Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), who is the chairman of the House Administration Committee and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3992) to allow otherwise eligible Israeli nationals to receive E 2 nonimmigrant visas if similarly situated United States nationals are eligible for similar nonimmigrant status in Israel.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3992 currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3992 is legislation that was introduced by our colleague, Howard Berman, which I have cosponsored, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue. The Judiciary Committee approved this legislation by voice vote. The bill adds Israel to the list of countries eligible for E 2 visas. E 2 visas are temporary visas available for foreign investors. A foreign national may be admitted initially for a period of 2 years under an E 2 visa and can apply for extensions in 2-year increments. The U.S. has entered into treaties of commerce that contain language similar to the E 2 visas since at least 1815, when we entered into a Convention to Regulate Commerce with the United Kingdom. Currently, the nationals of over 75 countries are eligible for E 2 status, from Albania to the Ukraine. In fiscal year 2010, over 25,000 aliens, including dependents, were granted E 2 visas. In the past, countries became eligible for the E 2 program through treaties signed with the U.S. However, in 2003, the Judiciary Committee reached an understanding with the U.S. Trade Representative that, from now on, no immigration provisions were to be included in future trade agreements. As a result, specific legislation would be required to add countries to the E 2 program. In order to qualify for an E 2 visa, an investor has to have a controlling interest in and demonstrate that they will develop and direct the enterprise. In addition, the investor has to invest and put at risk a substantial amount of capital. This is measured by a proportionality test: the higher the cost of the business, the lower the proportion of its total value the investment has to represent. In addition, the investment has to be large enough to ensure the investor's financial commitment to the enterprise and that the investor will successfully develop and direct it. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3992, and I again thank my colleague, Congressman Berman of California, for introducing a commonsense bill that helps spur job creation and economic growth here at home and also invest in our relationship with one of our closest allies. The investments in business enterprises fostered by this bill benefit the economies of both the United States and Israel, and they also will create jobs and strengthen the already strong friendship between the United States and Israel. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, we have no other speakers on this side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a leader on the Judiciary Committee, for introducing this legislation. I also want to thank Mr. Conyers and Mr. Cohen for their support as well. This bill preserves the ability of U.S. museums and educational institutions to continue to borrow foreign government-owned artwork and artifacts for temporary exhibition or display. The United States has long recognized the importance of encouraging a cultural exchange of ideas through exhibitions of artwork loaned from abroad. Cultural exchanges produce substantial benefits to the educational and cultural development of all Americans. The future success of these exchanges depends on foreign lenders having confidence that loaning artwork to U.S. institutions will not open them up to lawsuits in U.S. courts. For 40 years, the Immunity from Seizure Act provided foreign government lenders with this confidence. However, rulings in several recent Federal cases have caused that confidence to unravel. In these decisions, the courts have determined that the Immunity from Seizure Act does not preempt the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which provides U.S. courts with jurisdiction in cases against foreign countries. The effect has been to open foreign governments up to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts simply because they loaned artwork to an American museum or educational institution. This has seriously threatened the ability of U.S. institutions to borrow foreign government-owned artwork. It has also resulted in cultural exchanges being curtailed as foreign government lenders have become hesitant to permit their artwork to travel to the United States. The bill addresses this situation. It provides that if artwork is granted immunity by the State Department under the Immunity from Seizure Act, then the loan of that artwork cannot subject a foreign government to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. This is very narrow legislation. It only applies to one of the many grounds of jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It requires the State Department to grant the artwork immunity under the Immunity from Seizure Act before the provisions of the bill apply. And in order to preserve the claims of victims of the Nazi government and its allies during World War II, the bill has an exception for claims brought by these victims. If we want to encourage foreign governments to continue to lend artwork to American museums and educational institutions, we must enact this legislation. Without the protections this bill provides, rather than lending artwork to U.S. institutions, foreign governments will simply deny American loan requests. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is the author of this legislation and an active member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4086) to amend chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code, to clarify the exception to foreign sovereign immunity set forth in section 1605(a)(3) of such title, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4086 currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the Business and Media Institute found that news coverage of rising gas prices are four times less likely during the Obama administration than the previous Bush administration. The study found that news sources--such as ABC, CBS, and NBC--only covered the rising prices 21 times during the Obama administration compared to 97 times under the Bush administration. The quantity of coverage was not the only difference. The tone of the coverage was different as well. Under the Bush administration, gas prices were ``skyrocketing'' as people's ``wallets were running on empty.'' Now, ``gas prices creep up.'' The national media owe it to Americans to provide the facts and let the people make their own decisions. Democracy is threatened when the national media report in a biased manner.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last week we lost a true patriot for the conservative cause, Andrew Breitbart. Mr. Breitbart was a pioneer in conservative activist media and dedicated much of his life to exposing media bias and keeping the media honest. Mr. Breitbart started his own news aggregation site, Breitbart.com, and five other websites, including Big Journalism. In February 2010, Mr. Breitbart received the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award. Andrew Breitbart recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation: I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. . . . Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I've lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I've gained hundreds, thousands--who knows?--of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night. He was a tireless patriot and will truly be missed by many.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congresswoman Waters for introducing 1433, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, to restore vital property rights protections following the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. This bipartisan legislation passed the House during the 109th Congress by a vote of 376 38 with 99 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Democrats present voting in favor of final passage. Unfortunately, the bill was never voted on in the Senate. Today, over 6 years later, the Kelo decision continues to call out for congressional action. Our Founders realized the fundamental importance of property rights. Property rights protections are enshrined throughout the Constitution, including in the Fifth Amendment, which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Despite these protections, in Kelo the Supreme Court held that the government may take private property from one owner and transfer it to another for private economic development. The dissenting Justices sharply criticized the Court's decision, writing that the result of the majority opinion was: Effectively to delete the words ``for public use'' from the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. The government now has license to transfer property from those with few resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. This legislation essentially reverses this result and prohibits State and local governments that receive Federal economic development funds from abusing eminent domain for private economic development. It also prohibits the Federal Government from using eminent domain for economic development purposes. This bill restores Americans' faith in their ability to build, own, and keep their property without fear of the government taking their homes, farms, or businesses to give to other people. It tells commercial developers that they should seek to obtain property through private negotiation, not by public force. Too many Americans have lost homes and small businesses to eminent domain abuse, forced to watch as private developers replace them with luxury condominiums and other upscale uses. Local governments often approve the use of eminent domain for private economic development in order to expand their tax basis. Federal law currently allows Federal funds to be used to support condemnations for the benefit of private developers, which encourages this abuse nationwide. As the Institute for Justice's witness observed during our hearing on this bill: Using eminent domain so that another richer, better- connected person may live or work on the land you used to own tells Americans that their hopes, dreams, and hard work do not matter as much as money and political influence. The use of eminent domain for private development has no place in a country built on traditions of independence, hard work, and protection of property rights. Americans' homes are their castles. Federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund the battering ram of eminent domain abuse. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation to restore the Constitution's broad protections for private property rights. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1433, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1433) to protect private property rights, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the sponsor of this legislation and also a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee. After that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) be allowed to control the remainder of the time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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 and include extraneous materials on the Senate amendment to H.R. 347, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 347) to correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, introduced by Congressman Tom Rooney, makes commonsense improvements to an existing Federal law that prohibits unlawful access to the White House, the Vice President's residence, and other restricted areas. Current law prohibits unlawful entries upon any restricted building or ground where the President, Vice President, or other protectee is temporarily visiting. However, there is no Federal law that expressly prohibits unlawful entry to the White House and its grounds or the Vice President's residence and its grounds. The United States Secret Service must therefore rely upon a provision in the District of Columbia Code, which addresses only minor misdemeanor infractions when someone attempts to or successfully climbs the White House fence or, worse, breaches the White House, itself. H.R. 347 remedies this problem. It specifically includes the White House, the Vice President's residence, and their respective grounds in the definition of restricted buildings and grounds. The bill also clarifies that the penalties in section 1752 of title 18 apply to those who knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so. Current law does not include this important element. The House passed this bill 1 year ago by a vote of 399 3. Earlier this month, the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent. The Senate also clarified that the revised law applies to individuals the Secret Service is required to protect by statute or by Presidential memorandum. H.R. 347 ensures that the President, the First Family, the Vice President, and others are protected whether they are in the White House or attending an event in a convention center or meeting hall. I commend my colleague from Florida (Mr. Rooney) for sponsoring this legislation, which enjoys overwhelming bipartisan and bicameral support. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney), who is a sponsor of this legislation and also a member of the Armed Services and a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted last month, more viewers feel the national media are biased than ever before. The survey found that 67 percent of Americans say there is a ``fair amount'' or a ``great deal of bias'' in news coverage. Only 10 percent responded that there is ``no bias at all'' in the national media. These percentages show a significant increase in the number of Americans who believe that they receive biased coverage of current events by the national media. The national media owe it to the American people to be honest and fair. Americans' distrust of the national media will continue to grow until the media adhere to the highest standards of their profession and provide the American people with facts, balanced stories, and objective coverage of the news.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2038) to prohibit Members of Congress and employees of Congress from using nonpublic information derived from their official positions for personal benefit, and for other purposes, as amended.