Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of a good-faith effort to consider that proposal by the gentleman from Michigan, I yield the gentleman 2 minutes of my time for his control.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), chairman of the House Administration Committee and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, since its enactment in 2001, the Patriot Act has been the object of so many false allegations and exaggerations that the myths have overshadowed the truth. It is time to dispel the myths once and for all. Let's begin with the myth that national security officials do not need these provisions to protect us from terrorist attacks. This is demonstrably untrue. Numerous terrorist attempts in the last 10 years have been thwarted thanks to the intelligence gathering tools provided in the Patriot Act and other national security laws, and if Congress fails to extend these provisions set to expire on February 28, it will be on our shoulders if the intelligence needed to stop the next attack is not collected. Opponents claim that these expiring provisions of the Patriot Act violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. This, too, is false. Each of the provisions at issue amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Enacted in 1978, FISA sets forth specific intelligence gathering procedures that do comply with constitutional protections and have been consistently upheld by the courts. Let's also dispel the myth that these provisions grant broad- sweeping, unchecked authority for the government to collect information on innocent Americans. Again, this is absolutely untrue. These types of provisions have been used by domestic law enforcement agencies for years to apprehend typical criminals. Roving wiretaps are nothing new. Domestic law enforcement agencies have had roving authority for criminal investigations since 1986. Section 215, business records, have more strict requirements than the grand jury subpoenas used in criminal investigations. It makes no sense to let law enforcement officials use a tool to investigate a drug dealer, but then deny that same authority to intelligence officials investigating terrorists. And contrary to claims by critics, there is oversight of these provisions. Both section 206, roving wiretaps, and section 215, business record requests, must be approved by a FISA judge. Both section 206, roving wiretaps, and section 215, business records, also are subject to rigorous minimization procedures. These procedures, also approved by a FISA judge, assure that only information that pertains to the investigation is actually collected. Finally, both section 206, roving wiretaps, and section 215, business records, prohibit the government from gathering intelligence on a U.S. citizen or legal resident who is exercising his First Amendment rights. The third provision set to expire is the so-called lone wolf definition. As originally enacted, FISA authorized intelligence gathering only on foreign governments, terrorist groups or their agents. FISA did not allow the government to collect intelligence against individual terrorists. The lone wolf provision amended the definition of ``agent of a foreign power'' to close this gap. An increasing number of attempted terrorist attacks on the U.S. are being carried out by self-radicalized jihadists who adopt an agenda as equally hateful and destructive as any terrorist group. The lone wolf definition simply brings our national security laws into the 21st century to allow our intelligence officials to respond to the modern- day terrorist threat. The lone wolf authority cannot be used against a U.S. citizen. This temporary extension ensures that there are no gaps in our intelligence collection. Without an extension of these authorities, we will forfeit our ability to prevent terrorist attacks. A temporary extension of these provisions is the only way to provide House Members the time to study the law, hold hearings, consider amendments and conduct markups. We need to approve this temporary extension today, or we will make it harder to prevent terrorist attacks. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just want to say to my Texas colleague who just spoke that I know and appreciate how strongly she feels about saving jobs in Houston, creating jobs in Houston, as I do, too, but we heard yesterday from the CBO that this new health care bill is going to cost America 800,000 jobs. And it just so happens if you prorate that out, that would mean that the new health care bill will cost Houston, Texas, around 600 jobs, and of course, it will cost other communities around the country jobs as well. So the best way to try to save jobs in Houston, the best way to try to prevent jobs from being lost in Houston, would be to vote to repeal the health care bill. Now, the gentlewoman from Texas also raised the subject of immigration. I wasn't aware that that was connected to this bill, but I'm also happy to reply to her comments about that subject as well. Today in America, there are roughly 7 million people who are working illegally in this country. They are taking jobs that should go to the 26 million Americans who are either unemployed or underemployed. So, once again, if we want to create jobs for Americans in this country, one way to do so would be to make sure that only legal workers are employed in this country, and we have ways to accomplish that end. Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), who is the vice chairman of the Administrative Law Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I can't explain the disconnect because I don't think there is a disconnect. We can certainly supply you with the testimony that was offered by the CBO yesterday in which they said it would cost 800,000 jobs. We'll look for a copy of that testimony, or the other Judiciary staff members might be able to supply us with a copy of that as well. I don't think there is a disconnect. I believe the CBO. I do believe that the health care bill is going to cost 800,000 jobs. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes of the time that I have remaining to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank my friend, the ranking member, for yielding. The source of the information that I have used and that Judge Poe has used in saying that the health care bill is going to cost 800,000 jobs is from a report released yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office, saying that the health care bill would cost 800,000 jobs. The CBO, as we all know, is an independent, credible, outside agency upon whom we rely for information on a regular basis. For them to come out and say that the health care bill is going to cost 800,000 jobs is, quite frankly, believable and the reason, I think, we can cite them as a credible source.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, the American people and American employers know what Washington has not learned: too many regulations impose too many costs and cost too many jobs. The Judiciary Committee is working hard on the reforms we need to tame Washington and unleash American businesses to create jobs. We should pass the REINS Act, pass the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, reform the Administrative Procedure Act and the practice of too many regulations with too many costs for too few benefits. Madam Speaker, I think this debate really comes down to a very simple question. There are those who favor a government of regulations and there are those of us who feel that Congress should oversee and approve the most burdensome regulations. Any Member of Congress who feels that Congress should oversee and approve the most burdensome regulations, I believe, will support this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I just want to point out that the figure we have been using that the health care bill is going to cost 800,000 jobs is not necessarily an old figure. Or maybe I should concede it's a day old, because that figure came from yesterday's testimony by the Budget Director in front of the Budget Committee. I said Budget Director. Let me read the statement: ``Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that ObamaCare is expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an estimated 800,000 people.''

