Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, 20 million people are out of work or have given up looking for work. Contrary to history and common sense, the Democratic Party actually thinks that raising taxes is going to create jobs. The national debt has set a new record, but congressional Democrats still want to spend more, yet they won't offer a budget this year to tell the American people how they want to spend their money. That's disrespectful of hardworking Americans. How bad does it have to get before voters say we've had enough? America's values, America's economy, and America's greatness are threatened. It's time to end the one-party monopoly in Washington.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, for a revealing example of the national media's liberal bias, just follow the money. During the 2010 election cycle, journalists have given to Democrats over Republicans by a margin of almost 2 to 1, according to a new report by the Center for Responsive Politics. The list includes employees of news outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Reuters, among many others. Furthermore, during the 2008 election cycle, 88 percent of campaign contributions from television network employees went to Democrats, according to The Washington Examiner. It's no wonder only 8 percent of Americans trust the media, according to a Zogby public opinion poll. The national media should give Americans the facts, not give Democrats more money.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment Congressman Serrano for his creative idea to allow Members to administer the oath of allegiance to individuals being naturalized as citizens. H.R. 4862 gives Members of Congress the ability to play a significant role in the naturalization ceremony, which can be and should be an inspiring experience for those becoming U.S. citizens. Citizenship is the highest honor our Nation can bestow and naturalization ceremonies give us the opportunity to honor individuals who have come to contribute to America. Americans who take the oath of allegiance know the importance of swearing to ``support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' It is a solemn, yet joyful and patriotic, experience. I appreciate the majority leader and Congressman Serrano making some improvements to the initial bill. The revised language clarifies that Members, whether Representatives or Senators, can only administer the oath to individuals from their own congressional district or, in the case of Senators, from their own State. In order to prevent this privilege from being used for political purposes, no Member can administer the oath of allegiance during the 90 days prior to any election in which that Member is a candidate. The 90- day period parallels the House rules that prohibit House-funded mailings 90 days before an election. And, finally, I requested that language be added to ensure that the Member can only administer the oath at a naturalization ceremony set up, conducted, and overseen by the Department of Homeland Security, which is the current practice. The many redrafts of the language do show why legislation should be subjected to proper process where Members can participate in hearings and learn from experts in the issue area. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which gives Members of Congress the ability to more fully participate in naturalization ceremonies. It is appropriate for Members of Congress, who wrote our naturalization laws, to play an expanded role in helping individuals become a part of the most free and most prosperous country in the world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment Congressman Serrano and Congressman Kennedy as well. They so beautifully described why these naturalization ceremonies are so important and why they are so meaningful to our newest citizens. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee, a former member of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1375, recognizing the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. Mr. Speaker, I support House Resolution 1375, which recognizes the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment and honors the contributions of women in United States politics. The 19th Amendment prohibits the Federal Government and the States from denying a citizen's right to vote on account of sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920. For more than a century after our Nation's founding, women lacked the right to vote. However, throughout this time women participated in politics. Their many contributions paved the way for the eventual ratification of the 19th Amendment. Many women played significant roles in the abolitionist movement, for example. It was after Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were denied admission to an anti-slavery conference that they organized the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. The convention's Declaration of Sentiments stated that ``all men and women are created equal.'' This served as a foundational document in the women's suffrage movement that followed. After the 15th Amendment in 1870 outlawed the denial of a citizen's right to vote on account of race, women sought an amendment for women's suffrage. Such an amendment would not come for another 50 years. During this period, women continued to remain active in politics. They voiced their concerns not only with regard to women's rights, but also on behalf of other causes such as the temperance movement. In 1916, Jeannette Rankin, a Republican from Montana, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. She became the first female Member of Congress. While many women still did not have the right to vote throughout the country, Montana afforded women the right to vote at that time. Finally, in 1918 President Woodrow Wilson announced his support for a women's suffrage amendment. Congress passed the proposed amendment in 1919. On August 18, 1920, the Tennessee General Assembly became the 36th State legislature to ratify