Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) who is the distinguished Republican leader of the House.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee as well. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as well. (Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, after nearly a year of delays and months of negotiations, the House today will finally vote on compromise legislation that gives our intelligence community the tools that it needs to protect America. I join my colleague, Mr. Hoekstra, ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, and Chairman Reyes, as an original cosponsor of this compromise bill. America's enemies take on many forms, terrorist groups, foreign governments and spies who all pose serious threat to America and its allies. Last August, Congress passed the Protect America Act which provided a temporary solution to the problem. The PAA expired in February. As a result, our intelligence community could not gather two- thirds of the foreign intelligence they needed to protect American lives. From day one, we insisted that any legislation passed by Congress must not interfere with our fundamental ability to collect foreign intelligence. This legislation accomplishes that goal. H.R. 6304 does not extend constitutional protections to foreign terrorists and other foreign targets overseas. The bill does allow the intelligence community to target a foreign person overseas without a court order if critical intelligence would be lost or not collected in a timely manner. We insisted that any legislation passed by Congress include strong liability protections for telecommunications carriers that assisted the government following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as protections for their assistance in the future. H.R. 6304 provides these important protections. We insisted that Congress enact long-term FISA legislation. The bill we have before us today will not sunset until the end of 2012. This compromise legislation also provides strong civil liberties protections for Americans both within the United States and abroad. And it mandates congressional oversight and detailed reports to the House and Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees and requires a review by the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice and the intelligence agencies. This compromise is long overdue. It is supported by both the Department of Justice and the intelligence community. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I submit the following letter for the Record: June 19, 2008. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear-Madam Speaker: This letter presents the views of the Administration on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (``FISA'') Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 6304). The bill would modernize FISA to reflect changes in communications technology since the Act was first passed 30 years ago. The amendments would provide the Intelligence Community with the tools it needs to collect the foreign intelligence necessary to secure our Nation while protecting the civil liberties of Americans. The bill would also provide the necessary legal protections for those companies sued because they are believed to have helped the Government prevent terrorist attacks in the aftermath of September 11. Because this bill accomplishes these two goals essential to any effort to modernize FISA, we strongly support passage of this bill and will recommend that the President sign it. Last August, Congress took an important step toward modernizing FlSA by enacting the Protect America Act of 2007. That Act allowed us temporarily to close intelligence gaps by enabling our intelligence professionals to collect, without having to first obtain a court order, foreign intelligence information from targets overseas. The Act has enabled us to gather significant intelligence critical to protecting our Nation. It has also been implemented in a responsible way, subject to extensive executive, congressional, and judicial oversight in order to protect the country in a manner consistent with safeguarding Americans' civil liberties. Since passage of the Act, the Administration has worked closely with Congress to address the need for long-term FISA modernization. This joint effort has involved compromises on both sides, but we believe that it has resulted in a strong bill that will place the Nation's foreign intelligence effort in this area on a firm, long-term foundation. Below, we have set forth our views on certain important provisions of H.R. 6304. i. title i--foreign intelligence surveillance Title I of H.R. 6304 contains key authorities that would ensure that our intelligence agencies have the tools they need to collect vital foreign intelligence information and would provide significant safeguards for the civil liberties of Americans. Court Approval. With respect to authorizations for foreign intelligence surveillance directed at foreign targets outside the United States, the bill provides that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) would review certifications made by the Attorney General and the Director of NationaI Intelligence relating to these acquisitions, the reasonableness of the procedures used by the Intelligence Community to ensure the targets are overseas, and the minimization procedures used to protect the privacy of Americans. The scope of the FISC's review is carefully and rightly crafted to focus on aspects of the acquisition that may affect the privacy rights of Americans so as not to confer quasi-constitutional rights on foreign terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets outside the United States. We have been clear that any satisfactory bill could not require individual court orders to target non-United States persons outside the United States, nor could a bill establish a court-approval mechanism that would cause the Intelligence Community to lose valuable foreign intelligence while awaiting such approval. H.R. 6304 would do neither and would retain for the Intelligence Community the speed and agility that it needs to protect the Nation. The bill would establish a schedule for court approval of certifications and procedures relating to renewals of existing acquisition authority. A critical feature of the H.R. 6304 would allow existing acquisitions, which were the subject of court review under the