Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the double-standard that often exists in today's media coverage is obvious. For example, the major networks all provide the Democrats with more convention coverage than the Republicans. More coverage is also given to liberal positions. Take the issue of gun control. Guns are consistently portrayed as the weapons of criminals. We never hear about a tragedy being averted or a life being saved because a law-abiding citizen was armed with a gun. Media bias also censors ads. Both the New York Times and USA Today refused to run ads against partial-birth abortions. This week Al Gore made up a story about what prescription drugs cost his mother-in-law, and the media all but ignored it. Why does the media display such a liberal bias? Simply because journalists are more liberal than the rest of us. A 1996 Roper Center survey found that 89 percent of Washington political writers voted for the Clinton/Gore ticket in 1992, only 9 percent supported George Bush.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and my friend from Illinois for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the 1996 immigration reforms improve public safety by facilitating deportation of dangerous criminals. Since 1996, the number of criminal aliens deported annually has almost doubled from 36,000 in 1996 to 67,000 projected for this year. Increased deportations benefit public safety in the United States because the recidivism rate for criminal aliens is high. Justice Department statistics show that half of all criminal aliens released from prison are convicted of another serious offense within 3 years. Since 1996, cancellation of removal has been the primary relief from deportation available to aliens. Legal permanent residents are likely to receive cancellation of removal if they have continuously resided in the U.S. for 7 years and have not committed any crimes classified as aggravated felonies. Some hardship cases have arisen where deportation may not be appropriate. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have urged the Immigration and Naturalization Service to ensure that deportation proceedings are not prosecuted in inappropriate cases. However, the INS has been slow to respond. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5062, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), makes two changes in existing law. The 1996 reforms expanded the aggravated felony definition and provided that aggravated felons are ineligible for cancellation of removal. The 1996 amendments that have resulted in hardship claims were added by Senate conferees late in the legislative process. While there is justification for deporting noncitizens convicted of serious crimes, applying a new standard retroactively arguably is unfair. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5062 provides that offenses committed before 1996 that were not aggravated felonies when committed, except for rape or sexual abuse of a minor, would not bar cancellation of removal. Legal permanent residents already removed because of sexual offenses could reopen proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal. Second, the 1996 reforms terminated an alien's continuous residence on the date of commission of a deportable offense. For some legal permanent residents, offenses committed in past years now prevent them from accumulating the required residents time to apply for cancellation of removal. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5062 provides that deportable offenses committed before 1996 no longer terminate periods of continuous residence for legal permanent residents. Legal permanent residents already removed because of that provision could reopen their proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will support H.R. 5062.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2883, the Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act, is designed to streamline the acquisition of United States citizenship by foreign children after they are adopted by American citizens. The bill makes the Federal Government a partner with parents who, with great compassion, adopt children from overseas. The original bill was improved by an amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). I want to thank him for suggesting the changes made in the amendment. He speaks with great credibility since he and his wife adopted a daughter from Vietnam at the end of the Vietnam War. Under current law, when U.S. citizens adopt a child from another country, the child does not automatically become an American citizen. The parents have to apply to the Attorney General for a certificate of citizenship and the child then has to take the oath of allegiance required of naturalized citizens. This process can take years because of the naturalization backlog at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. There is no reason to make adoptive parents and their new children to have to go through this laborious process. After an adoption takes place and the child is brought to the United States consistent with United States immigration law, the child should automatically be considered a citizen. This bill provides that internationally adopted children, and those children born to U.S. citizens overseas who are not considered citizens at birth, will become citizens as of the time they come to reside in the United States. I should point out that it two U.S. citizens have a child overseas, the child is not considered a citizen at birth if neither parent has had a residence in the United States. Also, if a U.S. citizen and an alien have a child overseas, the child is not considered a citizen at birth if the citizen parent has not lived in the United States for five years, at least two of which were after the age of 14. Under current law, such