Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2937) for the reimbursement of legal expenses and related fees incurred by former employees of the White House Travel Office with respect to the termination of their employment in that Office on May 19, 1993, as amended.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule: The Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunties, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on National Security, the Committee on Resources, the Committee on Science, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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. I just wanted to respond to my friend from California to say there is in the bill a mechanism to reimburse individuals who are not admitted to this country. But furthermore, I want to say in regard to the amendment he was referring to, I would distinguish this amendment from the overall group of individuals who might not be admitted by saying that this amendment is specifically to reimburse individuals who were given an erroneous notification by the State Department. So in this case the State Department made a mistake, and we are simply trying to rectify that. This is a very narrow instance of where we need to bring some equity to bear. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the bill does not have it now. If the gentleman believes the gentleman from California, he can support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], to my knowledge the only Member who was a practicing immigration attorney before he came to this Chamber.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to my friend, the gentleman from California, by saying first of all, I do distinguish the bill as it is currently written with a volunteer verification system from the mandatory verification system that we had at the phase of the subcommittee. It was for that reason we felt we could distinguish the two and take out the testers. I want to say that the amendment that is going to be offered in the next day or two by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], to make the verification system mandatory does include the testers provisions, so that is more of a parallel. We had it mandatory in subcommittee, the testers are still in the amendment, making the verification system.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], chairman of the policy committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, on the other side of the aisle from me is the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. John Bryant]. He has been an equal partner in this effort to reform our immigration laws, and I want to thank him as well. Mr. Chairman, we now begin consideration of immigration legislation that reduces crime, unites families, protects jobs, and eases the burden on taxpayers. A sovereign country has a profound responsibility to secure its borders, to know who enters for how long and why. Citizens rightfully expect Congress to put the national interest first. In approving the Immigration in the National Interest Act, Congress will provide a better future for millions of Americans and for millions of others who live in foreign lands and have yet to come to America. This pro-family, pro-worker, pro-taxpayer bill reaffirms the dreams of a nation of immigrants that has chosen to govern itself by law. Immigration reform of this scope has been enacted by only three Congresses this century. The consideration of this bill is a momentous time for us all. As the debate goes forward, my hope is that the discussion on the House floor will mirror the high level of debate evident when the Committee on the Judiciary considered this legislation earlier this year. Even though there were disagreements over many issues, the complex and sensitive subject of immigration reform was dealt with rationally and with mutual respect for each others positions. This is not to say that feelings about immigration do not run high. But it would be just as unfair, for example, to call someone who wanted to reform immigration laws anti-immigrant as it would be to call someone who opposed immigration reform anti-American. The Immigration in the National Interest Act addresses both illegal and legal immigration. As a bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform and the administration also have concluded, both are broken and both must be fixed. To wait any longer would put us on the wrong side of the strong feelings of the American people, on the wrong side of common sense, and on the wrong side of our responsibility as legislators. Illegal immigration forces us to confront the understandable desire of people to improve their economic situation. Illegal aliens are not the enemy. I have talked with them in detention facilities along our southern border. Most have good intentions. But we cannot allow the human faces to mask the very real crisis in illegal immigration. For example, illegal aliens account for 40 percent of the births in the public hospitals of our largest State, California. These families then are eligible to plug into our very generous government benefit system. Hospitals around the country report more and more births to illegal aliens at greater and greater cost to the taxpayer. I would like to refer now to a chart and draw my colleagues' attention to the one that is being put on the easel right now. Over one-quarter of all Federal prisoners are foreign born, up from just 4 percent in 1980. Most are illegal aliens that have been convicted of drug trafficking. Others, like those who bombed the World Trade Center in New York City or murdered the CIA employees in Virginia, have committed particularly