it, making it the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the decades that followed, women not only voted, but they slowly began to enter politics as State and Federal legislators and holders of elective executive posts. In 1931, Hattie Wyatt Caraway (Democrat, Arkansas) was appointed to the U.S. Senate, succeeding her late husband. She later became the first woman ever elected to the Senate, where she served two full terms. The women's rights movement grew significantly in the 1960s and 1970s. But in 1979, women still only occupied 3 percent of the seats in Congress, 10 percent of the seats in State legislatures, and 11 percent of statewide elective executive offices, according to the Center for American Women and Politics. Today, while there is still room for much progress, women hold nearly 17 percent of the seats in Congress and the number of women in State legislatures and statewide elective offices has more than doubled. House Resolution 1375 recognizes that the full participatory rights of women are vital to democracy in the United States. This resolution honors the historic impact of the 19th Amendment and the achievements of women in politics. It also reaffirms the commitment of the House of Representatives to pursuing this equality for women. I am pleased to support this resolution. I urge my colleagues to share their support as well.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, most Americans don't believe the national media's reporting, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center. Only about 2 in 10 say they ``believe all or most information'' from news outlets such as the New York Times, ABC, CBS, and NBC. For the television networks, this marks a 10-point drop from a decade ago. Americans have good reason to be skeptical of the media. A total of 17 journalists have left a national media outlet to join either the Obama administration or another liberal organization, according to the Media Research Center. It is no wonder that, by a margin of 3 to 1, Americans describe the average reporter as more liberal than they are rather than more conservative, according to a public opinion poll. If the national media want the public to believe their reporting, they should give Americans the facts and not tell them what to think.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I support the passage of this bill. Additional funds for border security are always a step in the right direction, but if the Democrats were serious about immigration enforcement, they would include more funds for interior enforcement. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it doesn't have enough resources to enforce our immigration laws, yet this bill contains no funds for work-site enforcement that is needed to protect jobs for citizens and legal immigrants. Last week, an illegal immigrant drunk driver killed a nun and critically injured two others. He had two earlier convictions for drunk driving. If ICE had sufficient funds for enforcement, this tragedy could have been avoided. Madam Speaker, in many ways, this bill represents an opportunity lost, and I regret that even though I support passage of the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following. Rick Levin, the President of Yale University, recently delivered this year's commencement address, ``Reclaiming Politics.'' While his comments were directed to graduating seniors, they speak more broadly to all those interested in public service and in improving our political system. I hope my colleagues and others will appreciate a reasoned and articulate discussion of such a timely subject. Baccalaureate Address: Reclaiming Politics (By President Richard C. Levin) What a journey you have had! Four years of exploring a place so rich with treasure: courses taught by some of the world's most brilliant and creative scholars and scientists, a library with few peers, museums that expose you to the full variety of nature and human cultures, musical and theatrical performances of the highest quality, vigorous intercollegiate and intramural athletic programs, and classmates whose excellence never ceases to astonish--and all this set within the imposing and inspiring architecture of a campus that is itself a museum. You have had the chance to interact with classmates from 50 states and 50 nations, and the great majority of you have taken advantage of Yale's abundant international programs to spend a semester or a summer abroad. In the classroom, you were encouraged to engage thoroughly and rigorously in thinking independently about the subjects you studied. You were challenged to develop the powers of critical reasoning fundamental to success in any life endeavor. Outside the classroom, as you worked productively in the hundreds of organizations you joined or founded, you exercised the skills of teamwork and leadership. In your overseas experiences, you deepened your capacity for understanding those whose values and cultures differ from your own--preparing you for citizenship in a globally interconnected world. You may not recognize this in yourselves, but you are ready for what is next. Understandably, you may be uncertain and a bit anxious about what lies ahead. But, if history is to be trusted, you will find many paths open to you. Because of the talent you possessed before you came here, as well as the intellectual and personal growth you have experienced here, you will find, with high likelihood, success in your chosen endeavors. And we expect you to stay connected. The vibrant life of this university is greatly enriched by the deep commitment and active participation of its graduates--think of all the master's teas and guest lectures and college seminars offered by our alumni. And keep in mind that when you thanked your parents a few moments ago, you might also have been thanking the generations of Yale graduates whose gifts past and present supported half the total cost of your education. Perhaps I am overconfident about your prospects for personal fulfillment and professional success, but I don't think so. If you will concede my point for the sake of argument, let's ask the next question, one so deeply rooted in Yale's mission and tradition that for most of you, fortunately, it has become ingrained. And that question is: how can I serve? How can I contribute to the wellbeing of those around me, much as we all have done in building communities within the residential colleges and volunteering in so many valuable roles in the city of New Haven? Now is an important time to be asking this question. Let me suggest why, and then let me suggest an answer. Aristotle tells us that we are by nature political animals. But one wonders whether he would recognize the species that we have become. Eighteen months ago, the United States elected a new president who was prepared to address, intelligently and collaboratively, the most pressing problems confronting the nation--education, health care, climate change, and improving America's image in the rest of the world. Late in the election campaign, the financial crisis intervened, and economic recovery and financial sector reform were added to this ambitious agenda. What has happened since does not inspire great confidence in the capacity of our system to deal intelligently with important problems. We legislated a stimulus package that was less effective than it should have been, and far less effective than the corresponding measures undertaken in China. Fifteen months later, unemployment in the United States is still 9.9%. After months of stalemate, Congress enacted a health care bill that extends care to millions of uncovered individuals and families, but takes only the most tentative steps toward containing the escalating costs that will create an unsustainable burden of public debt within the next decade or two. We failed to address climate change in time to achieve a meaningful global agreement in Copenhagen. And, although financial sector reform now seems to be a possibility, the debate has been replete with misunderstanding of what actually went wrong and a misplaced desire for revenge. Why is this happening? Let me make two observations, and then trace their implications for how you might conduct yourselves as citizens and participants in political life. First, contemporary political discussion is too often dominated by oversimplified ideologies with superficial appeal to voters. And, second, political actors in the United States give too much weight to the interests of groups with the resources to influence their re-election, and too little attention to the costs and benefits of their actions on the wider public. In The Federalist (No. 10), James Madison addresses the second of these observations, in the context of the fledgling republic established by the U.S. Constitution. He notes that the tendency to pursue self-interest can never be entirely suppressed, but it can be mitigated by the proper design of political institutions. In contrast to a direct democracy where individuals would tend to vote their own interests, a republican form of government, Madison argues, will have a greater tendency to select representatives who attend to the broader interests of the whole. And, he further argues, representatives in a large republic constituted of a wide range of divergent interests will find it easier to rise above parochialism than those in a smaller republic comprised of a small number of competing factions. The protections that our form of government offers against ideology and faction have attenuated greatly since Madison's time, for at least two reasons. First, mass communication increases the opportunity to sway voters by appeal to simple formulations. Of course, the rise of mass communication could be a tool for raising the level of discourse through more effective education of the electorate. But it interacts with the second attenuating factor: that the money required to win elections through the media has created a dependence on funding from special interest groups. And it is these interest groups who distort reasoned dialogue by sponsoring oversimplified messages. It is easy to see how these developments have thwarted recent efforts to shape responsible public policy. For example, the interest groups opposing health care reform defeated efforts to contain costs by labeling them ``death panels,'' and they defeated the creation of a new public vehicle for providing health insurance by insisting that we must ``keep government out of the health care business,'' when in fact Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration already pay nearly 40 per cent of the nation's health care bill. I am not taking sides here, only pointing to the fact that intelligent debate on these subjects was crowded out by ideological distortion. How can we create a national and global dialogue that transcends such oversimplification and parochialism? Let me suggest that we need each of you to raise the level of debate. You came here to develop your powers of critical thinking, to separate what makes sense from what is superficial, misleading, and seductive. Whether you have studied literature, philosophy, history, politics, economics, biology, physics, chemistry, or engineering, you have been challenged to think deeply, to identify the inconsistent and illogical, and to reason your way to intelligent conclusions. You can apply these powers of critical discernment not simply to fulfill personal aspirations, but to make a contribution to public life. Every signal you have received in this nurturing community has been unwavering in its message that the growth of your competencies is not to benefit you alone. You have learned in your residential colleges that building a successful community has required you to respect and value one another, and, when appropriate, to moderate your own desires for the benefit of the whole. And so it should be in your lives after Yale. If you are to help to solve this nation's problems--or work across national boundaries to address global problems such as