Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, let me assure my colleagues that their fears are unfounded and simply not justified. I would turn their attention again to the specific language in the bill, that it would not be implemented and I will repeat that for emphasis once again, it will not be implemented if it would impede trade or traffic. So all these scare stories of hours of wait, all the fearmongering is really on the wrong subject because the bill would never be implemented because of the language in the bill saying it would not be if there were any diminution of trade or traffic. The experts, Mr. Speaker, tell us that such a system is workable and the experts I quoted a while ago have confirmed that. Mr. Speaker, finally I want to point out that such a system would benefit both countries because citizens of both Canada and the United States have well-grounded fears of terrorism, illegal immigration and drug smugglers. In fact, just this week there was a poll taken in Canada that for the first time ever showed that immigration concerns, particularly in regard to illegal immigration, was now the number two priority of Canadian citizens. In that case, I think that they join American citizens in being concerned about a legitimate problem. This section 110 will in fact enable us to stop terrorists, reduce illegal immigration and reduce drug smugglers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) is opposed to the motion.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague and classmate, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), is offering a motion to instruct conferees to, quote, ``agree to the provision in the Senate bill repealing section 110 of the Immigration Reform Act of 1996.'' This motion, however, defies logic. Why? The conference is over. There is nothing left on which to instruct the conferees. The Senate conferees have already receded to the House bill, which contained no provision on section 110. Why should the House recede to the Senate when the Senate wants to recede to the House? Some claim, and we have heard that in the last few minutes, that section 110 will shut down our borders and that we must act now. That claim is simply not true. Let me give my fellow Members some of the facts. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Immigration Reform Act of 1996 because we recognized that our immigration laws needed to be strengthened. Section 110 required the Attorney General to establish an automated entry-exit control system for aliens at points of entry to the United States. Last year, through an agreement negotiated by the leadership, the Omnibus Appropriations Act extended the deadline for implementation for the land and seaports to March 30, 2001. The extension also included the requirement that the system not, repeat, that the system not significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or other legitimate cross-border traffic at land border points of entry. So section 110 will not shut down the borders. I would direct the Members to the actual language of the bill itself that I just read. The INS is already conducting technology tests. The INS' preliminary results ``indicate that radio frequency technology works fast enough to collect entry-exit records in a land border environment. Many critics of the entry-exit control said it could not be done, no technology was feasible. The tests indicate it can be done.'' In fact, the use of technology promises to expedite legitimate traffic at land points, which is exactly what we all want to do, expedite that trade in traffic. The deadline for implementation is 18 months. Let us give the INS more time to work on implementation. Repeal is clearly not the answer. Let me tell my colleagues why we need section 110 for the good of the country. Two million of the five million illegal aliens in the United States entered legally on tourist and business visas and never left. They know we have no departure system so they simply enter and then disappear. Seventy percent of the illegal drugs smuggled into the United States came across our southwestern border. Our northern border is also at risk. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service reported earlier this year ``Most of the world's terrorist groups have established themselves in Canada, attempting to gain access to the United States of America.'' Mr. Speaker, that is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service itself that just said that. Seven border counties in Washington State have been classified ``high-intensity drug trafficking'' areas, the same designation given to Los Angeles, the southwest border, and New York City by Federal law enforcers. The Federal drug czar's report on the Northwest high- intensity traffic areas states, ``The Pacific Northwest increasingly appeals to drug traffickers as an entry point for illicit drugs. Having a highly developed commercial and transportation infrastructure, the area is favored by large-scale drug smugglers from the Far East.'' An automated entry-exit system will decrease these threats to our national security because the entry-exit system will allow the INS to compare entrants against databases of law enforcement agencies and the Department of State. As a result, with an automated entry-exit system, the deterrent value of our current system will be significantly enhanced when criminals and terrorists learn they must face the prospect of inspections. Our interest in facilitating legitimate traffic can be balanced with our national security needs to protect our country against visa overstayers, drug smugglers, and terrorists. The motion should be opposed. Mr. Speaker, let me also say that this debate tonight is not about trade or traffic. All of us who are involved in this debate, all of us who support section 110 want to increase trade and traffic with our neighbor to the north. That is why this debate is not about trade and traffic. This debate is about trying to reduce illegal immigration, stop terrorism, and try to discourage drug smugglers from entering the United States.