heinous acts of violence. Illegal aliens are 10 times more likely than Americans as a whole to have been convicted of a Federal crime. Think about the cost to the criminal justice system, including incarceration. But most of all, think about the cost in pain and suffering to the innocent victims and their families. Every 3 years enough illegal aliens currently enter the United States to populate a city the size of Dallas or Boston or San Francisco. Yet less than 1 percent of all illegal aliens are deported each year. Fraudulent documents that enable illegal aliens to become citizens can be bought for as little as $30. Half of the four million illegal aliens in the country today use fraudulent documents to wrongly obtain jobs and government benefits. To remedy these problems, this legislation doubles the number of border patrol agents, increases interior enforcement, expedites the deportation of illegal aliens, and strengthens penalties. The goal is to reduce illegal immigration by at least half in 5 years. As for legal immigration, the crisis is no less real. In its report to Congress, the Commission on Immigration Reform said, ``Our current immigration system must undergo major reform to ensure that admission continue to serve our national interest.'' Before citing why major reform is needed, let me acknowledge the obvious. Immigrants have helped make our country great. Most immigrants come to work, to produce, to contribute to our communities. My home State of Texas has thousands of legal immigrants from Mexico. The service station where I pump gas is operated by a couple originally from Iran. The cleaners where I take my shirts is owned by immigrants from Korea. My daughter's college roommate is from Israel. These are wonderful people and the kind of immigrants we want. To know them is to appreciate them. As for those individuals in other countries who desire to come to our land of hope and opportunity, how could our hearts not go out to them? Still, America cannot absorb everyone who wants to journey here as much as our humanitarian instincts might argue otherwise. Immigration is not an entitlement. It is a distinct privilege to be conferred, keeping the interests of American families, workers, and taxpayers in mind. Unfortunately, that is not the case with our immigration policy today. The huge backlogs and long waits for legal immigrants drive illegal immigration. When a brother or sister from the Philippines, for example, is told they have to wait 40 years to be admitted, it does not take long for them to find another way. Almost half of the illegal aliens in the country came in on a tourist visa, overstayed their visa, and then failed to return home. This flagrant abuse of the immigration system destroys its credibility. Husbands and wives who are legal immigrants must wait up to 10 years to be united with their spouses and little children. This is inhumane and contrary to what we know is good for families. A record high 20 percent of all legal immigrants now are receiving cash and noncash welfare benefits. The chart I refer to now shows that the number of immigrants applying for supplemental security income, which is a form of welfare, has increased 580 percent over 12 years. The cost of immigrants using just this one program plus Medicaid is $14 billion a year. It is sometimes said that immigrants pay more in taxes than they get in welfare benefits. However, taxes go for more then just welfare. They go toward defense, highways, the national debt, and so on. Allocating their taxes to all Government programs, legal immigrants cost taxpayers a net $25 billion a year, according to economist George Borjas. His study also found that unlike a generation ago, today immigrant households are more likely to receive welfare than native households. One-half of the decline in real wages among unskilled Americans results from competition with unskilled immigrants, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Most adversely impacted are those in urban areas, particularly minorities. As the Urban Institute says, ``Immigration reduces the weekly earnings of low-skilled African- American workers.'' Significantly, wage levels in high immigration States, like California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Arizona, have declined compared to wages in other States, the Economic Policy Institute reports. Over half of all immigrants have few skills and little education. They often depress wages, take jobs away from the most vulnerable among us, and end up living off the taxpayer. Admitting so many low-skilled immigrants makes absolutely no sense. Those who favor never-ending record levels of immigration simply are living in the abstract. But most Americans live in the real world. They know their children's classrooms are bulging. They see the crowded hospital emergency rooms. They sense the adverse impact of millions of unskilled immigrants on wages. They feel the strain of trying to pay more taxes and still make ends meet. The Immigration in the National Interest Act fixes a broken immigration system. With millions of immigrants backlogged, priorities must be set. I would like to point to the chart that shows to my colleagues that under this bill the number of extended family members is reduced in order to double the number of spouses and minor children admitted, which will cut their rate in half. Greater priority is also given to admitting skilled immigrants, while the number of unskilled immigrants is decreased. Current law, which holds the sponsors of immigrants financially responsible for the new arrivals, is better enforced. This should reverse the trend toward increased welfare participation. In