Lamar Smith

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, in summary, this bill should be opposed for four reasons: First, the bill repeals the Limitation of Liability Act, which will actually hurt the victims of maritime accidents. Repealing the act eliminates important protections for maritime victims, including the fund for compensating personal injury victims. This bill, incredibly, repeals the personal injury fund; Second, the bill amends the Bankruptcy Code in a manner that the National Bankruptcy Conference, a very bipartisan organization, believes will create ``pernicious, unintended, and counterproductive consequences'' that benefit oil spill claimants ``at the expense of other innocent and equally deserving creditors''; Third, the bill was rushed through committee without a single legislative hearing and is being rushed through the House on suspension, without giving Members the opportunity to offer amendments; and Fourth, because this bill is being rushed through the House, Congress has not been fully informed of the unintended consequences this bill creates for the U.S. maritime industry, which is a large part of the economy of the gulf coast region; the American economy, which relies on U.S. shipping to take goods to and from market; and the victims of maritime accidents, who, in many cases, will actually be hurt by this legislation. Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, send it back to committee. Let's improve it, let's amend it, and then bring it back to the floor. I hope my colleagues will vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, over a long history rooted in our Constitution, we have relied on the rule of law and on impartial bankruptcy courts to resolve the debts of failed enterprises. History has proven us correct. Exhibit 1, for the benefits of the bankruptcy system, is the recent case of Lehman Brothers. As the peak of the 2008 financial crisis approached, Lehman declared bankruptcy. Within a week, it had sold its core business. Within 6 weeks, its third-party credit default swaps had been dissolved. That sealed off risk to other firms. Experts have shown that the Lehman case didn't cause the financial system to melt down. This bill discards our proven bankruptcy system for something the American people forcefully reject: government- sponsored bailouts. The roller coaster bailout ride of 2008 is what caused the financial meltdown. Yet this bill just builds a bigger, faster bailout roller coaster. The bill's sponsors openly admit that they don't know if it will work, but they urge us to build it anyway. The question is why, and the answer is simple: When government picks the winners and losers, government becomes more powerful. So do the Wall Street winners that government picks. Meanwhile, Main Street and free enterprise lose. This administration and its congressional allies embrace what the Founders fought against, ever-expanding government power over the lives of free men and women. The Founders rejected this approach, the American people reject it, and so should we.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a recent NBC News survey found that over half of all Americans disapprove of how President Obama is handling the immigration issue; an overwhelming 73 percent support imposing new fines on businesses that hire illegal immigrants; 71 percent support increasing border security by building a fence along the border and training more Border Patrol agents. So it's no surprise that Republicans are viewed more favorably when it comes to enforcing the border. In fact, their survey found that only 26 percent of registered voters are likely to vote for a Democratic candidate who opposes the Arizona immigration enforcement law. The American people are not going to forget about the Obama administration's failure to secure our borders and enforce our Nation's immigration laws.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the ranking member of this committee, and my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down several provisions of Federal law on the grounds they violated organizations' First Amendment rights. Yet the DISCLOSE Act would subject corporations and other organizations to yet more regulations that unduly restrict their freedom of speech. It would do this while unfairly sparing unions and other preferred groups from the same regulations. This legislation is plainly unconstitutional. The DISCLOSE Act would unconstitutionally ban political speech by government contractors and companies with as much as 80 percent ownership by U.S. citizens. It would unconstitutionally limit the amount of information that organizations can include in ads stating their political opinions. It would unconstitutionally require the disclosure of an organization's donors, in violation of their right to free association. And it would unconstitutionally exempt favored organizations from its requirements. The DISCLOSE Act is unconstitutional, and it should be soundly rejected by the House today.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would add to H.R. 5175 the same expedited judicial review process that Congress approved as part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. Because H.R. 5175 raises the same constitutional issues that were at issue in the Citizens United case, expedited review should be included in this legislation as well. The base bill does not contain the reference to 28 U.S.C. 2284 that Congress specifically designed and has used repeatedly to assure the prompt resolution of constitutional claims. Judicial review may not have been included because the base bill was designed to stall judicial review by the Supreme Court until after the 2010 elections. I hope that is not the case. But this House can only dispel that suspicion and facilitate the prompt constitutional review of this legislation by approving this motion to recommit.