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, in that case, pursuant to clause 7(b) under rule XXII, I rise to claim a third of the time since I am in opposition to the motion.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 1887, which was introduced by my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly). This bill, which passed overwhelmingly in the Committee on the Judiciary with overwhelming votes on both sides of the aisle, will put a stop to the production and sale of videos that feature the crushing and often the killing of small, innocent animals. First, let us be clear as to what this legislation will not do. It will in no way prohibit hunting, fishing, or wildlife videos. It will only prevent the interstate trafficking of videos that feature people crushing small animals to death with their feet. Furthermore, this bill does not expand the legal definition of what is cruelty to animals. It would only outlaw the selling of videos that depict the torture of animals in violation of existing stated laws. Mr. Speaker, some of society's most brutal killers first began their violent ways by killing and maiming small animals. By putting an end to these disgusting and cruel videos, we could discourage the behavior of these individuals before it escalates to more serious crimes directed not towards animals but towards people. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this common-sense legislation. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for introducing this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2886, a bill introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), amends the Immigration and Nationality Act and provides that an older child who is 16 or 17 years old may be adopted with or after the adoption of a younger sibling who is a child under such act. Currently, the Immigration and Nationality Act permits a foreign-born child who has been adopted by a United States citizen parent to be classified as an immediate relative child for purposes of immigration to the United States. To qualify, the child must be under the age of 16 at the time an immigrant visa petition is filed on the child's behalf. Since most parents prefer to adopt infants or very young children, older children constitute a relatively small portion of the adoptive children admitted as immigrants. However, in cases involving siblings, adoptive parents often wish to adopt the older child or children in order to keep the family group intact. If the oldest child happens to be 16 or 17, there is no way under current law for that child to immigrate to the United States. A typical case would likely involve a group of siblings, one 16 or 17 years old who had been orphaned. A United States citizen family is willing to adopt all of the siblings in order to keep them together but, under current law, the oldest child cannot immigrate to the United States. The result would be either separation of the older child from the sibling group or, in cases where foreign adoption authorities will not prevent the separation of siblings, the U.S. citizen loses the opportunity to adopt any of the children. The bill authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) would allow minor orphaned siblings to stay together when being adopted by U.S. citizens. The bill would allow a 16- or 17-year-old child to qualify as an immediate relative child if the U.S. citizen parents have also adopted a sibling of that child who is under the age of 16. This bill thus would achieve the goal of maintaining family unity in a relatively small number of cases involving the adoption of siblings one of whom is age 16 or 17 at the time the adoptive parents file immigrant visa petitions on the children's behalf, and I urge the House to adopt H.R. 2886. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam 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 the bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his supportive comments. General Leave

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2886) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that an adopted alien who is less than 18 years of age may be considered a child under such Act if adopted with or after a sibling who is a child under such Act.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), for yielding me time; and I appreciate his giving me the opportunity tonight to be able to make some comments of my own on such an important subject. But first I want to thank him for his giving the attention to such a complex, sensitive and yet important subject that it deserves and also thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for his expertise and for his knowledge of immigration, which I think provides a great contribution to those of us here in the House who certainly can benefit from his personal knowledge, firsthand knowledge, of immigration as it impacts his State of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the destructive effect of our current immigration policy. It is having a destructive impact on recent immigrants and black and Hispanic citizens and also how a more enlightened immigration policy would benefit American minorities and, in fact, the overall American economy. Each year, close to 900,000 legal immigrants enter the United States. Of these, about 300,000 have less than a high school education and their competition for scarce jobs does have a destructive impact on the opportunity of American workers with