Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to engage the chairman of the subcommittee and the gentlewoman from Idaho in a colloquy. I am very concerned about the administration's proposed American Heritage Rivers Initiative. First, this initiative, originally announced by President Clinton in his State of the Union Address this last January, will threaten property rights if it is implemented. Although the initiative purports to be community led, it is the Federal agencies involved that will dominate the process and could well dictate to property owners how they can use their land. If this occurs, we could see a severe erosion of the property rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution. A prime example of this would occur in the West, where restricting cattle from streams, their only water supply, would create enormous uncompensated losses for ranchers. The administration is advancing this initiative without sufficient input from Congress, and this concerns many of us greatly. The American people have not been granted a say about what is going on here. The agencies involved are currently planning to reprogram funds for purposes that were not authorized or appropriated by Congress. We are all aware that the justification for creation of the program can be found in the words ``There is no new money involved.'' However, 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 sufficient budget justification material as well as substantial protections for private property rights, I am proposing that Congress in general, and the Committee on Agriculture Appropriations in particular, withhold any funds for implementation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. I appreciate the work of the chairman on behalf of private property rights, but I remain concerned that there are no concrete protections for property rights. Any assurances that the chairman could 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 greatly appreciated.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Defense Industry Initiative on Business Ethics and Conduct for its 11 years of active effort in creating high standards of business ethics, business conduct, and compliance in the defense industry. I know that many Members of the House are not familiar with this unique effort, known as the DII. The DII was created in 1986 as an outgrowth of the work of the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, known as the Packard Commission. At that time, a number of leading defense contractors drafted a set of DII principles. These principles obligated signatory companies to have written codes of conduct, to distribute the codes to all of their employees, to have ethics training programs which made certain that employees understood the codes, to have a hotline or ombudsman system, to have systems to make voluntary disclosures of violations of law or regulation to the Government, to attend annual best practices forums, and to participate in a public accountability process. The group of signatory companies has grown over these 11 years to 48 companies, including virtually all of the largest defense contractors. Frankly, I would think that all of our 100 largest defense contractors, at least, should be willing to sign up publicly to the Defense Industry Initiative Principles. And I call upon those companies that are among this group which, for whatever reason, are not presently signatories to sign this statement in order to pledge themselves to the Defense Department and to the public as being committed to these ideals. Recently, the DII conducted its 12th Best Practices Forum. This session was held on June 5 and 6 in Washington, DC, and included some 160 representatives of the signatory companies and 40 senior Government officials. The program was a state-of-the-art exploration of best practices in corporate ethics and compliance programs. It is my understanding that the Defense Industry Initiative is the only industry ethics initiative of its type. We have certainly seen any number of other industries which have had sufficient ethical problems that they should consider something equivalent. But it gives me a great source of comfort to know that the industry which is charged with supplying the defense articles that support our national security has set a leadership example in this area. I would close by saying that all the evidence available to me suggests that the participation of these 48 companies has had a very positive impact on their levels of compliance, as well as in the tone of the relationship with the Government. I am certain that we all remember back to the events that gave rise to the creation of the Packard Commission--things such as high price spare parts or improper labor charging. I understand the Government audits show that among these DII signatory companies the level of such problems has dropped dramatically. Moreover, I believe that this effort has forged a true partnership in the best sense of the word between Government officials responsible for procurement and those in industry who design, develop, and manufacture the items necessary for our national defense. In order to fully recognize the contribution that has been made and the excellent work that has been done, I would like to place into the Congressional Record a list of those companies which are signatories to the DII. All of these defense contractors are to be congratulated for the leadership they have shown and the accomplishments to date. I am certain that we can count on them to continue this fine work in the future. And I hope that we can count on other defense contractors to become part of this important effort.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], for his generous comments. 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 considers H.R. 1866, the Need-based Financial Aid Antitrust Protection Act of 1997. 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 financial need and to give essentially the same financial aid award to 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 that engaged in this practice. After extensive litigation the parties reached a settlement in 1993. In 1994, Congress passed a temporary exemption from the antitrust laws that basically codified that 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 the exchange of the student's financial information through a third party. It also prohibited agreements on awards to specific students. It provided for this exemption to expire on September 30, 1997. Under this exemption, the affected schools have recently adopted a set of general principles to determine eligibility for institutional aid. These principles address issues like expected contributions from noncustodial parents, treatment of depreciation expense which may reduce a parent's income, evaluation of rental properties, and unusually high medical expenses. Common treatment of these types of issues makes sense and, to my knowledge, there are no complaints about the existing exemption. H.R. 1866 would make the exemption passed in 1994 permanent. It would not make any change to the substance of the exemption. 