Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in opposition to the Dicks amendment. It will undermine private property rights. It will harm resource protection and conservation. It will impose a Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all approach. If you support private property, resource protection and flexible commonsense regulation, you should reject this amendment. The amendment violates private property rights. Ninety-nine percent of the land for critical habitat of the marbled murrelet is on public lands. Only 1 percent is on private property. The interior appropriations bill currently protects both the murrelet and the rights of private landowners. The amendment would undermine this careful balance. It would ignore and violate the constitutional rights of private landowners in California. That is why the amendment is opposed by the League of Private Property Voters. By violating private property rights, the amendment will undermine environmental protection. The private landowners in northern California are good environmental stewards. They have worked over generations, both to productively use their land and to protect their natural resources. The amendment will sabotage their efforts. It will convert resources from environmental assets into financial liabilities. In so doing, it will harm the very species it claims to help. One cannot protect species unless they work with landowners. The amendment punishes landowners for good environmental management. By punishing landowners it harms species as well. If my colleagues are concerned about protecting the marbled murrelet, reject this amendment. The amendment rejects flexible regulation in favor of a Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all approach. The current bill recognizes the private land is different from public land, so it applies different approaches to protect the marbled murrelet on private and public lands. The amendment rejects this flexible, reasonable approach. Instead it imposes a command and control, one-size-fits-all approach on all property regardless of who owns it. If we really believe in commonsense regulation, if we really believe and support flexibility, if we really believe that the era of big government is over, as the President tells us, we must reject this amendment. Protect the environment, secure private property rights, ensure flexibility. Reject one-size-fits-all, Washington knows best, and oppose this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with several very different budget proposals. First we have the Clinton plan. The Clinton plan raises the deficit in 1997 and again in 1998, but promises somehow to balance the budget after the President leaves office. Then we have two ``Washington knows best'' plans. The same people who passed the largest tax increase in history now offer ``business as usual'' schemes with either no take relief or actual tax increases. Anyone who believes that our deficits result because families pay too little in taxes should support these budget plans. Finally, we have the House Committee on the Budget proposal, the only plan that puts taxpayers first. This taxpayers' budget is historic because it is the only plan that reduced both the deficit and middle- class taxes. Some special interests will attack this taxpayers' plan. These Washington insiders attack returning hard-earned money to the American families. These folks actually think that it is the Government's money. Mr. Speaker, they are wrong. It is not the Government's money to take; it is the people's money to keep. Working Americans, not politicians, produce wealth. Businessmen and women, not the Secretary of Labor, create jobs. Family income growth, not Government spending, enhances wealth. If my colleagues want more jobs, support the budget that returns more money to small business, the House Committee on the Budget plan, the taxpayers' bill. If my colleagues want stronger families, support the proposal that returns money, power and decisions to the families, the House Committee on the Budget plan, the taxpayers' budget. Support the only proposal that puts taxpayers first, the House Committee on the Budget plan. Only the House Committee on the Budget plan remembers that it is the family's money to keep, not the Government's money to take. That is why only the House Committee on the Budget taxpayers' budget deserves our support.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the terrorism prevention act, and want to commend our distinguished Judiciary Committee chairman, Henry Hyde, for his excellent work on this issue. The escalation of criminal and terrorist activity in our country is robbing Americans of the freedom to walk their neighborhood streets, the right to feel secure in their homes, and the ability to feel confident that their children are safe in their schools. We cannot protect American lives and safety or preserve national security without preventing alien terrorists from entering the country. Alien terrorists are often able to enter the United States despite the fact that their entry violates our national interests. In several cases, the Department of Justice has spent many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to remove terrorist aliens from the United States. Terrorist organizations have developed sophisticated international networks that allow their members great freedom of movement and opportunity to strike. The need for special procedures to adjudicate deportation charges against alien terrorists is evident. An increasing number of crimes are being committed by noncitizens: both legal and illegal aliens. Over one-quarter of all Federal prisoners are noncitizens--an astounding 42 percent of all Federal prisoners in my home State of Texas. Recidivism rates for criminal aliens are high--a recent GAO study revealed that 77 percent of noncitizens convicted of felonies are arrested at least one more time. Mr. Speaker, too few criminal aliens are being deported today. The deportation process can be years in length. S. 735 streamlines the deportation process by eliminating frivolous challenges to deportation orders; expanding the list of aggravated felonies for which aliens can be deported; and closing the gap between the end of an alien's criminal sentence and the date the alien is deported from the United States. Americans should not have to tolerate the presence of those who abuse both our immigration and criminal laws. S. 735 ensures that the forgotten Americans--the citizens who obey the law, pay their taxes, and seek to raise their children in safety--will be protected from the criminals and terrorists who want to prey on them. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the terrorism prevention act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. That is correct.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. It was a couple hundred thousand and it depreciated in value 97 percent.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I agree with the gentleman. I do not think the Endangered Species Act is being enforced as originally intended and, quite frankly, it has gotten out of balance. The balance is too great on the side of the regulations, and they do not take, in their enforcement, enough consideration of the adverse economic impact on the real people, hard-working individuals that may have spent their lives working to cultivate the land, spent their lives investing in the land, spent their lives working from daylight to dark pouring everything they have into the land and then all of sudden they find they cannot use it in the way they intended. Clearly, the Endangered Species Act is not being enforced as it should be enforced. We need to get back to a better balance.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. The gentleman is correct, absolutely correct. general leave

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is absolutely correct. The golden-cheeked warbler had never been seen on her property, past or present. It just might someday tend to land there. For that reason the regulations were imposed.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is exactly correct. This is not an isolated incident. It is not the exception to the rule. This is very typically the rule where someone purchases property for investment purposes, for a retirement home in this case, and then sees the value of their lifetime savings, perhaps lifetime savings of two or three generations, wiped out just because of the Government-imposed regulation. In this case, it makes no sense and does not have any connection to actually protecting or preserving any species.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. That is exactly right. I agree with the gentleman. Again, I appreciate his efforts and his leadership on this issue.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I think any Federal land policy of the kind that we are talking about, that means the way the current Endangered Species Act is being enforced, is in clear violation of the Constitution, particularly the fifth amendment. Until the Government decides to engage in some just compensation to compensate landowners for the lost value of their property, in my judgment they are in violation of the Constitution.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Right.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. The gentleman is absolutely correct. It is not the fact that the golden-cheeked warbler had ever landed in any of the foliage on that particular piece of property. It is not that they had at any time in the past. It is just that they some day might. There is no current use of the endangered species. That to me is out of balance. That is why we need to amend the Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, I want to say to the gentleman, he makes another good point which is to say that this type of overzealous regulation enforcement by the Federal Government can hit anybody at any time. We are not just talking about an isolated landowner that may have a large ranch or farm in a rural area. We are talking about anyone who lives anywhere close to habitat that might be considered by the Federal Government to be a critical habitat.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I remember well that day you and I were together on that Texas ranch. When you tell someone that they may lose the right of use of their property, it does not take long for that rancher or farmer to decide they are going to clear the brush that might be that critical habitat. Why wait for the Federal Government to, in effect, take over your property. The gentleman is absolutely correct. unfortunately these regulations force individuals not to be good stewards, it forces them to perhaps take some action that actually hurts the habitat in order to try to protect themselves.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Alaska for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join Chairman Young of the Resources Committee to discuss the critical need to fix the broken Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act needs to be reformed because the current law harms people and the environment. Today, the Endangered Species Act does not protect species. It violates the basic rights of hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying Americans, the very people who ought to be empowered to protect our natural resources. While the Endangered Species Act is flawed in a number of ways, I'd like to focus on three of the most critical areas where the Endangered Species Act desperately needs to be reformed. First, the Endangered Species Act needs to be operated in a way that respects the basic civil rights of all Americans. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: ``Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.'' This amendment guarantees a basic civil right: that no citizen in society can be forced to shoulder public burdens which, in all fairness, the public as a whole should share. The fifth amendment does not stop the Government from meeting important public objectives. It simply ensures that those who want certain public benefits do not obtain these benefits at the expense of particular individuals. The fifth amendment is about fairness. Usually, this simple, common sense, rule of fairness is followed. If the Government wants to use private property for construction of a highway or to create a national park, the Government simply condemns the land and uses the private property. The requirement that Government pay for this private property--rather than simply taking this land--has not impeded the development of our highways or national parks. To the contrary, we have the best and most impressive highways and national parks the world has ever known. The requirement that Government pay to acquire private property for use in these public endeavors simply ensures fundamental fairness. But not all public uses are equal. When it comes to some public uses of private property, private landowners are denied compensation. Americans whose land is used to protect endangered species suffer condemnation without compensation. One American whose fifth amendment rights have been violated by an unfair, and unconstitutional, application of the Endangered Species Act is Margaret Rector. A 74-year-old constituent, Ms. Rector purchased 15 acres in 1973 in order to plan for her retirement. Her retirement plans were destroyed when in 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided that her property might be critical habitat for the golden cheeked warbler, even though no birds were found on her property. Ms. Rector was denied any productive uses of her private land. Today, Ms. Rector's property has lost over 97 percent of its value. Even though Ms. Rector is denied productive uses of her private property under a public law, the Government denies her just compensation. The same rule of basic fairness that applies to Americans whose land is used for a highway or other public benefit also should apply to Margaret Rector. Americans whose land is used for protecting endangered species are not second-class citizens, and it's time that their Government stopped treating them that way. It is simply unfair, and a violation of basic civil rights, to obtain this kind of public benefit by forcing only a few Americans to should the entire cost. It is essential that we reform the Endangered Species Act to ensure that all Americans' fifth amendment rights are respected. Government must compensate private landowners when it takes their land, or a portion of their property, for the public purpose of protecting and preserving endangered species. Second, the Endangered Species Act must be reformed to encourage protection of endangered species. Today, it actually discourages resource conservation. Thousands of private landowners manage their lands as responsible environmental stewards. Unfortunately, in a classic example of unintended consequences of governmental action, the Federal Government's war on private property rights has actually undermined protection of endangered species, the very goal of the Endangered Species Act. How did this happen? The Endangered Species Act imposes confiscatory regulations on private lands that contain valuable resources. It punishes ownership of vital or threatened natural resources. This discourages landowners from environmentally friendly land management practices, and deters the growth of wildlife habitat. The story of Ben Cone is illustrative: Ben Cone is a North Carolina conservationist who carefully managed his 8,000 acres of timberland in North Carolina so as to develop natural resources and attract wildlife to his property. Mr. Cone was successful, so much so that Mr. Cone's property became the type of land that is habitat to the red cockated woodpecker. How did the Government reward Mr. Cone for his successful environmental management? It forced him to bear a $2 million loss for his hard work by prohibiting any development of a small portion of his property. His lesson: accelerate the rate of clearing the land to discourage the costly woodpecker. The story of Mr. Cone is by no means the only evidence of the antienvironmental effects of the Endangered Species Act, as it is currently enforced. Officials at the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department contend that adding the golden-cheeked warbler and black- capped vireo to the endangered species list has encouraged the rapid destruction of their habitat. It is my hope that the Government end its counterproductive, and unfair, reliance on heavy regulation and instead encourage private environmental stewardship. As in so many other areas, the goal of our policies should be results, not more power and more bureaucracy in Washington, DC. Whether we're talking about welfare, Medicaid, education, or protection of endangered species, the people of Texas, California, Wyoming, or Maine understand what needs to be done to serve important public goals. They don't need unelected officials in Washington--who have never visited their land--telling them what to do. The goal of our Endangered Species Act should be protection of species and conservation of natural resources. The difference between Secretary Babbitt's approach and the reform model that we're discussing today is not the goal: both of us want to protect species. The question is how best to accomplish this goal. We believe that landowners have an important role to play in resource protection. We believe that our resource protection laws need to work with landowners, not against them. And we believe that the kinds of disincentives that discouraged Ben Cone from protecting species must be eliminated. The Endangered Species Act must be reformed to accomplish its goal: protection of species. Today it actually harms species. Third, the Endangered Species Act should be used to protect species, not as a national land use planning device. When Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act, it did not intend to grant the Federal Government an easement over much of the private lands west of the Mississippi. From the beginning, Congress realized the need to balance species protection with the rights and needs of people. Congress enacted this law to protect the bald eagle, to avoid direct harm to species whose numbers were low or depleted so as to avoid extinction. This is a laudable, and reasonable goal. Unfortunately, too often what starts out as a reasonable and laudable Government program does not remain that way. Government officials at the Department of Interior have interpreted this reasonable law in an overbroad and unreasonable way so as to restrict activities on private property, regardless of whether an endangered species in threatened by this activity. The Government has used the Endangered Species Act to impose ruinous restrictions on private lands regardless of whether the endangered species is on the land, will be harmed by the proposed activity, or has ever visited the land. According to the Department of Interior, as long as the land in question is the type of habitat that the endangered species tends to use, the Endangered Species Act applies. Most recently, Secretary Babbitt has discussed expanding this habitat to cover entire ecosystems. It's time to return the Endangered Species Act to the original intent of its authors: to prevent harm to particular species. It's time to remind Government officials that private property is privately owned, and that the families and individuals who purchased the land, not the Federal Government, have dominion over it. The Endangered Species Act is in critical need of reform. Our reform goals must be: Protect civil rights. Encourage private stewardship. Prevent Federal land control. Adoption of these simple, commonsense reforms, each of which was intended by Congress when it enacted the Endangered Species Act, will put some balance into the Endangered Species Act and should actually help preserve the environment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, independent oil and gas