short, this legislation implements the recommendations of the Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late Barbara Jordan. Professor Jordan, if she was here tonight sitting in the gallery, I know she would be cheering us on. She also would approve of America's continued generosity toward immigrants. Under this bill an average of 700,000 immigrants will be admitted each year for the next 5 years. This is a higher level than at least 65 of the last 70 years. Our approach to reducing illegal immigration and reforming legal immigration has attracted widespread support. Organizations as diverse as the National Federation of Independent Business, United We Stand America, the Washington Post, the Hispanic Business Round Table, and the Traditional Values Coalition all have endorsed our efforts. Most importantly, the American people are demanding immigration reform. I would like to point out to my colleagues on this chart that the vast majority of Americans, including a majority of African- Americans and Hispanics, want us to better control immigration. As we begin to consider immigration reform now, remember the hard- working families across America who worry about overcrowded schools, stagnant wages, drug-related crime, and heavier taxes. They are the ones who will bear the brunt if we do not fix a broken immigration system. Congress must act now to put the national interest first and secure our borders, protect lives, unite families, save jobs, and lighten the load on law-abiding taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] who served so ably as the chairman of the House Task Force on Immigration Reform. (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like first to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], for his generous support along the way. It is he who has been captain of the ship, and it is his steady hand at the helm who has brought us to these shores tonight. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a historic opportunity to create an immigration policy that serves America's national interests--not the whims of special interests. The Immigration in the National Interest Act, H.R. 2202, is a bipartisan effort. It has 120 cosponsors and passed the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 23 to 10. H.R. 2202 has been endorsed by the Hispanic Business Roundtable, United We Stand, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. The National Association of Manufacturers, Information Technology Association of America, and American Council on International Personnel have endorsed the business- related immigration reforms in the bill. This bill will secure our borders, protect American lives, make America more competitive in the global marketplace, give spouses and minor children high priority in the immigration system, and encourage immigrants to be self-reliant. Support immigration reform in the national interest. Cosponsor H.R. 2202 today.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the blizzard in Washington, DC, may be over. But last night the American people had to trudge through the Clinton reelection snow job. It is amazing what some people will say to hide what they do. The same President who pledged to balance the budget in 5 years, but vetoed the first balanced budget in 26 years, again poses as fiscally prudent. The same President who promised to end welfare as we know it, but vetoed welfare reform, again masquerades as a welfare reformer. The same President who tried to socialize medicine, and today blocks efforts to save Medicare, disguises himself as protector of health benefits. And the same President who pledged a middle class tax cut only to pass the largest tax increase in history but vetoed real family and small business tax cuts, again pretends to champion tax relief. Promises are made to be kept, not ignored after the election's over. Words should have some correlation to actions. This President's promises and words about the future are directly contradicted by his policies of the past and the present.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order on calendar Wednesday of this week may be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as Washington, DC, recently struggled to dig out from the worst blizzard in years, Americans from across the Nation began to see through the Clinton snow job. Consider the thoughts of a constituent, friend, and relative, Linda Seeligson from San Antonio. She rightly fears that the President's opposition to entitlement reform and lower taxes will steal our children's future. She sees through the President's Mediscare tactics. And she resents the President's use of generational warfare to pit parents against children, employers against employees, and workers against retirees. Millions of Americans agree. They reject the politics of envy and class warfare. They have real compassion for working families who must work longer to pay for big Government. They're tired of a welfare state paid for by the middle class. And they seek to replace this welfare state with an opportunity society built on personal responsibility. Bill Clinton ran for office claiming to represent the people who do the work, pay the taxes, and raise the children. Americans like Linda Seeligson want a balanced budget, lower taxes, and less government. And they want an end to the Clinton blizzard of more spending and higher taxes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow for morning hour debates.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns Tuesday, January 23, 1996, it adjourn to meet at noon on Wednesday, January 24, 1996.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, A well-known news magazine this week called tax cuts a ``giveaway.'' That illustrates precisely the liberal mind-set of some in the media and most in this administration. They actually think that the money of hard-working, lawabiding taxpayers belongs to the Government, not to the people who earned it. Tax cuts mean American families will keep more. Liberals in the media and in the administration want the Government to take more and spend more. Americans now are staggering under the heaviest tax burden in history. And the top half of wage earners already pay 95 percent of all income taxes. The real question is: Who knows best how to spend hard-earned dollars--the American people or the Federal Government?

