Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act.'' This bill demonstrates the strong bipartisan commitment of Congress to address to the terrible crisis in Sudan. Day after day, month after month, we have watched the situation in Darfur deteriorate before our eyes. The genocide occurring there is a clear example and tragic reminder that atrocities still exist in the world today. This bill sends a clear message that the United States and the entire global community must do more to intervene in this catastrophe. It will expand our ability to support peacekeeping operations in the region and will hold accountable those responsible for committing atrocities. I recognize that this bill alone will not stop the violence in Darfur. However, it is a step, and an important step. I am hopeful that this will signal the beginning of our increased engagement with this issue.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5418, a bill ``[t]o Establish a Pilot Program in Certain United States District Courts to Encourage Enhancement of Expertise in Patent Cases Among District Judges,'' deserves the support of the Members of the House. For the past 2 years, the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property has conducted a thorough review of problems associated with the issuance of patents and the adjudication of patent claims. H.R. 5418 focuses on one aspect of patent litigation--the recognition that judges are too often inexperienced in dealing with technical areas of the law and that they rarely have the opportunity to have a patent case go all the way through trial. Patent cases equal only 1 percent of cases filed in U.S. District Courts but are responsible for nearly 10 percent of complex cases. On average, an individual federal judge has only 1 patent case go all the way through trial every 7 years, which means trial-level judges may have no more than 3 or 4 such cases over their entire judicial career. These statistics suggest judges could benefit from the development of greater expertise and that they might develop this ability by handling these cases, which are so vital to American companies. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is designed to enable designated federal judges to have the opportunity to enhance their expertise in handling these cases and to measure the effects, if any, on patent litigation. Introduced by Representatives Darrell Issa and Adam Schiff, the bill followed an October 2005 Subcommittee oversight hearing on proposals to structurally reform the patent litigation system. This bipartisan measure was approved by the Subcommittee on July 27, 2006 and approved by the full Judiciary Committee on September 13, 2006. As amended, the bill will require the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to select 5 districts to participate in a 10-year pilot project. It will also require the Director, on a periodic basis, to prepare and report to Congress on aspects of the project and to make a recommendation on whether the program should be extended, expanded, or made permanent. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation. Those who oppose the Terrorist Surveillance Program say that it violates civil rights, that it sends the wrong message to U.S. citizens and foreign nations, and that it should be stopped. To the contrary, the Terrorist Surveillance Program protects Americans' lives and sends terrorists the message that we will use every legal means possible to defend ourselves. It should be continued, not eliminated. Before 9/11, information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence officials was almost non-existent. The hands of our criminal investigators and intelligence investigators were tied and they were unable to alert each other to terrorist threats. After 9/11, that was changed. Now some want to halt government programs that help intelligence officials figure out who wants to harm us. We cannot afford to return to a pre-9/11 status. We cannot dismiss the possibility of a terrorist attack. We cannot throw away the tools we need to protect us. And the Terrorist Surveillance Program is one of those tools. The ``Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act'' allows the President to continue the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Let's keep our guard up and our defenses strong, and support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2679, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2679, the Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006, which was introduced by our colleague from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler); and I would like to thank him for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, this legislation was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee on November 7 by voice vote. Let me describe the unfair situation that this legislation addresses. Today, under Federal law, attorneys' fees can be demanded in lawsuits against States or localities brought in under the Constitution's Establishment Clause. These lawsuits could mandate, for example, that veterans' memorials must be torn down because they happen to have religious symbols on them; that the Ten Commandments must be removed from public buildings; and that the Boy Scouts cannot use public property. The case law under the Establishment clause is so confused that States and localities know defending themselves in such lawsuits is simply unpredictable. In 2005, for example, the Supreme Court issued two rulings on the same day that contained opposite holdings in cases involving the public display of the Ten Commandments. In one case, the court found a framed copy of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse hallway to be an unconstitutional establishment of religion, but in the other case the court upheld a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. Not only were these two rulings different, but different constitutional tests were used in each case. The threat to States and towns having to pay attorneys' fees in such cases, should they happen