Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, I support H.R. 3209, the ``Anti-Hoax Terrorism Act of 2001,'' a bipartisan bill I introduced along with Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking Members Mr. Conyers and Scott. Tragically, some have used the shadow of fear cast by the September 11th and the subsequent anthrax attacks to terrorize others with hoaxes of biological and chemical attacks. The purpose of H.R. 3209 is to address this serious and growing problem. Under current law, it is a felony to perpetrate a hoax such as falsely saying there is a bomb on an airplane. It is also a felony to communicate a threat over interstate commerce threatening personal injury to another. However, if the hoax pertains to a biological or chemical weapons attack instead of a bomb or does not contain a specific threat, then the law may not apply. This is clearly a gap in existing law that must be closed. If someone places white powder on a computer with a note that ``this is anthrax'' or send white powder through the mail, such conduct may cause panic but not violate Federal law. And no federal law is violated when the government spends time, money, and effort responding to such hoaxes. But public safety is threatened when resources are diverted from investigating legitimate threats. This legislation makes it a felony to perpetrate a hoax related to biological, chemical, and nuclear attacks. If a hoax causes a hospital to be evacuated, people could die; if a hoax causes a business to close, people could lose their jobs; and if a hoax preoccupies law enforcement officials, the public is denied protection from other crimes. A hoax of terrorism threatens public safety and national security, overburdens law enforcement officials and emergency workers and chips away at the Nation's morale. As we are reminded today, the three-month anniversary of the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, America is engaged in a war on terrorism. Those who rely on fear as a weapon, should be held responsible for their actions. H.R. 3209 imposes criminal and civil penalties that reflect the serious nature of these hoax crimes. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3209.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today is not Veterans' Day nor Memorial Day nor any of the other days we usually set aside to remember our servicemen and women. But we are not confined solely to those official days in remembering our nation's heroes. At this time in our nation's history, when once again the sound of battle rumbles on the horizon and the skies are darkened by war planes and bombs, we should reflect on a similar time 50 years ago. Few of us ever expected to see another day like December 7, 1941, and all of us hoped we never would. For over fifty years America led the world in a season of peace and prosperity. But on September 11, 2001, this generation's ``day that will live in infamy'' came, and the ``sleeping giant'' was awakened once again. In Fredericksburg, TX, there is a place with the motto, ``We inspire our youth, by honoring our heroes.'' This place is called the National Museum of the Pacific War Campaign and it is very special indeed. Many know it by its former name, the Admiral Nimitz Museum, for it was in Fredericksburg that over a hundred years ago that great man was born and raised. Chester W. Nimitz served his country all of his life--from his first year at the U.S. Naval Academy at the age of 16 to his appointment as the first-ever five-star Fleet Admiral. It is appropriate to have a museum that honors not only his name and legacy, but also the countless sailors, soldiers, and marines who served in that theatre of war with him. The bloodshed that began in Pearl Harbor ended nearly 4 years later in Tokyo Bay, with Admiral Nimitz personally accepting the Japanese surrender. Between those famous dates of December 7, 1941, and September 2, 1945, are thousands of other dates largely forgotten, but dates still made sacred by the blood and sweat of our fellow Americans, who fought and died from one end of the mighty Pacific Ocean to the other. They fought so that we all might live free. Once again, our great country finds itself engaged in a time of strife. Perhaps even now, another young Nimitz is waiting in the wings. We must never forget that the children of today are the leaders of tomorrow. Admiral Nimitz took as his favorite quotation the following: ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' Even as we speak, another generation of Americans is following its commanders into harm's way. And they do so for you and me. They do so because others did so before them, and left a living legacy for them to follow; a legacy of blood and valor etched on coral ridges and tropical atolls from Midway and Guadalcanal all the way to Okinawa and Japan.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the high-tech industry plays a prominent role in our economy. That's why it's important to allow the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) to retain its user fees. Timely and quality service provided by the PTO helps spur innovation and strengthen our economy. H.R. 2047 is a good bill that has three basic components. It allows the patent office to retain its fees, which are normally distributed for other government operations. This extra funding will speed up the processing of patent applications that now takes an average of nearly 27 months. If these fees continue to be diverted, pendency--the time from filing to granting of a patent--may increase to 38 months by 2006. In recent years, the number of technology and biotechnology patents has increased. Now more than ever, it's important to ensure that the PTO has adequate funding through its own fee mechanisms. The PTO must produce high quality patents on a timely basis. It is struggling to keep up with the workload and lacks new technology that is desperately needed to do its job. The bill directs and PTO to develop and implement an electronic system for filing and processing applications. It also orders the director of the patent office to develop a 5-year strategic plan to improve and streamline patent operations. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure so that the PTO can improve its critical role in our economy.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me time. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for his earlier generous comments. Beginning in the mid-1950s, a number of private colleges and universities agreed to award financial aid solely on the basis of demonstrated need. These schools also agreed to use common criteria to assess each student's financial need and to give the same financial aid award to students admitted to more than one member of the group. In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice brought suit against nine of the colleges that engage in this practice. After extensive litigation, the parties reached a settlement in 1993. In 1994 and again in 1997, Congress passed a temporary exemption from the antitrust laws that codified that settlement. It allowed agreements to provide aid on the basis of need only, use common criteria, use a common financial aid application form, and allow the exchange of the student's financial information through a third party. It also prohibited agreements on awards to specific students. The exemption expired, as the chairman just noted a minute ago, on September 30, 2001. To my knowledge, there are no complaints about the exemption. H.R. 768 would extend the exemption passed in 1994 and 1997 for 7 more years. The need-based financial aid system serves goals that the antitrust laws do not adequately address, namely, making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. No student who is otherwise qualified should be denied the opportunity to go to a private, selective university because of the limited financial means of his or her family. H.R. 768 will help protect need-based aid and need-blind admissions. Last April we approved a permanent extension by an overwhelming margin of 414 to zero. However, the Senate has approved only a 7-year extension. They also call for the General Accounting Office to study the effects of the exemption and to submit a report in 5 years. If the GAO chooses to examine a comparison group of schools for the study, participation in the group would be voluntary. It is this version that we vote upon today. Mr. Speaker, I still believe that a permanent exemption from the antitrust laws is justified and warranted. However, in the interest of time, the House should accept the changes made by the Senate, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding time again. Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 863, the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 2001, along with the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who just finished speaking. All other members of the subcommittee have also cosponsored this legislation. The legislation is needed because juvenile justice experts have recommended that juvenile justice systems pay more attention to young offenders earlier in the system. H.R. 863 would do that by responding to juvenile wrongdoing with graduated sanctions. The bill authorizes $1.5 billion for the Justice Department to make grants to State and local governments to improve their juvenile justice system. States and localities qualify for the grant funds if they have implemented or agree to implement a system of graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders within 1 year of applying for those funds. Graduated sanctions are designed to break the cycle of delinquency that often leads juveniles to more serious crimes later on in their lives. This bill encourages our juvenile justice system to focus on juvenile offenders from the beginning, rather than after the sixth or seventh offense. With this approach, we hope to ensure that juvenile offenders learn that there are consequences to their actions each time they commit a crime. In addition to providing incentives for implementing graduated sanctions, this bill provides States and localities with discretion in determining how best to spend the grant money to improve their juvenile justice systems. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the current moratorium on Internet taxation is soon set to expire. Someone once said that the three greatest discoveries of humankind are fire, the wheel, and the integrated circuit. Each of these discoveries ushered in a new era of human development and advancement. And although the integrated circuit is only 50 years old, it has changed the world. The integrated circuit and its offspring, the Internet, have played dominant roles in transforming our lives for the better. Even though America has seen a dramatic increase in the number of homes wired to the Internet, last month the Department of Commerce released a report showing that e-commerce actually has decreased in the second quarter of this year. 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, would discourage companies and consumers from using the Internet to conduct business, and would create regional and international barriers to global trade. On the other hand, of course, we do need to recognize the legitimate concerns of States that want to have the option of taxing sales. But failure to renew an extended moratorium will tell the high-tech sector of our economy that it is open season for Internet taxes and send a message to local and State tax authorities that new, multiple, and discriminatory Internet taxes may be imposed. We do not want to do that. Madam Speaker, it is vital that Congress act quickly to ensure Americans that government will not place additional burdens on the new, fragile economy.