Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a senior and active member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, those who fail to learn the lessons of history often pay a price. Unfortunately, the real cost usually falls on others. In the 1980s, America faced an epidemic created by a new, more potent form of cocaine known as crack. Its abuse spread through major cities and across the country at a stunning speed. Along with crack came guns and violence, which riddled many urban communities. These communities cried out for help, and in 1986 Congress responded. We enacted tough penalties to protect these neighborhoods and bring an end to the scourge of crack cocaine. The penalties helped make America's communities safer. Now Congress is considering legislation to wind down the fight against drug addiction and drug-related violence. Reducing the penalties for crack cocaine could expose our neighborhoods to the same violence and addiction that caused Congress to act in the first place. Twenty-five years ago, crack was cheap, easily available, and highly profitable. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, never before had any form of cocaine been available at such low prices and at such high purity. As a result, the number of Americans addicted to cocaine increased dramatically. Crack cocaine devastated many communities, especially inner-city communities. Black Americans who lived in these communities bore the brunt of the violence associated with the drug trade. Today, crime rates, particularly for violent crimes, are at their lowest levels in more than 30 years, thanks in large part to the enactment of tough penalties for drug trafficking and other offenses. Crack and powder cocaine use has dropped by almost two-thirds in the past 20 years, from 5.8 million users in 1985 to 2.1 million users in 2007. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime victimization rates for black Americans have fallen by more than two- thirds since enactment of these tough Federal trafficking penalties. What's wrong with that? Why do we want to risk another surge of addiction and violence by reducing penalties? Many argue that Federal prisons are filled with addicts convicted of simple possession of cocaine, but that's not true. The vast majority of Federal drug offenders are convicted for drug trafficking. In fiscal year 2009, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that there were 25,000 Federal drug trafficking convictions compared to fewer than 300 convictions for simple possession. So why do we want to make it more difficult to take drug traffickers off the streets and easier for them to peddle their lethal product? Crack cocaine is associated with a greater degree of violence than most other drugs. Crack offenders are also more likely to have prior convictions and lengthier criminal histories than powder cocaine offenders. It is these aggravating factors, which are more common to crack cocaine trafficking, that contribute to higher Federal crack sentences. These aggravating factors also render many Federal crack offenders ineligible for the so-called ``safety valve provision.'' The safety valve allows low-level offenders to be sentenced below the statutory mandatory penalties if they meet certain criteria, including no significant criminal history. So why should we reduce the ratio for defendants who are more violent, more likely to have criminal records, and less likely to benefit from the safety valve provision that already provides a mechanism for reduced penalties? Why are we coddling some of the most dangerous drug traffickers in America? Proponents of reducing or eliminating the crack/powder ratio argue that crack penalties impact a larger number of minorities than powder cocaine penalties. But the percentage of minority defendants for Federal crack and powder cocaine offenses is quite similar. Eighty-two percent of crack offenders and 90 percent of powder cocaine offenders are minorities, though black Americans comprise the majority of Federal crack cocaine offenders. Crack and powder cocaine offenders are even sentenced with mandatory penalties at similar rates. In 2009, 80 percent of crack cocaine offenders and 77 percent of powder cocaine offenders were convicted under a mandatory penalty statute. The bill before us today, S. 1789, lowers the ratio for Federal crack cocaine offenses from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. The bill also eliminates the mandatory penalties for crack cocaine possession, making it only a misdemeanor under Federal law. Why enact legislation that could endanger our children and bring violence back to our inner-city communities? S. 1789 includes a requirement that the U.S. Sentencing Commission review and amend the applicable guidelines for crack offenses involving violence. However, since Federal judges are not required to adhere to the guidelines, there is no guarantee that any increased penalty will be imposed under this provision. Last year, the House Judiciary Committee reported legislation, over Republican opposition, that would have eliminated entirely the ratio between crack and powder cocaine. Before that, the Obama administration relaxed enforcement of marijuana laws. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party teeters on the edge of becoming the face of deficits, drugs, and job destruction. I cannot support legislation that might enable the violent and devastating crack cocaine epidemic of the past to become a clear and present danger. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney) who is an active member of the Judiciary Committee and also a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5143 establishes a National Criminal Justice Commission consisting of a bipartisan panel of 14 experts appointed by the President, the Majority and Minority Leaders in the Senate, the Speaker and Minority Leader in the House. The commission will review all areas of the criminal justice system at the Federal, State, local and tribal levels. It will also examine national trends in criminal justice costs, practices and policies. Further, the commission will provide recommendations for changes to prevent, defer and reduce crime and violence. The recommendations should also help to reduce recidivism, improve cost effectiveness and ensure the interests of justice at every step of the criminal justice system. H.R. 5143 expresses the sense of Congress that the commission should work towards unanimity in making its findings and recommendations. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia introduced legislation to establish this commission in the Senate. The bill is cosponsored by a group of 39 Senators. In the House, my friend from Massachusetts, Bill Delahunt, a colleague on the Judiciary Committee and a former district attorney himself, introduced the House companion legislation to establish the commission. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts reached across the aisle to Republican members, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney) as well as myself to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. I must confess initially to having some concerns about the bill. Why do we need another commission to do the work and consider the issues that we in Congress and on the Judiciary Committee ought to be doing? However, my friend from Massachusetts was insistent and persuasive in convincing me that the commission will be able to consider the data and underlying policy considerations without political considerations. Another reason, Mr. Speaker, to support the measure is that it will serve as a fitting tribute to our colleague from Massachusetts, who is retiring at the end of this Congress. Passage of this bill represents an historic opportunity to undertake a bipartisan, thorough, and comprehensive review of what works and what does not work at every level of the criminal justice system. For this, and for his many other contributions to the American people, we can thank Congressman Delahunt, who I know is getting ready to speak on this legislation momentarily. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 5143. And before I reserve the balance of my time, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for being such an active and effective member of the Judiciary Committee, for being a close personal friend, whose advice I clearly take. With that, 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. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the national media have been quick to blame conservative news outlets for the firing of Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod. For example, a recent New York Times article points a finger at Fox News. The article, which mentions Fox seven times, describes the network as being in ``pursuit of Ms. Sherrod.'' However, Fox did not air any stories about Ms. Sherrod until after she had already resigned. The New York Times and the rest of the national media have largely ignored the truth. The rush to judgment that led to Ms. Sherrod's firing came from the Obama administration, not conservative media outlets. The Times article is another example of the media giving the White House a free pass. Media outlets should be more honest in their reporting if they want the trust of the American people.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Americans are getting a look behind the curtain of the national media, and the view isn't pretty. In recent weeks, leaked email messages from an online meeting place for reporters called JournoList have revealed some journalists' true colors. It has come to light that in 2008 a group of journalists tried to protect then-Senator Barack Obama from a scandal that threatened his Presidential campaign, according to messages obtained by The Daily Caller. Journalists from Time, Politico, The Baltimore Sun, and The New Republic, among others, expressed outrage about questions regarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright that Senator Obama received during a debate. The journalists then collaborated to shield Senator Obama from the controversy, The Daily Caller reported. It's no wonder a recent poll found that two-thirds of Americans say they are ``angry'' at the national media. The national media should give Americans the facts, not try to rig an election.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this year, a devastating earthquake hit Haiti and claimed 200,000 lives. The Department of Homeland Security quickly acted in the best American humanitarian tradition. DHS announced a humanitarian parole policy to allow orphaned Haitian children who were in the middle of adoption proceedings with American parents to quickly enter the U.S. DHS paroled about 1,200 Haitian orphans into the U.S. as a result of this policy. Adoption proceedings had not yet been completed when these children were airlifted to the U.S. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the children will have to live with their U.S. adoptive parents for 2 years before their parents can apply for permanent resident status for the children. During the interim period, the children must have their temporary parole status renewed each year. As a result, these children will wait an appreciable amount of time in parole status. Representative Fortenberry was concerned about how this delay could affect the new lives of these young children in the U.S.; for instance, what happens if the adoptive parents die during their parole period? In order to address these concerns and ensure the futures of these Haitian orphans, Representative Fortenberry introduced the Help HAITI Act of 2010. The bill allows the Haitian orphans brought to the U.S. in the aftermath of the earthquake to receive permanent residence immediately. This legislation helps future American citizens who have already suffered much but who will have bright futures in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I cosponsored this legislation introduced by Congresswoman Lofgren, chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Our Nation has a wonderful tradition of welcoming newcomers. We admit more than 1 million legal immigrants a year, as many as all other nations combined. This legislation continues that generosity by ensuring that American parents who want to open their homes and hearts to children from around the world are able to do so. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that U.S. citizens can adopt foreign children and have the children considered immediate relatives for immigration purposes if the children are adopted while under the age of 16 years. American families who initiated adoptions of foreign children by their 16th birthdays but were not able to complete the adoptions by that date have often sought relief from their Representatives in Congress. We have responded sympathetically. Congress has routinely passed private bills over the years to allow these families to sponsor their adopted children for permanent resident status in the U.S. In fact, Congress has so routinely passed such private bills that it makes sense for us to simply modify the law and provide a broad remedy. This legislation provides that for immigration purposes, adoptions by U.S. parents have to be completed by the age of 18 instead of 16. Under the bill, the parents are still obligated to finalize the adoption by the 18th birthday in order to receive immigration benefits for their child. Of course, we expect U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to continue to be on guard against any possible fraud in the foreign adoption process. This bill accomplishes one more objective by making a technical correction regarding the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions. Under current law, prospective immigrants have to be vaccinated against certain diseases. The law provides an exemption to the general immunization requirement for adopted children if, one, a child is 10 years of age or younger and, two, the adoptive parents certify that the child will receive the necessary vaccinations within 30 days of entry into the U.S. This exemption, enacted in 1997, is designed to ensure that parents don't have to subject their children to sometimes unsafe immunizations in foreign nations. Rather, they can more safely immunize their children in the United States. However, when the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions was later adopted, this exception was not extended to the children from signatory countries. Ms. Lofgren's bill simply extends the exemption to cover children from these countries. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Obama administration is suing Arizona for wanting to enforce our Nation's immigration laws, but they won't sue cities that violate our immigration laws by enacting sanctuary policies. So-called ``sanctuary cities'' prohibit their law enforcement officers from cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security to support illegal immigration. Will the administration also ignore individuals who fail to pay their income taxes, for example? Of course not. The administration's policies endanger American lives. In San Francisco, an illegal immigrant with past violent crime convictions savagely murdered the Bologna family--a father and two sons. In Los Angeles, an illegal immigrant murdered 17-year-old Jamiel Shaw, Jr., and an illegal immigrant gang member shot three students in Newark, New Jersey, execution style. All of these murders took place in sanctuary cities where they might have been prevented. The Obama administration needs to enforce immigration laws, not ignore them.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, it's hard to find any organization that is less trusted than the national media. Just 8 percent of Americans trust the media, according to a new Zogby public opinion poll. Eighty-eight percent say they have little or no trust in the media--by far the worst rating of any organization mentioned. In comparison, the poll found that Americans trust major high-tech companies and even the social networking Web site Facebook more. This is the latest of many recent polls showing the public has lost faith in the national media. If the media want to restore Americans' trust, they should stop the liberal spin and report the facts.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas.. Madam Speaker, Americans' confidence in President Obama has reached a new low, according to an ABC News/ Washington Post poll. But ABC and The Post found a way to spin the poll's results and point out negatives for Republicans. Six in 10 Americans say they lack faith in the President to make the right decisions for the country, according to the poll. A majority disapprove of his handling of the economy. And those most likely to vote in the midterm elections prefer Republican leadership over continued Democratic rule by a 15-point margin. These results are indisputably bad news for Democrats. But during ABC's coverage of the poll, George Stephanopoulos, a former Democratic adviser, claimed that ``there's still . . . not a lot of confidence in the Republican Party.'' The Washington Post highlighted a misleading graphic that indicated Americans have more trust in Democrats than Republicans. In fact, a greater number of poll respondents said they had at least some trust in Republicans rather than Democrats. ABC and the Washington Post should give Americans the facts, not spin their poll results.