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, most Americans say President Obama lacks a clear plan to deal with the oil spill in the gulf, energy issues, and job creation, according to a new CBS News-New York Times poll. By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say the President does not have a clear plan to handle the oil spill; 6 in 10 say his response to the disaster was too slow; and less than one-third of Americans have a lot of confidence in the President's ability to handle the crisis. Just 4 in 10 say the President has a clear plan for developing new sources of energy, and only one-third say he has a clear plan to create jobs. But for some reason, CBS News downplayed the results of their own poll. Monday's CBS Evening News failed to even mention these findings and instead focused on Americans' disapproval of BP's handling of the oil spill. CBS should give Americans all the facts, not conceal their own poll results to protect the President.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the current House majority leader said enacting a budget was ``the most basic responsibility of governing.'' Now he says that the Democratic majority will not even pass a budget this year. The House has passed a budget every year since the Budget Act became law in 1974. If House Republicans had failed to pass a budget during an economic crisis such as this, it would be the lead story on every network news program and the lead editorial in every newspaper. Instead, the national media have collectively yawned and have given the Democrats a free pass. The Democratic majority doesn't want to pass a budget because it will expose their run-away spending. Americans want Congress to pass a responsible budget that will get government spending under control and reduce the national debt.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the media recently covered a meeting between Attorney General Holder and police chiefs who oppose Arizona's new immigration enforcement law. The stories left readers with the impression their views were representative of law enforcement officers. That's not the case, as Investor's Business Daily has pointed out: The meeting was ``staged by a liberal Washington lobby group . . .'' that ``describes itself as a `progressive' organization `challenging traditional police practices.' '' They are ``partnered with the ACLU and [have] lobbied against even federal enforcement of immigration laws.'' If a group of self-described ``conservative'' law enforcement officers had met with Attorney General Holder, the media would have mentioned their bias in the news coverage--if they bothered to cover the story at all.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Americans say the growing national debt is the greatest threat to our country, according to a recent Gallup poll. Since Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, the national debt has grown by $3.5 billion a day. Since President Obama took office, the debt has increased by $4.8 billion a day. To control spending and reduce the national debt, we need a responsible budget that addresses our fiscal crisis. But as American families make tough choices with their household budgets, the Democratic majority in the House has yet to even propose a national budget. If a budget is not approved this year, it will be the first time since the Budget Act became law in 1974. Congress should listen to the American people, get government spending under control, and approve a national budget.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support House Resolution 1422 to honor the Department of Justice on the occasion of its 140th anniversary. In 1870 Congress passed the ``Act to Establish the Department of Justice.'' President Ulysses S. Grant signed the bill into law on June 22, 1870, and the Department of Justice officially began operations on July 1, 1870. The Office of the Attorney General, created by the ``Judiciary Act of 1789,'' was in need of more attorneys after the Civil War. The 1870 Act met this need by creating the Department of Justice to oversee federal law enforcement as well as criminal prosecutions and civil suits in which the United States has an interest. The Act also created the Office of the Solicitor General. While the 1870 Act still remains the foundation on which the Department of Justice stands, the structure of the Department of Justice has changed over the past 140 years. Today the Department of Justice comprises seven litigating divisions and 93 United States attorneys and thousands of assistant United States attorneys who enforce our civil and criminal laws, including tax, environmental, and immigration laws, and defend the United States from claims. The Department also oversees a number of federal law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Marshals Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Among recent examples of the Department's work, we could look to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives' establishment of the Violent Crime Impact Team (VCIT) initiative in 2004. Since then, more than 14,000 violent criminals were arrested, including gang members, drug dealers, and felons in possession of firearms. The Department is also combating gang and gun violence through programs like ``Project Safe Neighborhoods.'' Since its inception in 2001, $2 billion has been committed to ``Project Safe Neighborhoods.'' Funding has been used to hire new prosecutors, support investigators, and promote community outreach and education. In another area of great interest, during the past decade the Department secured approximately 