no more than a high school diploma who are disproportionately and unfortunately recent immigrants and black and Hispanic citizens. Mr. Speaker, among reports of a growing, prospering economy are other more troubling reports on a growing gap between the well-to-do and the working poor. The national unemployment rate is about 4 percent; where, for those with less than a high school education, it is more than twice as high, over 8 percent. In many cities where there are high recent immigrant populations, the unemployment rates are in double digits for those with less education. Where is opportunity for these individuals and their families? Numerous polls indicate that black and Hispanic Americans know this only too well. This is no surprise, given that they are hurt disproportionately by our immigration policy today. We cannot pretend that the adverse impact of mass immigration on minorities does not exist. We can and should find solutions to protect the jobs and wages of recent immigrants and black and Hispanic citizens. How often do we read about the long-term unemployed or the working poor or single mothers with no mention of the serious impact of immigration on their employment wages and working conditions? How often do we hear comments about the growing gap between the well-to-do and the working poor that do not mention that almost half the relative decline in wages of those who do not finish high school is caused, in fact, by competition from immigration? Think of a single mother barely surviving in a minimum wage job who sees her annual wages depressed by $2,000 because she must compete with more and more unskilled immigrants. She very well might be a recent immigrant herself seeking a better life for herself and her children, or she might be able to trace her roots in this country back generations and is simply seeking the American dream that has been denied her ancestors. Think what she can do for herself and her children with that lost money. Buy a used car so she does not have to take a bus to work. Put a down payment on a modest home. Or even fix the furnace before winter comes. Worse, think what would happen if she actually loses her job because of the never-ending competition from new arrivals. It is certainly not the immigrants themselves who are to blame and who understandably want to come to America. It is our immigration policy that is to blame. But who knows how many people have been hurt by the unintended consequences of our outdated immigration policy. A series of recent studies have all documented the effects of immigration policy on low-skilled American workers and recent immigrants. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences concludes that immigration was responsible for about 44 percent of the total decline in relative wages of high school dropouts between 1980 and 1994. The Rand Corporation reports that in California the widening gap between the number of jobs available for noncollege-educated workers and the increasing number of new noncollege-educated immigrants signals growing competition for jobs and, hence, a further decline in the relative earnings at the low end of the labor market. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, finds that ``immigration of unskilled immigrants comes at a cost to unskilled U.S. workers.'' The Hudson Institute states that ``U.S. immigration policy serves primarily to increase the number of U.S. residents who lack even a high school degree. America must stop recruiting workers for jobs that do not exist or exist only at the lowest wages.'' The Brookings Institute published a paper concluding that ``immigration has had a marked adverse impact on the economic status of the least skilled U.S. workers.'' The Center for Immigration Studies calculates that immigration may reduce the wages of the average native in a low-skilled occupation by over $1,900 a year. CIS also found that the poverty rate for persons living in immigrant households of 1997 was 22 percent, almost double the 12 percent rate for persons in native households. It concluded that reducing the flow of less skilled immigrants who enter each year would have the desirable effect of reducing job competition between more established immigrants and new arrivals for low-wage jobs. Reducing the supply of this kind of labor would create upward pressure on wages and benefits for the working poor, including immigrants already in the country. Over time, this should reduce poverty among immigrants who work. These studies reinforce what common sense already tells us. In addition, Mr. Speaker, add three other facts together. First, immigrants will account for half of the increase in the workforce in the 1990s. Second, the skilled level of immigrants relative to Americans has been declining for years. Thirty-five percent of immigrant workers who have arrived since 1990 do not have a high school education, compared to only 9 percent of native-born workers. Some 300,000 illegal immigrants without high school educations arrived last year and will total 3 million this decade. Third, close to 90 percent of all future jobs in America will require more than a high school education. The mismatch is clear. Nearly half of all immigrants today are not prepared for the jobs of the future. Current immigration policy has many Americans and recent immigrants competing with hundreds of thousands of newcomers without high school degrees for a fixed number of low-skilled jobs. This is a recipe for disaster for millions of blue-collar workers and their families. No one should complain about the plight of the working poor or the persistence of minority unemployment or the levels of income inequality in America without acknowledging the unintended consequences of our present immigration policy. Of