Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 962 adds former Representatives Hamilton Fish and Ron Mazzoli, by name, to the Commission on Immigration, chaired by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan of Texas. Hamilton Fish and Ron Mazzoli were both long-time members of the Committee on the Judiciary and of the Immigration Committee. Adding these two individuals to the commission would be a fitting tribute to their years of service in the Congress and to their work on immigration policy, and both have much to contribute to the commission itself. Barbara Jordan, Chair of the Commission on Immigration Reform and Dr. Susan Forbes Martin, executive director of the commission, have expressed their support for this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, last night, as we debated the first Budget Committee plan to balance the budget in 25 years, our friends on the other side of the aisle were upset about our tax relief for the American family. We hear this same objection in the amendment we are debating. Many of the same people who 2 years ago supported the largest tax hike in history can't believe that we're trying to return some of this money to the American family. They tried to divide American against American, employer against employee, worker against worker. But underlying their opposition to tax relief for American families is one undeniable, unbelievable fact: They actually think it's their money. They've gotten so used to a big Federal Government that takes $1 out of every $4 the American family earns that they actually have forgotten who earns the money. They forget that it's the American family's money to spend. It's not Washington's money to take. Mr. Chairman, the American family's hard earned dollars belong to the American family, not the Federal Government. It's the American people's money, Mr. Chairman, it's not ours. Support the balanced budget plan that reduces the government's budget and restores the family budget. Support the Budget Committee proposal.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I think it is relevant to note that my colleague who just spoke voted for the Clinton tax hike of 1993, and it cost his district $431 million. I think it is also regrettable he voted against the balanced budget amendment. Mr. Chairman, on the Committee on the Budget's way to balancing the budget in 7 years, and increasing the amount that Medicare beneficiaries are going to receive by 33 percent, we have also made Congress and Government tighten its belt first. For example, we have eliminated 3 unnecessary Cabinet departments, we have stopped 284 big Government programs, we have eliminated 69 wasteful commissions, and eliminated 13 agencies, as well. We have also eliminated the favorable pension treatment Members of Congress and congressional staff used to receive. We make permanent the one-third cut in congressional committee staff. We kept our promise. We made permanent a 15-percent cut in White House staff. We helped the President keep his promise. Mr. Chairman, we also discarded needless bureaucracy. For example, we ended 69 unnecessary big Government commissions, including the Fasteners Advisory Commission, the Dance Advisory Panel, and we also reduced all Government agency overhead and indirect cost. Mr. Chairman, the House has a historic opportunity we have not had in a quarter century. For the first time in 25 years, we can give our children a better future, restore the American dream, and end the slide in living standards. Finally, after too many unkept promises, too many tax increases, too many false starts, and too little will to do the right thing, Congress will keep its word. This week we have a real life proposal that restrains the growth in Government's budget to increase the size of the family's budget. Since 1969, the last time our Federal budget was balanced, this Government has run up a $4.7 trillion debt. Our annual deficits of $176 billion plus raise interest rates by an average of 2 percent. That means our deficit costs the typical homeowner tens of thousands of dollars. It also slows growth, closes small businesses, and destroys jobs. In 1950 the Government took $1 out of every $20 earned by the American family. Today it takes $1 out of every $4 our family has earned. The combination of local, State, and Federal taxes now consumes 40 percent of the typical family's income, an all-time record high. That is wrong. Remember, it is not the Government's money to take, it is the family's money to keep. A lot of scare tactics and demagoguery are being used today. Some on the other side of the aisle have tried to frighten seniors, students, and others. These naysayers turn American against American, grandparent against grandchild, employer against employee, and retiree against worker, but the American people know better. The people who do the work, pay the taxes, raise the children, and care for the grandchildren will not be divided, one against another. It is not the worker versus the boss, or the young against the old, it is the working and earning class against the taxing and spending class. This past November the working and earning class spoke loudly and clearly.