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, I support this legislation. Security is valued, yet it is often unappreciated until taken away. What happened on September 11, 2001, has made us feel like we lost our sense of security. It doesn't have to be that way. We are united like never before, resolved to defeat terrorism and protect American lives. We seek a return to ``normal,'' although the word normal takes on a new meaning now. Law enforcement officials need all the necessary tools to confront the daunting tasks ahead. The administration initially offered a strong antiterrorism bill that would have helped bring terrorists to justice. The Attorney General asked for measures he believed would reduce the threat of terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, some in the administration disregarded the public mandate for increased safety and agreed to weaken the bill. However, the legislation does make improvements in current law. Intelligence Gathering--The bill expands law enforcement's ability to obtain wiretaps and ``trap and trace'' authority, which is a method used to identify the origin of a message. (This component was added from legislation I had previously introduced.) Criminal Justice--The bill expedites court proceedings and increases penalties related to terrorism. Financial Infrastructure--The bill expands the law to allow seizure of assets of terrorist organizations. Information Sharing--The bill promotes interagency cooperation so that data is shared among agencies and used to its fullest extent. Border Security--The bill authorizes additional funds to the INS for purposes of making improvements in technology for monitoring both the northern and southern borders and triples the number of Border Patrol personnel in each state along the northern border. It is critically important to implement solutions to combat the threats to America. This antiterrorism legislation reduces our vulnerability to terrorist attacks, though it should have done more.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank him for his help in passing this resolution, which I introduced last July. Mr. Speaker, a good definition of character is summed up in the old saying ``Character is what you do when no one is looking.'' Men and women of character are guided by standards of right and wrong. They do not look to others for approval or bend to peer pressure. National polls indicate that moral concerns and family decline are some of the most important problems facing the country today. Too many of our children grow up in a culture that acknowledges no right or wrong. Americans are concerned about the quality of their children's education. They are also troubled about the decline in our Nation's values and its effect on our children. Although parents should be the primary developers of character, educators play an increasingly important role. Communities across the Nation recognize that character education is an integral part of a well-rounded curriculum. Our Nation's teachers are aware that character education can establish standards for behavior. President Bush has made character education an important component of his education reform bill. By allocating funds to character education, States, local education agencies, parents, and students will have an opportunity to promote character and values. This resolution will encourage schools to embrace character education. It designates the third week of October of this year and 2002 as ``National Character Counts Week.'' I hope children across the Nation will participate in character- building activities in their schools. It is imperative that we teach our children the values that strengthen their character and make our country strong. To reap the rewards of a virtuous society, we must first sow the seeds of character when we educate our children.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the following prayer is from the website spirituality.com. It can inspire us all. World Trade Center Disaster: My Prayer for My Brother (By Laura Matthews) At the moment I write this, I've just heard that one of the World Trade Center buildings has collapsed. My brother works in that building, and there's been no word. I've been in touch with my family around the country, and we're all praying. This is my prayer for my brother. Where can my heart go when there is no news, and perhaps no hope? I must go to the one almighty God. I must know His almighty presence. I dig deep into what I know to be true. There is only one God, divine Life, holy Love. The God that my brother loves and serves is the God that connects us all-- terrorist and victim alike. My thought now is echoing with God, that oneness that fills all space, in offices, stairwells, plazas, airplanes. I refuse to conceive of any space that is not filled with God. I place my brother in that space, wholeheartedly. He can't leave that space, it surrounds him and upholds him and guides him. I see my brother continuing to walk through life, as he has every day until now and will forever, with the glory of God shining through him. I'm not seeing his life as something that can end. I'm seeing it as eternal, as full, complete, ideal. I'm clinging to this, because the thought that there may be death to deal with in my family's future cannot be the final word. The final word must be Life. It must be God. God is there, in New York, in Jerusalem, in Washington, in Baghdad. God is here with me in Boston. It's not a bunch of gods scattered all about, but the one God, literally filling all space, blanketing all creation. I touch that one God in thought and I'm touching all creation. And that God is holding my brother close, with all the others--all of them. It's not only my brother or our family. It's entire buildings, entire cities, entire countries. I'm putting it all in the divine space, everyone, every action, every lifespan. That space contains nothing but Love and glory. The pain, fear and confusion are nothing within that holy place. My brother and all the people involved are in that holy place. I am holding them there in thought. It is the structure of Love that surrounds them, and it cannot be destroyed. (Later the author got word that her brother was five minutes away from his office when the building was hit.