Protect America Act or will be the subject of such review under the H.R. 6304, to continue pending court review. With respect to new acquisitions, absent exigent circumstances, Court review of new procedures and certifications would take place before the Government begins the acquisition. The exigent circumstances exception is critical to allowing the Intelligence Community to respond swiftly to changing circumstances when the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence determine that intelligence may be lost or not timely acquired. Such exigent circumstances could arise in certain situations where an unexpected gap has opened in our intelligence collection efforts. Taken together, these provisions would enable the Intelligence Community to keep closed the intelligence gaps that existed before the passage of the Protect America Act and ensure that it will have the opportunity to collect critical foreign intelligence information in the future. Exclusive means. H.R. 6304 contains an exclusive means provision that goes beyond the exclusive means provision that was passed as part of FISA. As we have previously stated, we believe that the provision will complicate the ability of Congress to pass, in an emergency situation, a law to authorize immediate collection of communications in the aftermath of an attack or in response to a grave threat to the national security. Unlike other versions of this provision, however, the one in this bill would not restrict the authority of the Government to conduct necessary surveillance for intelligence and law enforcement purposes in a way that would harm national security. Oversight and Protections for the Civil Liberties of Americans. H.R. 6304 contains numerous provisions that protect the civil liberties of Americans and allow for extensive executive, congressional, and judicial oversight of the use of the authorities. The bill would require the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct semiannual assessments of compliance with targeting procedures and minimization procedures and to submit those assessments to the FISC and to Congress. The FISC and Congress would also receive annual reviews relating to those acquisitions prepared by the heads of agencies that use the authorities contained in the bill. Congress would receive reviews from the Inspectors General of these agencies and of the Department of Justice regarding compliance with the provisions of the bill. In addition, the bill would require the Attorney General to submit to Congress a report at least semiannually concerning the implementation of the authorities provided by the bill and would expand the categories of FISA-related court documents that the Government must provide to the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees. Title I also includes provisions that would protect the civil liberties of Americans. For instance, the bill would require for the first time that a court order be obtained to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance outside the United States of an American abroad. Historically, Executive Branch procedures guided the conduct of surveillance of a U.S. person overseas, such as when a U.S. person acts as an agent of a foreign power, e.g., spying on behalf of a foreign government. Given the complexity of extending judicial review to activities outside the United States, these provisions were carefully crafted with Congress to ensure that such review can be accomplished while preserving the necessary flexibility for intelligence operations. Other provisions of the bill address concerns that some voiced about the Protect America Act, such as clarifying that the Government cannot ``reverse target'' without a court order and requiring that the Attorney General establish guidelines to prevent this from occurring. We believe that, taken together, these provisions will allow for ample oversight of the use of these new authorities and ensure that the privacy and civil liberties of Americans are well protected. ii. title ii--protections for electronic communications service providers Title II of the bill contains, among other provisions, vital protections for electronic communications service providers who assist the Intelligence Community's efforts to protect the Nation from terrorism and other foreign intelligence threats. Title II would provide liability protection related to future assistance while ensuring the protection of sources and methods. Importantly, the bill would also provide the necessary legal protection for those companies who are sued only because they are believed to have helped the Government with communications intelligence activities in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. The framework contained in the bill for obtaining retroactive liability protection is narrowly tailored. An action must be dismissed if the Attorney General certifies to the district court in which the action is pending that either: (i) the electronic communications service provider did not provide the assistance; or (ii) the assistance was provided in the wake of the September 11 attack and was the subject of a written request or series of requests from a senior Government official indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful. The district court would be required to review this certification before dismissing the action, and the provision allows for the participation of the parties to the lawsuit in a manner consistent with the protection of classified information. The liability protection provision does not extend to the Government or to Government officials and it does not immunize any criminal conduct. Providing this liability protection is critical to the Nation's security. As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence recognized, ``the intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without assistance from these companies.'' That committee also recognized that companies in the future may be less willing to assist the Government if they face the threat of private lawsuits each time they are believed to have provided assistance. Finally, allowing litigation over these matters risks the disclosure of highly classified information regarding intelligence sources and methods. As we have stated on many occasions, it is critical that any long-term FISA modernization legislation contain an effective liability protection provision. H.R. 6304 