Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill commemorates the 40th anniversary of the tragic assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King was the leader of a 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 with strong conviction and sound reason. And as a preacher, Dr. King's religious beliefs were essential to the success of his nonviolent efforts. It is doubtful that such a long and enduring movement of peace could have survived in the face of such violence 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. On August 28, 1963, Dr. King led a peaceful march of 250,000 people 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,'' and he was right. ``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 not only lived the American dream, but he opened that same 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. And America is a better, freer Nation because of his legacy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other speakers at this time. I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

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 want to assure the chairman that I will not take advantage of his yielding back the time. I do, however, yield 4 minutes to Mr. King, the gentleman from Iowa, 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. Lungren) who, like Mr. King, is a member of the Immigration Subcommittee. He will be our last speaker.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his generous comments a while ago, and I certainly appreciated working with him on this bill as well. Performing arts organizations use O and P visas to bring many talented foreign artists to our country to perform before American audiences. Despite the fact that the Immigration Nationality Act provides that the Department of Homeland Security shall adjudicate O and P visas within 14 days, adjudication of up to 180 days has been reported. These long delays create the risk that performances involving international artists must be cancelled, creating high economic risks to arts institutions and the local economies they support. Henry Fogel, President of the American Symphony Orchestra League, has stated that, ``nonprofit arts organizations confront long waits and uncertainty in gaining approval for visa petitions for foreign guest artists. This degree of uncertainty can prove too risky for many performing arts organizations and is having a direct impact on their ability to present foreign guest artists. Orchestras must sell tickets in advance, creating a financial obligation to their audiences. Performances are date, time and location specific, and the nature of scheduling, booking and confirming highly sought after guest soloists and performing groups requires that the timing of the visa process be efficient and reliable.'' The INA does provide that the Department of Homeland Security can charge a fee of $1,000 to provide premium processing for employment- based visa petitions, adjudication within 15 days. However, many nonprofit arts organizations cannot afford to pay this extra amount either because they are a small, cash-strapped institution, or because they sponsor many foreign artists over a year's time. The Arts Required Timely Service, ARTS, Act provides that if a nonprofit organization's petition for an O visa or for a P visa is not adjudicated within 30 days, it will receive premium processing free of charge. I support this bill. And I want to thank the chairman and Mr. Berman for their bipartisan amendment in committee that clarified that only arts organizations that are qualified as tax exempt under 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code can receive the fee waiver, and that organizations petitioning for athletes do not qualify for this waiver. Mr. King, the gentleman from Iowa and the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, offered a number of amendments in the Judiciary Committee markup of this bill. For example, one provided that only small and nonprofit arts organizations should be eligible for the fee waiver. These amendments would have, in fact, improved the bill. Unfortunately, they were not adopted. On the whole, however, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Texas (Mr. McCaul), who is a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, this might be a good time to read excerpts from a letter to the Speaker. This letter was written 2 days ago by the Attorney General and by the Director of National Intelligence, and I think Members and the American people are going to be very interested in what these two individuals had to say. They expressed particular concern about requiring prior court approval to gather foreign intelligence from foreign targets located overseas. The letter says: ``Congress did not include such a requirement when it passed the original FISA statute, and with good reason. These foreign targets have no right to any court review of such surveillance under our Constitution. We know from experience that requiring prior court approval is a formula for delay. Thus, this framework would impede vital foreign intelligence collection and put the Nation at unnecessary and greater risk.'' They conclude about this bill that it does not provide the intelligence community the tools it needs to collect effectively foreign intelligence information vital for the security of the Nation. Mr. Speaker, what else do we need to hear? Members need to know this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), whom we wish were a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This debate today is not about Republican or Democratic arguments. It is not about right or left ideology. It is simply about protecting our country, and it is about protecting American lives. This might be a good time to recall the story of the American soldiers who were killed in Iraq last May. When the U.S. military discovered that the soldiers had been kidnapped by terrorists, they launched a full scale search and rescue mission. In the early hours of the operation, U.S. intelligence officials on the ground discovered a lead that required immediate electronic surveillance of telephone conversations. But the terrorist loophole, which