course, immigration is neither all good nor all bad. Immigrants benefit America in many ways. But we should design our immigration policies so that it enhances rather than diminishes opportunity for American workers. We should protect the jobs of working Americans, and we can make a better life for all Americans wherever they were born. Just as American minorities would benefit from a reduced number of low-skilled immigrants, the American economy and American firms trying to prosper in this era of global competition would benefit enormously from an increased flow of more educated immigrants. American industry is pleading for more skilled and educated workers. The chairman of the National Association of Manufacturers recently stated that ``the shortage of skilled employees is not a distant threat anymore. The skills gap is now catching up to us and could threaten the amazing growth and productivity gains of the past decade. Finding an adequate supply of qualified employees is the number one issue for American industry today.'' NAM found that 88 percent of manufacturers are experiencing a shortage of qualified workers, 60 percent find that current workers lack basic math skills and that 55 percent find serious deficiencies in workers' basic writing and comprehension skills. These problems can be solved with more educated workers. And because immigration accounts for such a high percentage of workforce growth, almost one-half, an emphasis on more educated immigrants would be an important part of the solution. The result would be a more productive American economy and more productive American businesses. As the productivity of the American economy increases, so will the prosperity of all Americans. American citizens and legal residents will benefit in another way from more educated immigrants. To borrow a line from a new book by George Borjas, ``Skilled immigrants earn more, pay higher taxes, and require fewer social services than less skilled immigrants.'' The National Academy of Sciences states that over his or her lifetime, each immigrant with less than a high school education will cost American taxpayers $89,000. That is, the Government benefits consumed by each immigrant will exceed taxes they paid by $89,000. To citizens concerned about how we are to rebuild our schools and protect and preserve Social Security in the next century, these numbers should set off alarms. More than 300,000 immigrant workers with less than a high school education entering our country this year will require $27 billion more in government services and benefits than they will contribute in taxes. That is $27 billion, for example, that will not be available to rebuild our schools and protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare. Next year another 300,000-plus immigrants will enter the country with less than a high school education. Over their lifetimes, they will claim another $27 billion that could provide education and training to recent immigrants and black and Hispanic citizens who have less than a high school education and who are disadvantaged in our economy. Common sense tells us that we should align our immigration policy with the needs of America. The economy is crying out for more educated workers, and one of the easiest and most cost-free ways of providing these workers is through immigration reform. Doing so would mean more economic opportunity for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, now I am happy to yield back to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and thank him again for sharing his time tonight with me and thank him again for his attention to such an important subject and for his expertise on the subject, as well.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to serve as a Congressional Co-Chairman for this year's celebration of National Bible Week. During this week of Thanksgiving and prayer, it is fitting that we take time to recognize the importance and significance of the Holy Bible and encourage all walks of life to embrace the Bible in their daily lives. I also want to thank Mr. William E. Simon for serving as National Chairperson for the 1999 National Bible Week. I commend the endeavors of the National Bible Association for setting aside this week to celebrate our common faith and to encourage others to read the Bible. It is in the Bible that we realize the wisdom of the Lord, and the true meaning of charity, love, and forgiveness. We must do more, through government and private action, to strengthen our families, care for our aging parents, and show hospitality to our neighbors. I am confident that in the Bible we, as a people and a world community, can find the answers to solving many of the problems we face in today's society. I encourage all people, young and old, man and woman, rich and poor, sick and healthy to open up your lives to the teachings of the Holy Bible.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 2116, the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act. Health care as we know it is changing. New technology allows for better treatment, better diagnosis and greater opportunities than ever before. But as we approach the 21st century, the Veterans Administration must also change to address the needs of our veterans. This bill accomplishes that objective. Mr. Speaker, my district contains one of the highest concentrations of veterans in the country. I have held town meetings across my district to listen to their concerns. The veterans I represent have advocated many of the provisions contained in this bill. From requiring the VA to enlist the help of veterans organizations in developing enhanced service plans, to allowing the VA to contract for needed hospital care, the provisions contained in H.R. 2116 will benefit the VA for years to come.