Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a former chairman of the Armed Services Committee and now ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), who is also a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, once again, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who is a member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill should be opposed by anyone who wants to protect America from terrorists. It is a pitiful sight to see the majority denying the Director of National Intelligence the tools he needs to protect our country from terrorist attacks. The director warned Congress that ``the House proposal would not allow me to carry out my responsibility to provide warning and to protect the Nation, especially in our heightened threat environment.'' According to the Director, the current Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, does not allow the intelligence community to be effective. Specifically, the Director is unable to collect crucial information involving foreign terrorists. Neither the Constitution nor Federal law restricts the ability of law enforcement or intelligence agents to monitor overseas communications; however, the bill would require the Director to obtain a court order to monitor calls from a foreign country to the United States. For instance, a foreign terrorist in Iraq who calls another terrorist in New York City would require or could require a court order. That jeopardizes American lives. We are a Nation at war with foreign terrorists who continue to plan deadly attacks against America. We have an urgent need to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Telecommunications technology has evolved dramatically over the last 30 years. Terrorist tactics are constantly changing in response to our efforts to disrupt their plots, and essential tools that we use must be modernized to keep up with this changing environment. The safety of Americans depends on action by Congress. Al Qaeda recently released a video promising a big surprise in coming weeks. This threat, along with other activity, has heightened the concern among our intelligence agencies. Unfortunately, this bill fails to provide the fix that the Director has repeatedly told us is urgent. First, the bill sunsets in 120 days. In 4 months, we will be right back where we started, dealing with the issue once again. Second, the bill imposes bureaucratic requirements on the FISA process that will hamper efforts to protect America. Third, the bill will interject the FISA court into a role that it has never had before. The bill will make it harder for the Director to do his job. The majority could have solved the problem months ago. In April, the Director submitted to Congress a comprehensive proposal to modernize FISA. That proposal should already have been enacted. The majority failed to do so. I hope, Madam Speaker, that there are no attacks before we revisit the issue and do what we should have done today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who is also the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time remains for each side.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the current ranking member and former chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we all deplore unethical conduct by Members of Congress and their staff. Each party has their fair share of examples. The public wants and deserves honest government. Unfortunately, this legislation does not bode well for this Congress' ability to deliver it. In May, this House brought up a base bill that seemed very familiar to Republicans because the increased disclosures required in the bill were largely those contained in H.R. 4975, which was introduced by Congressman David Dreier, and which passed the House in the last Congress. Last year's H.R. 4975 contained all of the following provisions: a requirement for Members to disclose post-employment negotiations with private entities; a prohibition on partisan influences on an outside entity's employment decisions; and increased quarterly electronic filing in a public database of lobbyist campaign contributions linked to Federal Election Commission filings. That Republican legislation also increased civil and criminal penalties for failures to comply; required disclosure by lobbyists of all past executive branch and congressional employment; and contained a prohibition on lobbyists' violation of House gift ban rules. Legislation the Democrats introduced this Congress, in the form of H.R. 2316, largely replicated Republican efforts from the previous Congress. At the Judiciary Committee's markup of H.R. 2316, several additional Republican amendments that would strengthen this bill were adopted by voice vote. One provided for a 1-year revolving door ban that would prohibit private lawyers and law firms who enter into contracts with congressional committees from lobbying Congress while under contract to such committee and for 1 year thereafter. That amendment by Representative Chris Cannon was adopted by voice vote at the committee, and was passed out of the House of Representatives. But it is nowhere to be found in the bill before us today. Also, in May, Democrats supported and passed two motions to recommit offered by Republicans that contained even more ethics reforms. Those reforms required lobbyists to disclose which special projects they lobbied for. If a special interest lobbyist is having closed-door meetings with Members of Congress regarding programs that do not benefit all Americans but only benefit a small group of people in one part of the country, then those projects should be disclosed. The Republican motion to recommit also closed the existing loophole