requires a court order from Washington before conducting surveillance on a foreign target, prevented our intelligence officials from gathering information from almost 10 hours. The body of one of the soldiers was later found in the Euphrates River. The terrorists claim to have executed the other two soldiers. We will never know if that information could have saved the lives of our soldiers. But we do know that the terrorist loophole tied our hands then and perhaps is costing us lives now. Prior to enactment of the Protect America Act, the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, warned Congress that our intelligence community was missing two-thirds of all overseas terrorist communications. Three weeks ago, the Protect America Act expired, and our intelligence community lost the tools they need to monitor terrorists overseas and protect Americans here at home. We may never recover the foreign intelligence lost because of Congress's inaction. This intelligence might have given us information about terrorist plots or foreign espionage. I hope these missed opportunities will not lead to a terrorist attack in the United States or in other countries that could have been prevented. We are now 27 days late and much intelligence short because of the Democratic leadership's refusal to consider the bipartisan Senate bill. If they had brought it to the floor 3 weeks ago, it would have passed easily; and America would be safer today. But rather than modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Democrat majority's bill actually weakens it. First, the Democrats' bill requires a court order before the government can begin surveillance of a foreign terrorist overseas. FISA has never required a court order to target foreigners overseas. As we saw in May, this causes significant delays in gathering foreign intelligence, placing Americans at risk. Second, the Democrats' bill denies giving immunity to telecommunications providers who assisted the government following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The past and future cooperation of these companies is essential to our national security. Ninety-eight percent of America's communications technology is owned by private sector companies. We cannot conduct foreign surveillance without them. But if we continue to subject them to billion-dollar lawsuits, we risk losing their cooperation in the future. In fact, this bill is so flawed that the President has promised to veto it. Even more, Senator Reid, the Democratic majority leader, acknowledges that this legislation will never pass in the Senate. Congress can and must do better than this bill. Our liberties, our security, and the future of our Nation depend on it. I urge my colleagues to oppose this fatally flawed piece of legislation, and I ask the Democratic majority to bring the bipartisan Senate bill to the House floor for a vote. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, not enough attention is given to what the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General think about this piece of legislation; and in order to serve that purpose, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who is not only on the Judiciary Committee but also the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record. FISA Fix For Lawyers National Security: Wiretap law is supposed to protect the U.S. by discovering and foiling terrorist operations. Congressional Democrats seem to think its purpose is to line the pockets of their trial lawyer supporters. House Democrats want to enact a terrorist surveillance law that puts lawyers' fees before the safety of Americans. It's a bill so skewed that its passage on a vote scheduled for Thursday was questionable even to Democrats in the majority. At issue is the help given by telecom companies such as AT&T and Verizon in monitoring the telephone and Internet communications of suspected terrorists with contacts within the U.S. Those heroic firms have saved hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent lives with their cooperation in helping to obtain information that allowed law enforcement to prevent post-9/ll attacks. Congressional Democrats steadfastly refuse to protect those firms from lawsuits backed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Their message to those patriotic companies seems to be: You helped President Bush succeed at something we wanted to destroy him over, so now that we control Congress we're going to give you your well-deserved comeuppance. The ACLU issued a statement expressing delight over the House Democrats' new bill and was also pleased that the Democrats would let the authorization to track terrorists expire in only two years--as if there is any realistic chance that the global war on terror could be behind us by then. A permanent Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act could always be revisited or repealed by Congress, yet Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Democrats insist on a FISA sunset provision. The group said it is ``also heartened by the role retained by the FISA court in overseeing the program,'' an allusion to the fact that under the Democrats' bill, any and all domestic surveillance for anti-terrorism purposes would have to first get the approval of the special FISA courts--a state of affairs that the president has emphatically stated places the nation at risk. Moreover, it is a state of affairs under which the country is vulnerable today, because the Democratic Congress let FISA expire nearly a month ago. The Senate's FISA revision provides retroactive protection from lawsuits to the telecom firms. If nothing is done, they could conceivably be liable for hundreds of millions of dollars--which would be some thanks for helping to protect Americans from al-Qaida. House Democrats instead would give only ``prospective liability protection for telecom companies that assist with lawful surveillance'', according to a statement from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. One of the bill's proposed procedures apparently would be for the firms to tell the judge state secrets as part of their defense while the ACLU lawyers and other plaintiff attorneys are out of the room. But the ACLU's strategy in trying to destroy our government's ability to monitor terrorist communications has been to take their cases to federal courts in different regions--in effect, judge shopping. Because the House Democrats' FISA bill would, as the ACLU puts it, keep ``the courthouse door open,'' chances are that they would be able to find judges only too happy to make the telecom firms pay multimillion-dollar awards. The only just solution is for Congress to grant those firms full retroactive immunity. As Vice President Dick Cheney recently told the Heritage Foundation, ``those who assist the government in tracking terrorists should not be punished with lawsuits . . . it's not even proper to confirm whether any given company provided assistance.'' He added: ``In some situations, there is no alternative to seeking assistance from the private sector.'' The Center for Responsive Politics reports that trial lawyers contributed some $85 million to Democratic candidates in the 2006 election cycle. Obviously, Democrats believe letting those legal parasites feed off patriotic companies who have saved countless American lives is what is expected of them in return.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I want to thank my friend from California, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to recognize the dedication and focus that Representative Capuano, the chairman of the Ethics Task Force, has demonstrated throughout this process. We know the best of intentions underly his desire and the desire of all Ethics Task Force members to enhance the integrity of the House of Representatives. While this proposal is marginally improved over the first proposal, it still contains flaws that make it defective. The fundamental flaw of the proposal is that it fails to reform the House Ethics Committee itself. The creation of another ethics entity would be an admission of the failure of the Ethics Committee. Americans rightly feel the ethics process simply does not work. They do not know when ethics investigations are started; they do not know the status of those investigations, and they do not know whether a partisan deadlock has resulted in stalling an investigation forever. Americans need this knowledge, and that can only come through reforms to the Ethics Committee itself that will produce more bipartisanship and greater transparency. But the proposal before us simply adds another layer of bureaucracy on top of an already broken system. It creates an entirely new entity that invites yet more partisanship under clearly undemocratic procedures. This country and the House of Representatives is founded on the principle of rule by majority; yet this proposal allows ethics inquiries to be initiated upon the request of only two out of the six board members. Furthermore, the proposal requires ethics investigations to go forward even when majority support among the board members cannot be obtained. This is undemocratic. The resolution before us today is different from the original resolution and includes several changes. One amendment to the resolution now provides that the Speaker and minority leader will each nominate three members of the board with the concurrence of the other. Even under such a system, three board members will have been selected by the leader of a partisan political party. Another amendment would provide that an investigation be terminated unless three board members affirmatively voted to proceed with an investigation. But if one board member nominated by the Speaker and one board member nominated by the minority leader agreed to initiate an investigation, but upon further review either board member decides the matter should be dismissed, the investigation can still proceed with the support of only those board members nominated either by the Speaker or the minority leader. Not only does this resolution retain the undemocratic nature of the resolution, it also allows investigations to go forward on a purely partisan 3-3 vote. This is an open invitation to a partisan free-for- all. As a recent editorial in Roll Call stated bluntly, ``We don't deny it's a gamble.'' Under this proposal, many Members who deserve better could have their reputations unfairly diminished. A recent editorial in The Hill newspaper entitled ``Leaking Ethics'' focused on this point. It said, ``All it takes is one source to say the Ethics Committee may launch a probe into a Member and that lawmaker's reputation will be forever damaged whether he or she is guilty or innocent.'' Whether this resolution passes or not, Congress will survive. But if it passes, Members should know there is an obvious danger the ethics process will become even more partisan and that innocent Members will be hurt. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule on the resolution which invites partisanship, undermines democracy, and poses unacceptable risk.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. First of all, I thank my friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the former chairman of the Government Reform Committee, for yielding me time. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for bringing this bill to the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, today we honor Cyndi Taylor Krier, a distinguished public servant who has spent more than a quarter of a century in local, State and Federal public office in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Cyndi Krier began her public service career when she became the first woman from Bexar County elected to the Texas senate. She represented Bexar County in the State senate from 1985 to 1992, serving on the Finance, Education, Jurisprudence, and Natural Resources Committees. She then became the first woman elected Bexar County judge. She served as county judge from 1992 to 2001, representing more than 1.4 million people in the San Antonio metropolitan area. Cyndi Krier also was a regent for the University of Texas system from 2001 to 2007, overseeing the University of Texas' nine academic and six health campuses, and serving as vice chairman of the board and as chairman of the academic affairs committee. Cyndi Krier's family has strong ties to the United States Postal Service. Her grandfather served as postmaster in Dinero, Texas, until his death in 1956, and was succeeded by her grandmother, who served as postmaster for more than 20 years. Her mother served the United States Postal Service in Beeville, Texas, for more than 30 years as a clerk, rural route delivery person, and civil service examiner. I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of a good friend, Cyndi Taylor Krier, by supporting H.R. 4774, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10250 John Saunders Road in San Antonio, Texas, as the Cyndi Taylor Krier Post Office Building. Mr. Speaker, again, it gives me great pleasure to have introduced this bill and to see it considered by the House today.