Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] for his comments and his support for this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1198) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide permanent authority for entry into the United States of certain religious workers, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days 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, I am happy to have played a role in the creation of the Religious Worker Immigrant Visa 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. This substitute amendment to S. 1198 extends the program for 3 additional years, until October 2000. When the program was created, a sunset date was included because of congressional concerns about potential fraud. Recently, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the State Department have strongly indicated that these earlier concerns about fraud have, in fact, proved warranted. The State Department's assistant secretary of state for consular affairs wrote to me the Department has, quote, uncovered a troubling number of scams, both individual and organized, seeking to exploit this category to obtain immigration benefits illegally. Most problematic are those cases that involved organized fraud rings in which documents or religious institutions in the United States are fabricated or when the applicant colludes with a member of a religious institution in the United States to misrepresent either his or her qualifications with the position to which the applicant is destined. The American Embassy in Moscow discovered a fraud ring in New York which fabricated documentation of several religious denominations in New York City on behalf of applicants who had no religious training and no intention of taking up religious occupations in the United States. Several consular offices have reported suspicions that some churches in the United States have created fictitious positions solely to help an alien procure an immigration benefit, end quote. Extending the program for another 3 years will allow for further investigation of the misuse of religious worker visas. We will have time to accomplish what the State Department considers prudent; that is, quote, to follow this program closely to see what new fraud patterns emerge and what new tools the Department may need to deter them, end quote. It is in everyone's interest to combat fraud for, as the State Department notes, quote, for the first time we will reach the statutory limit of 5,000 religious worker immigrant visas this fiscal year. Any future growth in the use of the program will cause the development of a waiting list. This will mean that each visa fraudulently obtained will delay the issuance of an immigrant visa to legitimate religious workers, end quote. This substitute amendment to S. 1198 also includes a provision added to the Senate bill by Senator Hatch. The provision would allow the Secretary of State to waive or reduce visa processing fees for aliens coming to the United States for purposes involving health or nursing care, the providing of food or housing, job training, or any other similar direct service or assistance to the poor and needy here in the United States. Lastly, S. 1198 extends the time period last year's immigration bill gave the INS to reduce the number of documents acceptable for employment verification purposes. The INS informs us that the agency cannot, within the original deadline of the end of the month, issue appropriate regulations and properly educate employers. The bill, therefore, grants the INS a 6-month extension of that deadline. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the substitute amendment to S. 1198. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1161), to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize appropriations for refugee and entrant assistance for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate bill, S. 1161, as passed by the Senate, and urge my colleagues to support it. S. 1161 simply reauthorizes refugee resettlement funds for 2 years. The language ``such sums as are necessary'' allows the Committee on Appropriations to adjust the funds available, based upon the number of refugees resettled in the United States for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. While I hope that the number of refugees being settled in the United States declines in the upcoming years, I also hope that those refugees who need to be resettled in the United States have programs available to help ease them into the American way of life. Since the existence of several programs hinge on enactment of reauthorization of the programs, passage of this bill is necessary. I urge the adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. [Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2267, the 1998 Commerce-State-Judiciary appropriations bill. My colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] have worked hard to draft a fair bill, and I commend them for their efforts. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, I would like to highlight just a few of the specific programs which this bill funds within the Immigration and Naturalization Service and which I strongly support. First, the bill, for the second year, provides funding for 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents for fiscal year 1998 instead of the 500 requested by the President. These new Border Patrol agents are vital to efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs, aliens, criminals, and terrorists into the United States. The bill also recognizes that the Border Patrol is not the only key to apprehending and removing illegal and criminal aliens. Additional funds need to be applied to interior enforcement: more investigators and special agents to apprehend illegal and criminal aliens, additional funding for the alien removal process, the expansion of detention space to hold aliens waiting to be removed, and additional funding of the special criminal alien removal program designed to remove criminal aliens as soon as they are released from prison. All of these functions need to be better executed by the INS. I share the hopes of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary that by providing the INS with these additional funds, as this bill does, there should no longer be any doubt that these programs are top priority matters to Congress and should also be top priority matters to the INS. The bill also recognizes and responds to the serious problems within INS's naturalization program. The program, known as Citizenship U.S.A., gave citizenship to criminals and aliens who were in deportation proceedings. These results were clearly the result of bad procedures and insecure fingerprint checks. H.R. 2267 eliminates non-law enforcement entities who formerly were able to take fingerprints. Businesses such as Pookies Parcel and Post and Juanita's Beauty Salon should not be in the business of taking fingerprints used to obtain the most valuable thing the United States could give, that of citizenship. The bill also requires that criminal checks be completed before naturalization takes place, a procedure too often overlooked in the first years of Citizenship U.S.A. I support this requirement. I also hope that as the naturalization procedures are improved and electronic fingerprint checks are implemented, items which my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has agreed to fund, that the waiting time for processing naturalization applications is significantly reduced. Also, the bill funds the Justice Department's audit of past improprieties in Citizenship U.S.A. and its efforts to denaturalize criminal aliens and aliens already in deportation proceedings. I thank my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations for their great efforts on funding the INS, and I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I would hope the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] would finish up with his speakers and we could proceed.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette], who has been a tireless advocate of recreational boaters who have to comply with the requirements of the I- 68 form. While the subcommittee had concerns with the gentleman's earlier version of this legislation, he was willing to work with me and other members of the subcommittee, and that is much appreciated. Thanks to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette], H.R. 2027 strikes an important balance and ensures our borders remain secure and brings relief to the boating public. (Mr. LaTourette asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time and effort the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] has devoted in working with me to devise a bill that addresses the legitimate concerns of his Great Lakes constituency while at the same time keeping the U.S. border as secure as possible. H.R. 2027 carefully balances the two competing interests. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation. By way of background American and Canadian small boat operators and their passengers returning to the U.S. from Canadian waters must either enter through a port of entry or possess approved I-68 forms issued by the INS and good for 1 year. While the I-68 forms allow individuals on boats to enter the United States without being inspected at each docking, the persons are physically inspected and entered into INS records once a year in applying at INS offices for the forms. H.R. 2027 would set up a pilot program whereby a United States citizen passenger on a small boat would be able to return from Canadian waters without an inspection or an I-68 form as long as the passenger was carrying an United States passport. I do not want to leave the impression that I do not have concerns about any waiving of the I-68 requirement. The Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims recently held a hearing on alien smuggling in which it was learned that smuggling from Canada has been increasing and will continue to increase as beefed-up border control presence makes the southern border less hospitable. Unfortunately, smugglers will look for any available weak link in our border security apparatus. However there are two aspects to the bill of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] that minimize these security concerns. First, passengers must still carry U.S. passports. Because a passport is the identification document most difficult to counterfeit, alien smugglers will find it difficult to use. Second, experimenting with an I-68 waiver as a pilot program lasting until the end of 1998 will enable the INS to measure its effects and report back to Congress on whether making the waiver permanent is warranted. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2027. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2027) to provide for the revision of the requirements for a Canadian border boat landing permit pursuant to section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and to require the Attorney General to report to the Congress on the impact of such revision.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the United States is one of the few major industrialized countries in the world that still grants automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. Only three other countries do so--Mexico, Argentina, and Canada, and Canada is in the process of changing its law. Some argue, though I disagree, that birthright citizenship is anchored in the first section of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, which states that ``all persons born * * * in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States * * *.'' The 14th amendment was written to guarantee citizenship to those formerly held in bondage and their descendants after the Civil War. The Supreme Court did not consider application of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment to children born in the United States to legally-residential aliens until 30 years after the amendment was ratified. The court ruled that children born in the United States to parents who were lawfully admitted for permanent residence should receive automatic citizenship. But while the Supreme Court has consistently held that the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment applies to children born to legal immigrants, it has never held that this principle extends to children born here to illegal alien parents. Because of the adverse effects of our present policy, it should be changed. Those effects include smugglers bringing pregnant women into this country to give birth only because their children will become citizens. Approximately 16 percent of all the births taking place in California each year are to illegal alien mothers. The county of Los Angeles estimates that almost 200,000 U.S. citizen children of illegal alien parents living in Los Angeles are collecting $461 million per year in AFDC benefits. And an estimated 10 percent of total education costs to school districts in Los Angeles County are attributable to primary and secondary education for citizen children of illegal aliens. Apart from the costs, isn't citizenship being devalued when it is given away as a result of illegal behavior? I support H.R. 7, legislation introduced by Representative Brian Bilbray of California, because it would do a great deal to discourage illegal aliens from entering the United States. And it would make U.S. policy consistent with the vast majority of countries around the world.