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2684. Last February I hosted a town meeting in Kerrville, Texas, to discuss the President's VA budget and the future of the Kerrville VA Medical Center. Over 1,400 veterans attended and voiced their concerns about the President's proposed budget cuts that would reduce services at the Kerrville VA. At that time, the President had submitted a proposed VA budget that was woefully inadequate. It was an insult to those that have served our nation. But thanks to the leadership of the Appropriations Committee members and the millions of veterans around the country, this bill contains the largest veterans' medical care increase ever. In the face of a seriously under-funded Administration budget for veterans' health care, this bill sends a clear message: Veterans will continue to receive the high quality, accessible health care they were promised. Mr. Chairman, this budget keeps the promises that we made to our veterans. I urge passage of H.R. 2684.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2280, the Veterans Benefit Improvement Act. Veterans have sacrificed to defend our Nation and have earned health care and other benefits through their service. They came forward when America needed them. Now Congress must continue to keep its promises to those who served. H.R. 2280 keeps our promises to veterans by increasing the Cost of Living Adjustment to millions of disabled veterans. It also restores medical, educational, and housing loans to surviving spouses who have remarried. Consideration of this legislation is timely since it helps to remind us to commemorate the anniversary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. For 100 years, the VFW has been active not only with veterans programs but also with a host of civic and volunteer activities. During 1997 and 1998, the VFW and the Ladies Auxiliary contributed over 12 million hours of volunteer services and donated nearly $55 million to various community service projects. I would also like to single out the Heart O' The Hills VFW Post in my district in the Hill Country of Texas. It is one of the oldest and most active in the State. Two weeks ago, it celebrated its 84th anniversary. It is because of the selfless dedication of the veterans in the Hill Country and veterans around the Nation that we enjoy prosperity and freedom today. Mr. Speaker, our veterans willingly served to defend our Nation. They were there when we needed them, and now we must be there when they need us.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding this time to me. I wish to comment on section 332 of the transportation appropriations bill. The Committee on Appropriations has seen fit to include language which prohibits the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency from implementing a final rule for Section 656(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. By preventing the implementation of a final rule, section 332 will undermine the key provision of the 1996 immigration law, a law passed by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress. By nullifying laws to the appropriations process, this measure undermines the legislative process itself. Regarding the section 656(b) of the immigration law, it is unfortunate to see the national ID card hysteria is alive and well. I do not support a national ID card and do not know anyone in Congress who does. I do support immigration laws that stop illegal aliens from using fraudulent documents to take jobs and benefits away from Americans. There is no national ID card in the 1996 immigration reform law. It merely directed the Department of Transportation to establish reasonable standards for permitting the abuse of State issued driver's licenses. It is entirely optional for States to use a Social Security number on State driver's licenses. The 1996 immigration reform law encourages States to create driver's licenses, birth certificates and other forms of ID that are hard to counterfeit. Fourteen States, for example, already have tamper resistant driver's licenses, but only in the wildest imagination does any of this constitute a national ID card. Neither the legislation, nor the proposed rules, require that the individual States include an individual's Social Security number on the driver's license. This will remain a State option. It is not mandatory. Driver's licenses and Social Security cards are the most fraudulently duplicated IDs, and without making them tamper resistant we are asking illegal aliens to use them to commit fraud and, of course, wrongfully gain citizenship. While I will not ask my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2084, the transportation appropriations bill we are now considering, I wish to voice my strong concerns about this provision and the process which allowed it to be included in the bill. If the legislative process means anything, we have to stop overturning and changing legislation through appropriation bills. Mr. Chairman, I plan to work with members of the Committee on Appropriations, including the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), to ensure that this does not happen again.