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Nebraska for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this joint resolution is well intended, but it does not go far enough. I regret the President did not get all the support he needed or wanted. This resolution should have authorized the President to attack, apprehend, and punish terrorists whenever it is in the best interests of America to do so. Instead, the resolution limits the President to using force only against those responsible for the terrorist attacks last Tuesday. This is a significant restraint on the President's ability to root out terrorism wherever it may be found. Terrorism is not confined to a single organization or a single group or a specific sect. All terrorists, even those not directly connected to this week's attacks, are a deadly threat and must be neutralized. We cannot win the war against international terrorism unless we fight on all fronts. This resolution, while helpful in some ways, ties the President's hands and allows only the pursuit of one individual and his followers and supporters. I am disappointed that this limited resolution does not respond adequately to the need to protect the lives of freedom-loving people around the world.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it will take weeks, months, perhaps years, for us to understand the magnitude of the terrorist attacks. Our lives will be changed as we struggle to find a balance between the need for increased security and the necessity of protecting our freedoms. I was driving to work at the Rayburn House Office Building yesterday morning with my window down because of a broken air conditioner. As I came abreast of the Pentagon, which was on my right, I thought I heard a muffled boom and then, after a few seconds, saw a billowing black cloud of smoke. A few minutes later, when I stopped at the entrance of the Rayburn garage, a Capitol Hill policeman told me, ``They just hit the Pentagon,'' and pointed to the same black cloud of smoke I had just passed. It will take a while for our government to resume normalcy and for our country to regain its confidence. I used to tell Sunday School students that ``confidence'' comes from the Latin, ``con fides,'' which means ``with faith.'' That is how we will have to proceed.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, the manufacture of cloned human beings rightly alarms an overwhelming majority of Americans. Some 90 percent oppose human cloning, according to a recent Time/CNN poll. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission unanimously concluded that ``Any attempt to clone a child is uncertain in its outcome, is unacceptably dangerous to the fetus and, therefore, morally unacceptable.'' That is why this bill prohibits all human cloning. A partial ban would allow for stockpiles of cloned human embryos to be produced, bought and sold without restrictions. Implantation of cloned embryos, a relatively easy procedure, would inevitably take place. Once cloned embryos are produced and available in laboratories, it is impossible to control what is done with them, so a partial ban is simply unenforceable. It has been argued that this bill would have a negative impact on scientific research, but this assertion is unsupported, both by the language in the bill and by the testimony received by the Subcommittee on Crime during two hearings. The language in the bill allows for research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques used to produce molecules, DNA, cells, tissues, organs, plants or animal. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there is no language in the bill that would interfere with the use of in vitro fertilization, the administration of fertility-enhancing drugs, or the use of other medical procedures to assist a woman from becoming or remaining pregnant. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and oppose the substitute.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the VA-HUD appropriations bill. This bill funds NASA and keeps our nation's leadership in human space exploration on track. I am particularly pleased that the bill increases funding for the space station so that a crew return vehicle can be built. This critical component will enhance on-orbit research activities by allowing for a crew of six astronauts. Also, I support the funds provided for the space shuttle program. Despite a flat budget, the shuttle program is more efficient and safer than ever. The Shuttle program is critical to our nation's exploration and discovery of space. Since the shuttle will have to fly until at least 2012 to meet our nation's human space flight goals, we must ensure that the program is properly funded to include necessary vehicle upgrades and ensure that we have the necessary infrastructure to support human space flight. Earlier this year, the shuttle program celebrated its 20th anniversary and its 100th flight. We must ensure that the shuttle remains a safe and reliable vehicle in space for the next decade and beyond. This bill takes us in that direction.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support our Nation's faith-based organizations. I want to mention some people back home who are doing this kind of work. In downtown San Antonio at the Little Church of La Villita, for almost 40 years, people like Cleo Edmonds and David Gross have given their time and resources to feed the hungry. They feed about 100 people each day, primarily single mothers. Some people come in to get a meal; others to get groceries. In addition to meeting the nutritional needs of those who come seeking help, the Little Church of La Villita meets the spiritual needs in our community, offering prayer and counseling to those who request it. Some want to tell us that the faithful should leave their faith at the door. But, Mr. Speaker, everyone involved in serving the poor has faith; everyone has convictions. The only difference is that some believe in the power of God and some believe in the power of government. The Constitution does not envision a government devoid of all religion; rather, it envisions a rich menagerie of faiths, a patchwork of beliefs and convictions, all under the protection of one Constitution. Whether or not this bill becomes law, the Little Church of La Villita will continue its work. The question is not: Does the Little Church of La Villita need government money? The question is: Does the government need places like the Little Church of La Villita?