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 the bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1866, to continue favorable treatment for need-based educational aid under the antitrust laws.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] for his comments and for his support, since the gentleman was an original cosponsor of this legislation. 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. Mr. Speaker, today the House concurs in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1866, the Need-Based Educational Aid Antitrust Protection Act of 1997, which I introduced last June. Mr. Speaker, I want to pause here to give special thanks to Joseph Gibson of the House Committee on the Judiciary for his good work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, beginning in the mid-1950's, a number of private colleges and universities agreed to award institutional financial aid; that is, aid from the school's own funds, solely on the basis of demonstrated financial need. These schools also agreed to use common principles to assess each student's need and to give essentially the same financial aid award to each of the students admitted to more than one member of the group. From the 1950's through the late 1980's, the practice continued undisturbed. In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice brought suit against nine of the colleges engaging in this practice. After extensive litigation, the parties reached a final settlement in 1993. In 1994, Congress passed a temporary exemption from the antitrust laws that basically codified the settlement. It allowed agreements to provide aid on the basis of need only; to use common principles of needs analysis; to use a common financial aid application form; and to allow exchange of the student's financial aid information to a third party. It also prohibited agreements on awards to specific students. It provided for this exemption to expire on September 30, 1997. To my knowledge, there are no complaints about the existing exemption. H.R. 1866, as introduced and passed by the House, would have made the exemption passed in 1994 permanent. It would not have made any change to the substance of the exemption. The Senate amendment provides for a 4-year extension of the exemption and makes some minor technical changes to the information-sharing provision of the exemption. I would have preferred that we pass this bill as originally introduced, particularly with respect to the permanency of the exemption. Despite my disappointment with the other body's shortening of the exemption, I am encouraged that they kept the provision of the original bill that struck the word ``temporary'' from the heading of the provision. I believe this represents an understanding that we will make the exemption permanent if no problems are reported with it during this 4-year extension. It is with that understanding that I am willing to accept the Senate amendment. Mr. Speaker, the need-based financial aid system serves social goals that the antitrust laws do not adequately address; namely, making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of financial need. Without it, the schools would be required to compete, through financial aid awards, for the very top students. Those very top students would get all the aid available. That would be more than they need. The rest would get less or none at all. Ultimately, such a system would serve to undermine the principles of need-based aid and need-blind admissions. No student who is otherwise qualified ought to be denied the opportunity to go to the colleges involved because of the financial situation of his or her family. H.R. 1866 will help protect need-based aid and need-blind admissions and preserve that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the tax bill before the House, the first in 16 years to cut taxes, is one small step for America's families, one historic leap for freedom. It reverses the Nation's direction and points us down a path toward restoring individual responsibility and accountability. Can there remain any doubt that individual citizens and their families are far more capable of making effective decisions for themselves than can a distant bureaucracy? Freedom begins with us, with each individual citizen, each family. On behalf of the people who have sent us here, we today reclaim their right to decide, to control more of their lives, to direct more of their children's development and their own futures. Today we celebrate another step on what remains a long, historic journey for mankind.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I wish to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from Idaho in a colloquy. I am very concerned about the administration's proposed American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This initiative could threaten private properties if it is implemented. Although the initiative purports to be community-led, the Federal agencies involved will dominate the process and could well dictate to property owners how they can use their lands. If this occurs, we could see a severe erosion of the private properties rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution. A prime example of this could occur in the West where restricting cattle from streams, their only water supply, would create enormous uncompensated losses for ranchers. The American people have not been given a voice in the process. The agencies involved are currently planning to reprogram funds for purposes that were not authorized or appropriated by Congress. The reprogramming of funds to pay for an initiative where the voices of the American people have not been heard is simply not acceptable. Until Congress has reviewed this initiative and the agencies have provided substantial protections for private property rights, I am proposing that Congress in general, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations in particular, withhold any funds for implementation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Any assurances that the chairman can provide that no reprogramming requests will be entertained by the committee until all questions have been answered and private property rights have been protected would be appreciated.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho.