits of expedited naturalization to an individual discharged less than honorably, yet the Senate language does not make this distinction. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my concerns about the provisions that benefit illegal aliens in the Senate language supported by this motion. By contrast, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, does not grant benefits to illegal aliens. By adopting the motion to instruct conferees, we would grant benefits to those illegal aliens, and I do not think this sets a good precedent. I am heartened that many of us agree on providing important reforms to the naturalization process for military personnel. However, it is my hope that the Senate will take up this legislation separately so that we can resolve some important policy differences between these bills in an appropriate context. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns tomorrow, September 18, 2003, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 49, the Internet Tax and Nondiscrimination Act. This legislation would permanently extend the current moratorium on Internet access taxation, as well as taxes on electronic commerce. It would not prohibit States from imposing sales tax on sales conducted over the Internet. However, it does prevent States or localities from imposing a sales tax that only applies to Internet transactions. Mr. Speaker, Internet commerce is still relatively new and has yet to reach its full potential. The imposition of taxes would threaten the future growth of e-commerce and would discourage companies from using the Internet to conduct business. Internet taxation would create regional and international barriers to global trade. The Internet is also a major source of information for many individuals and families. Taxes would reduce the number of Americans who could afford Internet access. Our goal in Congress should be to encourage and promote Internet access, rather than to widen the digital divide. Mr. Speaker, Americans should be able to access the Internet without being subject to State and local taxes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, September 22, 2003, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 23, 2003, for morning hour debates.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2427. Like many of my colleagues, I am greatly alarmed by the negative ramifications of this legislation. This bill threatens continued patient access to safe and regulated prescription drug products, fails to address affordability issues for senior citizens, and violates U.S. drug patent and trade agreements. This bill directly undermines the current regulatory system to prevent unapproved or otherwise unsafe prescription drugs from entering the U.S. consumer market. It prevents regulating authorities from enforcing drug labeling standards, inspecting the quality and components of imported drugs, verifying that strict safety standards are met, and maintaining market-related drug prices. In addition, H.R. 2427 fails to provide lower prescription drug costs to patients and senior citizens. According to the congressional Budget Office, the importation program does not result in savings to the federal government or consumers as previously predicted. In fact, CBO reports that if ``manufacturers were unable to limit the supply of drugs entering the U.S. market from Canada, the likely result would be that brand-name prices in Canada would rise much more than the price in the U.S. would decline.'' Finally, this legislation allows the wholesale and individual importation of drugs into the U.S. from Canada even where a U.S. patent exists. This will nullify a patent owner's exclusive right to prevent importation and thereby undermine U.S. patent rights. Further, these provisions breach various U.S. international treaty obligations. By allowing drugs with a U.S. patent to be imported, the provisions violate several free trade agreements to which the U.S. is a party because most require that the owner of a patent be able to prevent third parties from importing the product without their consent. This legislation would dangerously decrease the overall quality of drug products that consumers purchase, sabotage the regulatory system, and conflict directly with U.S. patent and trade agreements. All without lowering prescription drug prices. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2427.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado Mr. (Tancredo).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I support the strong intellectual property protections contained in both the Chile and the Singapore trade agreements. These agreements will boost U.S. trade in open markets in both countries. They also set a standard for the protections that should be included in future trade agreements. In today's global economy, it is becoming increasingly easier for criminals to steal intellectual property. Whether this theft takes the form of pirated music, stolen software, or counterfeited trademarks, it has a severe impact on our industries and on our economy. Intellectual property is one of our Nation's major assets. The United States is a consistent leader in manufacturing high-tech and the creative industries. Strong intellectual property protections both in our law and in our trade agreements are important to ensure our economy continues to flourish. The intellectual property found in our country is a result of the American creativity. When properly commercialized, these works lead to jobs, profits, and a better quality of life for all Americans. These agreements will enlist international cooperation that respects and protects our intellectual property. The strong protections in these agreements set a good precedent for future free trade agreements, such as those with Australia and Central America. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the Chile and Singapore free trade agreements. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)