climate, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation--you will need to draw upon both these fruits of a Yale education: the capacity to reason and the ethical imperative to think beyond your own self-interest. I know that many of you are taking advantage of these first years after graduation to take up public service, and I hope that even more of you will consider this path. There are plenty of jobs in the public sector for enterprising recent graduates; many are short-term but others may lead to careers. Many of you have signed up to be teachers. Others will enter business or the professions. But whatever choice you make, you can help to strengthen the nation and the world--by treating political choices not as triggers for an ideological reflex and not as opportunities to maximize self- interest. To combat reflexive ideologies, you must use the powers of reason that you have developed here to sift through the issues to reach thoughtful, intelligent conclusions. To combat parochialism, you must draw upon the ethical imperative that Yale has imbued in you--an imperative that begins with the golden rule. Whether you serve in government directly or simply exercise your responsibilities as a citizen and voter, recognize that we will all be best served if we take account not merely of our own self-interest, but the broader interests of humanity. To move beyond ideology and faction, we need to raise the level of political discourse. You, as the emerging leaders of your generation, must rise to this challenge. In first paragraph of The Federalist (No. 1), writing about the infant republic whose constitution he was endeavoring to defend, Alexander Hamilton asserts: It has frequently been remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies . . . are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice . . . There is much in America's history of the past two and a quarter centuries that would incline us to conclude that Hamilton's question has been answered in the affirmative. Our institutions of representative government have proven themselves to be durable; the rule of law has prevailed, and the scope of personal liberty has expanded far beyond what the founders envisioned. But today, in the face of oversimplified ideology and the dominance of narrow interests, we must wonder again whether Hamilton's question is still open. Women and men of the Yale College class of 2010: It falls to you, the superbly educated leaders of your generation, to rise above ideology and faction, to bring to bear your intelligence and powers of critical thinking to elevate public discourse, to participate as citizens and to answer the call to service. Only with your commitment can we be certain that our future will be decided by ``reflection and choice'' in the broad best interest of humanity. You can do it. Yes you can.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, how bad does it have to get? Over 20 million Americans are out of work or have given up looking for work. Federal spending is out of control, and congressional Democrats won't even propose a budget. The administration intentionally takes actions to weaken immigration laws; Federal judges assault our time-tested values; and the administration wants to hike taxes on individuals, small businesses, and investments, which will kill jobs. How bad does it have to get before Americans reclaim our country?

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 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, this legislation represents an irresponsible overreach and does not contain the necessary protections to safeguard taxpayer dollars from abuse, waste, and fraud. Ken Feinberg, the special master of the original 9/11 fund, has stated that if the fund is reenacted, it should be for a window of 5 years, not 21, and that it should be done with ``the understanding that there would be no changes in the rules and regulations governing the original fund, and that the new law would simply be a one-line reaffirmation of the original 9/11 fund.'' Unfortunately, the majority did not listen to Mr. Feinberg's sound advice. Instead, we are considering a bill that creates a fund with an unnecessary 21-year-long duration that contains special protections for trial attorneys, extends greatly the original fund's eligibility and criteria, and does not include the procedural protections necessary to safeguard the fund from abuse, waste, and fraud. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say I think this is another example of the Democrats' insatiable appetite for the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I understand that we have 4 minutes left on this side. I would like to inquire again how much time remains on the other side, including both of the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Nadler and Mr. Crowley.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who happens to be the vice ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. And I hope the Speaker will use the same timepiece in judging Mr. Goodlatte's time as he did in judging the gentleman from New York's time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, two questions: One, I would like to know how much time the last speaker used; and I would like to know how much time remains on each side.