Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 484) to provide for the granting of refugee status in the United States to nationals of certain foreign countries in which American Vietnam War POW/MIAs or American Korean War POW/MIAs may be present, if those nationals assist in the return to the United States of those POW/MIAs alive, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and let me explain the purpose of this bill. It would grant refugee status to foreign nationals who personally deliver a living American POW/MIA from either the Vietnam War or the Korean War to the United States. This bill is the good work of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and our colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), and I hope that that answers the gentlewoman's question about the contents of the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3646) for the relief of certain Persian Gulf evacuees, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding. H.R. 3646 would allow certain individuals we evacuated from Kuwait in 1990 during the Persian Gulf War to become permanent residents of the United States.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, George Bush wants our children to learn more in school. He wants those who work to keep more of their hard-earned dollars, and he wants those who are retired to have a secure future. George Bush trusts the people. His opponent wants more government. George Bush trusts parents with school choices. He trusts taxpayers to spend their dollars better than the government. He trusts retirees to invest their savings. On the other hand, his opponent has a trust problem. Under the Clinton-Gore administration, numerous officials have been indicted or convicted, 83 witnesses refused to testify in court about campaign contribution violations, and another 21 fled the country. To restore integrity to the White House, the American people deserve a president they can trust. George Bush wants a government worthy of so great a people, a government that is honest, nonpartisan, and scandal- free. Only one presidential candidate can lead America to that shining goal: George Bush.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the visa waiver pilot program allows aliens traveling from certain designated countries to come to the United States as temporary visitors for business or pleasure without having to obtain the nonimmigrant visa normally required to enter the United States. There are currently 29 countries participating in this program. H.R. 3767 is a bipartisan bill. It was passed unanimously by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims in the Committee on the Judiciary. The Senate modifications to the House-passed language were worked out on a bipartisan basis with the Committee on the Judiciary. Since its initial enactment as a temporary program in 1986, the Visa Waiver Pilot Program has been regularly extended by Congress. However, the latest extension expired on April 30. Fourteen years is a long time for a pilot program. H.R. 3767, The Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act, makes the visa waiver program more secure and by ending the need to periodically reauthorize it, makes the program. H.R. 3767 is a bipartisan bill. It was passed unanimously by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims and the Judiciary Committee. The Senate modifications to the House-passed language were worked out on a bipartisan basis with the Judiciary Committee. The tourism and travel industry strongly supports this legislation. Visa-free travel under the program has stimulated tourism in the United States from participating countries. More than 17 million visitors enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program each year. A permanent program will be a long term benefit to the tourism industry and remove the uncertainty caused by the periodic expiration of the program. A permanent program should not be authorized if the program poses a threat to the safety and well-being of the United States or allows large numbers of aliens to use the program to circumvent immigration laws. Thus, H.R. 3767 contains several provisions that are needed to strengthen the program. First, the current requirement that participating countries have a machine readable passport has been strengthened by establishing a date certain for all countries in the program to implement a machine readable passport. Second, H.R. 3767 requires the INS to develop a fully automated system for tracking the entry and departure of visa waiver travelers entering by air and sea. Third, H.R. 3767 establishes procedures for periodic reviews of countries already in the program and for suspending a country's participation in the program during emergency situations such as war, economic collapse, or a breakdown in law and order. Such procedures ensure that a permanent visa waiver program does not pose a threat to the law enforcement and security interests of the United States. Finally, H.R. 3767 requires the INS and the Department of State to upgrade their automated lookout systems for screening visa waiver travelers. H.R. 3767, as passed by the Senate, includes a number of new provisions that are agreeable to the Judiciary Committee. The first two modify the visa waiver program. The first would allow corporate aircraft to utilize the visa waiver program under the same conditions and with the same safeguards as may commercial air carriers. This provision will facilitate travel for those large number American businesses utilizing non-commercial air transport and will promote the economic health of the business aviation industry. The second new measure requires the Secretary of State to provide Congress with information regarding countries under consideration for inclusion in the visa waiver program. It requires that visa refusal data not be manipulated by consular officers so as to favor a country's qualification for the visa waiver program. The bill also includes new provisions not relating to the visa waiver program. The first deals with the immigration law