individuals have to go through a petition process in order to obtain citizenship. The adopted children covered in this bill will be considered citizens automatically when certain conditions have been met. First, at least one parent has to be a U.S. citizen. Second, the child must be under 18. Third, the child must be residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent. H.R. 2883's grant of citizenship will also apply to qualifying children who arrived in the United States prior to its enactment and have not yet obtained citizenship pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (as it existed before enactment). The manager's amendment to the bill addresses the situation of aliens who have improperly voted in federal, state or local elections, or represented themselves as citizens for the purpose of registering to vote or to procure benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other federal or state laws. The amendment is intended to provide a limited class of aliens with exemptions from the penalties in the Immigration and Nationality Act and title 18 governing illegal voting and false claims of citizenship. In some cases, individuals had a reasonable--if mistaken--belief that they were citizens of the United States. This can occur among foreign- born children brought to the United States at a young age if their parents did not realize that the children did not become citizens automatically. Of course, the enactment of H.R. 2883 and its expansion of automatic citizenship to more foreign-born children of U.S. citizens will greatly reduce the number of cases in which such a mistake can be made. One such case is that of a Korean orphan adopted at the age of four months by an American Air Force Master Sergeant and his American wife while they were stationed overseas. That orphan entered the U.S. with her adoptive parents when she was two years old and has spent the rest of her life in this country. it was only after she became an adult that it became known to her that her parents had never filed the necessary papers to naturalize her prior to her eighteenth birthday. Consequently, under current law, she is subject to potential deportation and even prosecution because she mistakenly voted, thinking she already was a U.S. citizen. It simply would not be fair to subject such an individual to penalties under the immigration law for genuinely innocent acts. The protections in the managers' amendment (title II of the bill) are granted to an alien if: (1) each natural or adoptive parent of the alien is or was a citizen of the United States; (2) the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16; and (3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting or falsely claiming citizenship (to obtain an immigration or other benefit under federal or state law) that he or she was a citizen of the United States. An alien who meets this standard is protected against a finding that the alien was not of good moral character (among other things, a bar to naturalization), and is protected against being considered inadmissible or deportable. In addition, an alien who meets this standard shall not be subject to prosecution under sections 611 and 1015 of title 18. All of these amendments are effective as if they were included in the relevant sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2883. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his generous comments.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2883) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to confer United States citizenship automatically and retroactively on certain foreign-born children adopted by citizens of the United States, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease), my friend, for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to play a part in the creation of the Religious Worker Program in 1990. I support these visas since they allow American religious denominations, large and small, to benefit by the addition of committed religious workers from overseas. The visa program expires at the end of the fiscal year September 30. H.R. 4068, introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease), extends the program for 3 additional years until October 2003. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for all the good work he has done on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in the presidential election, George Bush really faces three opponents: Al Gore, Bill Clinton and his manipulation of the government bureaucracy, and a bias by many in the media. During the next few weeks, I am going to point out examples of media bias. The slanting of the news appears in many forms. Reporters injecting their own opinion into articles, the decision by editors and reporters to cover or not to cover certain subjects, and one-sided stories that fail to achieve a fair balance of opinions. The American people will know there is something wrong with media coverage. In fact, a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors showed that more than three-quarters agree there is bias in news coverage. Conscientious editors and reporters know the media should provide the facts and fair and objective coverage. The American people are smart enough to make up their own minds.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), because I know him well enough to know that he would never intentionally mislead anyone, but I would like to clarify a figure that he used, 45,000, and emphasize that is a worldwide figure of possible victims. That is not the number expected, I understand, to come to the United States. I would repeat the point that the authors of the bill who represented Republicans and Democrats are very comfortable with this cap of 5,000. It does guard against fraud. In fact, going back to the cap, we think it is more than generous, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion, one, because we need to prevent fraud; and, two, because the bipartisan authors of the bill are happy with that cap. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hope Members will remember to vote against this motion because it will prevent fraud, and the cap has been agreed to by the authors. Mr. Speaker, 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, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), for yielding me his time and for speaking in opposition to this motion. I, too, oppose this motion. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to strike the cap on the number of visas and green cards given to trafficking victims. The bipartisan authors of this bill gave us this number of 5,000 when estimating the size of the victim group. In fact, at one point, the estimated size of victims was 1,500, so 5,000 is a very, very generous level. We ought to stand by their estimate and respect the desires of the bipartisan authors of this bill. Also, Mr. Speaker, imposing a cap obviously safeguards against fraud. Rather than having an unlimited number of visas available that might be taken advantage of by individuals wanting to get into the system, we need to have that cap to avoid people being tempted to take advantage of the system and abuse the privilege. This bill is a merging of both Republican and Democratic trafficking bills. The authors of this bill estimated the number of trafficking victims in the United States to be no more than 5,000. Both Democrats and Republicans agreed on this cap at the Committee on the Judiciary because it was the number given to us by the authors of the bill. Now some want to eliminate the cap altogether. Whenever a new form of immigration relief is created, many aliens apply for that relief. Too often, those applications do not contain bona fide claims of relief. We need tools to prevent this form of relief from being abused and jeopardizing relief for valid and legitimate claimants. One of those tools is a cap. When a group of people needs protections or relief from deportation, it is important to know the size of that group to understand the size of the problem. If the group size is known or estimated, no harm is done in creating a cap that correlates to that group's size. The size of trafficking victims has been estimated. The authors of the bill have told us the group size is 5,000 people so no harm comes from imposing a cap of 5,000 and, in fact, much good comes from having a cap to stop the fraud and abuse. This cap will prevent large numbers of aliens from falsely claiming to be trafficking victims. It safeguards against fraud, which everyone should be concerned about. Finally, the caps in this bill are on the victims only. They are not on the victims' family members. So spouses, sons and daughters, children of the victim and even parents of the victim, if the victim is under 21, may all receive a visa and a green card free from this cap. The same is true for the green cards themselves. The green card cap of 5,000 is again just for the victims only. It is not on the victims' family members, so obviously many more than 5,000 individuals will be admitted and be able to avail themselves of this new category. There is no reason to remove this cap, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it. The bipartisan authors of the bill, I want to repeat again, gave us the number of 5,000 because they thought that was more than adequate to satisfy the needs of all legitimate victims, and we should stand by that number. Having a cap in place prevents fraud, and I urge all of those who are concerned about fraud, as we seen so often in our immigration system, to oppose this motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's marriage penalty veto. Last February, this House passed the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 1999, with 51 Democrats crossing over to vote with the Republican majority. In August, President Clinton vetoed the bill. Today, the House has the opportunity to vote to override the President's veto. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 25 million couples every year pay an average of $1,400 in higher taxes simply because they are married. That's enough for their children's collect expenses or a down payment on a family car. Here's how the discrimination works: A single taxpayer earning $30,000 annually pays $3,000 in federal taxes. But if two taxpayers earning $30,000 each marry, they owe $8,400 in federal taxes--40 percent more than the $6,000 they paid when they were single. There is no justification for making families pay higher tax rates than single Americans. In my own district of Texas, about 66,000 married couples would benefit from the bill. Raising a family is difficult enough. The federal government should not add to that burden with unfair taxes. That's why I support the House's override of the President's marriage penalty veto.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the death tax really amounts to a double or triple tax. People have already paid a tax on the income they have earned and then they have paid a tax on any gains they have made from investments or interest they have earned from savings and then the death tax hits them again. It's the wrong tax at the wrong time on the wrong people. Opponents say repeal of the death tax is not necessary because it affects relatively few estates and there is an exemption for the first $675,000 of an estate. What they will not tell you is that any business with five or ten employees is usually worth more than that amount. And any farm or ranch that is relied upon by an individual as their sole source of income is going to be worth more than that amount, too. Hard working Americans deserve to be able to leave on the results of their lifetime labor to their children or others. Small businesses and farms and ranches should not have to be sold simply because the owner passes away.