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, 2 years ago, and 2 years into the current administration, Washington policies have not rescued our economy from crisis. In fact, they have entrenched the crisis. American workers and American companies pay the price as Washington regulations stifle job creation and slow economic recovery. The Judiciary Committee doesn't have jurisdiction over sweeping economic regulations, but it does have jurisdiction over something that sweeps with just as much force. That is the administrative law that governs how agencies must respond to Congress and what agencies must consider before they regulate at all. The REINS Act enables us to reassert Congress' authority over the most burdensome regulations that our agencies churn out. These are major regulations--those that impose a burden of $100 million or more on our economy. The REINS Act requires Congress, not an unelected agency head, to decide whether regulations with massive costs become the law of the land. The Judiciary Committee has already begun hearings on the REINS Act and intends to move quickly to mark up this legislation. Small businesses are the heart of job creation. Rather than bend to small business' needs, Washington too often rigidly demands that small businesses bend to Washington. Overbearing one-size-fits-all Federal regulations have long been the order of the day. Small businesses cannot bear their weight. Since small businesses are the engine of job creation, it is clear what suffers--that is, jobs. This week, I introduced the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011 to force Federal agencies to accommodate the needs of small businesses. Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill, and it intends to mark up that bill soon. Let's reform the Administrative Procedure Act, the fundamental charter for all agency rulemaking. While it is not time to retire the APA, it is past time to strengthen it with commonsense reforms. We should make permanent cost benefit analysis requirements that Presidents have developed through Executive orders. Practice has proved that cost benefit analysis improves regulatory effectiveness and lowers regulatory cost. But an Executive order, no matter how wise, can be revoked by the next resident of the White House. Other vital reforms also must take place. Agencies' favorite and almost universal course under the APA is informal notice-and-comment rulemaking. This procedure is certainly convenient and it does have its place, but under its shelter, it has long been too easy for Big Government to impose hard-hitting rules without sufficiently vetting them. This should change. We should consider tougher requirements that agencies must demonstrate a need for regulations. Congress and the courts provide daily proof that evidence tested with witnesses at hearings produces the best judgments. Why shouldn't agencies use formal rulemaking hearings to evaluate the need for major regulations that cost hundreds of millions of dollars? We also should make sure the public has earlier opportunities to comment on potential agency action. Public input should come well before agency positions harden into settled, but often underinformed, judgments. Under traditional one-time notice-and-comment procedures, agency decisions are too often made before public comment even happens. President Obama has embraced a number of these principles with both spoken and written words. So I hope we will have bipartisan support for our efforts to pass meaningful legislation that will help create jobs. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), who is chairman of the Administrative Law Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle and to those who are watching this debate that both Supreme Court Justice Breyer and well-known and well-regarded Professor Larry Tribe have written supporting the constitutional basis of the REINS Act. It is clearly constitutional. It is clearly going to create jobs. By the way, that's as opposed to the new health care bill, which the CBO said yesterday was actually going to cost 800,000 jobs. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Here are excerpts from the exchange. In response to a couple of questions by Members of Congress, the last question was from Representative John Campbell of California, the Director of the CBO said in response to a question, ``Is it going to cost 800,000 jobs?'' his one-word answer was ``yes.'' So those are fresh figures, they are accurate figures, and I think we need to be very acutely aware of just how many jobs the new health care plan is going to cost. Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

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

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