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 demonstrated 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 of the aid available, which 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-blinded missions. No student who is otherwise qualified ought to be denied the opportunity to go to one of the Nation's most prestigious schools because of the limited financial institution of his or her family. H.R. 1866 will help protect need-based aid and need-blinded missions and preserve that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to suspend the rules and pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about competition. It is about saving American taxpayers billions of dollars. Language currently contained in the defense authorization bill is anti-competition. It would prohibit any military facility that was closed by BRAC in 1995 from entering into any private contract for depot level work. This wastes taxpayers' money. Fiscal responsibility requires that we allow the competitive process to determine the most effective and efficient depot while maintaining the highest level of national security. Should the American taxpayer pay for maintenance work at one depot when the work can be done at another for 20 to 30 percent less? Mr. Chairman, competition saves money. In the next 5 years the Air Force alone will need almost $97 billion to modernize its equipment and force structure. Where is that money going to come from? This amendment savings will help pay for future military modernization. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for competition and savings. Vote yes on this much needed amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution before the House is historic: for the first time in 32 years, the budget balances. That is real progress. Nevertheless, this budget--conceived in a strong economy--is one only a mother could love. How does one explain priorities that over the next 10 years set aside only $3 billion to get people--including legal immigrants--off welfare and into jobs but more than $16 billion for additional entitlement benefits for non-citizens? How does one explain that over the next 5 years $13 billion in Medicaid savings are mostly offset by $10 billion in additional benefits for non-citizens? That $10 billion funds additional benefits for non-citizens, many of whom are financially self-sufficient, most of whom entered the country on the promises of their sponsors to financially provide for them. The mandatory added spending over the next 5 years for benefits for non-citizens--individual's whose sponsor's average income is $38,000 a year--is four times greater than that for defense, twice that for natural resource and environment programs, and six times greater than that for community and regional development. Explain these priorities to overtaxed, middle-income Americans trying to buy a house and educate their children, Americans who worked until May 9 this year to pay taxes to fund these priorities. I will support this budget resolution because it balances. That will help families. But its priorities are not those of hard-working Americans or hard- working legal immigrants.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], for yielding. I rise today in support of H.R. 1385, the Employment, Training and Literacy Enhancement Act of 1997. I first would like to commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], for their diligent work in bringing this important legislation to the floor and for their willingness to work with Members to address our concerns. Special thanks also goes to subcommittee members, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], an original cosponsor of the legislation I introduced. Increasing educational opportunities for millions of Americans is a shared goal. But many Americans' opportunities are limited by illiteracy. In fact, there are 46 million illiterate adults in our country. Only 9 percent of these adults are being served by programs provided by the current Adult Education Act. This bill rightly addresses the problems of adult illiteracy. It allows States more flexibility to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy by funding support services such as transportation and child care. I thank the committee for including my legislative ideas that allow States for the first time ever to use a part of their funding to provide support services to participants in adult education classes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if you want to make the workplace more family friendly, vote for the Working Families Flexibility Act. This bill provides working mothers and fathers with more choice and flexibility. It provides workers with the choice of comptime pay or overtime. This option allows employees to balance family needs and career needs. There are some things that money can't buy--time with your children, your parents, or your spouse. Comptime allows workers to buy more of all of these things. If you want to free working families from the shackles of big government, vote for the Working Families Flexibility Act. This bill will make workplaces more flexible in the 21st century. If you believe that Congress should live under the same laws that govern the private sector, vote for the Working Families Flexibility Act. Since 1985, Federal, State, and local governments have been able to offer their employees comp time. Shouldn't private-sector employees have this same option? This bill says yes. Vote for our families. Vote for flexibility. Support the Working Families Flexibility Act--for our families, our workers, and our children.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the dean of the San Antonio delegation, for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share two stories about Congressman Frank Tejeda for the Record, our friend who recently left us. One dates back 20 years, the other only a few days. In 1976 I was a new attorney fresh out of law school. I had just joined a law firm in the Milam Building in downtown San Antonio. I began to hear and read about another young attorney who was planning to run for State representative against an entrenched incumbent. The young challenger's name was Frank Tejeda, and he had an impressive record, including having received many honors in the Marine Corps. He also had some interesting ideas about reforming government that appealed to me. Frank's law office was also in that same Milam Building. One day I walked up several flights of stairs to meet him and to give him a campaign contribution. It was only a check for $15, but it was the first political contribution I had ever made. Frank said, in fact, it was only the second campaign contribution he had received after one from a relative. We had some good laughs about it during the years that followed. Those years saw him hold three offices as a Democrat and saw me hold several offices as a Republican, including a stint as Bexar County Republican Party chairman just 2 years after I made that first contribution to Frank Tejeda. I have always considered that contribution to have been a very good investment. The potential Frank Tejeda showed back then proved out during his years of public service, from the Texas legislature to his reelection to Congress last November. We still hear and read about his dedication to country, his steadfastness, his integrity. He kept his promises. The second story goes back just a few days to the Thursday evening that Frank died. In our family we have a tradition of studying the Bible each morning, but that Thursday, for the first time in many, many weeks, I felt compelled to read from the Scriptures at night, and it was a little before 9:30 p.m. Washington time when I read what Jesus said in the book of John: ``He that believeth on me shall never see death.'' About 2 hours later I received a call in Washington informing me of Frank's passing in San Antonio shortly before 8:30 p.m. It was comforting to know that I had read that uplifting passage at the same time Frank had passed away. The words were a reminder that there is no death, no end to the love we feel for Frank and the love he feels for his family, his friends, and our Nation. The happy memories we hold, like the love expressed, will always be with us. They are, in fact, infinite. My friendship with Frank has spanned both decades and partisan lines. When we worked together on issues important to Texas, there was never any sense that one of us was a Democrat and one of us a Republican. We never exchanged a harsh word on any subject. That is the way I remember Frank Tejeda, a man who believed in the highest ideals of public service, and fulfilled his lifelong promise to those same ideals.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the Ethics Committee for yielding time to me. Let me say at the outset that you can clearly disagree and have great respect for your colleagues on the Ethics Committee, as I do, and still reach different conclusions, as I do. My conclusion is that the penalty that has been assessed by the Ethics Committee is way too severe when you look at the actual findings of the committee and when you look at the precedent that has been established by this House. Let us look at the actual findings. There have been two here. The first finding is that the Speaker should have consulted an attorney about tax laws. The second is that he submitted two inaccurate letters to the Ethics Committee. These are real mistakes, but they should not be hanging offenses, especially when we consider that there was no finding of any law that was broken, there was no finding of any intent to mislead the Ethics Committee, and there was no finding that the Speaker received any personal financial gain. The special counsel to the Ethics Committee once described it this way. He said that the Speaker had ``run some very yellow lights.'' But you do not get ticketed, or you should not, for running a very yellow light, no matter how close it is to becoming a red one. If we look at the precedents that have been established here as well, we see that there is no justification for this severe a penalty. The Ethics Committee staff has researched this issue, and there is simply not a single case where there has not been a finding of an intent to mislead the committee that has resulted in a penalty of reprimand, not a single case. In fact, all of the precedents are to the contrary. Wherever there has not been a finding of intent to mislead the committee, the penalty has always been either a Letter of Reproval, or the case has been dismissed against the individual involved. I might say here, we all know that the Speaker has agreed to the penalties, but that does not mean that the agreement is a fair one. It does not mean that that is a penalty that we have to support. Remember the speech by Teddy Roosevelt called the man in the arena speech. He said that we can either grapple in the political arena, or we can be one of those ``timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.'' How much better it would be for us today to have the victory of conscience, and vote against a penalty that we know is too severe. The report of counsel and article follow:

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair again for yielding me the time. There has been much discussion this afternoon about the tax issues in this case. There has been an assertion made that the Speaker supposedly intended to violate tax laws or that he was reckless in his activities. I want to address that head on. I spoke yesterday with the chairman of the American Bar Association tax committee. He is the successor to the individual who served as the tax consultant to the Ethics Committee. He told me about a recent meeting that had been held by this tax committee, which was attended by 75 to 80 attorneys. And this meeting occurred on January the 10th of this year. He said there was much discussion about the facts of the case that are before us today, but he said, ``there was no conclusion.'' In fact, he said, ``in regard to the discussion of the facts, it was not conclusive.'' There were many different conclusions. He himself went on to say that it was, ``a stretch to conclude that the Speaker was guilty of violating any tax laws.'' My point here is that the tax laws are so unclear that, in regard to what the Speaker was allegedly doing, how in the world could anyone have intended to violate such laws or been reckless in regard to such laws. Last, I want to say that in the conclusion of the report of the special counsel, several explanations are mentioned to justify the severity of the penalty that is being discussed today. One of those explanations given for justification is that ``Politics and tax deductible contributions are an explosive mix.'' Well, of course, there is nothing new about that. Another explanation is that the Speaker had taken an aggressive approach to the tax laws. Well, since when have Members been penalized for taking an aggressive approach to anything? And last, it is said that Mr. Gingrich's own tax lawyer would have advised him not to use a tax exempt organization. But lawyers are risk- averse. They are paid to be cautious. They are worried about malpractice suits. If they think there is 1 chance out of 100 that their client might get in trouble, they are going to recommend against that supposed action. The point here is that, just because the Speaker did not consult an attorney, is that reckless? Is that reason enough to give him the severe penalty of a reprimand? And, furthermore, let me end on a question that I would pose to other Members of the House, and that is, Do we want to be judged by the same standards that we are judging the Speaker by today?

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have become aware of an apparent technical error in two provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Title III of the act, based on the House-passed version of H.R. 2202, includes a comprehensive reform of the procedures for apprehending, adjudicating, and removing illegal aliens from the United States. Section 306 of title III overhauls the rules regarding judicial review from orders of removal. It was the clear intent of the conferees that, as a general matter, the full package of changes made by this part of title III effect those cases filed in court after the enactment of the new law, leaving cases already pending before the courts to continue under existing law. The conferees also intended, however, to accelerate the implementation of certain of the reforms in title III. This intent is clearly spelled out in section 309 of the act. Specifically, section 309(c)(4) calls for accelerated implementation of some of the reforms made in section 306 regarding judicial review, but does not call for immediate implementation of all of these reforms. This intent is manifest not only in the plain language of section 309(c)(4), but also in the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 2202, at pages 222 and 223--Report No. 104-828. Unfortunately, a cross-reference in section 309(c)(4) could be read to suggest that implementation of the transitional changes in judicial review should be delayed until after title III's general effective date. This error occurred through adoption of an effective date provision from the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2202. In light of the specific provisions of section 306(c), the reference in section 309(c)(4) to cases ``described in paragraph (1)'' should not have been included in the conference report. In addition, there is a need to clarify the scope of section 306(c) to ensure that it does not conflict with section 309(c)(4). Section 2 of S. 2197 includes technical corrections to reflect this intent.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill which contains the strongest illegal immigration measures ever passed. Every illegal immigration measure that we passed in the stand-alone bill last week, every phrase, every word, every comma remains in this omnibus bill. It secures America's borders. It stems the pointless flow of illegal drugs, protects American jobs and saves taxpayers billions of dollars. This bill also requires new immigrants and their sponsors to be self- reliant rather than relying on taxpayers for support. For the first time ever, we require every new immigrant to have a sponsor. Just as we asked deadbeat dads to support the children they bring into the world, this bill requires deadbeat sponsors to support the immigrants they bring into this country. This bill has been changed though, Mr. Speaker. The administration put American taxpayers last when they insisted that we make it easier for noncitizens to receive welfare. They threatened to shut down the Government unless we make it harder to deport noncitizens who use welfare. I wish that all of these provisions had remained, but still this is a landmark bill. It puts our taxpayers, workers and communities first. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, division C shall be considered as the enactment of the conference report (Rept. 104-828) on H.R. 2202, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, with certain modifications to title V of the conference report. The legislative history of division C shall be considered to include the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference in Report 104-828, as well as the reports of the Committees on the Judiciary, Agriculture, and Economic and Educational Opportunities of the House of Representatives on H.R. 2202 (Rept. 104-469, parts I, II, and III), and the report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate on S. 1664 (Rept. 104-249). The following records the disposition in division C of the provisions in title V of the conference report. (The remaining titles of the conference report have not been modified.) Technical and conforming amendments are not noted. Section 500: Strike. Section 501: Modify to amend section 431 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193) to insert the provisions in section 501(c)(2) of the conference report relating to an exception to ineligibility for benefits for certain battered aliens. Strike all other provisions of section 501. Section 502. Modify to authorize States to establish pilot programs, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney General. Under the pilot programs, States may deny drivers' licenses to illegal aliens and otherwise determine the viability, advisability, and cost effectiveness of denying driver's licenses to aliens unlawfully in the United States. Section 503. Strike. Section 504. Redesignate as section 503 and modify to include only amendments to section 202 of the Social Security Act, and new effective date. Strike all other provisions. Section 505. Redesignate as section 504 and modify to amend section 432(a) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide that the Attorney General shall establish a procedure for persons applying for public benefits to provide proof of citizenship. Strike all other provisions. Section 506. Strike. Section 507. Redesignate as section 505. Section 508. Redesignate as section 506 and modify. Strike subsection (a) and modify requirements in subsection (b) regarding report of the Comptroller General. Section 509. Redesignate as section 507. Section 510. Redesignate as section 508. Modify subsection (a) and redesignate as an amendment to section 432 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Strike subsection (b). Section 511. Redesignate as section 509. Modify to change references to ``eligible aliens'' to ``qualified aliens'' and make other changes in terminology. Section 531. No change. Section 532. Strike. Section 551. Modify to reduce sponsor income requirement to 125 percent of poverty level. Strike subsection (e) of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 