producers are the mainstay of our domestic energy industry. In fact, independents produce about 64 percent of the natural gas in the country and about 39 percent of the crude oil. But this great industry is struggling. Imports of both oil and natural gas are on the rise, and employment is declining. The United States now imports over half of our annual demand. Our dependency on foreign oil costs about $60 billion annually and makes up a substantial part of our trade deficit. Just over a year ago, President Clinton signed a report issued by the Department of Commerce saying that increasing oil imports are a threat to national security. But even as the President felt the pain of the oil and gas industry, he offered no plans to end that pain. In a survey released by the Sustainable Energy Budget Coalition on January 16, it found that ``three-quarters of the American voters believe we need to do something to reduce dependency on foreign oil.'' Public servants must do more than talk. They must act to lower taxes, reduce regulation, and lower the burden of government on our oil and gas industry. As we approach the next century, we must, once again, make a domestic oil and gas industry a priority.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that State Department speculation is fine, but facts are better. If individuals will look at the bill and add up the figures, they will see that we average 700,000 for each of the next 5 years. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Mark Twain said, ``First you get your facts straight, then you can distort them all you want.'' I am afraid that we have heard some of that just a minute ago. In point of fact, when we consider both cash and noncash benefits, there is 21 percent, a record high percentage, of legal immigrants on welfare. The point, though, of this amendment is, it is a motion to kill, it is not just a motion to strike. There is no separate legal immigration reform bill on the House side, and, as I mentioned awhile ago, the proponents have not offered any amendments to try to improve our legal immigration system. This amendment simply makes a bad situation worse. It will keep the status quo. It will keep the huge backlogs. It will keep the long waits, and, in fact, it will allow them to grow larger and longer. Legal immigration drives illegal immigration. Today almost half of the illegal immigrants in the country today actually came over here on legitimate visa, typically tourist visas, and then overstayed, and that is the result of these huge backlogs and long waits, which is what the bill fixes and what the amendment ignores. Also, Mr. Chairman, I have to say that one of the worst reasons to go back to the status quo is because we have a broken legal immigration system that depresses wages and costs jobs. The American people know immigration can hurt them because they have to compete with them. This amendment ignores the wishes of the vast majority of the American people: 83 percent want us to control immigration including a majority of African-Americans and Hispanics. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the National Federation of Independent Business, the Chamber of Commerce, United We Stand, Hispanic Business Roundtable and Traditional Values Coalition have all endorsed this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman for New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], who just spoke, that the reason we have the record level 21 percent of all legal immigrants on welfare is because we do admit over 80 percent without any regard to skills or education. The problem with this amendment is that it will continue the status quo. The bill tries to increase the percentage of individuals who are admitted on the basis of skills and education. This amendment would leave us right where we are, and over 80 percent would be admitted without any regard to that. Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite some studies that have been done on the question of how legal immigrants, competition with legal immigrants, depresses wages and costs jobs, and I just do not see how the proponents of this amendment can ignore these studies when we know we are dealing with real lives and real hardship. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, immigration was responsible for 50 percent of the decline in real wages for America's lowest scale workers, those who did not complete high school. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute says that in the high- immigration States of Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas, that men's wages were 2.6 percent and women's wages 3.1 percent below the average for other States that were not high-immigration States. Dr. Frank Morris, the immediate past president of the Council of Historically Black Graduate Schools, said there can be no doubt that our current practice of permitting more than 1 million legal and illegal immigrants per year into the United States, into our already difficult low-skilled labor markets, clearly leads to both wage depression and the de facto displacement of African-American workers with low skills. The Urban Institute says this. The immigration reduces the weekly earnings of less-skilled African-American men and women and also that group most clearly and severely disadvantaged by newly arrived immigrants is other recent immigrants. A 10-percent increase in the number of immigrants reduces other immigrants' wages by 9 to 10 percent. Finally, in a book by Julian Simon, the patrol saint of the open- borders proponents, he says this: ``There is no doubt that workers in some industries suffer immediate injury from the addition of immigrant workers in these same categories.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the gentleman from New Jersey that the bill actually has an additional 10,000 visas for humanitarian purposes that the Attorney General can disseminate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], a former practicing immigration attorney.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I want to say to my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], that I appreciate what he said about the ownership of businesses by immigrants, and I trust that he will feel better about the bill when I remind him that we are actually increasing the number of skilled immigrants whom we admit in the country under H.R. 2202. We want immigrants who are going to come here to work, to produce and contribute to our communities and to own and operate businesses. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], the chairman of the task force on immigration reform. (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)