1,300 convictions for financial crimes. The Department has also been successful in combating crimes against children, drug trafficking, and counterterrorism efforts. In 2006 the Department introduced ``Project Safe Childhood'' to combat predators who use the Internet to sexually exploit our children. Along with the FBI's ``Innocent Images National Initiative,'' programs like these help break up networks of online pedophiles and rescue children who are victims of sexual exploitation. With regard to drug trafficking, just this month the Department's ``Project Deliverance'' resulted in more than 2,200 arrests and the seizure of approximately 74 tons of drugs and $154 million. This was the result of a 22-month operation. The Drug Enforcement Administration has been instrumental in bringing to justice those organizations and principal members responsible for the manufacture and distribution of illicit drugs throughout the United States. Finally, the Department has played a key role in a number of operations to protect Americans from terrorist threats. The passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, its reauthorization in 2005, and various other counter-terrorism tools have proven helpful toward this end. This resolution commends the work of the men and women in the Department of Justice who pursue and have pursued the administration of justice for the people of the United States. The essence of democracy is the rule of law. The Department of Justice hopefully stands as a defender of the rule of law. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes the 101st anniversary of the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. This resolution also praises the NAACP for its work to secure the political, educational, social and economic equality of all persons. The NAACP was founded on February 12, 1909, in New York City. It was the centennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth. The NAACP is the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States today. In 1913, the NAACP organized opposition to racial segregation in Federal Government offices. The NAACP also played a key role in securing the rights of African Americans to serve as officers in World War I. Throughout the past century, the NAACP has worked to achieve equality of rights for all persons through nonviolence. The NAACP's mission also includes the elimination of racial hatred and racial discrimination. After World War I, for example, the NAACP expended significant resources in an effort to combat the lynching of African Americans throughout the United States. The NAACP centered its efforts around education and lobbying for legislation. In later years, the NAACP's leadership was instrumental in bringing about the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and the desegregation of public schools in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The NAACP continues to work on behalf of this worthy mission for the rights of all people today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it took President Obama 12 days to visit the gulf coast oil spill. In contrast, President Bush visited New Orleans just 4 days after Hurricane Katrina; yet the national media harshly criticized his response as being too slow. For more than a month, the Obama administration said that BP was responsible for stopping the oil. Finally, during the President's first news conference in 10 months, he said, ``I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down.'' Tomorrow the President finally will address the country to discuss the oil spill. The national media should hold the Obama administration to the same standard they did the Bush administration. Anything less shows a partisan bias.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the American people demand real change in Washington. From record deficit spending to the passage of a health care bill most Americans don't want, there is a serious disconnect between the congressional agenda and the desires of the American people. America Speaking Out is a timely initiative designed to start an honest discussion between Americans and their representatives. Through this innovative new forum, the American people can give us their priorities and offer their ideas for a new agenda to solve the problems that confront our Nation. There is a deficit of trust in Congress, and it is only by listening to the American people that we can earn back their trust and turn the country in the right direction. Check out the Web site, America Speaking Out.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, investigative journalists pursued alleged scandals involving former House majority leader Tom DeLay and former White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, even though neither was ever convicted of any wrongdoing. But today, few investigative reporters are focused on what could be a criminal attempt by the Obama administration to manipulate the Democratic Senate primaries in Pennsylvania and Colorado. While we don't know all the facts about the administration's actions, we do know the following: It is against the law to offer a government job in exchange for dropping out of a political race. It is against the law for administration officials to interfere in the nominee process of a Senate election. And it is against the law to obstruct justice. Rather than a swarm of investigative reporters demanding answers from the administration, we hear only the sound of crickets chirping on the White House lawn.