contains just such a provision and for this reason, as well as those expressed with respect to Title I above, we strongly support its passage. III. Title III--Review of Previous Actions Title III would require the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and of certain elements of the Intelligence Community to review certain communications surveillance activities, including the Terrorist Surveillance Program described by the President. Although improvements have been made over prior versions of this provision, we believe, as we have written before, that it is unnecessary in light of the Inspector General reviews previously completed, those already underway, and the congressional intelligence and judiciary committee oversight already conducted. Nevertheless, we do not believe that, as currently drafted, the provision would create unacceptable operational concerns. The bill contains important provisions to make clear that such reviews should not duplicate reviews already conducted by Inspectors General. IV. Title IV--Other Provisions Title IV contains important provisions that will ensure that the transition between the current authorities and the authorities provided in this bill will not have a detrimental effect on intelligence operations. Title IV also states that the authorities in the bill sunset at the end of 2012. We have long favored permanent modernization of FISA. The Intelligence Community operates more effectively when the rules governing our intelligence professionals' ability to track our enemies are firmly established. Stability of law also allows the Intelligence Community to invest resources appropriately. Congress has extensively debated and considered the need to modernize FISA since 2006, a process that has involved numerous hearings, briefings, and floor debates. The process has been valuable and necessary, but it has also involved the discussion in open settings of extraordinary information dealing with sensitive intelligence operations. Every time we repeat this process it risks exposing our intelligence sources and methods to our adversaries. Although we would prefer that H.R. 6304 contain no sunset, a sunset in 2012 is significantly longer than others that were proposed and it is long enough to avoid impairing the effectiveness of intelligence operations. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this crucial bill. We reiterate our sincere appreciation to the Congress for working with us on H.R. 6304, a long-term FISA modernization bill that will strengthen the Nation's intelligence capabilities while respecting and protecting the constitutional rights of Americans. We strongly support its prompt passage. Sincerely, Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General. J.M. McConnell, Director of National Intelligence. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and a ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Department of Defense, Army RDTE (R-1 Line #133). Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Applied Physical Electronics, LLC. Address of Requesting Entity: 5208 Electric Avenue, Spicewood, Texas 78669. Description of Request: The requested funds will be used to produce technology to support efforts against terrorist activities, to fund two endowed professors from the University of Texas for antenna design support and for signal and image processing, to acquire key capital laboratory equipment, and to hire 12 highly skilled professional engineers, as well as supporting staff. The UT professors will be funded to continue in their efforts to help design compact antenna structures, as well as the development of algorithms necessary for detecting and identifying explosives and controlling electronics used with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). The necessary equipment and additional staff will further the development of APELC's technology into systems deployed for defense against IEDs and Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), with the ultimate objective being the utilization of APELC's technology as integral components of future applicable DoD systems, including MDA, Army, Air Force, DARPA and the Navy. Description of Matching Funds: APELC is close to securing matching funds from a U.S. prime contractor in the form of a 3 year teaming agreement. The amount is expected to be approximately 1:3 match to the dollars requested. The matching funding will be used to move APELC's technology into deployable systems for field use. Furthermore, the principals of APELC continue investing in the company, and in the form of facility improvement to better facilitate technology development.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Department of Defense, Air Force RDT&E (R-1 Line #18). Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Texas Research Institute. Address of Requesting Entity: 9063 Bees Cave Road, Austin, Texas 78732. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,000,000 for the Air Force's ``Improved Inspection Reliability for Optimized Maintenance Program.'' Regularly scheduled nondestructive inspection (NDI) and maintenance of Air Force aircraft requires that these key assets are removed from service for extended periods of time in addition to routine maintenance issues. This program will develop and validate model-based approaches to the measurement of inspection reliability, and data mining methods to assure continued performance over time in Air Force field and depot inspections. This will result in improved confidence in the reliability of NDI to assess damage without costly and time-consuming maintenance will increase availability and reduce maintenance costs over current practices. This one time program of $2M will use $1.7M for the development and testing of the systems and the remaining $300K will be used for required reports. As the Air Force is scheduled to decrease in manpower over the FYDP it is critical that those in the Air Force will have the tools and equipment to do complete their jobs. This project fully supports the 2008 Air Force Strategic Plan which calls for ``Smart Operations across the total Air Force'' and specifically calls for ``Efficient processes free up resources for recapitalization and modernization, increase the availability of our aircraft by reducing the time they are in Depot''--This effort is termed Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century (AFSO21).

