Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I just want to reassure the gentleman that in subcommittee we passed an amendment that took care of the concerns of the State attorneys general. They were concerned about the local issues and what impact it might have on that, and we took that out of the bill. So I hope that that concern is addressed.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a special friend, my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume to respond very briefly to a couple points that my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) made. The first point is that he may have unintentionally misstated, because the Claims Court has plenty of experience handling these types of cases. In fact, it handles all the substantial monetary damage for these Fifth Amendment takings. The other is the gentleman said that he did not know that this is of concern to real people. In my opening statement, I pointed out two horror cases that concerned very real people; and I would say just the opposite. I think the opposition to what I am trying to do is engendered by theory and idealism, not by concern for the real people who have real problems. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify a point, and that is that this bill does not force anybody to go to Washington. In fact, it does just the opposite. It gives property owners the option of either going to a local Federal district court or going to Washington. The point is they should have the choice. That is why we need to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). (Mr. SKEEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The issues we discuss today are those of equity and fairness. Every homeowner and every property owner across America deserves to have their day in court, and not just in court but in the right court. Many legislative initiatives are identified with an individual. We have Megan's Law, the Ryan White Act and the Ricky Ray bill. Today we consider H.R. 992, the Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act. Maybe we should call it the Narromore Act or the Presault Act or any of the other names of the property owners whose cases demonstrate the real need for this legislation. W.O. and Eliza Narromore's property was flooded as a result of the government's operation of the Painted Rock Dam in Arizona. They first filed suit in 1980 in an attempt to force the United States to stop flooding their land. In 1988, their case had gone to the appeals court, and then had been sent back to the lower court for retrial. At that trial, the United States moved for dismissal of the case, saying the Narromores' claim should have been for compensation to the court of Federal claims. The Federal circuit agreed with the government and transferred the case to the court of Federal claims in 1992, sending the Narromores back to square one again. Today, 17 years later, their case is still pending. In 1981, Paul Presault sued the State of Vermont to reclaim a strip of land that had been used by the State to run a government-operated railroad through his front yard. In 1989, the Supreme Court sent Mr. Presault back to square one because of the Tucker Act. Sixteen years later, after again going all the way to the Supreme Court, Mr. Presault is back in the court of Federal claims awaiting yet another hearing. These are just a couple of the horror stories that demand equity and fairness. Property owners across America should not be tossed back and forth by the courts when they are simply trying to assert their fifth amendment property rights. H.R. 992 seeks to provide a solution to an unfair judicial maze that often prevents private property owners from having their day in court. An individual who seeks to contest a government taking or an infringement of his or her property rights currently must deal with unreasonable obstacles and costs in negotiating his or her way through the legal maze built by the Tucker Act. Current law denies the court of Federal claims authority to hear a claim for injunctive relief and denies the U.S. district courts the authority to hear claims for monetary relief over $10,000. Because of this split jurisdiction, no one court can provide complete relief to a property owner whose property has been taken. An owner can choose to seek only one kind of relief or must go to the expense of seeking relief from both courts. In addition, the Federal Government often claims that property owners have sued in the wrong court, bouncing private property owners back and forth yet once again between the two courts. We may hear some argue that we should end the Tucker Act Shuffle by giving only U.S. district courts the ability to grant complete relief in takings cases. This is the wrong approach. We should not discard the valuable resource of the court of Federal claims's expertise or its large body of case law, compiled over time, by denying the court the ability to hear takings claims for both monetary and equitable relief. Why not give property owners the option of going to the court that they think is best? Why should the government tell private property owners where to go? This legislation provides no new cause of action. Instead, it merely creates an option to go either to the court of Federal claims or to the U.S. district courts for all the plaintiff's remedies concerning only fifth amendment private property takings cases. We do not change the substantive law that defines a taking. We leave to it current law to determine whether there is in fact a legal claim. There have been concerns voiced about giving an Article III court's power to an Article I court, that it would somehow be unconstitutional. The answer is, both courts are constitutional. Article III powers have been given to Article I courts many times without a detrimental result to the court system or to the Constitution; and H.R. 992 extends injunctive relief powers to the court of Federal claims only in private property takings litigation. Furthermore, the bill directs that all appeals, whether from the U.S. district court or the court of Federal claims, will go to the same U.S. court of appeals for the Federal circuit which is in an Article III court. I understand that some Members have concerns that H.R. 992 would override so-called preclusive review provisions of some environmental statutes. In order to reassure my colleagues that this bill will not modify any environmental statutes, I will be offering an amendment stating that H.R. 992 does not override any preclusive review provision in Federal law. This legislation simply allows private property owners to go to either court for a complete remedy of a takings claim. H.R. 992 does not allow litigants to challenge agency action in several different courts. Should the plaintiff choose to proceed with their case under this act, once the plaintiff chooses one of the two courts, the case remains in that court only. Private property owners should be given the option and the opportunity to assert their constitutional rights in the court of their choice without being treated like a ping pong ball. Every property owner in America has the right to obtain a timely resolution one way or the other of their takings claims. They deserve to have their day in court and in the right court, which is the court of their own choosing. Among many organizations, the Chamber of Commerce, the realtors and the home builders support this legislation. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this bill and support the right of every property owner in America to have their claim heard in either court. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, to summarize, what this says is that tomorrow we will still be able to have 20 minutes' debate on the amendment that the gentleman is expected to offer tonight. That 20 minutes will be divided equally between the gentleman and an opponent.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to respond to the gentleman's question.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 992 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 382, after the legislative day of today, no further debate or amendments to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except as stated below. On the legislative day of Thursday, March 12, the amendment by Representative Watt of North Carolina, if offered today, shall be further debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by Representative Watt and an opponent.