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party that once inspired our Nation by proclaiming ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself'' today has nothing to offer but fear. The same party that once rallied Americans from the depths of the Depression today ignores the decline wrought by exploding Federal deficits. The same party whose leaders once warned of the dangers of welfare dole today defends a welfare state that traps the poor in dependency and despair. And the same party that marshalled the free world in the fight against Nazis today silently ignores an economic Dunkirk in Medicare. There is an alternative for Democrats to this defense of the status quo. And it is well within the Democratic Party tradition. Our balanced balanced budget upholds the tradition of Jefferson by ending the practice of saddling future generations with debt. It affirms the tradition of Roosevelt by providing for a strong, effective government that prepares for the future. And it celebrates the tradition of Kennedy by spurring growth through tax relief. Come home Democratics: Restore the American dream and the proud tradition of America's oldest party by supporting our balanced budget.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reassure my friends from California, Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Kim, that if the amendment that they were planning to offer today is not accepted and if that amendment is offered in the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, of which I am chairman, when we, in the next several months, are considering other comprehensive legislation regarding immigration, we will certainly consider their amendment. If that amendment is not approved on the subcommittee level, I will certainly work with them and guarantee them that I will ask that it be considered on the House floor.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, some opponents of the Private Property Protection Act of 1995 are engaged in world class doublespeak. Many of the same crowd that's run up a $4.5 trillion debt of our children's money criticize the Private Property Protection Act of 1995 as a raid on the Treasury. Those who supported the largest tax hike in history worry that the bill will harm the middle class. Many of the same gang that supported a Governmental takeover of private health care in America condemn this bill as a new bureaucracy. Those who created cradle to grave entitlements attack this bill as a new entitlement. And the people who will oppose tort reform next week worried that this bill will be a boon for lawyers. It's amazing the creative excuses that defenders of big Government will resort to in order to protect their power to tell the American people what to do. But, Mr. Chairman, the American people, many of whom are watching this debate on C-SPAN today, know better. They know who is responsible for the deficit-raising, tax-elevating, mandate-creating, heavy-regulating, entitlement-formulating, lawsuit- generating policies of the regulatory state. And the American people understand who will, and won't, end those policies. And if the opponents of the Private Property Protection Act of 1995 would read our bill, they'd know that this bill does not create a new entitlement, does not create new bureaucracy, is not a boon for lawyers, is not a threat to the middle class, and does not eliminate our Nation's environmental laws. Read our bill. It simply makes the general public share the costs of regulations designed to benefit the general public. It prevents the Government from hiding those costs by foisting them on a single, innocent landowner. Read our bill. It doesn't prevent Government from protecting endangered species or preserving wetlands. We the people can protect as many endangered species and as many wetlands as we the people are willing to pay for. Read our bill. It doesn't create a new entitlement. Right now certain Americans who own the wrong land in the wrong place at the wrong time are forced to bear the entire cost of Government regulation. This bill simply relieves their burden brought on by the Government. Read our bill. This has nothing to do with a raid on the Treasury. This bill prevents the Government from stealing private property. It provides relief to the victims of regulatory theft. This relief would be made available from annual agency appropriations, not the U.S. Treasury. Read our bill. The Private Property Protection Act of 1995 would benefit the middle class. It would provide the people who do the work, pay the taxes, and pull the wagon with the same rights as the blind cave spider, golden cheeked warbler, and fairy shrimp. And it would make Government regulators public servants once again. No longer would these officials be the masters of middle class Americans. Mr. Chairman, objections to this bill have nothing to do with entitlements, bureaucracy, middle-class rights, or lawyers. They don't object to any of these things; they've spent their careers working hard to expand each of them. They have everything to do with their love of big Government control of the lives of middle class Americans. They'll say anything to defend it; they'll even talk in double-speak. Mr. Chairman, this Congress was elected to end big Government and prevent it from trampling the rights of the American middle class. That's why we rise today, Republican and Democrat, from all over this Nation, to support the Private Property Protection Act of 1995. I urge my colleagues to read this bill and when they do they'll support it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as a member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Budget Committee, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida, the floor manager of this bill, regarding the intended budget status of this bill. In sections 3 and 6 the bill would mandate Federal payment to an owner whose property had been adversely affected by Government regulations, however section 6(f) and 7 of the bill specify that the obligation to pay and the source of any payment under this bill is limited to available discretionary appropriations. My question for the gentleman is this: Is it your understanding that the limitation on the obligation to pay and the source of payments in section 6(f) and 7 supersede the mandatory language contained in section 3 and 6, and thus any obligation pursuant to this bill would be fully subject to the availability of discretionary annual appropriations?