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this week NBC News aired an interview with President Bush in which it removed key statements from the President's response to a question about diplomatic relations with Iran. While some editing is to be expected, in this case NBC misrepresented the President's response so that it appeared he agreed with the premise of the question when, in fact, he explicitly disputed it. The White House says NBC's ``deceitful editing'' was intended to perpetuate a ``media-manufactured storyline'' about Iran. The American people deserve to know the President's complete statements on major foreign policy issues. We rely on journalists to provide this information through fair and impartial reporting. The American people rightfully expect the media to give them all the facts, not just a slanted version.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Department of Defense, Air Force RDT&E (R-1 Line #8), 0602102F Materials. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The University of Texas at Austin. Address of Requesting Entity: 1 University Station C2200, Austin, TX 78712. Description of Request: The requested funds will be used to establish a research and educational program for enhancing U.S. competitiveness in Intelligent Manufacturing. Intelligent Manufacturing requires the integration of physics based models, state-of-the-art analysis and control, and advanced materials to develop the next generation of manufacturing processes and systems. The initial thrust will be on small lot and rapid response intelligent manufacturing that is critical to national defense, infrastructure, energy, medical products and other key areas of the U.S. manufacturing base. This project will increase the manpower, manufacturing technology, and know-how available to support quick response, high-technology precision manufacturing and will provide an important competitive advantage for U.S. producers using Intelligent Manufacturing. Texas and Ohio rank 2nd and 3rd in terms of manufacturing jobs in the U.S., with the three states employing 23 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing workforce. Many key defense industries are located in these states and all three campuses have strong ties to the defense laboratories, defense manufacturing, and critical commercial manufacturing entities (aerospace, electronics, energy, and others).

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Department of Defense, Army RDT&E (R-1 Line #30). Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Address of Requesting Entity: 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229-3900. Description of Request: The requested funds will be used to: Establish the National Center for Trauma Research, which will be the primary site for trauma research in the US; this will be accomplished through federal and non-federal funding; expand clinical research that benefits the nation's civilian and military trauma patient population, focusing on survival rates, pre-hospital interventions and surgical techniques; potential studies include wound healing, hemorrhage control with dressing, traumatic brain injury; establish telecommunications technology that connects the three trauma centers and Burn Center, necessary to coordinate disaster/bioterrorism response and also useful on a daily basis so that medical education opportunities at any facility are available across our system; develop a regional ICU Registry to parallel the current Regional Trauma Registry; coupling the data available in both allows researchers to study the entire patient episode, from pre-hospital to discharge and outcome; and support the infrastructure needed to accomplish these goals, given that during the same period new revenue streams from physician fee-for-service billing will partially replace the need for federal funding. NTI is directly leading to better care for combat casualties. Today military surgeons and nurses are continuing to be trained at NTI facilities prior to their deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 550 critically burned soldiers have been treated in San Antonio. The NTI is playing a critical role in our nation's battlefield medical response effort and helping to improve outcomes for these brave men and women.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. In a few days, thousands of police officers from around the country will travel to Washington, DC for National Police Week. This occasion provides Congress with the opportunity to honor those who have given their lives to protect our families, constituents, and communities. In my district, ``The Memorial Wall'' stands in the San Antonio Police Academy's courtyard and lists the names of those forty-eight officers who have sacrificed their lives while fighting to keep San Antonio's neighborhoods safe and crime-free for our children. We can honor their legacies and the lives of other police officers by bringing legislation to the floor that will help Federal, State and local law enforcement officials combat crime. For example, the bill Congressman Forbes and I introduced, H.R. 3156, the ``Violent Crime Control Act of 2007,'' would do just that. Why is the Democratic leadership in Congress stalling crime legislation?

