Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the so-called stimulus bill gives jobs to law-breakers. Democrats put illegal workers ahead of Americans without jobs. They removed a requirement that employers verify the legal status of workers paid with stimulus money. So now we have taxpayers' dollars going to hire illegal immigrants instead of U.S. citizens and legal workers. Now that the requirement that employers hire legal workers has been removed, 300,000 jobs in construction alone will go to illegal workers, according to the Heritage Foundation. If the goal of the stimulus bill is to create jobs, is it too much to ask that the jobs go to citizens and legal workers? The American people need to know that the Democrats could have saved stimulus jobs for citizens but intentionally decided to give jobs to illegal immigrants instead.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in the interests of transparency, because Republicans, the media and the American public were shut out of negotiations, I am suggesting a new name for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this so-called stimulus bill. Based on what we know, I propose that we call it the Emergency Massive Expansion of Federal Spending to Double Our Budget Deficit by Circumventing the Legislative Process to Roll Back Welfare Reform, Intrude on Individual's Healthcare Decisions, Buy Green Golf Carts When We Don't Know How They Will be Used, Bail Out Fiscally Irresponsible States, But We'll Give People an Average Whopping $13 per week of Tax Relief, So We Hope They Won't Mind, Non-Stimulus, Non-Recovery Act of 2009. There, I think that does a much better job of describing this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is just as important to recognize examples of fair reporting as it is to criticize biased news. Earlier this week, the Associated Press released an article fact-checking President Obama's claims about the economic stimulus package. The AP found that the President ``had it both ways'' when at first he bragged about getting Congress to produce a stimulus with no pork, but later boasted the stimulus would do good things for pet projects in Indiana. The AP also found the President guilty of ``projecting job creation numbers that may be impossible to verify and glossing over some ethical problems that bedeviled his team.'' Americans count on the media to checks the facts on important issues and report the truth about officials in both parties. Fair reporting like this will go a long way towards restoring Americans' trust in the media.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 554--``The National Nano-technology Initiative Amendments Act.'' This legislation supports research and innovation in the field of nanotechnology and strengthens the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) by adding provisions to encourage nanotechnology education, studies, and economic development. Whether it's medical research, military systems, or energy advancements, nano-technology plays a vital role in our lives today and will help drive innovation for tomorrow. We see nanotechnology used in computers and other nano-electronics, as well as a wide variety of products from landmine detectors to water filtration systems to sunscreens. The future of nanotechnology is limitless. Nanotechnology will pave the way for significant advances in many fields, including medical diagnostics, automotive performance, and solar energy. In short, nanotechnology is the convergence of 21st century science and technologies. It is proof that small technology can have a huge impact in the world. This legislation helps ensure that American companies have the resources they need to further develop nanotechnology, which will help American businesses remain on the cutting edge of technology and drive the American economy. I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for their work in bringing this bipartisan legislation to the Floor today. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 554.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support House Concurrent Resolution 35 which recognizes the 100th anniversary of the NAACP. For a century now, the NAACP has fought to bring justice and racial equality to all of America. In 1917, the NAACP won a legal victory in the Supreme Court which held that States could not restrict and officially segregate black Americans into residential districts. The same year the NAACP fought for the right of black Americans to be commissioned as officers in World War I. In 1935, NAACP lawyers Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall won a legal battle to admit a black student to the University of Maryland. During World War II, the NAACP led the effort that resulted in President Franklin Roosevelt's ordering a nondiscrimination policy in war-related industries and Federal employment. And in 1948, the NAACP convinced President Harry Truman to sign an executive order banning discrimination by the Federal Government. In 1954, under the leadership of Special Counsel Thurgood Marshall, the NAACP won one of its greatest legal victories in Brown v. Board of Education, which found segregated schools and other educational facilities in the United States to be unlawful. In 1960, in Greensboro, North Carolina, members of the NAACP Youth Council launched a series of nonviolent sit-ins at segregated lunch counters. The segregation ended. The history of America's modern struggle to live up to our constitutional principles includes a major role by the NAACP, and it continues to champion the cause of social justice today. It is with pleasure that I join in supporting this concurrent resolution, which I hope raises even greater awareness of this organization's historic contributions to the cause of civil rights. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we don't have any other speakers at this time. I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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, I support House Resolution 134, which commemorates the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's trip to India, in which he paid his respects to the methods of nonviolent protest pioneered by Mahatma Gandhi. Dr. King studied Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolent change at seminary, and in 1959 he had the honor of visiting the land in which the seeds of peaceful protest had been successfully sown by Gandhi. Gandhi was the first to employ nonviolent protest on a mass political scale. This opposition resulted in national change. Dr. King, inspired by Gandhi's organized peaceful action, launched a similar effort to fight for racial equality under the law in the United States. That inspiration eventually materialized in the Nobel Peace Prize that was awarded to Dr. King in 1964, and a year earlier in a 250,000 person peaceful march Dr. King led through the streets of Washington, D.C. Dr. King was the leader of an historic nonviolent revolution in the U.S. Over the course of his life, he fought for equal justice and led the Nation towards racial harmony. While advancing this great movement, Dr. King's home was bombed and he was subjected to relentless personal and physical abuse. Despite this violence, Dr. King responded in peace and with strong conviction and sound reasoning. As a pastor, Dr. King's religious beliefs were essential to the success of his nonviolent efforts. Just as Mahatma Gandhi was a deeply religious man, so too was Dr. King. It is doubtful that such a long and enduring movement could have survived in either man's country without the power of religious inspiration behind it. While Gandhi and Dr. King convinced millions of both the morality and the effectiveness of nonviolent change, their message, unfortunately, was not accepted by all. On the evening of April 4, 1968, while standing on the balcony of his hotel room in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. King was assassinated. But a single vicious act could not extinguish Dr. King's legacy which endures to this day. And Dr. King's legacy is due in large part to the inspiration of Mahatma Gandhi, whose success helped endow Dr. King with the courage to lift voices, not weapons, in the struggle for equality here in the United States. America is a better, freer nation today in large part due to the philosophical fellowship of Gandhi and Dr. King. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. And let me also point out that I know that the two gentlemen from Georgia to my left, one who has spoken and one is getting ready to speak, as well as the Speaker himself, the gentleman from Illinois, have all been leaders in the Civil Rights Movement. And we certainly appreciate their leadership, their contributions and their success. And I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, sometimes media bias is most evident by the news that reporters choose not to cover. For example, where were the media when the Congressional Budget Office announced last week that the economic stimulus package would reduce the long-term potential output of the economy? Almost every national media outlet ignored the CBO's negative report. Where were the media when the White House announced last week that it would seize oversight of the Census Bureau and, thus, be able to politicize the nonpartisan census? Where were the media when President Obama decided that an internal investigation by his own attorney was sufficient to clear his staff of any inappropriate dealings with the former Governor of Illinois? Madam Speaker, can you imagine what the media would have done if a Republican President were involved?

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, breaking news. The national media spells scandal without the ``D.'' Two weeks ago the Governor of Illinois was removed from office. All three television networks ran full reports on the story the same night and again the following morning. Not one report mentioned that he is a Democrat. The same has been true of numerous other Democrats recently embroiled in scandal. CNN ignored the party affiliation of the Democratic Mayor of Baltimore as news broke that she had been indicted. The AP did the same while covering the indictment of the former Democratic Mayor of Detroit. And in the aftermath of his sex scandal, network newscasts apparently forgot that the former Governor of New York is a Democrat. Americans need and deserve balanced reporting from the media, not selective omissions.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I oppose this bill for many reasons. In my role as the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, though, I want to point out a few immigration provisions that undermine personal responsibility and burden American taxpayers. In 1996, Congress required that legal immigrants wait five years after coming to the United States before receiving welfare benefits. It's only fair that American taxpayers not foot the medical bills of foreign nationals who arrive with a sponsor's pledge not to let them become a ``public charge.'' This bill, H.R. 2, changes current law and allows immigrants to get medical benefits at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. The five-year waiting period for immigrants to receive government benefits is the last line of defense for the U.S. taxpayer. It should not be repealed or altered. Prior to 1996, the cost of welfare for immigrants had jumped to $8 billion a year. The number of noncitizens on Supplemental Security Income increased more than 600 percent between 1982 and 1995. Both of those numbers will be much higher if H.R. 2 is enacted. At a time when government spending is out of control, and when states, cities and American citizens are struggling to make ends meet, the last thing we need is to change good policy and further burden U.S. taxpayers. This legislation should be opposed.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, some people look at the huge, so- called economic stimulus bill and think it's a Christmas present. But the Federal Government is not Santa Claus. Elves are not producing this money. This money isn't free, and the American people will get the bill. The $1 trillion in spending and interest equals more than $9,000 for every taxpayer. And the unprecedented deficit will inevitably hike inflation and damage the economy. Only $90 billion, or 12 percent of this spending spree, will stimulate the immediate creation of jobs which are needed now. Most of the spending doesn't occur for 2, 3 or 4 years. It would be far more effective to provide tax incentives and investment credits to the small businesses of America that already create 70 percent of all the jobs.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the ranking member for generously yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, here are a half dozen of many reasons to oppose this legislation. We should wait and gauge the impact of the $350 billion in TARP funds already approved before spending even more. Spending another $825 billion--$6,000 for every taxpayer in America--will inevitably hike inflation and increase taxes, further damaging the economy. Much of the money will be used to bail out States that have overspent their budget. This rewards bad behavior. What happened to the ``era of responsibility?'' This is not free money. It's a nonsecure loan extracted from the American people. Let them keep the dollars and decide how to spend them. It would be far better to provide tax incentives and investment credits to the small businesses that create 70 percent of all new jobs in America. This massive monstrosity of spending is the wrong kind of change. It will only make the economic crisis wider, deeper, and longer.