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to Representative Tim Roemer for introducing H.R. 1668. This legislation would authorize the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a monument in our nation's capital to one of the most remarkable public servants this city and our country have ever known: our first vice-president and our second president, John Adams. John Adams was the primary architect of the government in which all of us play an active role today, more than 200 years after he commenced his brave and tireless work to liberate his fellow citizens from the English Crown. Virtually millions of people have been the beneficiaries of his brilliant courage, but ironically, few of us fully understand and appreciate the depth or nature of the debt we owe him. Madam Speaker, it was John Adams who authored a pamphlet that laid out the design adopted by our government in structuring three distinct and independent branches: our bicameral legislature, our executive branch and our independent judiciary. It is useful and appropriate to observe that it was John Adams who arguable fought more fiercely than any other person to ensure that our judiciary was independent. It was John Adams who observed that ``we must be a nation of laws and not of men.'' Madam Speaker, John Adams was also a great student of the world. He once wrote that ``I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study paintings, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.'' Benjamin Rush, himself a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote a letter in 1812 to his close friend John Adams in which he acknowledged that, ``I consider you and [Jefferson] as the North and South Poles of the American revolution. Some talked, some wrote, and some fought to promote and establish it but you and Mr. Jefferson thought for all of us.'' Jefferson himself called Adams the ``colossus of independence,'' and in later recalling the driving force that Adams was in the Continental Congress, Jefferson observed that Adams's ``sense and thought moved us from our seats.'' Madam Speaker, let us honor, this great leader, patriot, and talented author of liberty to whom we owe our very freedom and independence as we approach the coming Fourth of July holiday; he who did more than any other person in the Continental Congress to bring it all about: John Adams. It is gratifying that author David McCullough has appropriately been recognized by his alma mater and in 1998 received an honorary degree from Yale University.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, George Gekas, Chairman of the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Sheila Jackson-Lee for introducing H. R. 1209, the ``Child Status Protection Act of 2001.'' This legislation addresses a problem I have been concerned about since the last Congress. Children of citizens are penalized because it takes the INS an unacceptable length of time--often years--to process adjustment of status applications. In some cases the wait is so long that minor children become adults while waiting for the INS to act. When they become adults, they lose the privileged status of immediate relatives of citizens and are placed at the end of the first preference waiting list. This means an additional wait of 2-13 years for their green cards. H. R. 1209 provides that an alien child of a U.S. citizen shall remain eligible for immediate relative status as long as an immigrant visa petition was filed before the child turned 21. I hope that after Congress restructures the INS and the federal government provides immigration benefits in a more professional and expeditious manner, we won't need to pass bills such as H. R. 1209. I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full committee for yielding me this time, and, Madam Speaker, I am going to go in a little more detail about the history of this bill and the necessity for it. Beginning in the mid-1950s, a number of private colleges and universities agreed to award financial aid solely on the basis of demonstrated need. These schools also agreed to use common criteria to assess each student's financial need and to give the same financial aid award to students admitted to more than one member of that group of schools. From the 1950s to the late 1980s, the practice continued undisturbed. In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice brought suit against nine of the colleges involved that engaged in this practice. After extensive litigation, the parties reached a settlement in 1993. In 1994, and again in 1997, Congress passed a temporary exemption from the antitrust laws that codified that settlement. It allowed agreements to provide aid on the basis of need only, to use common criteria, to use a common financial aid application form, and to allow the exchange of the student's financial information through a third party. It also prohibited agreements on awards to specific students. This exemption expires on September 30, 2001. Common treatment of these types of issues makes sense, and to my knowledge there are no complaints about the existing exemption. H.R. 768 would make the exemption passed in 1994 and 1997 permanent. It would not make any change to the substance of the exemption. The need-based financial aid system serves worthy goals that the antitrust laws do not adequately address; namely, making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. No student who is otherwise qualified should be denied the opportunity to go to one of these schools because of the limited financial means of his or her family. H.R. 768 would help protect need-based aid and need-blind admissions. Madam Speaker, this legislation passed the Committee on the Judiciary with no opposition, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill as well.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I submit my testimony regarding H.R. 1 the No Child Left Behind Act. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1, the ``No Child Left Behind'' bill. The President has made this legislation a priority because Americans are concerned about the quality of their children's education. They are also troubled about the decline in our nation's values and its effect on our children. Polls consistently reveal that virtue and ethics are issues of top concern. Parents should be the primary developers of character but educators play an increasingly important role. Unfortunately, too many of our children are bombarded daily by negative influences. Society pays the price when we mock values. To reap the rewards of a virtuous society, we must sow the seeds of character when we educate children. Communities across the nation recognize that character education is an integral part of a well-rounded curriculum. Our Nation's teachers are aware that character education helps to establish a set of standards for behavior, provide role models, and create caring environments. For instance, many students in Texas participate in character education programs and the lessons they learn now will serve them well in the future. President Bush has made character education an important component of his education reform bill. By allocating $25 million to character education, States, local education agencies, parents and students will have an opportunity to promote character and values. However, there are additional steps to be taken if we are to be This legislation provides a grant to develop initiatives and disseminate up-to-date information about character education and also funds a study that will examine whether or not character education programs are successful and sustainable. H.R. 1 calls for states to base their character education efforts on the findings of scientific research, yet educational experts have not been given the opportunity to develop those sound scientific conclusions. It is not even known where and how character education has found its greatest success. To support character education in its entirety, we must include research and the dissemination of useful information. In our changing and challenging world, children need affirmation that society respects men and women of character. It is imperative that we teach our children the values that strengthen their character and make our country strong.

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, many countries recognize their public safety officers with a national medal. In the United States, many State and local governments recognize extraordinary act of heroism by their public safety officers. At the Federal level, however, there is no national medal that may be awarded to public safety officers, regardless of which level of government employs them. Mr. Speaker, this bill will establish a medal to be given by the President to a public safety officer who has displayed extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty. The Attorney General will select the recipients of the medal, and no more than five medals may be awarded in any given year. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Troopers Coalition, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, among others, support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, Americans are concerned about the decline in our Nation's values, particularly among our children. Parents should be the primary developers of character, but educators play an increasingly important role. Many school districts have included character education in their curriculum. Others have not but would like to do so. Schools need an organization that exists to help them identify their particular needs and implement effective character education programs. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement) and I are introducing the Character Learning and Student Success Act. This legislation provides a grant to develop initiatives and disseminate up-to-date resource information about character education. It also funds a study that will examine whether or not character education programs are effective and sustainable. Madam Speaker, character education not only cultivates minds, it nurtures hearts. I ask my colleagues to please join us in cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is with a mixture of sadness and food remembrances that I stand before you to mourn the passing of former Congressman Harry B. Gonzalez, a man who served in this House for 18 terms. On Saturday, I attended Congressman Gonzalez's funeral service in his beloved San Antonio and saw an extraordinary and sincere outpouring of gratitude from the city he served with devotion, honesty and integrity. He served San Antonio not only as a United States Representative, but also as a member of the San Antonio City Council and the Texas Senate. Congressman Gonzalez, known with affection in our hometown as ``Henry B.'' was eulogized by San Antonio Archbishop Patrick Flores quite simply as a ``good and faithful servant.'' He was--consistently and persistently--a good and faithful servant to his beloved constituents in the 20th District of Texas. Henry B. was also a staunch partisan and a worthy adversary. He was a man whose life was marked by devotion to family, to community, and to public service. It was an honor--and on occasion a learning experience--to serve with him in the Bexar County congressional delegation. In Texas there is a saying, attributed to a Texas Ranger of long ago, that advises that ``No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on a-comin'.'' Throughout his extraordinary life of public service, Henry B just kept on a-comin'.