Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and also chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 237, I call up the bill (H.R. 3) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the vice chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it represents a fundamental shift in the debate here in Washington. The question is no longer about how much to increase Federal spending as it has been these last few years. And it isn't even whether or not to cut Federal spending. Instead, the question is now by how much to cut Federal spending. I know that in order to cut the budget, hard choices must be made. Unfortunately, this bill makes two incorrect choices. First, H.R. 1473 rescinds $13 million from funding for the REAL ID hub. Second, the bill cuts $25 million from the exit portion of U.S.- VISIT. The 9/11 hijackers each used fraudulently obtained drivers' licenses and identification cards from several different states. In response, the 9/11 Commission recommended that, ``The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses.'' So Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the ``REAL ID Act of 2005.'' Unfortunately this administration does not take this law seriously. In fact, the administration tries at every opportunity to undercut the congressional mandate. Most recently the Obama administration issued a 20-month extension for states to comply with REAL ID. Such extensions simply leave Americans vulnerable to those who want to do us harm. We should do whatever we can to ensure that the administration and states implement REAL ID. Taking funds away from it is a mistake. It is also a mistake to take funds away from the development of the exit portion of U.S.-VISIT. The ``Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,'' required, within 2 years, the creation of an automated system to track the entry and departure of every alien entering the United States in order to identify those aliens who overstay their visas. That system is known as United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (U.S.-VISIT). Fifteen years later, the exit portion of that system is nowhere near completion. In fact, other than several prior pilot programs at land, sea and air ports of entry, the exit portion doesn't even really exist. Without the ``exit'' portion of U.S.-VISIT, there is no way to tell whether people who entered on short-term visas returned home. And such visa overstayers account for nearly 40 percent of all illegal immigrants in the United States. It is a matter of national security to know who is coming and going from the U.S. Taking $25 million from U.S.-VISIT gives the administration the impression that we are not serious about its implementation. And that is wrong. I plan to support passage of H.R. 1473, but I hope that in the future, the choices we made to cut federal spending that might put this country's national security at risk will be reconsidered.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, F. James Sensenbrenner, Ted Poe, Jerrold Nadler, Donna Edwards, Jose Serrano and I would like to take this opportunity to set forth some of the history behind, as well as describe the workings of the Private Calendar. I hope this might be of some value to the Members of this House, especially our newer colleagues. Of the four House Calendars, the Private Calendar is the one to which all Private Bills are referred. Private Bills deal with specific individuals, corporations, institutions, and so forth, as distinguished from public bills which deal with classes only. Of the 108 laws approved by the First Congress, only 5 were Private Laws. But their number quickly grew as the wars of the new Republic produced veterans and veterans' widows seeking pensions and as more citizens came to have private claims and demands against the Federal Government. The 49th Congress, 1885 to 1887, the first Congress for which complete workload and output data is available, passed 1,031 Private Laws, as compared with 434 Public Laws. At the turn of the century the 56th Congress passed 1,498 Private Laws and 443 Public Laws--a better than three to one ratio. Private bills were referred to the Committee on the Whole House as far back as 1820, and a calendar of private bills was established in 1839. These bills were initially brought before the House by special orders, but the 62nd Congress changed this procedure by its rule XXIV, clause six which provided for the consideration of the Private Calendar in lieu of special orders. This rule was amended in 1932, and then adopted in its present form on March 27, 1935. A determined effort to reduce the private bill workload of the Congress was made in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Section 131 of that Act banned the introduction or the consideration of four types of private bills; first, those authorizing the payment of money for pensions; second, for personal or property damages for which suit may be brought under the Federal tort claims procedure; third, those authorizing the construction of a bridge across a navigable stream, or fourth, those authorizing the correction of a military or naval record. This ban afforded some temporary relief but was soon offset by the rising postwar and cold war flood for private immigration bills. The 82nd Congress passed 1,023 Private Laws, as compared with 594 Public Laws. The 88th Congress passed 360 Private Laws compared with 666 Public Laws. Under rule XV, clause five, the Private Calendar is called the first and third Tuesday of each month. The consideration