to lose at any level, often leads those States and localities to give up whatever rights they might have under the Constitution, even before such cases go to trial. This bill will prevent the legal extortion that currently makes State and local governments, and the Federal Government, accede to demands for the removal of religious imagery when such removal is not even constitutionally compelled by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has stated that ``the State may not establish a religion of secularism in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.'' Contrary to that principle, current litigation rules are hostile to religion because they allow some groups to coerce States and localities into removing any reference to religion in public places. This unfair result is made possible because 42 United States Code, section 1983, and 42 United States Code, section 1988, allow advocacy organizations to put the following choice to localities: either do what we want and remove religious words and imagery from the public square, or risk a single adverse judgment by a single judge that requires you to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in a case you cannot afford to litigate. Consequently, local governments are being forced to accede to the demands of those seeking to remove religious words or tear down symbols, and ban religious people from using the public square, even when allowing those uses might, in fact, be constitutional. H.R. 2679 amends 42 U.S.C. so that attorneys' fees could not be awarded to prevailing parties in Establishment Clause cases. It amends 42 U.S.C. to make clear that while Establishment Clause cases can continue to be brought against State and local governments, they can be brought only for injunctive or declaratory relief. This means that a court can still order that a State official or local government stop doing whatever was an alleged violation of the Establishment Clause. One example of the unfairness this legislation would prevent is a recent case in which the County of Los Angeles was forced to remove a tiny cross from its official county seal that symbolized the founding of that city by missionaries. This tiny cross was on the seal for 47 years. This is costing the county $1 million, as it entailed changing the seal on some 90,000 uniforms, 6,000 buildings, and 12,000 county vehicles. In Redlands, California, the city council reluctantly gave in to demands and agreed to change their official seal. But Redlands did not have the municipal funds to replace the seal. As reported by the Sacramento Bee, ``rather than face the likelihood of costly litigation,'' Redlands residents now ``see blue tape covering the cross on city trucks, while some firefighters have taken electric drills to `obliterate it' from their badges.'' Mr. Speaker, this is just the kind of injustice this bill seeks to correct. Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2679 is clearly constitutional. It has a secular legislative purpose, namely that of preventing the use of the legal system in a manner that extorts money from State and local governments, and the Federal Government, and inhibits their constitutional actions. In doing so, this bill restores the original purpose of 42 U.S.C., which was to protect individual rights, not Establishment Clause claims. H.R. 2679 also does not have the primary effect of either promoting or inhibiting religion. Rather, it simply removes the burdensome effects of the current legal rules. So, again, Mr. Speaker, this bill is constitutional and does not prevent lawsuits from being filed. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and protect the religious rights of all citizens. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have just had a speaker arrive on the House floor, and I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) if the gentleman from New York doesn't object.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, today under Federal law, attorneys fees can be demanded from the winning side in lawsuits against States or localities, or the Federal Government, brought under the Constitution's establishment clause. Current litigation rules are hostile to religion because they allow some groups to force States and localities into removing any reference to religion in public places. H.R. 2679 would prevent the legal extortion that currently forces State and local governments, and the Federal Government, to accede to demands for removal of religious text and imagery when such removal is not compelled by the Constitution. Current laws allow plaintiffs to put the following choice to localities: either do what we want and remove religious words and imagery from your public square or risk a single adverse judgment from a single judge that requires you to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in a case that you can't afford to litigate through the appeals process. Mr. Speaker, local governments are being forced to accede to the demands of opponents, even when their actions are in fact constitutional. The section of the U.S. code H.R. 2679 amends was never intended to apply to establishment clause claims. 42 U.S.C. 1988, which allows attorneys fees, was intended only to allow the award of attorneys fees civil rights laws enacted by Congress after 1866. We need to return to that original purpose and pass this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, some opponents of this legislation are arguing that attorneys fees are needed and that establishment clause lawsuits will be deterred unless the people bringing these lawsuits have their attorneys fees paid. This is simply not true. First, we are aware of no organization that has said they will not bring a good cause case under the establishment clause if they can't be awarded attorneys fees. In fact, the ACLU has said just the opposite. Peter Eliasberg, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, has said recently, ``Money has never been a deciding factor when we take cases.'' When asked specifically what the ACLU would do if attorneys fees in establishment clause cases were prohibited, he said, ``It wouldn't stop us from bringing lawsuits.'' Second, this section of the U.S. Code H.R. 2676 amends was never intended to apply to establishment clause cases. 