Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is a time and place for politics and partisanship. But there are in fact important issues that transcend politics. The security of our Nation outweighs politics, especially when our country is at war. One of the finest moments of bipartisanship in Washington came after one of the darkest days in our history. On the evening of September 11, 2001, Members of Congress stood shoulder to shoulder on the steps of the Capitol as a symbol of strength and unity in response to the terrorist attacks. In that moment, we stood together, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans resolved to protect our Nation. However, as we stand here today, that same spirit of bipartisanship we shared on 9/11 no longer exists. We began in August to address a very specific and very urgent issue facing our intelligence community. We learned from the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was outdated for today's technology. But the bill we are considering today does not modernize FISA; it weakens it. Why, after 30 years of lawful foreign intelligence collection, does the Democratic majority suddenly object to a law that their party originally enacted in 1978? Why make it harder to gather intelligence on terrorists after 9/11 than before? Now, after only a few hours' notice, we are considering the RESTORE Act, which actually restores little. Rather, it undermines our national security and increases the risk of a future terrorist attack on our country. It prevents our intelligence community from gathering critical intelligence information. It ignores the need for legal protection for communications companies that assist law enforcement and intelligence officials. We are at war with terrorists who spend every day plotting attacks against us. Our intelligence community needs to detect and disrupt these plots. To deny this ability could have catastrophic consequences. Admiral McConnell testified in great detail before the Judiciary Committee about the specific needs of the intelligence community and the need to reform FISA. Admiral McConnell's recommendations are ignored, unfortunately, in the RESTORE Act. Instead, it requires the intelligence community to obtain FISA court orders for all communications of persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. FISA has never applied to persons outside of the United States. Under the RESTORE Act, FISA court orders will be required for the first time ever for thousands of overseas terrorist targets. Also, section 18 of the manager's amendment is bluntly titled: ``No Rights Under the RESTORE Act for Undocumented Aliens.'' That is what it says. But the practical effect of the RESTORE Act will be to allow unregulated, warrantless wiretapping of illegal immigrants in the United States. Is this really what the Democratic majority intends? Finally, the RESTORE Act omits any liability protection for telephone companies and other carriers that assisted the government after September 11, 2001. These companies deserve our thanks, not a flurry of harassing lawsuits. Communications technology has changed since 1978. We can no longer gather foreign intelligence without the assistance of private communications companies. Extending commonsense liability protection to communication providers who acted in good faith to protect the United States from another terrorist attack is completely appropriate. If we fail to provide this protection, we risk losing the future cooperation of communication providers in gathering foreign intelligence. Democrats made a promise to the American people in 2006 that Members of Congress would put aside politics and work together to find bipartisan solutions to issues facing the American people. That promise has apparently been broken. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) who is the senior member of both the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a senior member of the Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished minority whip of the House.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit says ``promptly,'' because the bill needs to go back to committee immediately. Members were given almost no notice of what was going to be in this bill. There are many questions remaining about the text because it has not gone through the regular committee process. This motion addresses a major problem created by the manager's amendment. Under existing law, court orders are required to conduct certain surveillance of illegal immigrants within the United States. Section 18 of the manager's amendment strips away any rights that illegal immigrants have under FISA, stating clearly that there will be ``no rights under the RESTORE Act for undocumented aliens.'' If that is really what the Democratic leadership wants to do, then we should ensure that the legislation does not treat terrorists more favorably than illegal immigrants. To fix this problem, the motion adds ``state sponsors of terrorism and their agents'' to section 18 to ensure that they are treated equally. There is no reason that the law should provide greater protection to terrorists than to illegal immigrants. Also, the motion preserves the ability of our intelligence community to conduct surveillance of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and other terrorist organizations to protect America from an imminent terrorist attack. When faced with a life-or- death situation, a ticking bomb, an imminent threat of attack, do we really want to subject intelligence agents to unnecessary legal hurdles in order to protect our country? The RESTORE Act hinders our intelligence community's ability to collect foreign intelligence needed to prevent al Qaeda and other terrorists from attacking our country. It requires the government to obtain court orders to conduct surveillance of overseas terrorists. The implication of this requirement, Mr. Speaker, could be catastrophic. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who is the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ``Second Chance Act of 2007.'' I commend Chairman Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Scott, along with Ranking Member Mr. Forbes, and Representatives Chris Cannon, Danny Davis, Howard Coble, and Stephanie Tubbs-Jones for their commitment to the issue of prisoner re-entry. I also want to thank Minority Whip Roy Blunt for his tireless dedication to this legislation. Congressman Blunt and his staff devoted countless hours to bicameral and bipartisan negotiations to reach a consensus on this important legislation. The new bill, which is modeled on prior versions, is an excellent example of bipartisan cooperation on important criminal justice matters. This bill represents a common sense approach to addressing the problems posed by prisoner reentry. President Bush stated in his 2004 State of the Union address: ``We know from long experience that if [former prisoners] can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit more crimes and return to prison. . . . America is the land of the second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.'' The Second Chance Act of 2007 implements the President's initiative. I believe in tough enforcement of our criminal laws. Public safety is essential to a free society, and criminals must be aggressively prosecuted and incarcerated to protect our communities. However, once criminals are incarcerated, we have an obligation to make sure they are rehabilitated and treated humanely. The Second Chance Act creates a framework of strategic policy innovations to provide effective re-entry services. The demand for innovative solutions is obvious--it is conservatively estimated that approximately 650,000 inmates will be released from State prisons in the next year. In the absence of action, 67 percent of these individuals will be rearrested and over half will return to prison in the 3 years following their release from prison. States are being crushed by an overwhelming financial burden of correctional costs. We need to help State and local governments implement innovative programs to ease the transition for offenders, to bring families together once again, and to make sure that offenders get the necessary support so that they can truly have a second chance to live a law- abiding life. Successful reentry protects those who might otherwise be crime victims. It also improve the likelihood that individuals released from prison, jail or juvenile detention facilities can pay fines, fees, restitution, and provide family support. The Second Chance Act expands existing demonstration programs to improve coordination among service providers, supervision services and re-entry task forces, and between State substance abuse agencies and criminal justice agencies. The Act also strengthens reentry services and authorizes grants to operate State and local reentry courts, and to establish local re-entry task forces to develop comprehensive reentry plans during each phase of transition--from incarceration, to transitional housing, to release in the community. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) who is a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and also ranking member of that committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that we are considering a bill to extend the Internet tax moratorium another 7 years. With only 2 days left until the moratorium expires, it's high time that Congress passes this important legislation and gets it to the President's desk for his signature. Two weeks ago, the House approved H.R. 3678, a bill to extend the Internet tax moratorium for 4 years. I supported this legislation because it accomplished several positive things. For example, it clarified the definition of Internet access to ensure that States do not tax Internet access, including the acquisition of transmission capabilities. However, I was disappointed that it did not permanently ban taxes on Internet access and e-commerce and that the House Democratic leadership refused to allow a vote on permanency, even though over 240 Members are cosponsors of a permanent extension. Today, by passing H.R. 3678 with the Senate amendments, we are taking a step in the right direction. This legislation extends the moratorium for 7 years, almost doubling what the House approved only 2 weeks ago. The Senate amendments to H.R. 3678 also made several other important changes to the law. The Senate extended the coverage of the moratorium to all e-mail, regardless of whether it was bundled with Internet access. With respect to the original grandfathered States, the Senate added a new ``use it or lose it'' provision that says that if one of those States repeals or otherwise does not enforce its tax on Internet access, it loses its grandfather protections. I think these are good changes to the original House-passed bill, and I am happy to support them. By extending the ban on Internet access taxes for a longer period of time, we give businesses the certainty they need to spend billions of dollars to construct, maintain and update the broadband Internet infrastructure throughout the country. This legislation will help keep the cost of Internet access down so that all individuals can continue to use the great informational tool that is the Internet. While I'm disappointed that we're not making the ban permanent, which has wide support in the House, we are certainly moving in the right direction by passing H.R. 3678 today. Hundreds of companies and groups, including AOL, Apple, Americans for Tax Reform, AT&T, Comcast, eBay, Electronic Industries Alliance, Level 3 Communications, the National Association of Manufacturers, National Cable and Telecommunications Association, National Taxpayers Union, Sprint/Nextel, Time Warner Communications, T-Mobile, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Telecom Association, U.S. Internet Industry Association, Verizon, Yahoo, the Business Software Alliance, and the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership, among many, many others, have, in fact, called for a permanent ban on Internet access taxes. While H.R. 3678 doesn't get us all the way to the goal line, it is a step forward that will benefit the economy and the consumer. Madam Speaker, if we are going to have a healthy economy in America, if we are going to continue to create jobs, if we're going to continue to enjoy a high standard of living, if we are going to continue to increase productivity, we have to do everything we can to encourage and help the high-tech industry. To that end, I support H.R. 3678, but I still would like to see Congress pass a permanent moratorium. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the principal Republican sponsor of the permanent ban on Internet taxes. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership calls the RESTORE Act of 2007 a compromise. Well, I agree. It compromises our national security. Why do Democrats want to make it more difficult to gather intelligence about terrorists after 9/11 than before 9/11? Since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted 30 years ago, our terrorist fighting agencies have been able to gather information about terrorists without obtaining a court order. Why burden our intelligence agencies now? Why make it harder to find Osama bin Laden? Why protect terrorists? This bill, for the first time, requires a court order to monitor foreign persons outside the United States. If Osama bin Laden makes a call and we don't know who it is to, a court order must be obtained. That takes many hours and could well mean we miss an opportunity to stop an attack. The bill omits liability protection for telephone companies that provided the Federal Government with critical information after 9/11. These companies deserve our thanks, not a flurry of frivolous lawsuits. The bill sunsets in 4 years, yet our agencies need certainty and permanence so they can develop new procedures and train employees. Mr. Speaker, we don't need the RESTORE Act. We do need to restore the ability of the Federal Government to gather information about terrorists and to stop them. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and the former district judge from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who is also the deputy ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the former chairman and current ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, although I am not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I would like to say to my colleagues that beginning last night in the early evening and continuing and extending to this morning, a number of us have been in touch with each other about the provisions of this bill with the hope and expectation that we might be able to resolve our differences. I have been in touch with the White House. I have been in touch with the principal sponsors of the legislation; and I think we had engaged in some good-faith efforts to try to, as I say, resolve our differences. Specifically, I had been hopeful that the other side would accept some of the provisions that had been in an amendment that I had hoped to offer today. Unfortunately, that amendment was not allowed by the Rules Committee. So Members of the House are not going to be able to vote on that amendment, which, in my judgment, would have improved the bill. There were a couple of provisions in that amendment, though, that I thought would be of interest to the sponsors of the bill and to the other side, and I regret that we were not able to come to a meeting of the minds, because I think that would have improved the bill and also yielded a better result when the bill perhaps becomes law. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say to my colleagues that, if anything, I have a sympathy for the media, for the press. Long ago and far away, I was a newspaper reporter and spent 2 years writing articles, and so I have stood in the shoes of those who are reporters today. After being a reporter for a couple of years, I went to law school; and while in law school I actually wrote an article for the Texas Bar Journal called ``Politicians Versus the Press: Libel in Texas,'' and I actually came down on the side of the press. So that is where my sympathies lie. However, in the case of this bill, I am afraid I cannot support it. And because we were not able to reach a compromise on the bill, I remain opposed to the bill, the White House remains opposed to the bill, the Director of National Intelligence remains opposed to the bill, and the Department of Justice remains opposed to the bill. Unfortunately, it is still so flawed that we cannot support it. Mr. Speaker, a free press strengthens democracy. In our Nation the first amendment of the Constitution guarantees the press their freedom to report. And for 200 years in this Nation, the press, in fact, has flourished. Information has flowed freely. And that is why I believe this bill is simply a solution in search of a real problem. Members of the private sector and law enforcement officials believe H.R. 2102 diminishes legal rights, public safety, and our national security. We must ensure that whistleblowers can expose crimes, waste, and wrongdoing. But we should not create a protection so broad that those who would destroy people's reputations, businesses, and privacy can hide behind it. The Federal Government defends our national security; so we must weigh the benefits of a reporter's privilege with the problems it may cause for those who protect our country. I thank the primary authors of H.R. 2102, Mr. Boucher and Mr. Pence, for working with the Department of Justice, interested groups, and Members to develop alternative language to address legitimate concerns of industry and law enforcement authorities. Despite efforts to accommodate their concerns, the Justice Department and the acting Director of National Intelligence, as I mentioned a while ago, still oppose this bill for very good reasons. The White House also opposes the bill and a veto is likely. The President's senior advisers, in fact, have recommended a veto of this bill. They believe the stakes are too high in a post-9/11 world to support the Free Flow of Information Act. For example, they have pointed out that the exceptions language fails to address misconduct that the Justice Department confronts on a daily basis. To illustrate, neither the bill nor the manager's amendment that will be offered contains exceptions language allowing DOJ to obtain the identity of a new source with the knowledge of a child prostitution ring, an online purveyor of pornography, gang violence, or alien smuggling, all examples. And the text governing source disclosure exceptions only addresses prospective events, not past events. For example, the Department may be able to acquire information about a source's identity to prevent a terrorist attack like September 11; but if al Qaeda decides to tell a media outlet on September 12 how it planned and carried out the attack, DOJ could not compel that media outlet to reveal its terrorist sources while conducting an investigation. If a child molester spoke to a journalist and revealed that he molested a child yesterday, under this bill Justice officials could not compel that journalist to reveal his sources and cooperate in the investigation. The Department of Justice will be hamstrung as it goes about the business of conducting investigations and prosecuting criminals. Yes, numerous States have shield laws, but they run the gamut; and many are not near as broad as the Federal shield law proposed today. But the key difference is that the States are not entrusted with the responsibility of defending our country; the Federal Government is. Under the bill, DOJ carries the burden of trying to establish a national security imperative which can still be negated by a judge's subjective notion of what constitutes the public interest in news gathering. The bill's terms will be subject to the different opinions of hundreds of Federal judges across the country. The bill is simply a solution in search of a problem. It has been 35 years since the Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment does not shield journalists in grand jury proceedings. The Justice Department has issued only 19 subpoenas to reporters seeking confidential source information since 1991. Only 19 subpoenas since 1991. The system is not broken. So why are we trying to fix it? I simply believe we must err on the side of caution and not support legislation that could make it harder to apprehend criminals and terrorists or to deter their activities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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