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, today is Texas Independence Day, a fitting occasion for us to consider the Private Property Protection Act of 1995. This bill stands for government accountability, freedom, and fairness, essential virtues for which our forebearers gave their lives. As we consider this bill, it's worth remembering what this legislation does not do. It does not harm our ability to protect the environment. If someone thinks that preservation of the bald eagle, protection of the spotted owl, and conservation of certain wetlands are important, they ought to be important enough to pay for. What is not fair is to ride roughshod over certain people's rights in order to obtain environmental benefits at zero cost. It's not right to ask individual landowners who own the property where the golden cheeked warbler may wish to, for example, to shoulder the entire costs of protecting the bird. Private property rights are not about harming the environment. They are about fundamental fairness--asking the government to share the costs of public benefits.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue yield, following up, does this mean that a judge, in a case brought by a property owner under the provisions of this legislation, would be constrained from awarding payment from what is known as the ``judgment fund'', which is beyond the control of the congressional appropriations process?

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the 104th Congress will have the opportunity to right a fundamental wrong occurring every day across America. It is called condemnation without compensation. If the Government wants to put a highway in your front yard, it has to pay you compensation for using your property. That is only fair. If the Government wants to impose a regulation converting private land into a wildlife sanctuary or a wetlands preserve, it should also have to pay you fair compensation. In both cases, the private property owner is being asked to sacrifice his land for the public good. It would not be fair to force the unfortunate landowner to shoulder the entire burden. Too often today, that is just what happens--American families, farmers, and businessowners are stripped of private property by Government regulations. But, unlike with condemnation, these forgotten Americans are never compensated. The Private Property Protection Act of 1995 would put an end to condemnation without compensation. I urge my colleagues to stand up for these forgotten Americans and support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, there is a giant sucking sound in America in 1995. It is the governmental grabbing of private property through ruinous regulation. Our farmers in the Midwest and across the Great Plains are unable to use their farmland because the Government calls their dry lands ``wetlands.'' Property owners on the east coast are denied the right to build homes for their families because bureaucrats oppose construction. Across Texas, homeowners, ranchers, and farmers are warned they may not be able to use private land if a golden-cheeked warbler decides to nest there. And in southern California, ranchers, farmers, and homeowners are denied access to water because of a fairy shrimp upstream. These are today's forgotten Americans. Their rights are trampled by a government that forces them to shoulder the entire costs of ruinous regulations. These citizens are denied the productive use of farms, ranches, and businesses acquired after a lifetime of hard work. And many of those who claim to speak for society's neglected and left out are strangely silent and often hostile to the plight of these citizens. Mr. Chairman, today help has arrived. Through a bipartisan effort in the people's House, these Americans will be forgotten no longer. The people who do the work, pay the taxes, and pull the wagon will have the same rights as the golden-cheeked warbler, fairy shrimp, and blind cave spider. The private property rights legislation we are considering stands for a fundamental and very simple principle of basic fairness: If a landowner is prevented from using a portion of his or her land in order to provide a public benefit like a wetlands reserve or wildlife preserve, the costs of acquiring these benefits should be shared by the public as a whole. It's not fair to force the individual landowner to shoulder the entire burden. The Private Property Protection Act of 1995 will not eliminate our Nation's environmental laws. It won't prevent the protection of endangered species or preservation of wetlands. It will permit us to protect as many endangered species and as many wetlands as we the people are willing to pay for. The Private Property Protection Act of 1995 is about fairness, accountability, and shared responsibility. It's about holding the Federal Government to standards of public accountability. And it's about putting people first. On November 8, 1994, the American people demanded that their government reduce its size, scope, and burden. Regulatory burdens imposed in the name of protection of the environment are among the most onerous. The Private Property Protection Act of 1995 would relieve those burdens, fulfill the American people's mandate, and restore freedom and fairness to all Americans.