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, that I appreciate his effort to expand the four criteria that he listed to include other groups like the Haitians and the Hmongs that he mentioned. But unfortunately, that is not a valid application of those criteria. I say this because there are at least two major distinctions. One is in the case of the NATO employees, who were specifically admitted to work for NATO and indirectly for the United States, and that is not the case with these other groups that were mentioned. Secondly, the NATO employees have to have been in the United States for an aggregate of 15 years. Again, that would distinguish the NATO employees from members of the other groups that were mentioned by the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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 on H.R. 429, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 429) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for special immigrant status for NATO civilian employees in the same manner as for employees of international organizations, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2429, the NATO Special Immigrant Amendments of 1998, was introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett). The bill would allow aliens who are civilian employees of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and have worked for many years in the United States to retire here with their families as special immigrants. The number of special immigrant visas available each year, currently about 10,000, would not be increased. Currently aliens who have been longtime employees in the United States of numerous international organizations are eligible to retire here as special immigrants. NATO employees are also deserving, and should be granted this same privilege. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization kept the peace in Europe for four decades, saving untold American lives. We should now bestow this small honor on its employees as well. According to testimony received at the hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration Claims held on H.R. 429, the total number of people who would benefit from this bill is about 130. Also at the hearing, Paul Virtue of the Immigration and Naturalization Service stated, ``We do not oppose this proposal and do not foresee any budgetary or resource impact on the Service if this bill should be enacted.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 429. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution. Today we honor a man who withstood the agony of war and the horrors of imprisonment. Sam Johnson's courage is an inspiration to all Americans as we salute him on the 25th anniversary of his release from Vietnam captivity. One of the requirements I have in my office for summer interns is to write two reports on a select number of books. One of those books was written by our colleague, Sam Johnson. It is called ``Captive Warriors'' and it is required reading in my office. For many of my interns, the Vietnam War is as distant as the Civil War. After reading the book, though, they come away with a new sense of patriotism and humility because of the sacrifices that Sam Johnson and thousands of others made for our country. But what makes the greatest impression on many of us is that Sam Johnson was held captive for nearly 7 years. Half of those years were spent in solitary confinement, yet during his years in captivity, his faith in God and country was unwavering. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase President John F. Kennedy, I think that a gathering of prisoners of war from Vietnam would be a most extraordinary collection of courage ever assembled since George Washington faced the British since the Revolutionary War. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I urge my colleagues to support this resolution in honor of my friend and colleague, Sam Johnson.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Pease]. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci] is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2920) to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to modify the requirements for implementation of an entry-exit control system.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, H.R. 2920. It will do two things: It will facilitate trade, and it will protect our borders. Most importantly of all, it has one fair standard for both borders, north and south. Mr. Speaker, it will affirm America's commitment to facilitate lawful trade and border crossings with our northern and southern neighbors and also support development of a workable, and I emphasize the word ``workable,'' border entry-exit system for all our borders.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I want to say my friend from California has, I believe, made a statement that was inaccurate. The point of this bill, H.R. 2920, is not to eliminate an entry-exit system but simply to make the system more workable. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce].

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Congress has required the Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop and implement a system to track the entry and exits of those crossing our borders. The purpose of this bill is to make sure that such a system will not substantially impede trade or traffic across our borders, both northern and southern. The intent is, first, to set a reasonable time frame for the development and implementation of an exit/entry system and, second, to reaffirm that it is the policy of this Congress that such a system is to be developed so that, upon implementation, it will not substantially impede trade or border crossings. Understandably, this matter may be of particular concern to those States along our northern border. Unlike the southern border, there are relatively few northern border entry points and they already are congested by high volumes of traffic frequently using one- and two-lane highways and bridges. Any further slowdown in the flow of such traffic could be seen as hurting the economies of many States, especially New York, Michigan, and Washington State, but also Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, and New Hampshire. States along our southern border, where 2\1/2\ times as many individuals were inspected than were along our northern border in fiscal year 1997, are more experienced in addressing these kinds of problems. For instance, today in San Diego thousands drove across the border and were monitored electronically. Some entry points on our southern border have as many as 23 lanes to speed traffic. Increased trade with Mexico has spurred investments in the construction of major new crossings elsewhere. What this bill does is reassure all Americans and our neighbors both to the north and to the south that, as the United States exercises its right to control its borders, it is also committed to facilitating trade. We should expand our Nation's capacities to trade with our neighbors as well as facilitate the lawful crossing of citizens on both sides of our borders. Unfortunately, many people enter our country along our northern and southern borders legally but, wrongfully, never return home. Forty percent of the estimated 5 million illegal aliens in the country today entered in such a manner, overstaying their visas. The United States needs to develop an entry-exit system to fairly and effectively address these illegal overstays, but we must do so in a manner that does not significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or other legitimate cross-border traffic. Some may suggest this bill would set a different standard for people crossing our northern border. Any such suggestion is contradicted by the facts. This bill treats our southern and northern borders exactly the same. It makes no distinction. Again, this bill is an affirmation of two important national policies; one, that we have a right and duty to control our borders; and, two, that it is in the best interest of the United States and our neighbors both to the north and south to act so as to facilitate trade and border crossings. Our task in the House today is to ensure that border crossings will not be substantially impeded while we also protect the Nation's interest in being able to control our borders. And that is exactly what this bill does. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.