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 2961.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2961) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize a 3-year pilot program under which the Attorney General may extend the period for voluntary departure in the case of certain nonimmigrant aliens who require medical treatment in the United States and were admitted under the visa waiver pilot program, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the floor H.R. 2961, the International Patient Act of 2000, a bill introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). Aliens who seek to visit the United States temporarily for business or pleasure are admitted to the United States under ``B'' visas. B-1 business visas are initially valid for up to 1 year and can be extended in increments of not more than 6 months each. B-2 visas are initially valid for up to 1 year and can also be extended in increments of not more than 6 months. The visa waiver program allows aliens traveling from certain countries to come to the United States as temporary visitors for business or pleasure without having to obtain ``B'' visas. However, a visit cannot exceed 90 days and no extensions are available. The Attorney General can authorize an alien admitted under the visa waiver program who faces an emergency situation to remain in the United States for 120 days beyond the initial 90-day admission under voluntary departure. While the 210-day period provided by the initial 90-day admission and the 120 days under voluntary departure is adequate to deal with most emergency situations, it does not meet the need of a relatively few aliens who are admitted to the United States under the visa waiver program and are receiving long-term medical treatment. H.R. 2961 would address this problem by establishing a 3-year pilot program authorizing the Attorney General to waive the 120-day cap on voluntary departure for a limited number of patients and attending family members who enter the U.S. under the visa waiver program. The legislation contains safeguards to ensure only those truly in need of long-term medical care can obtain such a waiver. An alien seeking a waiver would be required to provide a comprehensive statement from their physician detailing the treatment sought and the alien's anticipated length of stay in the United States. In addition, the alien and attending family members would be required to provide proof of their ability to pay for the treatment and their living expenses. The bill caps the total number of waivers at 300 annually and limits the number of family members who can enjoy the benefits of a waiver. The bill also requires the INS to provide Congress with an annual report detailing the number of waivers granted each fiscal year and provides for the suspension of the Attorney General's authority if an annual report is past due. The only change made to the bill from the version reported by the Committee on the Judiciary is that the starting date of the 3-year pilot program is advanced to October 1, 2000. H.R. 2961 is drafted to meet the compelling needs of international medical patients without creating any undue risk or abuse. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would, I am sure unintentionally, jeopardize our national security and endanger public safety. Often the Government obtains classified evidence which, if provided to terrorists and made public, would gravely endanger U.S. agents and weaken U.S. intelligence sources. When the Government uses classified evidence to remove a terrorist, the terrorist often delays the deportation with lengthy court appeals. Usually the terrorist must be detained during his appeal, since Justice Department studies show that more than 90 percent of criminal or terrorist aliens are likely to abscond. This amendment would eliminate the funding used to detain terrorists if classified evidence is used against them. This would force the Justice Department to choose between either letting terrorists go free within the United States or revealing classified evidence that could expose U.S. agents abroad and compromise U.S. intelligence operations. In sum, this amendment would make the Government release terrorists regardless of the consequences. It would effectively require the Government to release terrorists and suspected terrorists who are now in custody and who would then be free to commit other terrorist actions. The use of classified evidence against terrorists is a rare but vital law enforcement tool that must be managed carefully by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The Justice Department is now conducting a review of all pending cases to ensure that individuals are not held without justification. Meanwhile, it would be dangerous to abolish all use of classified evidence against terrorists. This amendment is opposed by the Justice Department, the Anti- Defamation League, and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies and anti-terrorist organizations. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, too.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we had an additional speaker on the way, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), and he has not yet arrived. Without the presence of the gentleman, I will go on and say to the Speaker, I have no requests for additional time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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 on H.R. 371.

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. 371) to facilitate the naturalization of aliens who served with special guerrilla units or irregular forces in Laos, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.