213A as added by this section. Make other changes to conform INA section 213A as added by this section to similar provision enacted in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Strike subsection (c). Section 552. Modify to amend section 421 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to include the provisions in section 552(d)(1) and 552(f). Strike all other provisions. Section 553. Strike. Section 554. Redesignate as section 553. Section 561. No change. Section 562. Strike. Section 563. Redesignate as section 562. Section 564. Redesignate as section 563. Section 565. Redesignate as section 564. Section 566. Redesignate as section 565 and modify to strike (4). Section 571 through 576. Strike and insert sections 221 through 227 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2202, as modified. Section 591. No change. Section 592. Strike. Section 593. Redesignate as section 592. Section 594. Redesignate as section 593. Section 595. Redesignate as section 594.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], who has contributed so much to this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the States have indicated that there is likely to be confusion in the interpretation of title V of this bill in the recently enacted welfare bill. The intent of some of the provisions in title V may need to be addressed in the later bill. Until that time the States should be held harmless on issues which are ambiguous. However, the immigration bill is not intended to change in any way the eligibility provisions in the recent welfare bill. Non-citizens are not eligible for SSI or food stamps, and future immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid as well as for their first 5 years, and this bill simply does not change that. Mr. Speaker, I also on a different subject want to reiterate the fact that all of us who are strong supporters of this bill also are strong supporters of employer sanctions. That is why in this bill we have increased Interior enforcement, we have increased the number of INS inspectors, we have increased the penalties, and we have this quick- check system that will allow employers to determine who is eligible to work and who is not. So this bill goes exactly in that direction, which of course is supported by a majority of the American people as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, several times today, various opponents have mentioned that we do not have in this legislation the Department of Labor inspectors. But I want to remind them that they have already lost that argument twice. That provision was taken out on the House floor by amendment, and then subsequent to that we passed the House bill without those inspectors in it. That means two times it has come before this body and two times the Members have spoken. The point is that we have already debated that, we have already voted. The other thing about the inspectors that seems to be conveniently overlooked is that in this bill we have added an additional 900 inspectors, 300 each year for 3 years, and these are INS inspectors. It makes far more sense to have Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors enforcing immigration laws than the Department of Labor. And, Mr. Speaker, I also want to itemize some of the provisions that are in this bill that might have been overlooked. We have heard tonight by Members on both sides of the aisle that this bill doubles the number of Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years. That is the largest increase in our history. It also streamlines the current system of removing illegal aliens from the United States to make it both quick and efficient. It increases penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud. It establishes a three-tier fence along the San Diego border, which is the area with the highest number of illegal border crossings. It strengthens the public charter provisions and immigration laws so that noncitizens do not break their promise to the American people not to use welfare. It ensures that sponsors have sufficient means to fulfill their financial support obligation. It also strengthens provisions in the new welfare law prohibiting illegal aliens from receiving public benefits, and it strengthens penalties against fraudulent claims to citizenship for the purposes of illegally voting or applying for public benefits. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I know my friend from Texas, Mr. Bryant, opposes this bill, but I still want to say that he deserves public credit for many of the provisions still in the bill that he would consider beneficial, even if he does not consider the entire bill beneficial. Mr. Speaker, I just want to continue the comments I was making a while ago and express to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] my appreciation for his constructive role in the process. Even if he cannot support the entire bill, he has played a significant role in getting us to this point, and especially at the beginning when he was a cosponsor of this bill. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point once again that the opponents who we are hearing from this afternoon do not represent a majority of their own party. They certainly are entitled to try to kill this bill or block the bill or defeat the bill, but we have every right, those of in the majority, to try to pass this legislation. The reason I say that they do not even represent a majority of their own party is simply because every major provision in this conference report, which is itself a compromise, is the result of either the House passage of the bill which passed by 333 to 87, or the Senate immigration bill which passed by a vote of 97 to 3. So there is wide and deep bipartisan support for the provisions in this bill, and I expect to see that bipartisan support continue when the bill comes on a conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn]. (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] who actually lives on the border and faces the crisis of illegal immigration every day.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].