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the national media strongly criticized former President George W. Bush for cracking down on leaks of classified information to the media. Now, as the Obama Administration intensifies efforts to prosecute media leaks, the national media are mostly silent. Even the New York Times noticed the double standard: ``In 17 months in office, President Obama has already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions. His administration has taken actions that might have provoked sharp political criticism for his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was often in public fights with the press.'' The national media should give Americans the facts, not practice a double standard.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the national media have shown a clear double standard in their coverage of Supreme Court nominees, according to recent studies by the Media Research Center (MRC). MRC found that when President Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in 2005, the national media repeatedly described both men as ``very conservative.'' In contrast, when President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elena Kagan this year, the media rarely described them as ``very liberal.'' MRC also found that the television networks gave far more coverage to opponents of Roberts and Alito compared to opponents of Sotomayor and Kagan. The national media should report the facts, not practice a double standard.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of Americans say they are ``angry'' at the national media, according to a new Rasmussen public opinion poll. The poll suggests that Americans are angry because of the national media's clear liberal bias. By a margin of more than 3-1, Americans say the average reporter is more liberal than they are, rather than more conservative. By almost the same margin, Americans think reporters are trying to help President Obama pass his agenda. Seven in 10 say most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win. And a majority think employees would hide information that might hurt a candidate they wanted to win. Americans will continue to be angry until the national media report the facts and stop telling the American people what to think.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, Mort Zuckerman, the chairman and editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report and publisher of the New York Daily News, admitted on Fox News that he ``voted for [President] Obama'' and ``helped write one of his speeches.'' Perhaps the real surprise is not that a prominent member of the national media helped President Obama, but that he actually admitted to it on national television. Mr. Zuckerman is not the only member of the media who has worked for President Obama. An astonishing 15 journalists have left a national media outlet to join either the Obama administration or a liberal group, according to a recent tally by the Media Research Center. It's no wonder just 8 percent of Americans trust the media, according to a recent public opinion poll. The national media should give Americans the facts, not cover for the Obama administration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my colleague from Texas, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to what my chairman said just a minute ago and set the record straight. We did not have a single legislative hearing on this bill, so we never even went over it one time to fully appreciate the consequences and the unintended consequences of this bill. For example, this bill changes maritime law for everyone, not just those involved in the oil spill. Clearly we should have explored the consequences of that. Beyond that, and I want to emphasize this, this bill, and it is too late to make any changes because no amendments have been made in order, repeals the vessel owner personal liability fund. That alone is enough of a reason to oppose this bill, that it repeals the personal liability fund that vessel owners today have to have. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the deputy ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, although I believe this legislation is well-intended, I have serious concerns about H.R. 5503 and about the process under which it is being considered today. It is important that BP and other responsible parties pay all costs associated with the oil spill and that they be held fully accountable for this catastrophe and for the 11 lives tragically lost in the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon. However, H.R. 5503 will have unintended consequences that will reach well beyond the gulf coast disaster. In fact, very little in this bill is directed solely at oil spill-related liability. It is incredible that the sweeping changes this bill makes have made their way to the House floor without the benefit of even one legislative hearing. It is also incredible that we are considering this bill under suspension of the rules, denying those with concerns the opportunity to offer even one amendment. Had this bill been considered under regular order, I would have offered an amendment to limit it to claims arising out of oil spills. This amendment would ensure that those responsible for oil spills would be held fully accountable while, at the same time, restricting the bill's unintended consequences. Because H.R. 5503 is not limited to oil spills, its unintended consequences will be severe. For example, the changes it makes virtually rewrite U.S. maritime liability law; and in some instances, the changes make it out of step with the laws of nearly every other maritime nation. Maritime actions usually involve numerous parties with competing claims--loss of life or personal injury--and multiple jurisdictions in which claims may be filed. The Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act addresses these problems by allowing for the consolidation of all claims arising out of a maritime accident into one Federal forum. It also creates a fund to pay personal injury and death claims over and above the act's general liability limit. This bill repeals the act without adopting any replacement legislation to fill the void. This introduces uncertainty and in many cases may lead to inadequate compensation to personal injury and wrongful death claimants, since repealing the act repeals the personal injury fund. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker: This bill repeals the personal injury fund which every vessel owner is required to create to pay personal injury claims over and above the act's general liability gap. Other sections of this bill are also questionable. Section 3 allows for recovery of non-economic damages in wrongful death actions under the Jones Act. While this may seem like a fair result, it actually creates inequities, because the Jones Act is the equivalent of land- based worker's compensation statutes, which do not apply at sea. But worker's compensation laws do not allow for the recovery of noneconomic damages, thus Jones Act seamen will receive greater recoveries than are provided to nearly every other American worker. This change is being made without the benefit of a legislative hearing to understand its full impact on injured workers, employers, shippers, and consumers. These extensive changes to U.S. maritime liability law, which apply well beyond oil spills, threaten to increase dramatically the cost of shipping goods, an increase that will be borne by all American consumers. Finally, by giving Oil Pollution Act claimants veto power over bankruptcy asset sales of companies with OPA liability, the bill effectively gives these claimants control of the bankruptcy process. However, giving OPA claimants this veto power seriously curtails the rights of other bankruptcy claimants, included secured creditors, pension funds, and other tort victims, and State and local governments. Because this legislation applies retroactively, there is no reason to push this bill through on suspension without having conducted a single legislative hearing on its sweeping changes. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. Republicans do not want to give BP a free pass. That is why we offered amendments in committee to narrow the scope of this legislation to cover companies like BP that are responsible for oil spills. These amendments were voted down by the majority. But in the Democrats' haste to act before the Fourth of July recess, they are pushing for a bill that would punish all other maritime industries for the faults of BP. That is not fair, and it is not good policy. It would also be a job-killer for many hardworking Americans who had nothing to do with the oil spill. Rather than cave to political gamesmanship and vote for a bad bill, Congress should do what is best for the American people. As we amend the Federal law to ensure that BP and other responsible parties are held accountable for the full extent of the harm they have caused, we must avoid harming the national interests. Because we have had no legislative hearings on this bill, we cannot be sure that it does not harm the economy, maritime industries, and American jobs. The bill should be sent back to committee to be examined and amended properly before being brought again to the floor for a vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I mentioned in my opening statement, repealing the Limitation of Liability Act hurts victims of maritime accidents. The Limitation of Liability Act provides for the orderly resolution of claims arising out of a maritime accident in one Federal court. It also creates a compensation fund for personal injury claims. Repealing the act eliminates these two important provisions. In many cases, this will result in victims of maritime accidents receiving less compensation than they would under current law. First, victims will receive less compensation because cases will no longer be consolidated in one Federal court. Consolidation allows victims to share litigation and expert costs and allows for proportional allocation of damage awards. Second, victims will potentially receive less compensation because repealing the act will repeal the personal injury fund. The personal injury fund requires vessel owners to provide compensation over and above the liability cap. Again, a vote for this bill is a vote to repeal the personal injury fund. Let's not rush this bill through the House today and hurt the very people we're supposed to be trying to help but send it back to committee to be examined and amended properly. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the National Bankruptcy Conference, a nonpartisan organization of lawyers, professors, and judges, opposes the bankruptcy provisions in this bill. According to the Conference, ``the proposed amendments are not likely to achieve their purpose and instead are likely to have pernicious, unintended, and counterproductive consequences.'' The nonpartisan National Bankruptcy Conference explains that ``by granting a preference to holders of oil spill claims at the expense of other innocent and equally deserving creditors, the provisions in this bill represent bad bankruptcy policy.'' Moreover, according to the Conference, one of the effects of the bankruptcy provisions in this bill will be to ``entrench the very management that presided over the spill and led the company into bankruptcy.'' Mr. Speaker, you wonder how anyone can even consider voting for this bill. In short, we should not be rushing these bankruptcy provisions through Congress today. The unintended consequences will be severe, as the National Bankruptcy Conference just told us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.