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, later on tonight we will be considering the Dingell amendment, which I strongly support. I know that to many people, restrictions on the use and sale of weapons seem like common sense. Those who live in urban areas, particularly the inner cities, seldom hear of a gun used for hunting or for sport. Instead, to them, guns are almost always associated with crime and violence. Others know that guns are used safely for sport, to shoot game and to protect one's home. In fact, more guns are used each day in self- defense and to prevent crime than are actually used to commit crimes. Clearly, there is a difference of perspective based on individual's own life experiences. The clash of opinions comes when new gun control restrictions are perceived as punishing law-abiding citizens rather than the criminals themselves. To me, the need is not for more gun control legislation on the books, but better enforcement of the laws we already have. We all know that under this administration there have been very, very few prosecutions of crimes involving guns. For example, thousands of felons were identified as attempting to illegally buy weapons under the Brady law, yet this administration chose not to prosecute a single person. We also know that we would not be here today if the Littleton tragedy had not occurred. Yet none of the proposed restrictions we will consider later tonight would have prevented those deaths. What certainly would have prevented the killings would have been the enforcement of the dozen gun laws that were broken during the course of the acquisition, possession, and use of the guns involved. One more point, Mr. Chairman. The violence and crimes committed with guns are not the root problem, just the manifestation of it. The root problem is the destruction of American values. Our efforts should be directed towards strengthening those values, and not passing restrictive amendments which are going to be considered later tonight and which do not solve the problem. We should seek reasonable solutions. That is what the Dingell amendment will help us to achieve.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, there is no greater responsibility than raising a child. It does not help parents when children are besieged by graphic violence, promiscuous sex, and foul language on TV, in the movies, in music, and on video games. Ironically, current laws actually prevent entertainment industry executives from meeting to create a voluntary code of conduct on the grounds that such meetings might hinder competition. To solve this problem, I introduced bipartisan legislation this Congress that would grant a narrow exception to current laws that bar such meetings. The entertainment industry should have the opportunity to meet and discuss voluntary standards that could help improve the content of television, movies, music, and video games. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for including this provision in the amendment to protect children from the culture of violence. The small screen and CD at home, the large screen in the theaters, and video games wherever they are played, all too often fill young hearts and minds with a poisonous effluent. Violence is glorified and graphic stable families are ridiculed or ignored. Authority figures, including parents, are mocked. Religion is deemed irrelevant. Right and wrong are relative. Entertainment executives need to assume some responsibility for undermining American values whether they intended to do so or not. They can change our culture for the better simply by agreeing to turn their microphones and cameras in a different direction. This provision gives them that opportunity.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the publication in the Congressional Record (as contemplated by clause 2(a)2 of rule XI) of the rules adopted by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule XI, which have duly governed the proceedings of the Committee since their adoption on January 20, 1999, and subsequent amendment on March 10, 1999 and on April 14, 1999.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in Kosovo, the United States is bearing most of the burden in a region of the world where there are no American security interests at stake. Our pilots and planes account for at least 80 percent of the air strikes against Yugoslavia. And our taxpayers are picking up the bill for most of the costs of the war. Yet our NATO allies in Europe have almost twice as many men and women in uniform as we do. The U.S. cannot always be the supercop patrolling the world. Our NATO allies should do more, and America less. Unlike Iraq, which attacked other countries and where our national security was at risk because of Iraq's control of our oil supply, Kosovo has no similar claims to American intervention. America may have a humanitarian responsibility to help bring stability to the region, but we have no obligation to carry the heaviest load. Our NATO allies have more reason to intervene and are capable of doing so. They should shoulder more of the burden. After five weeks of bombing, we now know that our stated goals in Kosovo have turned to ashes. Our hostile actions against Yugoslavia, we were told by the Administration, would stop the exodus of refugees and bring the surrender of Yugoslavia within days. The Administration has failed in its mission. Our actions likely have made the situation worse. A realistic solution is to seek a negotiated settlement that protects the rights of Kosovars to remain safely in their homeland. There is much we can do to encourage this without declaring war: provide logistical support to our allies, seize Yugoslavia's assets in foreign banks, and encourage Russia, Yugoslavia's historical ally, to medicate a peace agreement. For Congress to declare war and give the President a blank check would continue America's level of involvement and even escalate it. In fact, the President announced yesterday he is calling up 32,000 reservists. That's not the direction we should be going. Based upon numerous conversations with many constituents, I sense a growing unease with putting the lives of Americans at risk, especially when our objections are not being achieved. Our allies should take responsibility for a greater share of the war effort and the U.S. should do more to bring about a negotiated settlement.