that allows State and local government entities to give gifts and travel to Members and their staff that other entities cannot give. It makes little sense to exempt entities that operate on taxpayer dollars from the gift and travel ban. Current rules allow taxpayer-funded entities to give gifts and travel to Members and staff while they try to convince those same Members and staff to send more Federal taxpayer dollars their way. That is not fair, and the Republican motion to recommit, which was adopted, would have ended that practice. The Republicans' motion to recommit also contained a reverse revolving door provision that would have prohibited a congressional employee who was a registered lobbyist prior to their congressional employment from engaging in official business with their former private employer for a period of 1 year. The Republicans' motion to recommit also included the Republican- amended text to H.R. 2317, which required that bundled contributions to political action committees, often referred to as PACs, be fully disclosed. Viewed in the harsh light of recent history, the legislation we consider today is a hollow shell of reform. Just listen to the following list of reforms that Democrats have abandoned. The provisions in this bill requiring the disclosure of contributions bundled together by lobbyists is weaker than the reforms passed in May, as this legislation requires the disclosure of bundled contributions exceeding $15,000 rather than the original $5,000. That means less disclosure and less accountability to the American people. The weakened bundling disclosure provisions in this bill do not even cover bundled disclosures to PACs, a reform that 33 Democrats supported when it was accepted as part of the Republicans' motion to recommit H.R. 2317, and that 158 Democrats supported when it was accepted as part of the Republicans' motion to recommit H.R. 2316. The newspaper Roll Call reported yesterday that, ``The average Democratic incumbent raised over 63 percent more from PACs during the first half of this year than during the same period in 2005.'' Could that be why Democrats don't want to disclose the bundled contributions lobbyists give to PACs? This bill also fails to contain the following reforms that 158 Democrats supported in May. The length of this list defines the credibility chasm that now separates the Democratic Party from American voters. The provision requiring the disclosure of bundled contributions by political action committees? Gone. The provision requiring lobbyists to disclose the special projects they lobby for? Gone. The provision prohibiting State and local governments from giving expensive gifts and lavish travel to Members of Congress in return for taxpayer dollars? Gone. The provision prohibiting congressional employees who were lobbyists from engaging in official business with their former lobbyist employers? Gone. Last May, the Washington Post reported that the Democrats brought up their original legislation ``after scrapping most key elements of an ethics package meant to deliver on Democratic promises to bring unprecedented accountability to Congress.'' Today, essential reforms have been thrown overboard, and the Democratic pledge of reform is sinking fast. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. First of all, I would like to thank the majority leader for acknowledging this bill that we considered today largely mirrors the Republican legislation on ethics from the last Congress. As I mentioned in my opening statement a few minutes ago, I went through all the provisions that, in fact, had been carried over from the Republican bill last year. But I would correct the majority leader in one respect, and that is many of the Republican reforms that were included in our motion to recommit which passed successfully with largely Democratic support earlier, all of those Republican reforms were eliminated. So this bill would have been much improved and much better if all the Republican reforms had, in fact, been included. I regret that was not the case. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to my friend and my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from Texas, Congressman Sessions, for yielding. And, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the conference report to H.R. 1, and I oppose this rule that provides for its consideration as well. Mr. Speaker, while the conference report claims to protect Americans from foreign terrorists, we should be aware that in fact it does just the opposite. Specifically, changes in the Visa Waiver Program can do us great harm. The Visa Waiver Program enables citizens of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 30 days or less without obtaining a visa. To qualify for participation in the Visa Waiver Program, countries must meet certain established criteria which include security standards for their travel documents, and a very low rate of nationals whose visas are denied. The conference report language needlessly lowers the standards of the Visa Waiver Program. How can we consider the expansion of this program knowing that it has already been abused by two terrorists? Peter Gadiel, president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America whose son was killed on 9/11, says, ``As family members of Americans who were murdered on 9/11, we are deeply concerned that some in Congress are working to expand the Visa Waiver Program. It is reckless and irresponsible to consider expanding the program in these perilous times, especially to accept countries that do not even meet current standards. Congress cannot and should not pass a law that would leave the door wide open for more terrorists.'' Lowering the