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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 outset I want to recognize Chairman Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Howard Coble of the subcommittee, each of whom I have enjoyed working with in developing and advancing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, at a time when many Americans are facing a slowing economy and increasing costs of food and fuel, it is imperative that Congress put aside any differences we may have and work together to promote the interests of U.S. entrepreneurs and industry. Over the past 25 years, perhaps no group of industries has contributed more to the tremendous and sustained growth in our economy than those who rely on strong patent, trademark and copyright protections. American intellectual property industries, including entertainment, high-tech and pharmaceutical industries, account for over half of all U.S. exports, represent 40 percent of the country's economic growth and employ 18 million American workers. American technology, entertainment and productivity-based enterprises serve as the cornerstone of our economic and export strength. Because of the important role IP industries play in our economy, we cannot take these innovations, or their creativity and investment required to bring them to life, for granted. Unfortunately, the tremendous success of these innovators, creators and rights-holders has made them prime targets for thieves who seek out items protected by patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret designation. These thieves not only steal the creations of others, but also reap the monetary benefits by reproducing and distributing the products themselves. And the losses attributed to counterfeiting and piracy affect more than the inventor. According to the U.S. Government, American businesses lose approximately $250 billion each year to pirated and counterfeited goods. The theft of intellectual property has also cost nearly 750,000 Americans their jobs. Given the current state of the economy, preventing these crimes and enforcing IP laws must be a top priority for the Federal Government. H.R. 4279, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, which is also known as PRO-IP, is a measure designed to respond directly to these challenges. Specifically, the bill strengthens our laws against counterfeiting and piracy; provides new resources to key agencies involved in the enforcement of IP rights; and mandates a new and unprecedented level of coordination and leadership on IP enforcement issues from the White House. Mr. Speaker, the incentive to innovate and the ability to profit from the creation of new intellectual property cannot be sustained without enforcing the rights that protect the ownership of such valuable, intangible property. And while our government agencies are doing more today to protect intellectual property than ever before, the reality is that we must do much more. We must make it increasingly difficult, and costly, for counterfeiters and traffickers, some of whom are connected to organized crime, to steal and profit from American innovations. Because intellectual property is such an important asset for both the inventor and the economy as a whole, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that IP enforcement is made a permanent priority of every administration. By supporting the PRO-IP bill, the House will send a clear message that there is a bipartisan commitment to ensure the next President and succeeding administrations have the resources, organizations and strategies required to protect our vital national and economic interests. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, H.R. 4279. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the ranking member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee and the former chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, as much time as he may consume.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, for his earlier very generous comments. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following extraneous material for the Record: Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, May 5, 2008. Re support H.R. 4279, the PRO-IP Act. Dear Colleague: We want to alert all Congressional Caucus on Intellectual Property Promotion and Piracy Prevention Members that tomorrow the House will consider H.R. 4279, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2007 (PRO IP Act) under suspension of the rules. As a caucus dedicated to enforcing IP rights, it is not only critical that our Members support this legislation, but also make an effort to educate other Members about the value of protecting American IP. It has become increasingly clear that IP-based industries are the key to the future competitiveness and economic prosperity of the United States. They currently account for between $5-5.5 trillion of the U.S. gross domestic product and this sector is responsible for 40% of the nation's economic growth. It is therefore imperative that our government protect IP industries from criminal networks that engage in counterfeiting and piracy, which cost U.S. businesses $250 billion annually and have caused the loss of 750,000 American jobs. Unfortunately, the counterfeiting and piracy problem will continue to worsen without strong, resolute action by Congress. The PRO IP Act addresses this disturbing trend by strengthening civil and criminal IP laws to deter offenders and also provides increased government resources and coordination to enforce Americans' IP rights in the U.S. and around the world. Given the extent of the counterfeiting and piracy problem and its impact on U.S. economic security, jobs, and consumer health and safety, it is not surprising that H.R. 4279 is supported by an array of businesses, trade associations and organized labor groups. We urge you to support this legislation. If you have any questions about the Congressional Caucus on Intellectual Property Promotion and Piracy Prevention please feel free to contact the following Member Offices Rep. Robert Wexler (Ellen McLaren, 202-225-3001), Rep. Mary Bono Mack (Paul Cancienne, 202-225-5330), Rep. Tom Feeney (D. Cameron Smith, 202-225-2706), or Rep. Adam Smith (Jonathan Pawlow, 202-225-8901). Sincerely, Robert Wexler, Member of Congress. Tom Feeney, Member of Congress. Mary Bono Mack, Member of Congress. Adam Smith, Member of Congress.