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Vern Ehlers.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, this bill came up a little earlier than we expected and we are waiting for additional speakers to arrive on the floor, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his heartfelt comments. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the first thing I want to say is that it's good to be on the House floor with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to talk about the subject at hand. This bill commemorates the 80th anniversary of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King was the leader of a historic nonviolent revolution in the United States. Over the course of his life, he fought for equal justice and led the Nation toward racial harmony. While advancing this great movement, Dr. King's home was bombed and he was subjected to relentless personal and physical abuse. Despite this violence, Dr. King responded in peace and with strong conviction and sound reason. As a pastor, Dr. King's religious beliefs were essential to the success of his nonviolent efforts. It is doubtful that such a long and enduring movement could have survived without the power of religious inspiration behind it. From 1957 to 1968, Dr. King traveled over 6 million miles and spoke over 2,500 times about justice and equal freedom under the law. During that time, he led large protests in Birmingham, Alabama, that drew the attention of the world. On August 28, 1963, Dr. King led a peaceful march of 250,000 through the streets of Washington, D.C. And it is here in this city where he delivered a speech that spoke for all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin. In his ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. King called the march the ``greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our Nation.'' ``I have a dream,'' he said, ``that my four little children will one day live in a Nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.'' Dr. King opened the door of opportunity for millions of Americans. He lived for the causes of justice and equality. On the evening of April 4, 1968, while standing on the balcony of his hotel room in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. King was assassinated. But a single vicious act could not extinguish Dr. King's legacy, which endures to this day. Because of him, America is a better, freer Nation. I urge all my colleagues to join us in celebrating and honoring the life of Dr. King on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of his birth. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, yesterday we witnessed the hallmark of democracy of the peaceful transfer of power. And, like President Obama, we all wish our country a prosperous future. Although the national media strongly criticized President Bush for the cost of his inauguration in 2005, such criticism has been predictably scarce for President Obama, even though his inauguration was more than twice as expensive as President Bush's. For example, a New York Times editorial in 2005 suggested that the war in Iraq should dictate restraint for President Bush's inauguration. We now face two wars and serious economic challenges, yet the Times offered no similar criticism of yesterday's event. Expensive inaugurations are nothing new, and I am sure many who faced traffic congestion and long lines yesterday wished even more had been spent on this year's celebration. But we need the media to be evenhanded in its treatment of Republican and Democratic inaugurations, not guilty of a double standard.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, after an election, it's useful to take a brief look back before moving forward. According to the Nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism, during the Presidential campaign, media coverage of Senator McCain was three times more negative than the coverage of Senator Obama. President-elect Obama won by about 7 percent. That means, if the media's one-sided coverage changed the minds of just 4 voters out of 100, the media, because of their bias, determined the outcome of the election. Now that the election is over, will President-elect Obama get a free ride from his media allies? One cable news host already is on record as saying it's his job as a journalist to ensure that this presidency is successful. The media can provide a valuable service, but we need to hold them accountable and need to insist on objective reporting.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I oppose this bill for many reasons. In my role as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee I want to point out a few immigration provisions that undermine personal responsibility and burden American taxpayers. In the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Congress, with the overwhelming support of the American people, required that legal immigrants wait 5 years after coming to the United States before receiving welfare benefits. It's only fair that American taxpayers not foot the medical bills of foreign nationals who arrive with a sponsor's pledge not to become a ``public charge.'' H.R. 2, changes current law and allows immigrants to get medical benefits at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, already have a federally mandated right to emergency medical care. That mandate has helped bankrupt hospitals all over the United States. Federal law requires that the American sponsor of new immigrants sign an affidavit of support stating that they will be responsible for any public costs incurred by the immigrant. Unfortunately, those affidavits have never been enforced and immigrant sponsors know they will not be held accountable if the immigrants receive welfare and become public charges. The 5-year waiting period for immigrants to receive government benefits is the last line of defense for the U.S. taxpayer. It should not be repealed or altered in any way Prior to laws enacted in 1996, the cost of welfare for immigrants had jumped to $8 billion a year. The number of noncitizens on Supplemental Security Income increased more than 600 percent between 1982 and 1995. Both of those numbers will be much higher if H.R. 2 is enacted. At a time when government spending is out of control, and when States, cities and American citizens are struggling to make ends meet, the last thing we need is to change good policy and further burden U.S. taxpayers. This legislation should be opposed.