of the Private Calendar bills on the first Tuesday is mandatory unless dispensed with by a two-thirds vote. On the third Tuesday, however, recognition for consideration of the Private Calendar is within the discretion of the Speaker and does not take precedence over other privileged business in the House. On the first Tuesday of each month, after disposition of business on the Speaker's table for reference only, the Speaker directs the call of the Private Calendar. If a bill called is objected to by two or more Members, it is automatically recommitted to the committee reporting it. No reservation of objection is entertained. Bills un-objected to are considered in the House in the Committee of the Whole. On the third Tuesday of each month, the same procedure is followed with the exception that omnibus bills embodying bills previously rejected have preference and are in order regardless of objection. Such omnibus bills are read by paragraph, and no amendments are entertained except to strike out or reduce amounts or provide limitations. Matters so stricken out shall not be again included in an omnibus bill during that session. Debate is limited to motions allowable under the rule and does not admit motions to strike out the last word or reservation of objections. The rules prohibit the Speaker from recognizing Members for statements or for requests for unanimous consent for debate. Omnibus bills so passed are thereupon resolved in their component bills, which are engrossed separately and disposed of as if passed separately. Private Calendar bills unfinished on one Tuesday go over to the next Tuesday on which such bills are in order and are considered before the call of bills subsequently on the calendar. Omnibus bills follow the same procedure and go over to the next Tuesday on which that class of business is again in order. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to describe to the newer Members the Official Objectors Committee, the system the House has established to deal with Private Bills. The Majority Leader and the Minority Leader each appoint three Members to serve as Private Calendar Objectors during a Congress. The Objectors are on the Floor ready to object to any Private Bill which they feel is objectionable for any reason. Should any Member have a doubt or question about a particular Private Bill, he or she can get assistance from objectors, their staff, or from the Member who introduced the bill. The amount of private bills and the desire to have an opportunity to study them carefully before they are called on the Private Calendar has caused the six objectors to agree upon certain ground rules. The rules limit consideration of bills placed on the Private Calendar only shortly before the calendar is called. With this agreement of March 31, 2011, the members of the Private Calendar Objectors Committee have agreed that during the 112th Congress, they will consider only those bills which have been on the Private Calendar for a period of seven (7) legislative days, excluding the day the bill is placed on the calendar and the day the calendar is called. Reports must be available to the Objectors for three (3) calendar days. It is agreed that the majority and minority clerks will not submit to the Objectors any bills which do not meet this requirement. This policy will be strictly enforced except during the closing days of a session when the House rules are suspended. This agreement was entered into by: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). I feel confident that I speak for my colleagues when I request all Members to enable us to give the necessary advance considerations to private bills by not asking that we depart from the above agreement unless absolutely necessary.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, according to recent figures calculated by my Texas colleague John Culberson, an illegal immigrant apprehended by Border Patrol agents during the last fiscal year had an eight in ten chance of never being prosecuted. Specifically, in Fiscal Year 2010, nearly 450,000 illegal immigrants were apprehended by the Border Patrol. Of this amount, only about 73,000 were prosecuted, roughly 16 percent. This means that 84 percent of illegal immigrants taken into custody were never prosecuted! And while the Obama administration claims the border is more secure than ever, a recent Government Accountability Office report found that efforts by Border Patrol to stop illegal crossings were ``poor.'' In fact, it is estimated that there are three successful illegal crossings for every one thwarted. That means more than a million illegal immigrants enter the U.S. each year. The border is never going to be secure until we enforce all of our immigration laws and turn off the jobs magnet that encourages illegal immigration. Allowing millions to evade our laws is unfair and hurts American workers and taxpayers.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post are the winners of this week's Media Fairness Caucus ``Lap Dog Award'' for biased news coverage. Most of the regular columns in these newspapers have a left-wing bias. Combined, they feature a total of 19 columnists who show a liberal perspective in their articles and only four who regularly offer conservative views. That's a ratio of almost five to one, liberal to conservative. It's no surprise that the great majority of Americans say the media are too liberal rather than too conservative, according to a recent Gallup public opinion poll. Columnists certainly are entitled to their opinions, but I hope the national media will look for opportunities to give Americans more balanced commentaries.