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, during a telephone town meeting last night, I asked my constituents, ``Do you think the media are fair and objective in their news coverage?'' Ninety-one percent of the almost 400 respondents said the media are not fair, and only 7 percent said that they are fair. This is an amazing result but not a surprising one, since slanted coverage pervades much of the news Americans get every day. One of the greatest threats America faces is a biased media. If the American people don't get the facts, they can't make good decisions. And if they can't make good decisions, we won't have a democracy. The national media need to let the American people make up their own minds, not tell them what to think.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the African National Congress has played a significant role in history. Nelson Mandela and the ANC for many years fought against the unjust apartheid system in South Africa. Through a largely peaceful transfer of power, apartheid is a thing of the past and South Africa now has a representative democratic government. Many ANC officials are now, in fact, officials of South Africa's government. South Africa provides hope that genuine reconciliation between historically opposed groups can, in fact, be achieved. However, real terrorist acts were committed as part of the struggle against apartheid. There were deadly bombings of civilians. There were so- called ``necklacings'' in which car tires were put around persons' necks and set on fire. I am pleased that the bill's sponsors, Mr. Berman, Ms. Lofgren and Chairman Conyers, were willing to ensure that this bill will provide appropriate relief for the African National Congress without excusing the perpetrators of terrorist or criminal acts. First, the ANC is added to the list of organizations not considered terrorist organizations for immigration purposes. Such a list was created to shield certain organizations from the broad reach of the Immigration Act of 1990. Under the 1990 legislation, any guerilla group would find itself under the definition of a terrorist organization. The groups currently on the exempt list include the Hmong, who fought alongside U.S. soldiers in the Vietnam War, and groups that are fighting against the repressive Burmese Government today. It is understandable that the ANC be added to that list. Second, the administration is granted the authority to waive the criminal grounds of inadmissibility with respect to aliens for activities undertaken in opposition to apartheid rule in South Africa. Congress already granted the administration waiver authority for the terrorism-related grounds in last year's omnibus spending bill. Third, the bill contains a sense of Congress that the administration should immediately exercise ``in appropriate instances'' the authority granted under the bill to waive grounds of inadmissibility for the anti-apartheid activities of aliens who are current or former officials of the Government of South Africa. I am confident that any administration will use this power wisely. Finally, the bill directs the administration to ensure that government databases used to determine admissibility to the U.S. be updated to reflect any waivers granted. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Again, I want to thank Chairman Berman and Chairman Conyers and Chairman Lofgren for working in good faith to address concerns with the bill as it was introduced. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that it's always nice when the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and I can agree on immigration issues, as we did in this particular instance. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, today I want to congratulate the 2008 Service Academy appointees from the 21st Congressional District. The following individuals have accepted academy appointments: Harrison Michael Green, Believers Academy, Air Force Academy; Blair William Kessler, Boerne High School, Air Force Academy; Robert Francis Belz, Health Careers High School, Air Force Academy; Lucas Samuel Johnson, Boerne High School, Air Force Academy; Philip Nicholas Valenzo, MacArthur High School, Air Force Academy; David Kirby Ford, Antonian College Preparatory High School, Military Academy; Nicholas Enrique Ocegueda, New Braunfels High School/US Military Prep School, Military Academy; Thomas Reagan Schiller, Vista Ridge High School, Military Academy; Raymond Anthony Gonzales II, Reagan High School, Military Academy; Karen Elaine Gilkey, MacArthur High School, Merchant Marine Academy; and Padraig G. O'Hara, Fredericksburg High School, Merchant Marine Academy.