standards for the Visa Waiver Program threatens national security and makes a mockery of our efforts to combat illegal immigration. Many illegal immigrants come to the U.S. legally on a temporary basis and never return to their home country. The conference report allows the administration to permit countries with a history of visa overstayers to participate in the Visa Waiver Program, guaranteeing an increase in illegal immigration. The administration plans to admit countries to the Visa Waiver Program that come nowhere close to meeting current standards. They want to reward countries that have cooperated with us in the war on terror, and we all appreciate the assistance of our allies, but this is no way to conduct foreign policy. It is irresponsible to lower the standards for the Visa Waiver Program and make it easier for terrorists to get into the U.S. This is no way to protect American lives. It is bad enough that the administration doesn't enforce many current immigration laws. It is inexcusable that it would intentionally change the law knowing that it will endanger American lives and increase illegal immigration. It is so obvious that this change in the Visa Waiver Program will result in more illegal immigration and the inevitable entry of terrorists that the administration must now take responsibility for the predictable results. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the conference report as well.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a talented leader and individual, Mr. P.T. Wright. P.T., who currently serves as Acting Deputy Director of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program, is retiring from the Federal government after 34 years of distinguished service. Since P.T. began his career with the former U.S. Customs Service in 1973, he has served with distinction in a number of key positions at the Departments of the Treasury and Homeland Security. In his management roles with U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas; El Paso, Texas; Nogales, Arizona; and Washington, DC, P.T. was intricately involved in the development of customs policies for cargo examination and processing, drug interdiction and traveler processing. Most recently, P.T. brought his track record of outstanding leadership to the Department of Homeland Security's US-VISIT program. The program benefited from his oversight and management of day-to-day operations. P.T.'s familiarity with the communities surrounding our land borders has been a tremendous asset to US-VISIT. P.T. understood that active engagement with border stakeholders was critical in creating a foundation of trust and support upon which to build positive long-term relationships. He tirelessly traveled Southwest border communities to inform and educate border constituents about border management developments and initiatives. As a result of his in-depth knowledge of the land border environment and his ability to speak with clarity and conviction, P.T. earned the affection of border community leaders and gained instant credibility. And when P.T. returned to Washington, he took what he heard from border constituents and helped make real, on- the-ground improvements to US-VISIT. While not yet completed, US-VISIT is now the world's most innovative and integrated biometrics program. This is in no small part due to leaders like P.T. Wherever he went, P.T. spread the message that biometrics are a powerful tool to improve the integrity of our immigration and border management system, to make us safer, and to facilitate legitimate travel and trade. I have no doubt that US-VISIT is on a path to continue to drive the innovative use of biometrics for identity management. P.T. deserves a great deal of credit for that success. Mr. Wright's accomplishments and leadership were recognized last year with the prestigious Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Executive for his extraordinary contributions to our Nation's welfare and security over the course of a U.S. border management career spanning 34 years. P.T. Wright is beloved within the US-VISIT program and around the many federal agencies that have worked with him. All who have had the opportunity to work with P.T. are better off for the experience. His candor and infectious sense of humor will be missed, but we are grateful for his long service and many contributions. Madam Speaker, I urge that my colleagues join me in honoring P.T. Wright for his exceptional achievements and his commitment to excellence. P.T. has been an outstanding ambassador for US-VISIT. I commend P.T. for his service to the United States and I offer him best wishes in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 923, which has broad bipartisan support. At the full committee markup of this legislation last week, members from both sides of the aisle, as Chairman Conyers just mentioned, and from all backgrounds and experiences joined together to ensure the swift prosecution of civil rights-era crimes, which were oftentimes ignored. It is appropriate that the House consider this legislation today, Mr. Speaker. Last week marked the 44th anniversary of the murder of civil rights leader Medgar Evers. Before his death, Medgar Evers was a primary, although unofficial, investigator of the Emmett Till murder. The committee was privileged to hear from his widow, Mrs. Myrlie Evers William. She movingly testified that the conviction of Medgar's killer in 1994, 31 years after his murder, gave a sense of hope to those who experienced this bleak time in our Nation's history. Last week also marked an enormous victory in the fight to bring justice to unsolved civil rights-era murders. A Mississippi jury convicted former Klansman James