Mrs. SMITH of Texas

Mrs. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Res. 15, which I cosponsored with Chairman Conyers. This resolution provides continued authorization for an inquiry into whether U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous should be impeached. The Constitution reserves the exclusive power of impeachment to the House of Representatives and the exclusive power to try all impeachments in the Senate. Any ``civil officer'' of the United States, including Federal judges, shall be removed from office if impeached and convicted of ``treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Only 13 Federal judges have been impeached during the past 219 years of our constitutional history. The House has exercised this prerogative sparingly in deference to judicial independence, one of the cornerstones of our republic. Chairman Conyers and I concluded last year that there is sufficient reason to initiate an impeachment inquiry regarding Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1994. The basis for this resolution was largely developed by a Special Committee of the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit. The findings of the Fifth Circuit were endorsed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, which notified the House of Representatives on June 18, 2008, of its determination that impeachment proceedings may be warranted. The materials submitted to the Judiciary Committee by the Judicial Conference are expansive and thorough. This led us to begin an impeachment inquiry last Congress pursuant to H. Res. 1448. However, our work is not yet complete. The resolution before us today is nearly identical to H. Res. 1448 and allows us to continue our investigation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Rules Committee for yielding. Mr. Speaker, congressional Democrats have proposed changing House rules on motions to recommit. These changes are not about some arcane rule. They are about a pattern of behavior on the part of the Democrats that stifles democracy. This abuse of power has become a habit with the Democrats. The Democrats brought legislation to the floor under closed rules 64 times in the last 2 years. This means there was no opportunity to offer amendments; 61 bills were brought to the floor with less than 24 hours to review the bill text. This breaks the Democrats' commitment to allow legislation to be reviewed for 24 hours before a vote. House Democrats are discarding one of the Republican minority's only tools to help improve bills and promote better legislation, the motion to recommit bills promptly. This type of motion to recommit allows a majority of the House to say that a bill should be sent back to committee for more work. For example, last year Republicans used this tool to guarantee second amendment rights for the people of the District of Columbia. A majority of Members supported this motion and voted to send the bill back to committee. Why would the Democrats in the future want to ignore the views of a majority of House Members? Mr. Speaker, changing House rules in a way that silences the voice of the people's elected representatives strangles democracy. Democrats should reconsider these undemocratic changes to House rules.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, much of our economic crisis today is rooted in misguided policies of the past. Permitting home mortgages with nothing down was a disaster waiting to happen when home prices fell. Unfortunately, all the bad mortgages and the resulting credit crisis have dragged down our economy and threatened the financial well- being of all Americans. If companies big and small cannot access funds they need to operate and pay employees, this will adversely impact the entire economy and punish hard-working Americans. If credit to buy homes, cars and other purchases dries up, home prices will fall even further and loans will become even harder to get. Many people felt the original proposal was unfair. It would have been far more unfair to do nothing and allow a recession to occur, which would hurt everyone. Changes were made to the plan to address those concerns. Measures were successfully included to ensure Wall Street pays its share and taxpayers are protected. We were facing the economic equivalent of a cattle stampede. To stop a stampede, you have to act quickly and decisively and get ahead of the herd to turn it. This plan, while not perfect, does that. This is not about bailing out Wall Street. It's about protecting American jobs, the financial security of families, and the economy of our Nation. Since half of all households own stocks either directly or indirectly through 401(k) accounts, IRAs, and pension plans, we had to find a solution to this crisis. The money in the compromise plan will be used to purchase the mortgage-related assets at the center of the problem. When the financial markets stabilize, many of those assets will regain their value and will be sold by the Federal Government to recover a substantial portion of the cost for taxpayers. This plan will stabilize the economy, strengthen home values, and prevent a devastating recession. It's an investment in the future of the American people.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield 1 additional minute.