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support better health care being made available for the mentally ill. Americans should have the freedom to choose health care plans that offer mental health benefits. I also support the passage of H.R. 1424, the ``Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007,'' because this legislation represents a step forward in the mental health care debate. However, I believe the House bill goes too far by limiting physicians' ability to refer patients to physician-owned hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals play an important role in providing high quality care to patients. These facilities should not be penalized for offering accessible health care to so many individuals. In addition, this legislation requires any plan that provides mental health or substance-related disorder benefits to offer coverage for all disorders listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The list of disorders encompassed by this legislation is too broad and could be used by some individuals to take advantage of the health care system. H.R. 1424 also will not allow employers to have discretion over the benefit coverage decisions for their employees. It instead imposes a mandate that requires employers to cover all conditions listed in the DSM-IV. This mandate likely will increase health insurance costs. I am hopeful that if this legislation goes to a Conference Committee, the House will adopt much of the language contained in the Senate version of the bill, S. 558, the ``Mental Health Parity Act.'' The Senate bill represents a compromise between the mental health and business communities. The Senate legislation provides employer discretion by allowing employers to determine which mental health conditions should be covered under their plan and does not include language that penalizes physician-owned hospitals. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this important issue and to making sure we have an improved bill at the end of the process.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today is day 11 without the Protect America Act and so our Nation continues to be at greater risk of attack from terrorists. Yesterday I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee to attach the Senate-passed FISA bill to H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. House Democrats once again refused to bring this commonsense, bipartisan bill to the floor for a straight up-or-down vote. Last year, Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, warned Congress that the intelligence community was missing two-thirds of all overseas terrorist communications, further endangering American lives. Congress enacted the Protect America Act to close this loophole for terrorists. The Senate, working with the administration, drafted legislation to modernize FISA and give our intelligence agencies a long-term law under which they could operate. It has been 2 weeks since the Senate overwhelmingly approved their bill by a vote of 68-29. We should vote on it immediately to better protect American lives. Mr. Speaker, I also oppose H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. H.R. 5351 contains some beneficial provisions, such as creating incentives to make energy efficiency improvements to new and existing homes and extending tax credits to encourage the production of alternative forms of energy. But while it is well and good to encourage alternative energy development, Congress should not do so by damaging our domestic oil and gas industry. According to the Department of Energy, in 2006 all renewable energy sources provided only 6 percent of the U.S. domestic energy supply. In contrast, oil and natural gas provided 58 percent of our domestic energy supply. The numbers don't lie. Oil and natural gas fuel our economy and sustain our way of life. Furthermore, almost 2 million Americans are directly employed in the oil and natural gas industry. Punishing one of our Nation's most important industries does not constitute a national energy policy. The answer to lowering gas prices and reducing our dependence on foreign oil is not to remove $17.6 billion in tax incentives from the oil and gas industry. The answer is to utilize our domestic resources, including ANWR. According to former Interior Secretary Gale Norton, ``ANWR would supply every drop of petroleum for Florida for 29 years, New York for 34 years, California for 16 years, or New Hampshire for 315 years.'' It could also supply Washington, D.C. for 1,710 years. The answer is also to build new refineries and to develop more nuclear energy, as most European and Asian countries have already done. But no new major refinery has been built in the United States in the past 15 years. And no new nuclear facility has received a construction license in the United States for 30 years, even though safe technology is now available. Mr. Speaker, instead of penalizing the oil and gas industry, Congress should pass real energy reform, expand domestic exploration of oil and gas, build more refineries, and construct more nuclear facilities.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am in its current form.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, there is nothing more germane to the security of the American people than to take up the Senate bill as quickly as possible. Now I would like to reiterate my disappointment that the majority has raised a point of order against this motion to recommit.