consequences of the privatization of INTELSAT, the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization. Prior to privatization, foreign INTELSAT employees in the United States received ``G-4'' nonimmigrant visas which are available to officers and employees (and their family members) of international organizations. Such employees (and their family members) are eligible for permanent residence upon retirement (and under certain other circumstances) pursuant to the special immigrant visa program. Without legislative action, INTELSAT's foreign employees would be forced to leave the United States upon the entity's privatization. The bill provides that foreign employees (and their family members) who worked for INTELSAT in the United States for at least 6 months prior to privatization can continue to use their G-4 visas for as long as they work for INTELSAT or a successor or separated entity. The bill further provides that these foreign employees (and their families) can continue to make use of the special immigrant visa program despite INTELSAT's privatization. Finally, the bill provides that those qualifying foreign employees of INTELSAT who work in a managerial or executive capacity may seek permanent residence under the multinational executive and manager green card program. The bill extends the length of the regional center pilot program of the employment creation immigrant visa program through October 1, 2003. This pilot program sets aside 3,000 visas a year for aliens investing in regional centers that promote economic growth. Under the pilot as amended by this bill, qualifying regional centers may create jobs indirectly through revenues generated from increased exports, improved regional productivity, job creation, or increased domestic capital investment. The bill modifies the program set up under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to collect information on alien post-secondary students and exchange visitors. In 1995, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued a report which found that ``Americans have a fundamental, basic expectation that their Government is effectively monitoring and controlling foreign students. . . . Because there have been high profile instances where terrorists and criminal aliens have been linked to student visas, there is a growing degree of public concern about this issue.'' Section 641 of IIRIRA required the implementation (first as a pilot program) of a system which would collect electronically information from schools on foreign students including identity and address, current academic status and any disciplinary action taken by a school against a student as a result of the commission of a crime. The system is soon to go into effect nationwide. This bill clarifies that the fee funding this program shall be collected by the Attorney General prior to the issuance of a visa, and not by the institution of higher education or exchange visitor program when the alien registers or first commences activities. In addition, the bill provides that aliens subject to the program who are admitted under ``J'' exchange visas as au pairs, camp counselors, or participants in summer work travel programs shall pay a fee of no more than $40. Finally, the bill provides that employers utilizing the H-1B program do not have to file amended petitions for alien workers as a result of their being involved in corporate restructurings, including but not limited to mergers, acquisitions, or consolidations, where new corporate entities succeed to the interest and obligations of the original employers and where the terms and conditions of employment remain the same. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on the legislation under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3767) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make improvements to, and permanently authorize, the visa waiver pilot program under section 217 of such Act.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 2812) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide a waiver of the oath of renunciation and allegiance for naturalization of aliens having certain disabilities, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the author of the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for introducing this bill, and I appreciate the effort she put into it to get to the point it is in today. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4838 permits the Attorney General to waive the taking of the oath of allegiance by a naturalization applicant if, in the opinion of the Attorney General, the applicant is unable to understand or to communicate an understanding of the oath's meaning because of a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment. Mr. Speaker, some disabled, lawful permanent resident aliens have been unable to overcome obstructions at various stages in the naturalization process because of their disabilities. The Immigration and Nationality Act permits the Attorney General to waive the taking of the oath by a child if the child is unable to understand its meaning. Yet, some of those disabled individuals who were granted a medical waiver for the English, history and government exams due to their physical or developmental disability or mental impairment also cannot communicate an understanding of the oath of renunciation. This bill provides the necessary waiver. Like the preexisting oath waiver for children, this bill permits disabled applicants who cannot understand the oath or cannot communicate an understanding of the oath to overcome this last obstruction to becoming a United States citizen. This bill will apply to persons applying for naturalization before, on, or after the date of enactment of this act. Disabled naturalization applicants who have in the past been denied naturalization because they could not understand or communicate an understanding of the meaning of the oath may reopen their naturalization applications and continue the process of becoming American citizens. I appreciate the willingness of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) to agree to the technical corrections found in this suspension version of H.R. 4838. I also appreciate her dedication to this deserving group of aspiring citizens. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4838) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide a waiver of the oath of renunciation and allegiance for naturalization of aliens having certain disabilities, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Committee on House Policy.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), my colleague and classmate.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me explain that the purpose of the request is to amend the companion Senate bill and send it back to the Senate with the text of H.R. 4838 which the House has just passed.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, should someone who does not believe in facts be our President? Fiction: Al Gore recently claimed that his mother-in-law pays more than $100 for arthritis medicine. Fact: The figure came from a Democratic Party study. Newspapers reported Al Gore was not even sure his mother-in-law was taking any medication or had arthritis. Fiction: Al Gore's sister tragically died of lung cancer and he vowed never to accept tobacco money as campaign contributions. Fact: Just 4 years later he spoke to the tobacco industry, said he was one of them, and raised $100,000. Fiction: Al Gore's campaign literature once claimed he was a ``brilliant student.'' Fact: He received C's and D's in college and dropped out of law school and divinity school. Fiction: Al Gore claimed credit for inventing the Internet in the 1990s. Fact: The Internet has been used by government and educational institutions since the 1970s. Fiction: Al Gore recently said that if elected President he would penalize producers of Hollywood's graphic sex and violence. Fact: Just 6 days later he attended a fund-raiser by Hollywood producers and raised $4 million. Madam Speaker, we need a President who tells the truth.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize two Members on the House floor tonight. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who is chairman of the House Committee on Rules, has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the high-tech industry. I do not know of anyone who has worked harder, invested more time and energy, or is more responsible for the bill that we are considering tonight being on the House floor, and I would like to congratulate him in advance on the expected passage of this bill. Second of all, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), who just yielded me the time, is an active member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, and he too has been a steadfast advocate of the high-tech industry. The gentleman from Utah himself is an entrepreneur and he understands firsthand the needs of the high-tech industry. Mr. Speaker, although there is still no objective credible study that documents the shortage of American high-tech workers, the INS said recently that the demand for highly skilled foreign workers is running at least 50,000 ahead of last year. Such a demand can indicate an actual shortage of American workers, a spot shortage, a preference for cheap labor or replacement workers, or something else. But because of the importance of the high-tech industry to our economy, I think we should give the industry the benefit of the doubt. But giving high-tech companies the benefit of the doubt is not without risk, unless we safeguard American workers. We need to recognize the opposition of the American people to an H-1B visa increase, Mr. Speaker. Two major polls demonstrate that the vast majority of Americans do not want to see the number of high-tech visas increased so much and worry that it will hurt American workers. A Peter Hart poll conducted in March found that 73 percent of Americans do not want to see immigration law changed to allow the entry of more foreign high-tech workers. Only 20 percent wanted more foreign workers. A Harris poll, released in September 1998, found that 82 percent of Americans do not want to see the H-1B quota increased. The poll found that 77 percent of Americans believe that an increase in H-1B visas reduces employment opportunities for American workers. And 86 percent of Americans believe that U.S. companies should train U.S. workers to perform jobs in technical fields, even if it is faster and less expensive to fill the jobs with foreign workers. To satisfy the concerns of the American people, we need to protect American workers from being undercut by foreign workers in the H-1B program. S.2045 contains no significant provisions to protect these American workers. It does not require most companies to make a good- faith effort to recruit U.S. workers before hiring foreign workers. It allows all but a small handful of firms to lay off American workers and replace the American workers with foreign workers. Why would anyone oppose these common sense safeguards? What amazes me is that in all the discussions I have had with representatives of high- tech companies, not a single one has expressed any concern about the impact of this legislation on American workers. How could anyone oppose a safeguard that says American workers could not be fired and replaced by a foreign worker? How could anyone not agree to advertise for American workers before hiring from abroad? How could anyone oppose paying foreign workers what the average beginning salary is for American college graduates, unless they want to undercut American wages? The Committee on the Judiciary passed a bill, H.R. 4227, that contains an additional crucial safeguard for American workers. The Committee on the Judiciary passed a bill that set a floor on wages for these workers; $40,000 per year. This wage is a good starting point for any high-tech professional. It is a salary that American students fresh out of college are making. This crucial safeguard would prevent U.S. companies from hiring foreign workers to undercut the wages of American workers. Strong anti-fraud measures are also necessary to address known abuses. An article in last Thursday's ``San Francisco Chronicle'' says it all: ``Federal authorities have started nationwide investigations into the hiring of foreign high-tech workers, including charges of visa fraud and allegations that the practice is riddled with abuse.'' The Chronicle quotes Bill Yates of the INS as stating, ``But are we catching most of the fraud? The truthful answer is that we are not. If it is the intention of the employee or the employer to defraud the government, you may not be able to ferret it out.'' A just-released Government Accounting Office report states, ``There is not sufficient assurance that INS reviews are adequate for detecting program noncompliance or abuse. The program is vulnerable to abuse, both by employers who do not have bona fide jobs to fill or do not meet required labor conditions, and by potential workers who present false credentials. ``The goals of preventing abuse of the program and providing efficient services to employers and workers are not being achieved. Evidence suggests that program noncompliance or abuse by employers may be more prevalent than under other laws.'' Mr. Speaker, any H-1B bill should contain effective antifraud measures as are contained in the Committee on the Judiciary-passed H.R. 4227. S. 2045 contains no such antifraud measures. Mr. Speaker, in return for giving high-tech companies hundreds of thousands of more foreign workers, all we ask on behalf of American workers is some minimal, basic, common sense safeguards to ensure that businesses do not want to hire cheap foreign workers at the expense of American workers. While this bill has taken significant steps to alleviate the presumed shortage with more training for American workers, such provisions will not yield benefits for many years. Supplying future workers is a different issue altogether from shielding today's American workers from the consequences of admitting so many workers from other countries. Mr. Speaker, Congress should not turn its back on American workers. Again I appreciate and recognize the work done by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and congratulate them.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is mounting that the media tilts left. In its recent poll, ``Editor and Publisher'' magazine found that two-thirds of newspaper readers feel that Al Gore receives preferential treatment. Most revealing, two-thirds of the newspaper readers who consider themselves independents also said there is bias favoring Al Gore. It is no surprise that over half of George Bush's supporters says there is press bias, compared to less than a third of Al Gore's supporters. Media bias is dangerous to our democracy. It prevents the American people from getting the facts, and if we do not have the facts, we cannot make good decisions. We should help the media remember that their job is to give us fair, objective, and impartial news reports. No one should play games with the people's right to know the facts. The media should give us the news straight.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, since Labor Day, the traditional start of presidential campaigns, ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts have given Al Gore 55 percent positive coverage and George Bush only 35 percent. The networks, which are the primary source of information for most Americans, did not cover several possible scandals involving the Gore campaign. Sometimes I wonder if they are trying to control our political process. The media do not have a license to lie or mislead or slant or skew the news. We should hold biased members of media accountable and encourage them to be fair, impartial, and balanced. One way is to form a citizen's watchdog organization. If the media will not police themselves, and if we cannot allow the government to intervene, then it is up to us to take the initiative. Good government and fair media coverage demands that we take such an action.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, here is a recent Washington Post article describing vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney's speeches: ``Bash. Bash. Bash.'' The reporter quotes Cheney as saying that the country was ``weary of the Clinton-Gore routine,'' but then adds, ``even if no one else is'' but Cheney. No, these sarcastic opinions are not from an editorial. They are from a news story that is supposed to be objective and impartial. What it reveals is the bias of a reporter who is trying to tell us what to think. Why does the media display such a liberal bias? Simply because journalists are more liberal than the rest of us. Peter Brown, an editor at the ``Orlando Sentinel'' conducted a study that discovered a profound cultural disconnect between journalists and readers. He found that reporters are far more likely than other Americans to approve of abortion on demand, to express disdainful attitudes towards the suburbs and rural areas, and to identify strongly with people who see themselves as victims of society. They are also less likely to go to church or do volunteer work in their communities. But what is the answer? We need to tell the media, give us the facts, and let us make up our own mind.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the media, newspapers, radio and TV stations, have a huge impact on our lives. They influence how we think and act. Protected by the constitutional right to free speech, the media have few restraints on what they can say and do. They enjoy a ``public trust'' not to abuse their power. But I wonder how objective Washington political writers can be, when 89 percent acknowledged in a survey that they voted for Bill Clinton and Al Gore. What concerns me is that we all need accurate and objective information if we are to reach informed opinions about national issues. The media needs to treat their readers, listeners and viewers with respect, respect for their intelligence to make the right decisions for themselves and for our country. News stories should give us the unvarnished facts and then let us draw our own conclusions.