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 394) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank Ranking Member Conyers, Courts Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, Courts Ranking Member Cohen, and former Courts Subcommittee Chairman Hank Johnson for cosponsoring the bill. The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act brings more clarity to the operation of jurisdictional statutes and facilitates the identification of the appropriate State or Federal court where actions should be brought. Judges believe the current rules force them to waste time determining jurisdictional issues at the expense of adjudicating underlying litigation. The contents of this bill are based on recommendations developed and approved by the United States Judicial Conference to address the judiciary's concerns. This legislation contains a number of revisions to Federal jurisdictional and venue law. Among the changes, the bill clarifies the definition of citizenship for foreign corporations and domestic corporations doing business abroad; separates the removal provisions governing civil cases and those governing criminal cases into two statutes; and creates a general venue statute that unifies the approach to venue in diversity and Federal question cases, while maintaining current venue standards. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 394. I reserve the balance of my time.

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, 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 394, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 144 and 145, I was unfortunately detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, ABC, CBS, and NBC are the winners of this week's Media Fairness Caucus ``Lap Dog Award'' for biased news coverage. Undercover videos released earlier this month show employees of Planned Parenthood, a taxpayer-funded liberal group, giving advice on how to obtain abortions for underage girls and circumvent sex crime laws. All three television networks ignored the controversy for an entire week. ABC and NBC still have not devoted any coverage to the story, according to a Lexis-Nexis search. Can you imagine if it were discovered that a conservative group was willing to aid and abet the sexual exploitation of minors? It would be all over the news. The national media should give Americans the facts, not ignore them.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the chairman of the Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close; so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include other materials on H.R. 514.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment to H.R. 514 extends the three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act for only 90 days. I am disappointed that the Senate refused to agree to the 10-month extension approved by the House earlier this week. Repeated short-term extensions of these authorities create uncertainty for our intelligence agencies. They don't know if the tools they rely on to keep America safe today will be available to them tomorrow. That is why the House sought a 10- month extension, to allow sufficient time to reauthorize the law while providing greater certainty to the intelligence community. With adoption of this amendment, the House and Senate will now have to move expeditiously to approve a Patriot reauthorization bill so we can avoid the need for another short-term extension. It is important that the House approves this 90-day extension today to keep the expiring intelligence-gathering provisions in place. In a recent letter to Congress, Director of National Intelligence Admiral Clapper and Attorney General Holder said that ``it is essential that these intelligence tools be reauthorized before they expire'' and they ``have been used in numerous highly sensitive intelligence collection operations.'' Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned that ``the terrorist threat . . . is at its most heightened state since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.'' Just this week, the FBI announced that the probability that the U.S. will be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction at some point is 100 percent. The head of the FBI's WMD Directorate said that the type of attack that keeps him awake at night is an attack by a so-called ``lone wolf.'' With the likelihood of a weapons of mass destruction attack at 100 percent, we cannot afford to leave our intelligence officials without the tools they need to keep America safe. The war on terror is not over, but the terrorist threat is constantly evolving. We must fully arm our intelligence community with the resources they need to prevent another devastating and deadly terrorist attack. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Senate amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 93, I call up the bill (H.R. 514) to extend expiring provisions of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011, with the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we must act now to keep these national security laws in place. Time is running out. We have only a few days left to do what we need to do to keep America safe. These are commonsense provisions that prevent terrorist attacks, protect the American people, and preserve civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this commonsense extension.

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