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as Congress weighs the question of Wall Street reform, the answer the American people want us to give is clear: ``No more bailouts.'' We should give that answer by passing legislation that sends any failing financial institution to bankruptcy, not to a Federal agency that might bail it out. The Democratic Senator who guided this legislation through the Senate agrees that bankruptcy must be our primary response to failing institutions. Bankruptcy is fair. Its rules are clear. It is administered transparently by impartial courts. It has existed for generations because of one unmistakable truth: Free enterprise without the possibility of failure is free enterprise without the possibility of success. The Senate improved the House bill by recognizing a role for bankruptcy, but it failed to give the bankruptcy courts what they need to make that role meaningful. As a result, the legislation's escape hatch from bankruptcy, one that allows agency takeovers of firms, threatens to become the first option under the bill. When agencies take over firms, we all know that they will bail them out. Let's finish our work. Let's close every loophole that invites a bailout. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, with the Democrats in control, millions of jobs have been lost. The main job creation has been in the Federal Government, not the private sector. The national debt has doubled and the national deficit has tripled. Taxes have gone up and will increase even more at the end of the year. And the Democrats in the House haven't even bothered to propose a Federal budget. If a budget is not approved this year, it will be the first time since the Budget Act was enacted in 1974. One party controls the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House. We need a political balance in Washington, not a one-party monopoly.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the television news networks failed to hold the Obama administration accountable for its response to the Gulf Coast oil spill crisis, according to an analysis by the Media Research Center. Out of 157 news stories during the 4 weeks after the disaster, 148-- 95 percent--featured no criticism of the administration whatsoever. Just nine had some scrutiny of the administration. And just two of the stories--about 1 percent--focused on the administration's handling of the crisis. The national media gave no such leeway to former President George W. Bush's handling of crises during his administration. The networks should hold the Obama administration accountable, not give them a free pass.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, today President Obama had his first full news conference in about 10 months. That's longer than former President George W. Bush ever went between news conferences. Here's what the Washington Examiner's chief political correspondent, Byron York, wrote recently about why the national media have tolerated President Obama's silence: While Obama dodges questions, his spokesman stonewalls them. In one sense, the press, or at least some members of the press, have only themselves to blame. Obama treats them with contempt because he knows that when big tests come, they've always been on his side. There's no reason for him to think they won't be there in the future. Why does Obama do it? Because he can. The national media should demand answers from the President, not give him a free pass on news conferences.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, one day after the administration announced that President Obama would send National Guard troops to secure the border, the State Department announced that--surprise--the Guard troops would not be used to stop illegal immigration. This suggests the National Guard announcement was designed to leave Americans with a false impression that the administration was going to strengthen border security. There appears to be a contradiction within the administration; we don't know who to believe from one day to the next. We are starting to learn on health care, on taxes, on transparency, on the stimulus, and now on immigration policy that the administration's words are seldom what they appear to be.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, President Obama's approval rating hit a new low this week according to a Rasmussen public opinion poll. Just 42 percent of Americans approve of the President's job performance. By a margin of almost 2-1, more Americans strongly disapprove of the President rather than strongly approve and fewer than half of those in the President's own party strongly approve of his job performance. Not surprisingly, the national media have mostly ignored these results. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and USA Today--among many others--failed to mention the Rasmussen poll. In contrast, during former President George W. Bush's administration, the national media frequently reported polls showing any falling approval rating. The national media should report the facts, not practice double standards.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, The Washington Post Company is trying to sell Newsweek because the magazine is losing money, according to news reports. In response, The Weekly Standard wrote that ``not only has Newsweek suffered from its online competition, it seems to have done everything within its power to hasten its own demise. ``During the 2008 presidential election, for example, its fawningly voluminous coverage of Barack Obama made it something of a journalistic laughingstock, and certainly affirmed every weary accusation of liberal bias in the mainstream media.'' The Standard wrote that Newsweek's recent overhaul was ``designed to create a left-wing journal of opinion.'' The American Spectator called Newsweek, ``The Canary in the Liberal Coal Mine'' and outlined the magazine's history of liberal bias. Maybe Newsweek's biased reporting didn't cause its downfall, but it certainly didn't help.