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, this bill presents a sensitive issue with regard to compensation for those who are suffering ailments as a result of recovery and cleanup efforts at the World Trade Center site. No doubt there are many with legitimate claims as a result of their efforts at Ground Zero. But this legislation, as written, creates a huge $8.4 billion slush fund paid by taxpayers that is open to abuse, fraud, and waste. That's because the legislation creates an unjustifiable 21-year-long fund that leaves decisions on whether or not to pay claimants to the complete discretion of the special master. As Ken Feinberg, special master of the original 9/11 Fund, has stated, quote, ``No latent claims need such an extended date.'' The legislation also vastly extends the geographic scope of the fund to cover routes of debris removal. This will result in the potential for a huge number of additional claimants with tenuous connections between their medical problems and the cleanup efforts at Ground Zero. Additionally, the bill permits those who have settled their lawsuits to reopen their claims and seek additional taxpayer-funded compensation through the 9/11 Fund. This is contrary to both the terms of the original 9/11 Fund and to general legal principles regarding the finality of settlements. The original 9/11 Fund was unprecedented in its expression of a Nation's compassion and generosity following the deaths of innocent people. It was designed to settle the claims of those covered once and for all. It may be that the fund should be reopened to first responders whose injuries were not evident until after the expiration of the initial deadline. However, if we are going to reopen the fund, we should do so in a manner that is much narrower, with far less discretion for the special master than is provided for in H.R. 847. It's hard to explain spending billions of additional taxpayer dollars when Special Master Ken Feinberg himself has emphatically stated that the $1.5 billion in taxpayer money, charitable contributions, and insurance coverage currently available for distribution is, quote, ``more than sufficient to pay all eligible claims, as well as lawyers' fees and costs.'' Mr. Speaker, why do Democrats continue to overreach and consider the taxpayer to be their personal slush fund? I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), who is also the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) who is the ranking member of the House Administration Committee and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, yesterday a Federal judge sided with the Obama administration against Arizona's immigration enforcement law. The ruling will be seen by Arizonans and the vast majority of Americans who support the law as just another example of this administration's failure to deal with illegal immigration and border security. Like the administration, the national media has shown a clear bias against the Arizona law. Network evening news coverage has been slanted against the Arizona law by a margin of 10-1, according to an analysis by the Media Research Center. Only one in six stories mentioned public opinion polls showing that Americans support the law. The national media should give Americans the facts about Arizona's immigration enforcement law, not provide cover for the administration's failure to secure the border.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, Arizona's pleadings in support of their immigration enforcement law include an important declaration by Harvard Economics Professor George Borjas. In his analysis of interstate wage trends from 1960 through 2006, Borjas found: ``that the presence of unauthorized aliens in the Arizona workforce reduced the earnings of low-skilled authorized workers in Arizona by 4.7 percent. Borjas says, ``The overall wage depression for all Arizona workers is approximately $1.4 billion. ``The evidence further indicates that the presence of unauthorized aliens in the Arizona workforce reduced the employment rate of Arizona's low-skilled authorized workers by 1.6 percent . . .'' This reinforces what we already know: the Obama administration's failure to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws means citizens and legal immigrants face higher unemployment and lower wages.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have set six records. Unfortunately, they are not the ones the American people hoped for: One, Americans are staying unemployed longer than ever before; Two, for the first time since the current budget rules were adopted 35 years ago, the House will not pass a budget; Three, the Federal debt has never been larger; Four, the cost of health care has never been higher; Five, we are more dependent on foreign oil than ever before; Six, the Federal Government has taken control of an unprecedented number of private companies, according to the Congressional Research Service. These records stifle economic growth and hurt all Americans. They are taking our country in the wrong direction.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, more than any other drug, the majority of crack defendants have prior criminal convictions. Despite claims by some, this is not an issue of one-time crack users being prosecuted for possession. This is about offenders who perpetually peddled this dangerous drug and should pay the price for their actions. Despite the devastating impact crack cocaine has had on American communities, this bill reduces the penalties for crack cocaine. Why would we want to do that? We should not ignore the severity of crack addiction or ignore the differences between crack and powder cocaine trafficking. We should worry more about the victims than about the criminals. Why would we want to reduce the penalties for crack cocaine trafficking and invite a return to a time when cocaine ravaged our communities, especially minority communities? This bill sends the wrong message to drug dealers and those who traffic in destroying Americans' lives. It sends the message that Congress takes drug crimes less seriously than they did. The bill before us threatens to return America to the days when crack cocaine corroded the minds and bodies of our children, decimated a generation, and destroyed communities. Mr. Speaker, I hope, sincerely, that those who support this legislation are prepared to take responsibility if cocaine trafficking increases, if our neighborhoods and communities once again become riddled with violence, and the lives of Americans are unnecessarily destroyed. I hope that doesn't happen, but at least today we have gone on record as saying that there was a warning, and I can only hope that at some point in the future it will be heeded and responded to. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.