Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], a longstanding advocate of good secure fencing.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. It is my intention to strongly urge that the Attorney General use a portion of annual humanitarian admissions for the purposes the gentleman has just mentioned.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], who is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Baker].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like first of all, before yielding to my colleague from California, to put in historical context a couple of statements that my friend from California [Mr. Berman] made. He mentioned the high immigration level at the early part of this century. In point of fact, in the current decade of the 1990's we will admit more immigrants than any other decade in this country's history. In fact there was a high level of immigration from about 1915 to 1924, but it was followed by 40 years of extremely low immigration levels. No one here is asking for that. In addition to that, of those individuals who came in in such great numbers at the turn of the century, about one- third returned to their home country rather than staying here permanently. Also I am reminded of a quotation by John F. Kennedy, who wrote a book in 1958 entitled ``A Nation of Immigrants.'' He said in arguing for a limit on legal immigration that the reason we should have a limit is because we no longer need settlers to discover virgin lands and we no longer have an economy growing at the rate as at the early part of the 20th century. When John Kennedy made that statement, legal immigration rates were one-fifth of what they are today. Also in regard to the point my colleague made about the extended family members, what this bill does is to follow the recommendation of the Commission on Immigration Reform, which said when we have millions of people waiting to come in and the waits are decades long, we have to set priorities. The priority we chose and the priority other commissions have recommended is to put the interest of the close family members first. In other words, the reason we have reduced or eliminated the extended family members is to make more room for the close family members. If the choice is between admitting a 6-year-old daughter or a 60-year-old brother, we think the choice should be with the minor child. We make no apologies for that. We think that is in the best interests of the family and the best interests of the country. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the gentleman that his figures are absolutely correct. I am reading from the chart put out by the INS called ``Immigration to the United States, Fiscal Years through 1993.'' Of course, in 1993 we had 904,000 admitted; in 1992, 973,000 admitted; in 1991, 1.8 million; 1990, 1.5 million; 1989, over 1 million. The gentleman is correct, the average has been over 1 million a year.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to respond to some of the concerns that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] shared with us. Now, the first was that he was worried about the 200 percent poverty rate level of income that we required of sponsors of immigrants coming into the country. Let me just say that that provision was in the Senate welfare reform bill that passed 87 to 12, with large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats supporting that welfare reform bill. In addition to that, what this is trying to address is the crisis that we have in America today where we continue to admit people coming in under the sponsorship of individuals who are at the poverty level. So it should not surprise us that as a result of our current immigration law we have 20 percent of all legal immigrants, for instance, on welfare; it should not surprise us that the number of immigrants applying for supplemental security income, a form of welfare, has increased 580 percent over 12 years. That is the crisis that we are trying to address by simply saying someone has to be solvent before they can sponsor an immigrant coming into the country, when they have to say they are going to be financially responsible for them. Another concern mentioned by the gentleman from Michigan was in regard to the verification program. I just want to reassure him that it is a voluntary program that is going to be offered as a convenience to employers for 3 years. If it does not work, we will not continue it. But the important point here is that, according to the Social Security Administration, we have a 99.5 percent accuracy rate when all we are doing is checking the name and the Social Security number of someone to find out whether they are eligible to work. The whole point of the verification system, of course, is to reduce the fraudulent use of use of fraudulent documents, protect jobs for American citizens and legal immigrants already in this country, and help reduce discrimination at the workplace. The error rate that the gentleman mentioned was not an error rate. It is called a secondary verification rate, and sometimes it ranges from 17 to 20 percent, as was mentioned. But this is just simply showing that the system works. Those are the times when there was not a person with the right Social Security number, and in many instances those were illegal aliens who should not be employed in this country. Lastly, the gentleman expressed concern or endorsed, which I liked, the free market approach to labor in this country, but I want to say to him that that is exactly why I drew up some of the figures I did about the unskilled in this country, when we continue to allow hundreds of thousands of individuals to gain entry to our country who do not have skills and do not have education. As the gentleman said, they are going to compete directly with our own citizens and own legal immigrants who are unskilled and uneducated, and that is why we see so often in the urban areas that wages are depressed and jobs are lost as a result. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2937, the bill just considered.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. (Mr. CLINGER 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, H.R. 2937 would reimburse the legal expenses incurred by former employees of the White House Travel Office due to their dismissal on May 19, 1993. The Secretary of the Treasury would reimburse such costs out of money not otherwise appropriated. On May 19, 1993, all seven White House Travel Office employees were fired. We now know that the employees' firing and the subsequent FBI investigation was actually instigated by individuals who were pursuing travel and aviation business controlled within the White House. As a result of the actions of those individuals, the seven employees suffered public and private humiliation and incurred extensive legal expenses in their attempt to defend themselves. Today, after the conclusion of all the investigations, no one has been found guilty of any of the charges. Both a GAO report to Congress and a White House management review acknowledged that the actions of people within the White House, the public acknowledgment of a criminal investigation, and the investigation itself tarnished the employees' reputations and caused them to incur considerable legal expenses. On the bases of these facts, the committee feels that in the interest of equity, these particular individuals' attorneys fees should be reimbursed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.