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important sections in the Personal Responsibility Act stops giving welfare benefits to illegal aliens and encourages legal immigrants to become self-reliant. Our Nation simply cannot continue to allow noncitizens to take limited welfare resources while ignoring our own citizens. Many immigrants come to America for economic opportunity. Others, though, come to exploit our Government assistance programs. For example, the number of immigrants applying for supplemental security income has increased 580 percent over the last 12 years. Those who agree to financially sponsor immigrants repeatedly fail to honor their obligations. The provisions in the Personal Responsibility Act that apply to noncitizens are estimated to save American taxpayers $16 billion, but welfare reform is as much a behavioral issue as a budgetary one. The real debate in welfare reform is not over 16 billion, it is over the fact that welfare destroys work incentives, encourages the breakdown of the family and results in years of dependency. Mr. Speaker, all the President needs to do to keep his word to the American people to reform welfare is to sign this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, December 13, I was recorded as voting ``no'' on the motion offered by Mr. Callahan disposing of Senate amendment 115 to H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1996. I intended to support this amendment and offer this Extension of Remarks to reflect my support for this motion.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, nearly 1 month ago, the President and leaders of Congress signed a pledge to a 7-year balanced budget using honest numbers. Today, one week until Christmas, President Clinton has shut down the Government and broken his word to America's families, workers, and children. We pledged a 7-year balanced budget for our children. We committed to preserve Medicare for our parents. And we vowed to reduce taxes for our families. We kept our promise to present a balanced budget. We provided a 7- year balanced budget because it will benefit all Americans. Our balanced budget will reduce interest rates. More Americans will be able to afford new homes, cars, and college education. And as interest rates fall, job creation will rise. A balanced budget will mean an estimated 6.1 million new jobs over 10 years. We kept our word to preserve Medicare and prevented it from going bankrupt. The Balanced Budget Act protects Medicare's solvency for a generation. And we kept our commitment to make Government spend less so that families can keep more of what they earn. The same President who presented no plan to balance the budget during the 2 years when his party controlled both the White House and Congress vetoed the first balanced budget in 26 years. The same President who signed a pledge to offer a real balanced budget of his own has presented no balanced budget plan. We must keep our word to balance the budget. Not just because we keep our promises. Balance the budget for our children, for our parents, for our country.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the conference report on the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act. This appropriations bill contains a moratorium on new listings of endangered or threatened species or new designations of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. This moratorium is based on my Farm, Ranch and Homestead Protection Act. The Endangered Species Act has destroyed the rights of hardworking, taxpaying American families for the sake of blind cave spiders, fairy shrimp, and golden-cheeked warblers. Until Congress reauthorizes the Endangered Species Act to balance the rights of landowners and common sense with environmental concerns, we must protect American landowners by putting regulators on a leash. This amendment would extend the regulatory moratorium on listing of endangered or threatened species or designation of critical habitat until Congress reauthorizes the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, our legal immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. It forces husbands and wives and their children to wait up to 10 years to join each other in the United States. Also, the number of legal immigrants applying for supplemental security income has increased 580 percent over the last 12 years. That costs hard-working taxpayers $4 billion a year. And our broken legal immigration system drives the crisis in illegal immigration. Over 40 percent of all illegal aliens arrived as legal immigrants but overstayed their temporary visas. To fix these problems, the Immigration in the National Interest Act, H.R. 2202, substantially reduces the waiting time for families to be reunited. It also encourages legal immigrants to be self-reliant and discourages them from becoming a burden to the American taxpayer. Help fix a broken immigration system and support the Immigration in the National Interest Act.