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am glad we are considering this timely legislation tonight, H.R. 1777, the Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2008. I also want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his tireless efforts in promoting this legislation, and also for his leadership, because if it were not for his leadership, we would not be here tonight considering this important bill. It was good working with him and I appreciate the success that he has had in getting us to this point. This issue has long been of interest to me personally as well. I also sponsored the bill that extended the exemption in 1997 and 2001. Beginning in the mid-1950s, a number of private colleges and universities agreed to award financial aid solely on the basis of demonstrated need. These schools also agreed to use common criteria to assess each student's financial need and to give the same financial aid award to students admitted to more than one member of that group of schools. In the 1950s to the late 1980s, the practice continued. In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice brought suit against nine of the colleges. After extensive litigation, the parties entered into a consent decree in 1991 that all but ended the practice. In 1992, Congress passed the first exemption to the antitrust laws for these colleges as part of the Higher Education Amendments. That temporary exemption codified the settlement and allowed colleges to provide aid on the basis of need only, to use common criteria to determine need, to use a common financial aid application form, and to allow the exchange of the student's financial information through a third party. In 1994, Congress extended this exemption as section 568 of the Improving America's Schools Act. Congress has extended the exemption twice since 1994, in 1997 and 2001. Twenty-seven schools currently are members of the so-called Presidents' Group which utilizes this antitrust exemption. Several other colleges, including Yale and Harvard, participate as advisory members of the group. This exemption expires on September 30, 2008. Common treatment of these types of issues makes sense and, to my knowledge, there are no complaints about the existing exemption. In fact, a recent GAO study of the exemption found that there had been no abuse of the exemption and stated that there had not been an increase in the cost of tuition as a result of the exemption. The Antitrust Modernization Commission studied this exemption and found that it provides ``limited immunity for limited conduct.'' That is, it is narrowly tailored to meet its goals of promoting access to need-based financial aid. This bill would make the exemption passed in 1992, 1994, 1997, and 2001 permanent. It would not make any change to the substance of the exemption itself. The need-based financial aid system serves worthy goals that the antitrust laws do not adequately address, namely, making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. No student who is otherwise qualified should be denied the opportunity to go to one of the colleges involved because of the limited financial means of his or her family. This bill helps protect need-based aid and need-blind admissions. Mr. Speaker, the last time the House considered a permanent extension of this antitrust exemption, it passed by a vote of 414-0. The bill is supported by the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the National Association for Independent Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and the Presidents' Group. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as well. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank Mr. Delahunt for his work on this legislation and for getting us to the point where it is being considered tonight. With that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, according to the Department of Justice, one person is assaulted in the United States every 7.2 seconds, raped every 2.7 minutes and murdered every 31 minutes. That means that in the last hour, 500 Americans will have been assaulted, 22 raped and 2 murdered. Congress can and must do more to protect American families and keep our communities safe. In this Congress, Republicans have introduced over 100 bills to help Federal, State and local law enforcement officials combat crime. To date, though, only three have been considered. As we recognize National Crime Victims' Rights Week, Congress should do more than just honor the victims. Let's help law enforcement officials shield an innocent person from assault, protect a woman from rape and save a life.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who is the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee, for yielding. I am happy to have played a part in the creation of the Religious Worker Immigrant Visa Program back in 1990. These visas enable American religious denominations, large and small, to benefit from committed religious workers from other countries. However, I have also long been concerned about the high level of fraud that has been evident in this visa program. Like Mr. King, I feel regulations can only go so far in preventing fraud and we do need additional statutory changes in the program. The Office of Fraud Detection and National Security at the Department of Homeland Security has conducted a Fraud Benefit Assessment. It found that of 220 religious worker visa cases selected at random, 33 percent had ``a finding of fraud,'' the highest of any visa program. Fraud involves everything from bogus churches and bogus jobs to ``religious workers'' who are found driving taxis soon after they arrive here. So I especially appreciate the steps that the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, has taken to address these concerns. She agreed that we would extend the expiring religious worker green cards for 7 years as long as the Department of Homeland Security issues long-needed regulations to address some types of fraud. In addition, she agreed to have the Inspector General complete a report on the effectiveness of the anti-fraud regulations. The Inspector General also will conduct an audit to determine to what extent religious workers continue to work for the religious institutions that sponsor them. Madam Speaker, although the bill does not contain all of the provisions I would have liked, I want to express my thanks to Ms. Zoe Lofgren for her comity in drafting this legislation, which I support.