Ford Seale for his role in the 1964 kidnapping and murder of 19-year-olds Charlie Eddie Moore and Henry Hezekiah Dee. Unfortunately, time is running out for other unsolved civil rights- era murders. To date, the FBI has identified nearly 100 outstanding cases that still need to be solved. Many of these crimes are 30 to 40 years old. Evidence has been lost or destroyed, witnesses and defendants have died, and memories have dimmed. We must act swiftly to help bring long overdue justice to the victims, their families, and the communities that these brutal crimes affected. H.R. 923 directs the Attorney General to designate a deputy chief within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to coordinate the investigation and prosecution of unsolved civil rights- era murders. The bill also directs the Attorney General to designate a supervisory special agent within the Civil Rights Unit of the FBI to further investigate these outstanding cases. Finally, the bill provides much-needed resources to the Department of Justice, the FBI, and State and local law enforcement officials to prosecute these same cases. Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank Chairman Conyers and Representatives Nadler, Franks, Scott, and Forbes, members of the Judiciary Committee, for their commitment to this legislation. I hope my colleagues will support this much-needed bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, it's a great pleasure to recognize our 2007 National Basketball Association champions, the San Antonio Spurs! Last night, the Spurs closed out the series by sweeping the Cleveland Cavaliers to win their fourth NBA Championship in the last nine years. The Spurs again displayed their teamwork, grit, and determination on basketball's biggest stage. The Spurs were led by the post presence of Tim Duncan, the innovation and toughness of Manu Ginobili, the defensive pressure of Bruce Bowen and the quickness of Tony Parker. By controlling the tempo and driving to the basket at will, Tony Parker won his first NBA Finals Most Valuable Player award. For the series, Parker shot an amazing 57 percent from the field and averaged 24.5 points. Much deserved credit goes to Coach Gregg Popovich. With four championships, Coach Popovich has cemented his legacy as one of the greatest basketball coaches of all time. Congratulations go as well to the Spurs' owners, Peter and Julianna Holt and to all the Spurs' supporters. We congratulate the Spurs for their tremendous play, their professionalism on and off the court, and for bringing home yet another title to the Alamo City.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Paul). Further, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I just want to observe that the Dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has arrived on the House floor. And I just want to say, again, how much I enjoyed our working relationship in the development of this bill and again, appreciate all his contributions to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) 3 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee. (Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Act of 2007. Just 2 months ago, Cho Seung-Hui, a 23-year-old student, killed 32 people and injured 20 others in a horrendous shooting at the Virginia Tech campus. Our Nation was shocked by the senselessness and brutality of this attack. In addition to our sadness over the identity of the innocent lives lost, we were angry to learn that Cho Seung-Hui should not have obtained the two guns he obtained to commit this act because he had a history of mental illness. Unfortunately, Virginia State law did not provide for transmittal of records of mental illness to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database, which would have disqualified him from purchasing firearms. Ambiguities in current Federal law also contributed to the system's failure to stop him from obtaining weapons. Today we take the first step in making sure that this tragedy is not repeated. I commend Congresswoman McCarthy and Congressman Dingell and the other cosponsors for their commitment to addressing this issue in a way that protects every American's constitutional right to bear arms. The NICS Improvement Act will ensure that the NICS background check system really is instantaneous and accurate. The act will require Federal agencies to provide relevant criminal mental health and military records for using NICS, create financial incentives for States to provide relevant records for using NICS, improve the accuracy of NICS by requiring Federal agencies and participating States to provide relevant records, require removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records, prohibit Federal fees from NICS checks and to require an audit by the Government Accountability Office of funds already spent for criminal history improvements, since hundreds of millions of dollars intended for NICS were spent on non-NICS programs. To strike a fair balance on the issue of mental adjudications, the bill clarifies existing law to include involuntary commitments to a mental institution, prevents use of Federal adjudications based on medical diagnoses without a finding of dangerousness or mental incapacity, requires all Federal agencies imposing mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for ``relief from disabilities'' and requires States receiving funding to have a relief from disabilities program for mental adjudications and commitments. The tragedy of April 16 can never be erased, but this bill is a step forward in protecting our country from violence by persons who have no right to possess a firearm. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.