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding. Mr. Speaker, one of my most vivid memories as a new Member of Congress was my first meeting with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) after I had only been in Washington a couple of days. I went to see the gentleman because he was a member of what was then called the Committee on Committees, which now is called the Steering Committee, which makes committee assignments. I was interested in serving on two committees, the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Science. My first choice was the Committee on the Judiciary because it had subcommittees dealing with crime and another one that oversaw immigration policy. At the time, it was not thought possible to serve on both committees at the same time, even though that was my hope. Well, a few days later, while the Committee on Committees was meeting, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) called me and told me that he thought that if I changed the order of my preference from Judiciary first and Science second to Science first and Judiciary second, we could ``throw a long pass'' and perhaps connect so that I would be on both. I decided to leave it up to the Texas quarterback (Mr. Archer) and so put my committee assignments, and there is nothing more important to a new Member, in his hands. A couple of hours later he called back and said that I had been appointed to both. It was obviously thanks to his strong arm and steady aim. It is obvious to any Member of Congress who has ever worked with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) that his strong arm and steady aim has been a characteristic he has always displayed. Whether it is giving Americans tax relief or ensuring the long-term solvency of Social Security or revamping the Internal Revenue Service, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has as often as not completed that long pass. One other characteristic needs to be mentioned, and that is that he not only has a strong record and steady hand, but he also plays fair and throws straight with his colleague. He tells us the truth. We know we can rely on what he tells us and what he really thinks about any issue or any piece of legislation. His consistent record of doing what is best for the American people, being straightforward in his dealings with others, and doing what he thinks is right are attributes that anyone in public life should aspire to. Mr. Speaker, the good thinking and good judgment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) will be missed, but he will always remain an example of an ideal congressman to us all.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my two friends, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, the immigration provisions in this bill unite immigrant families and reward those who play by the rules. This policy is pro- family and pro-immigrant. The bill speeds up the admission of immigrant spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents so they can join their husbands and wives and mothers and fathers who are already in the United States. Their wait now can be up to 6 years, and we want to shorten that. Another provision responds to one group seeking amnesty who deserves our help, those who met the conditions set out for amnesty under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and who may have wrongly been denied legal status by the INS. This bill would allow those aliens to apply again. Mr. Speaker, the White House wants to give amnesty to people who came to the United States illegally, who promised to return to their home countries, and failed to do so. We learned from the 1986 amnesty that amnesty does not end our illegal immigration problem. It actually precipitates even more illegal immigration, as individuals are encouraged in the belief that if they can just elude the Border Patrol and stand underground for a few years, they will eventually get amnesty themselves. It is no surprise illegal immigration doubled after the 1986 amnesty. As for the White House proposal, let us do talk about fairness. Central Americans already have received what they demanded in 1997. After the 1996 law changed the requirements of suspension of deportation, Salvadorans and Guatemalans asked that they be able to pursue suspension of deportation using the pre-1996 standards. That is exactly what we gave them in 1997. In addition, Honduras did not even have a civil war but has had a democratically elected government since 1982. Some Hondurans are currently in the United States with temporary protected status due to Hurricane Mitch in 1998. Their temporary status should not become permanent. Otherwise Congress might as well turn the temporary protective status into a permanent amnesty program. I will say to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), who mentioned my name a few minutes ago, that, number one, I was not in Congress in 1986 or I would have opposed the 1986 amnesty. And second, that there is a big difference between those who suffered under a communist totalitarian regime the U.S. government opposed, such as in Cuba and Nicaragua and fled the country, and those who left the country whether it was a government we supported, such as in El Salvador and Guatemala. The administration wants to include a provision that allows illegal aliens to legalize their status by paying a fine of $1,000. This is clearly an incentive for illegal immigration. Allowing illegal aliens to adjust status in the U.S. would reward them for violating the law and would serve as an open invitation for those waiting in line to enter the U.S. illegally. Hispanics across America agree with us. A recent poll by the ``San Jose Mercury News'' found that three times as many Hispanic voters feel the Government is not doing enough about illegal immigration as think the Government is doing too much. Mr. Speaker, the White House wants to reward law-breakers, which increases illegal immigration. They would give amnesty to as many as 2.5 million people, including dependents, who entered the United States illegally as recently as 1995. Mr. Speaker, let us unite families, reward those who play by the rules, and give those who are wrongly denied legal status in 1996 an opportunity to reply. Supporting this bill does just that. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that I was reminded by the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), a few minutes ago that if anyone is in doubt about whether to support this bill, they should give their case worker back home in their district office a call who works on immigration matters and they will tell the Member just how beneficial this bill is.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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