Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Alabama and his endorsement of the REAL ID Act. The risk to not implementing REAL ID is great. Perhaps most recently this was evidenced by the facts surrounding the February arrest of Khalid al- Dawsari in Texas on a Federal charge of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. According to the arrest affidavit, when the FBI searched his residence, they found his journal in which he wrote of the need to obtain forged U.S. birth certificates, multiple driver's licenses, and a U.S. passport. He planned to use those driver's licenses to rent several cars, each with a different license specifically to avoid detection. So terrorists are still planning to exploit the weaknesses in our driver's license issuance processes in order to attack us. If we don't do everything in our power to prevent that from happening by fully implementing REAL ID, we set ourselves up for another attack. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Alabama as this bill moves forward and on future appropriation bills to support States as they move toward full implementation of REAL ID.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentleman for that statement, and I ask him if he would further yield.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a recent study found that the Obama Administration's so-called stimulus plan destroyed American jobs. Economists from Ohio State University and the University of Western Ontario determined that the stimulus caused a net loss of over a half- million jobs from April 2009 to September 2010, including a loss of more than one million private-sector jobs. If you didn't hear about this study, you're not alone--the national media largely ignored it. Investor's Business Daily and Fox News covered the study, but most other national outlets were predictably silent. It's no wonder only 1 in 10 Americans trust the media, according to a recent public opinion poll. The national media should give Americans the facts, not ignore them to protect the Obama Administration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Peter G. LeFevre. Mr. LeFevre has served in the Office of the Law Revision Counsel for 30 years, and has spent the past 7 years as the head of that Office. He will retire on June 1, 2011. The job of the Law Revision Counsel primarily involves two tasks. The first is maintaining the United States Code. Mr. LeFevre determines what part of the legislation that Congress enacts every year is law of a general and permanent nature that should be written into the Code, finds the best place in the Code to put each enactment, and accurately restates the legislation as part of the Code. The second task is to revise the existing titles of the Code. Mr. LeFevre takes out obsolete provisions, corrects errors, clears up ambiguities, improves the structure, and prepares codification bills for the Judiciary Committee to enact the old titles as new positive law titles of the Code. Mr. LeFevre's leadership has earned him regard by his colleagues as the master of the Code. His great attention to detail, ability to retain detailed information, and long experience have given Mr. LeFevre an encyclopedic knowledge of the Code. While being respectful of the practices of the Office, he has simultaneously encouraged his staff to rethink the way things are done in order to streamline the work without sacrificing accuracy. He has fostered a collegial atmosphere in the Office, where new ideas are welcomed and given thoughtful and fair consideration. Mr, LeFevre's dedication to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel and its staff has earned him the admiration of all who know him. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank Mr. LeFevre for his important contributions to the work of the House and wish him many happy and fulfilling years of retirement.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 281, I call up the bill (S. 990) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), a member of the Judiciary Committee Crime Subcommittee. He is also both a former U.S. Attorney and district attorney.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each side?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), chairman of the House Administration Committee and also a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 990.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 4 months from now, America will mark the 10-year anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Tonight at midnight, three national security provisions that have helped prevent another 9/11 attack will expire. Congress must do its job and approve this legislation to reauthorize them before time runs out. Some argue that since we haven't had a major terrorist attack since September 11, we no longer need these laws. Others argue that the death of Osama bin Laden brought an end to al Qaeda and the war on terror, but both of these claims lack merit. The Patriot Act provisions continue to play a vital role in America's counterterrorism efforts not only to prevent another large-scale attack but also to combat an increasing number of smaller terrorist plots. Earlier this year, a 20-year-old student from Saudi Arabia was arrested in my home State of Texas for attempting to use weapons of mass destruction. Khalid Aldawsari attempted to purchase chemicals to construct a bomb against targets including the Dallas residence of former President George W. Bush, several dams in Colorado and California, and the homes of three former military guards who served in Iraq. Information obtained through a section 215 business records order was essential in thwarting this plot. Make no mistake, the threat from terrorists and spies is real. These provisions are vital to our intelligence investigations, and they are effective. We also have heard repeatedly from the Obama administration about the critical importance of extending these laws. S. 990, the Patriot Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, is a bipartisan, bicameral compromise to reauthorize the existing Patriot Act provisions for another 4 years. By doing so, Congress is ensuring that critical intelligence will be collected and terrorist plots will be disrupted. In February, Congress approved a 90-day extension of these provisions. During the last 3 months, the House Judiciary Committee has thoroughly reviewed the Patriot Act and how its provisions are used in national security investigations. The Crime Subcommittee has held three hearings specifically on the Patriot Act, the full committee held oversight hearings of the FBI and the Department of Justice, and all committee members were provided a classified briefing by the administration. Attorney General Eric Holder told the committee that he supports these provisions and encouraged Congress to reauthorize them for as long of a period of time as possible. The roving wiretap provision allows intelligence officials, after receiving approval from a Federal court, to conduct surveillance on terrorist suspects, regardless of how many communication devices they may use. We know terrorists use many forms of communication to conceal their plots, including disposable cell phones and free email accounts. Roving wiretaps are nothing new. Domestic law enforcement agencies have had roving wiretaps for criminal investigations since 1986. If we can use roving wiretaps to track down a drug trafficker, why shouldn't we also use it to prevent a terrorist attack? The business records provision allows the FBI to access third-party business records in foreign intelligence, international terrorism, and espionage cases. Again, this provision requires the approval of a Federal judge. That means the FBI must prove to a Federal judge that the documents are needed as part of a legitimate national security investigation. These two provisions have been effectively used for the last 10 years without any evidence of misuse or abuse. Our national security laws allow intelligence gathering on foreign governments, terrorist groups, and their agents. But what about a foreign terrorist who either acts alone or cannot be immediately tied to a terrorist organization? The lone wolf definition simply brings our national security laws into the 21st century to allow our intelligence officials to answer the modern-day terrorist threat. Since 9/11, we have seen terrorist tactics change. In addition to coordinated attacks by al Qaeda and other groups, we face the threat of self-radicalized terrorists who are motivated by al Qaeda but may not be directly affiliated with such groups. The lone wolf definition ensures that our laws cover rogue terrorists even if they aren't a card-carrying member of al Qaeda or another terrorist organization. The terrorist threat will not sunset at midnight and neither should our national security laws. The Patriot Act is an integral part of our offensive against terrorists and has proved effective at keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the current chairman of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is also the chairman of the Republican Conference.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chief sponsor of H.R. 3, for his persistent leadership over the years on this issue. Many Members and the American people have strong feelings about the subject of abortion, but one thing is clear: The Federal funding of abortion will lead to more abortions. For example, in 2009, there were only 220 government-financed abortions. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Federal Government would pay for as many as 675,000 abortions each year without the Hyde Amendment and other provisions that prevent the Federal funding of abortion. The American people do not want federally funded abortions. A Zogby poll found that 77 percent of Americans feel that Federal funds should never pay for abortions or should pay only to save the life of the mother. That is the policy of the Hyde Amendment, which H.R. 3 would enact into law. H.R. 3 does not ban abortion. It also does not restrict abortions or abortion coverage in health care plans as long as those abortions or plans use only private or State funds. This legislation places no additional legal restrictions on abortions. It simply protects taxpayers from having to fund or to subsidize something they morally oppose. H.R. 3 also is necessary to fix the recent health care law. Absolutely nothing in that law prevents the Federal funding of abortions under the programs it creates. Neither Congress nor the administration should take the view that they know better than the American people what is good for them. Congress should pass H.R. 3 to codify the longstanding ban on the Federal funding of abortions. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the current chairman of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary.