Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, more than half of U.S. voters now think reporters are trying to hurt Governor Sarah Palin with their news coverage, while a scant 5 percent think reporters are trying to help the VP candidate with their coverage. The encouraging development is that the American people are letting the media, from MSNBC to Us Weekly to Oprah, know that they will not stand for slanted election coverage. By sending e-mails, canceling subscriptions, and contacting advertisers, they are making their voices heard. This is an important development. The American people know that they do have a say in the media's coverage. For all those who are dissatisfied with the election coverage, I urge you to contact your local and national media outlets and demand the highest standards of journalistic integrity.

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, I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 4081, the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act. And I want to thank Congressman Weiner from New York for working hard to bring this legislation to the floor today. This bipartisan bill will help combat cigarette trafficking, which is a growing problem in America. Combating cigarette trafficking is an issue both Congress and the manufacturers want to address together. Taxes on cigarettes vary greatly from State to State. This difference in tax rates creates a market for criminals and organized crime syndicates to purchase cigarettes from one State and smuggle them to another State to resell them below market value and without paying local taxes. The PACT Act closes loopholes in current tobacco trafficking laws and provides law enforcement officials with ways to combat the deceptive methods being used by cigarette traffickers to distribute their products. First, the legislation strengthens the Jenkins Act, a long- standing law that requires vendors who sell cigarettes to out-of-State buyers to report these sales to the buyer's State tobacco tax administrator. The PACT Act makes it a Federal felony for anyone to sell cigarettes by telephone, the mail, or the Internet and not comply with all relevant State tax laws. The PACT Act requires Internet cigarette sellers to verify the purchaser's age and identity through easily accessible databases. This measure protects children and ensures that they cannot anonymously purchase cigarettes from the Internet. The PACT Act also empowers the Attorney General to compile a list of delivery sellers who fail to comply with State tax laws. Any seller who lands on that list will be prohibited from using the U.S. Postal Service or common carriers like FedEx or DHL to deliver their products. The PACT Act creates reasonable procedures to ensure that the Attorney General's list of noncompliant tobacco delivery sellers is both accurate and complete. In summary, Mr. Speaker, the PACT Act prevents the loss of tax revenue, combats cigarette smuggling, and limits children's access to cigarettes; all worthy goals. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, yesterday the House voted on a motion to censure the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel. Members had no advance notice of the vote, and I did not familiarize myself with the substance of the motion as much as I would have liked. If the vote were taken again, I would vote present rather than ``aye.''

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the story of the 2008 election is being told by a partisan media. If you have any doubt, just follow the money. An analysis by Investor's Business Daily shows that journalists contributed 15 times more money to Democrats than Republicans during this election cycle. While 235 journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans, a margin of more than 10-1. And journalists who gave to Senator Obama outnumbered those who contributed to Senator McCain by a 20-1 margin. No wonder nearly seven in 10 Americans say the media wants Senator Obama to win the election, according to a recent poll. Mr. Speaker, we need to promote fairness and objectivity in journalism. Only then we will restore Americans' faith in the media.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my Texas colleague, Sam Johnson, who is the ranking member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank Congressman Calvert for introducing the original bill on which this legislation was based, and for sponsoring this legislation as well. Also, thanks go to Chairwoman Lofgren, who just spoke; Ranking Members McCrery and Johnson, and Chairman Rangel for reaching a compromise on such an important issue. The E-Verify Program protects American workers by ensuring that jobs are reserved for legal workers. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 created the basic pilot program, which is now known as E-Verify. For the last decade, this program has provided American employers who want to do the right thing with an effective way to ensure that they are hiring a legal workforce. It ensures that new employees are not providing their employers with fake Social Security numbers. As the E-Verify Program has grown more popular--over 69,000 employers nationwide now participate--it has become the subject of some very unfair criticism. To set the record straight, participating employers are happy with the basic pilot program. Last year, an outside evaluation determined that ``most employers found the Web basic pilot to be an effective and reliable tool for employment verification'' and that an amazing 96 percent did not believe that it overburdened their staffs. The accuracy of the databases that lie at the heart of the basic pilot program also has been unfairly maligned. However, the facts about these databases could not be more encouraging. Last year's outside evaluation found that in less than 1 percent, only .6 percent of cases, do employees who were eventually determined to be work-authorized undergo secondary verification. This means that persons eligible to work receive immediate confirmation 99.4 percent of the time. For the native-born, 99.9 percent receive immediate confirmation. For employees born outside of the U.S., 97 percent receive immediate confirmation. That is a success rate any company in America would be happy to have. A common misperception is that secondary verification means error by a Federal agency. That is simply not the case. Secondary verification usually means that an illegal immigrant has been caught providing false information or that an employee has failed to update their records with the Social Security Administration. This is seldom acknowledged by those who question the E-Verify Program. Of the employees who were asked to contact local Social Security Administration offices as part of the verification process, 95 percent said their work authorization problem was resolved in a timely, courteous, and efficient manner. Finally, it has been alleged that the Social Security Administration's Inspector General has found the agency's database to be inaccurate. However, the Inspector General actually stated, ``We applaud the agency on the accuracy of the data we tested.'' The legislation before us tonight reauthorizes the E-Verify Program for 5 years and puts in place a system to help ensure that the Department of Homeland Security covers the cost of the program. It is hard to believe that those who attack E-Verify are serious about reducing illegal immigration or saving American jobs. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the bill is on the House floor. I urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have one last speaker on this side and I will recognize him or yield to him right now, and that is, again, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) my remaining time, which I believe is 2 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), who is the chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Arizona for her comments and her endorsement of this bill. I yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) who is the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the Appropriations Committee, a sponsor of the bill that we are considering tonight, and the author of the legislation on which the bill tonight is based.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, today I want to congratulate Dr. John George on the occasion of his retirement after 28 years of Federal service with the United States Department of Agriculture. Through his continued effort and diligence, Dr. George has established a distinguished career in both academia and research. In 1979, Dr. George joined the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) as Research Leader of the Tick Research Unit of the Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory, KBUSLIRL, Kerrville, TX. Dr. George is currently the Research Leader of all Current Research Information System projects at the KBUSLIRL, and in addition was designated Laboratory Director in 1999. Dr. George's work with the Cattle Fever Tick Eradication Program has been instrumental in protecting the U.S. cattle industry from Texas Cattle Fever Ticks. In addition to the many contributions that Dr. George has made to the ARS, KBUSLIRL, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, Veterinary Services, and international tick control organizations, he has been an active leader of various professional organizations. He has served as President of the Acarological Society of America, President of the Southwestern Branch of the Entomological Society of America, the Southwestern Branch Representative to the Governing Board of the ESA, and Vice-chairmanship to the Parasitic Diseases Committee of the U.S. Animal Health Association. In addition, to numerous societal committee assignments he has served on the editorial boards of three ESA Journals. In 2003, his peers in livestock entomology recognized his devotion and contributions to his profession when he was presented with the Life-Time Achievement Award, sponsored by Bayer Animal Health, at the 47th Annual Livestock Insect Workers Conference, Atlantic Beach, NC.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith. Bill Number: H.R. 6599. Account: Department of the Army, Military Construction. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Fort Sam Houston. Address of Requesting Entity: 1206 Stanley Road, Suite A, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-5001. Description of Request: The funding would be used to construct a Trainee Barracks Complex. This project will provide a 1200 PN barracks, a Battalion Headquarters, Two Company Operation Buildings and a Central Energy Plant.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith. Bill Number: H.R. 6599. Account: Defense Medical Program, TRICARE Management Activity, Military Construction, Defense-Wide. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Fort Sam Houston. Address of Requesting Entity: 1206 Stanley Road, Suite A, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-5001. Description of Request: The funding would be used to construct a medical instruction facility. This project provides general and applied instructional space, administrative space and automation-aided classroom space.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, in a blatant show of partisanship, the New York Times this week refused to publish an op-ed by Senator John McCain about Iraq just days after publishing an op-ed on the same subject by Senator Barack Obama. The Times' op-ed editor, a former staff member in the Clinton administration, said he wanted something from McCain that ``mirrors Senator Obama's piece.'' Instead of permitting one candidate to set the rules, maybe the Times should allow equal opportunity for the Presidential candidates to both express their views on major issues like Iraq. The American people should demand more fairness and less favoritism from the New York Times. Voters deserve the highest standards of journalism both during this important election and afterwards.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I, in turn, thank the gentlewoman and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there are good arguments for and against this bill, but I want to focus on a provision that many Members may not be aware of. Under current law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to consider HIV/AIDS a communicable disease of public health significance; as a result, aliens with HIV/AIDS are inadmissible. Section 305 of the bill rescinds the statutory designation of HIV/AIDS as a communicable disease. This change would allow the current or a future administration to decide that HIV/AIDS is not a communicable disease of public health significance, and immigrants with HIV/AIDS would be admitted. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this provision will result in the entry of thousands of persons with HIV/AIDS. This change of policy inevitably will threaten the health and lives of many Americans. The CBO also estimates that allowing entry of thousands of persons with HIV/AIDS will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. The cost of health care for each person with HIV/AIDS averages more than $600,000. Mr. Speaker, this provision removes a safeguard that protects the health of Americans and costs many millions of dollars.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last week, President Bush removed the executive ban on offshore drilling. After the announcement was made, crude oil futures plunged. Prices fell $6.44 in the biggest one- day drop since the Gulf War. The next day, prices dropped another $4.50 to $134. This is not a coincidence. The Democratic majority says it will take years to produce oil from offshore drilling and that it won't affect energy prices. If Congress lifts the ban on offshore drilling, we will continue to see oil prices fall. Energy traders do take government policies into account. Deciding to develop our American energy resources can immediately lower the cost per barrel of oil and can provide relief at the gas pump. Democratic Party leaders should heed the will of the American people and should schedule a vote to increase our American energy supply.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the New York Times and the Washington Post are two influential national newspapers. Their articles are reprinted in hundreds of other publications, and television newscasts often repeat their stories. I was curious how the Times and the Post were treating the two major party presidential candidates, so I looked at their front page coverage. The results may be of interest to voters who expect fair and objective reporting. From June 28 through July 14, the papers wrote far more stories about Senator Obama than Senator McCain. And while most of the 15 articles about Senator Obama were positive, not a single one of the nine articles about Senator McCain was positive. That is a huge slant in favor of Senator Obama. Surely voters deserve balanced coverage of the presidential candidates. And surely the media has a responsibility to provide it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Howard Kurtz, host of CNN's program ``Reliable Sources,'' has strongly criticized the media's coverage of Senator Barack Obama's breaking his promise that he would accept public campaign funds. Last Sunday, Kurtz argued: ``All of these liberal commentators who have always supported campaign finance reform, getting big money out of politics, many of them are defending Obama. And I have to think the press is cutting him a break here.'' Kurtz concluded the segment by saying, ``If George W. Bush had done this, blown off public financing as he considered doing during the 2004 campaign, there would be howls in the media about one candidate trying to buy an election.'' A recent poll found that, by more than a 3-to-1 margin, voters believe the media favors Senator Barack Obama over Senator John McCain. The media should report the facts, not slant the news.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Americans with Disabilities Act, enacted almost 18 years ago, removed many physical barriers disabled people faced in their daily lives. It also helped remove the mental barriers that often prevented non-disabled Americans from looking beyond wheel chairs and walking canes and seeing disabled Americans as the friends and coworkers they are. When the ADA was originally enacted in 1990, it was the result of bipartisan efforts in Congress. So I am pleased that various interested parties have been able to reach agreement on statutory language amending the ADA. I support the compromise and believe it was reached in good faith. However, I do have some concerns regarding how the courts will interpret the legislative language we will consider today. So let me express what I believe to be the nature and import of this legislation. First, the common understanding in Congress is that this legislation would simply restore the original intent of the ADA by bringing the statutory text in line with the legislative history of the original ADA. That legislative history from both the House Education and Labor and the Senate committee reports provided that ``[p]ersons with minor, trivial impairments such as a simple infected finger are not impaired in a major life activity,'' and consequently those who had such minor and trivial impairments would not be covered by the ADA. I believe that understanding is entirely appropriate, and I would expect the courts to agree with and apply that interpretation. If that interpretation were not to hold but were to be broadened improperly the judiciary, an employer would be under a Federal obligation to accommodate people with stomach aches, a common cold, mild seasonal allergies, or even a hangnail. So, I want to make clear that I believe that the drafters and supporters of this legislation, including me, intend to exclude minor and trivial impairments from coverage under the ADA, as they have always been excluded. Second, the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams held that under the original ADA, ``[t]he impairment's impact must also be permanent or long term.'' The findings in the language before us today state that the purpose of the legislation is ``to provide a new definition of `substantially limits' to indicate that Congress intends to depart from the strict and demanding standard applied by the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing.'' I understand that this finding is not meant to express disagreement with or to overturn the Court's determination that the ADA apply only to individuals with impairments that are permanent or long term in impact. If these understandings of the language before us today do not prevail, the courts may be flooded with frivolous cases brought by those who were not intended to be protected under the original ADA. If that happens, those who would have been clearly covered under the original ADA, such as paralyzed veterans or the blind, will be forced to wait in line behind thousands of others filing cases regarding minor or trivial impairments. I don't believe anyone supporting this new language wants that to happen, and I want to make that clear for the record. With the understandings I have expressed, I support the Americans with Disabilities Act Restoration Act.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a new survey has found that 68 percent of all voters believe that reporters try to help their favorite candidate win elections. Just 17 percent believe that reporters offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. And by more than a 3-1 margin, voters believe the media is behind Senator Barack Obama rather than Senator John McCain. The survey also found that 76 percent of voters believe the media have too much power and too much influence over elections. And skepticism about the media cuts across income, racial, gender, and age demographics. Americans are right to be skeptical, and should brace themselves for the most one-sided coverage of a Presidential race that we have ever seen. We need to encourage the media to adhere to the highest standards of their profession. Only then can we restore Americans' faith in news reporting.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, H.R. 6304 may well be one of the most important pieces of legislation we pass this Congress. For 4 months America has been more vulnerable to attacks by our enemies, because of the refusal by some to bring a commonsense bill to the floor to help the Intelligence Community protect Americans. Many of us would have preferred the bill passed by the Senate. Although this bill may not be ideal, it does represent a compromise between House and Senate Republicans and Democrats. This compromise preserves our ability to conduct a strong, effective foreign intelligence program. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.