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the giant sucking sound in America in 1995 is a governmental grabbing of private property through ruinous regulation. Our farmers in the Midwest and across the Great Plains are unable to use their farmland because the Government calls their dry lands wetlands. Property owners on the East Coast are denied the right to build homes for their families because bureaucrats deem their construction unwise. Across, Texas, homeowners, ranchers, and farmers are warned they may not be able to use private land if a golden-cheeked warbler decides to nest there. These are today's forgotten Americans. These citizens will be forgotten no longer if, later this week, we pass the Private Property Protection Act of 1995. This legislation puts the rights of these Americans who do the work, pay the taxes, and pull the wagon on the same par as the blind cave spider and the fairy shrimp. This legislation requires the Government to pay for land that it wants to use for a public good. It prevents us from shifting those costs onto the farmer, the rancher, the homeowner who happens to own the wrong land in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mr. Speaker, let us remember the forgotten Americans.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act established a process to expeditiously remove from the United States criminal aliens. Is it your understanding that these regulations will be excluded from the moratorium because they fit within the streamlining exception under section 6(3)(B)(i)?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] for yielding to me for the purpose of a colloquy, and I would like to ask the chairman of the subcommittee three questions, if I could. The first question is this: In December 1994, the INS promulgated comprehensive regulations to streamline the asylum process and prevent abuse of the asylum system. Is it your understanding that these regulations would be excluded under section 6(3)(B)(i) as being ``limited to streamlining a rule, regulation, or administrative process?''

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. And last, I appreciate the gentleman's patience, the third question is: It is my understanding the INS also plans to issue regulations to streamline the rules and procedures for certain types of nonimmigrant visas, in part to prevent the abuse of such visas. Is it your understanding such reforms to the visa process fall under the streamlining exclusion under section 6(3)(B)(i)?

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, Mr. Condit, in offering a bipartisan amendment that will extend the Regulatory Transition Act to cover listings and designations of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. This amendment is necessary to protect the most endangered species of all, the American landowner. It is time that Congress gave hard- working, taxpaying American families the same rights as blind cave spiders, golden-cheeked warblers, and fairy shrimp. Burdensome regulations imposed under the Endangered Species Act are reducing our landowners, farmers, and small business owners to a rare breed. This year, Congress has the opportunity to amend the Endangered Species Act to balance the rights of landowners. Until Congress reauthorizes the Endangered Species Act, we must put a stop to the out-of-control regulators and protect American property owners. Later today, we will offer a bipartisan amendment to extend the regulatory moratorium on Endangered Species Act listings and critical habitat designations. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Condit amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Condit amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleague, Mr. Condit, in offering a bipartisan amendment to extend the Regulatory Transition Act to cover new regulations under the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act has destroyed the rights of hardworking, tax-paying American families for the sake of blind cave spiders, fairy shrimp, and golden-cheeked warblers. The following horror stories are not exceptions; they are the rule: Landowners in 33 Texas counties are endangered because their land may be designated as ``critical habitat'' for the golden-cheeked warbler. This designation could render vast amounts of property useless and valueless. In Montana, a rancher was fined $3,000 for violating the Endangered Species Act. His crime? He shot and killed a grizzly bear that charged him on his own property. In Round Rock, TX, a school might not be expanded because Federal agents discovered a blind cave spider nearby. Government officials forced this delay after the school district had spent almost $100,000 of taxpayer money on environmental studies. Just imagine if the Endangered Species Act had been around throughout history. In the Bible, Noah could have been condemned as an animal- hater, fined, and kept from launching his arc. American history could have been changed forever: George Washington could have been imprisoned for cutting down the cherry tree. Lewis and Clark could have been fined for trampling native grasses. Until Congress reauthorizes the Endangered Species Act to balance 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. Join this bipartisan coalition and support the Condit amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the Record my strong support of H.R. 668, the Criminal Alien Deportation Improvements Act of 1995. The escalation of crime 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. An increasing amount of crime is being committed by noncitizens: both legal and illegal aliens. About 25 percent of all Federal prisoners are foreign-born. An astounding 42 percent of all Federal prisoners in my State of Texas are foreign-born. Recidivism rates for criminal aliens are high--a recent GAO study revealed that 77 percent of noncitizens convicted of felonies go on to be arrested at least one more time. The Bureau of Prisons estimates that over 75 percent of noncitizen inmates are confined for drug law violations. Drug law violations are serious and these criminals should be required to serve their full sentences. Because of the porous nature of the border, drug traffickers who are deported before the completion of their sentences often come back across the border into the United States. The Criminal Alien Improvements Act of 1995 further expedites the deportation of criminal aliens after they have served their sentences. The act contains many of the provisions I sought in an amendment to last year's crime bill and I thank the bill's authors for including those. This bill increases the list of aggravated felonies for which an alien can be deported. Transportation for the purposes of prostitution, smuggling aliens, counterfeiting, trafficking in stolen vehicles, and bribery of a witness are all very serious crimes. Aliens who commit these offenses should be deported immediately upon the completion of their sentences. Under H.R. 668, the Attorney General will no longer have the ability to grant relief from deportation to aliens convicted of aggravated felonies. The bill also expands the number of crimes for which failing to appear to serve a sentence qualifies as an aggravated felony. This sanction has only applied in the past to crimes that carry a sentence of 15 or more years. H.R. 668 lowers the floor to 5 years, and will send a strong message to criminal aliens who fail to show up for sentencing. H.R. 668 allows the INS to exclude aliens who commit serious aggravated felonies, and are sentenced to at least 5 years, but are released in less than 5 years on parole or due to prison overcrowding. Noncitizen aggravated felons should not be admitted to the United States, and those who are here should be deported as soon as possible. This bill significantly strengthens the Government's ability to deport criminal aliens by eliminating the gap between the end of their sentences and the date of deportation. H.R. 668 also ensures that an alien who illegally reenters the country after being deported, may only challenge the original deportation order after exhausting all administrative remedies, and only if the deportation order was unfair. It further provides that any alien convicted of an aggravated felony who is not a legal permanent resident is presumed to be deportable. Judicial review of a petition to stay the deportation order will be limited only to determining the identity of the alien and confirming that he or she was convicted of an aggravated felony. Too few criminal aliens are being deported today. The deportation process can be years in length. H.R. 668 will streamline the process by eliminating frivolous challenges to deportation orders. The INS needs all the help they can get in speeding up deportations, and we can give them that help by passing this bill. Americans should not have to tolerate the presence of those who abuse both our immigration and criminal laws. Criminal aliens should be on the fast track out of the country. This bill addresses the concerns of the American people by giving the INS and prosecutors tools they need to expedite the deportation of criminal aliens. I am especially pleased that the bill includes provisions granting wiretap authority to assist INS in apprehending alien smugglers. Alien smuggling is a most despicable crime. It hurts Americans by facilitating illegal immigration, and places illegal aliens in human bondage. Those smuggled by organized rings are often required to work off the smuggling fees. Others must sell drugs or their bodies for the smugglers. These organized smuggling rings are a grave threat to the welfare of all individuals--both Americans and aliens. For this reason, I am also pleased to see a provision that makes alien smuggling a predicate offense for the application of RICO laws. It is imperative that we send the strongest possible message to alien smugglers; a message that will be enforced to the full extent of the law. Finally, H.R. 668 transfers control of the Criminal Alien Tracking Center created in last year's crime bill from the Attorney General to the INS Commissioner. I believe that this is a positive step toward removing bureaucracy and excessive redtape from the deportation process. I am also pleased that the tracking center, renamed the Criminal Alien Identification System, is directed to work closely with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to identify criminal aliens for deportation. This Nation can no longer tolerate an increasing population of noncitizen criminals. The American people made it very clear on November 8 that they expect us to eliminate the problem of criminal aliens, and this bill is a significant step toward doing that.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As has been the case so often this evening, the real question is whether we are going to allow those who have been convicted of capital crimes to indulge themselves in almost endless appeals. I think the American people would answer ``no'' to that question. I think Congress should answer ``no'' to that question. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 3 minutes, to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on my amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes, 5 minutes per side.

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