42 U.S.C. 1988, which allows attorneys fees in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, was intended only to allow the award of attorneys fees under civil rights laws enacted by Congress after 1866. The history of 42 U.S.C. is as follows: in Alaska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society, the Supreme Court held that Federal courts do not have inherent power to award prevailing party attorneys fees to remedy government violations of the law. The Court observed that the American rule, that is, the rule that each party bears its own attorneys fees ``is deeply rooted in our history and in congressional policy.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to make one more point, and that is to emphasize that under H.R. 2679, establishment clause cases can in fact continue to be brought against State and local governments for injunctive or declaratory relief, which means that the court can still order that a State official or local government stop doing whatever it was in alleged violation of the establishment clause

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), who is the author of this legislation. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1038, I call up the bill (H.R. 2679) to amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, trademark law is relevant to the life of every consumer in America. Trademarks give consumers assurance that the goods or services they are buying are the product that the trademark represents. If a customer has purchased items in the past from a specific company that bears a specific mark or logo, the customer has an impression of that company and the goods or services it produces. So trademark law empowers consumers by giving them information that is often critical to their purchasing decisions. Dilution alters the public perception of a trademarked product or service by diminishing its uniqueness over time. The idea of protecting famous trademarks from dilution surfaced in the 1920s. Since then, roughly half of the States have enacted dilution statutes, and Congress passed the Federal Trade Dilution Act nearly a decade ago. As Chairman Sensenbrenner noted, the Federal dilution statute is being amended for two main reasons: first, a 2003 Supreme Court decision involving Victoria's Secret ruled that the standard of harm in dilution cases is actual harm. Based on testimony taken at our two hearings, this is contrary to what Congress intended when it passed the dilution statute and is at odds with the concept itself of dilution. Diluting needs to be stopped at the outset. Once it occurs, the goodwill of a mark cannot be restored. Second, the regional circuits have split as to the meaning of what constitutes a ``famous'' mark, ``distinctiveness,'' ``blurring,'' and ``tarnishment.'' This bill more clearly defines these terms. This will clarify rights and eliminate unnecessary litigation, an outcome that especially benefits smaller businesses that cannot afford to have a misunderstanding of what is permissible under the Federal dilution statute. Finally, amendments developed by the subcommittee and the other body will more clearly protect traditional first amendment uses, such as parody and criticism. These amendments provide balance to the law by strengthening traditional fair-use defenses. In sum, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 683 clarifies a muddied legal landscape and enables the Federal Trademark Dilution Act to operate as Congress intended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman Sensenbrenner just stated, H.R. 1036, the Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act, amends certain technical aspects of the Copyright Act which itself was amended by the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004. A chief objective of the Copyright Reform Act was to delineate between functions of the Copyright Office and the functions of the newly established Copyright Royalty Judges, or CRJs. Unfortunately, during the bill enrollment process, the law was written to state that the Librarian of Congress was charged with authorizing the distribution of funds. The language could be subject to an interpretation that Congress wanted the Librarian to retain a role that had clearly been intended to be exercised only by the new CRJs. The purpose behind this bill is to correct errors such as this and to enable the reform act to operate as Congress originally intended. In addition, the bill contains a number of other noncontroversial stylistic, technical, clarifying, and conforming changes that have been considered and agreed to by Members on both sides of the aisle. As Chairman Sensenbrenner noted, H.R. 1036 has already passed the House of Representatives without objection on November 16, 2005. The reason the bill has returned is because the other body amended it to include language from H.R. 5593, the Royalty Distribution Clarification Act of 2006, which was a bill I authored and introduced along with Ranking Members Conyers and Berman. The purpose of that bill and the incorporated language is to provide the CRJs with explicit statutory language to distribute, prior to the end of a royalty distribution proceeding, part of the royalty pool when it is established who the rightful claimants are. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the amended Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act and send the bill directly to the President for his signature.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6094, the Community Protection Act of 2006, will fix a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has inadvertently put us in danger. The bill allows the Federal Government to detain illegal immigrants convicted of serious crimes for 6-month periods beyond their incarceration, as long as at the end of each 6-month period the detention is renewed by the Department of Justice. Current law states that if a convicted illegal immigrant is ordered deported, but can't be deported because their home country refuses to take them back, the U.S. Government can only detain them for a 6-month period. After that, the Government is forced to release the criminal immigrant knowing they may be a danger to the community. We have a responsibility to make sure the laws of this land protect Americans rather than endanger them. Under this bill convicted illegal immigrants will be detained until arrangements can be made to have them deported. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6095, the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006. It's important to Americans that local law enforcement officials are doing everything possible to arrest and prosecute criminals. And it's important that law enforcement officials know under exactly what circumstances they can lawfully arrest or detain a suspected criminal. Take for instance the situation in which a police officer has reasonable suspicion to stop an individual and finds out that individual is in the United States in violation of our immigration laws. It's contrary to common sense that the police officer would not be able to arrest that person simply because immigration is a Federal responsibility. But this is the argument of those who oppose this bill. H.R. 6095 affirms the authority of State and local law enforcement officials to investigate, apprehend, and arrest illegal immigrants. Several Federal Courts of Appeals, including the Tenth and Fifth Circuits, have agreed that State and local law enforcement officials have the authority to do so. Unfortunately, opponents of this legislation believe that if a police officer comes in contact with a suspected criminal who has violated immigration law, they should simply let the person go. This situation was addressed in the 1996 immigration legislation that I authored. Because of that law, the Immigration and Nationality Act contains section 287(g), which allows the Attorney General to enter into written agreements with States and localities to set out provisions under which State and local law enforcement officers can help enforce Federal immigration laws. But the law does not mean that just because there is no such written agreement, the police don't have the authority to arrest illegal immigrants. Law enforcement officers should arrest anyone who breaks the law. This bill is necessary to settle the debate once and for all. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006, H.R. 6095. It will not protect United States borders, strengthen our national security, or address the nation's immigration problems comprehensively. Instead of voting on H.R. 6095 and other bills that raise a few issues on a piecemeal basis, we should be going to conference to resolve the differences between the House and Senate immigration reform bills that have already passed. H.R. 6095 presents a sense of Congress that the Attorney General should adopt, not later than three months after the date of the enactment, uniform guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses to be followed by each United States attorney in the United States. It also requires the hiring of additional personnel for prosecuting alien smuggling cases. For each year from FY2008 through FY2013, subject to the availability of appropriations, the Justice Department would be required to increase by not less than 20 the number of attorneys in the offices of United States attorneys employed to prosecute alien smuggling cases. I find nothing objectionable about these provisions, but I do not believe that they will substantially improve our ability to deal with the alien smuggling problem. It would be more productive to consider an alien smuggling bill that I introduced a few years ago, the Commercial Alien Smuggling Elimination Act of 2003, the CASE Act. It would establish a three-point program that was drafted with assistance from government officials who are involved in the investigation, disruption, and prosecution of commercial alien smugglers. H.R. 6095 would give State and local police officers the authority to enforce civil immigration laws. I do not want local police forces to enforce immigration law. Immigration violations are different from the typical criminal offenses that police officers normally face. The typical law enforcement activities of local police officers involve crimes such as murders, assaults, narcotics, robberies, burglaries, domestic violence, and traffic violations. It would require extensive training to prepare them to enforce civil immigration provisions. If police act as immigration agents, undocumented immigrants are likely to be afraid to contact the police when a crime has been committed. If they as victims, witnesses, or concerned residents contact the police, they or their family members could risk deportation. Experience shows that this fear would extend not only to contact with local police, but also to the fire department, hospitals, and the public school system. H.R. 6095 also would undermine local police's role in enhancing national security. National security experts and State and local law enforcement officers agree that good intelligence and strong community relationships are the keys to keeping our Nation and our streets safe. Undocumented immigrants who might otherwise be helpful to security investigators would be reluctant to come forward for fear of immigration consequences. H.R. 6095 has an ``Ending Catch and Release Act of 2006,'' title, but the provisions under that title deal with injunctions in federal immigration litigation. ``Catch and release'' is a reference to the practice of apprehending aliens in the vicinity of the border and then releasing them pending removal proceedings. Apparently, the connection is the permanent injunction in Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzalez, No. 82- 1107KN (C.D.Cal. 1982). Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has claimed that the Orantes injunction interferes with efforts to end the catch and release practice. I am not aware of any provision in the Orantes injunction that would interfere with efforts to end the catch and release practice. In issuing the injunction, the court found that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had engaged in a pattern and practice of coercing and otherwise improperly encouraging Salvadorans to waive their rights to a deportation hearing and to seek asylum as a defense to deportation. H.R. 6095 appears to be an attempt to terminate the Orantes injunction through legislation, but its reach goes beyond the injunction. Among other things, a judge would not be permitted to provide relief in any immigration case without attaching a written explanation of the impact the relief would have on national security, border security, immigration administration and enforcement, and public safety. It also would impose arbitrary, unreasonable time limits on courts attempting to provide prospective relief. DHS has filed a motion to dissolve the injunction. Wilfredo v. Gonzales, No. CV 82-1107MM (C.D.Cal. 2005). I urge you to vote against the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006. August 14, 2006. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Sub-Committee on Immigration, Washington, DC. Dear Sub-Committee Members: I am writing to respond to your invitation to testify before your sub-committee hearing on Wednesday, August 16th, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., at the Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline St., Houston Texas. First let me say as Chief of the Houston Police Department (HPD) and also as President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCC) that I appreciate and wish to thank you for the honor and privilege of putting into the official congressional record Law Enforcement's comments and concerns on Immigration prior to the full enactment of any legislation on this important subject. I will be submitting as an attachment to my testimony today the MCC's Immigration Committee Recommendations for Enforcement of Immigration Laws by Local Police Agencies (chaired by my Deputy Director Craig E. Ferrell, Jr.), which were adopted on June 7th by the MCC for inclusion in the official congressional record. I also have additional attachments for the sub-committee members, but due to their length I have been told they can not be part of the written record. Let me begin by giving my reaction to a recent federal legislative amendment aimed at eliminating federal law enforcement funding to local police. In short, both myself and chiefs of major cities across the country are dismayed by any legislative action aimed at excluding the City of Houston and/or other local jurisdictions from receiving needed federal law enforcement funds. These funds are needed to put more officers on the streets of Houston, protect our neighborhoods, investigate and prevent murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, burglaries, and provide for homeland security efforts. It seems clear that some in Congress and the public fervently believe local police should become involved in enforcing federal civil immigration laws. Given these strong beliefs, we are left to wonder why the recent legislative amendments were not written to provide increased federal funding to local police to support such enforcement. Instead the amendments have sought to eliminate funding and penalize not only the City of Houston, but also Harris County, and other local and national jurisdictions, which will be negatively effected by this amendment. The end result of any law enforcement funding exclusion amendment, if it is applied to Houston and other communities like Houston would be to make our local communities less safe. In other words these amendments would have the opposite effect of their purported purpose. Illegal immigration is being hotly debated in Congress and in our local communities. Opinions on how to address this complex issue differ greatly and emotions run high. Extremes exist on either side of the debate as represented by the recent mass demonstrations by immigrant groups and their supporters and the funding exclusion amendment and the referendum effort of the group Protect Our Citizens in Houston. Both myself and chiefs of police in MCC representing first responders to over fifty (50) million residents respectfully disagree with any effort to eliminate federal law enforcement funding and in effort to create an unfunded mandate. Illegal immigration is an issue that effects our nation as a whole and any solution should begin first at the federal level with securing the borders and increasing enforcement by federal agencies. Local enforcement of immigration laws raises complex legal, logistical and resource issues for local communities and their police agencies. The City of Houston's policies and those of most major cities across America reflect the challenges and realities faced by a City and police agency that is responsible for protecting and serving a diverse community comprised of citizens, non-citizens, legal residents, visitors and undocumented immigrants. The City's policies seek to best protect and serve this diverse community as a whole, while taking into account: the reality that the City does not have unlimited resources; its officers are prohibited by state law from racial profiling and arresting persons without warrants and without well established probable cause; is subject to civil liability for violating such laws; and has the clear need to foster assistance and cooperation from the public including those persons who may be undocumented immigrants. In an effort to clarify the City's reasoned and model approach to this issue I have provided the following statements regarding the City's policy and why we oppose the positions represented by the federal fund exclusion amendment and Protect Our Citizens' referendum. City does not have a sanctuary policy Currently, the police department is operating under General Order 500-5 [See attached Exhibit 1]. General Order 500-5 was implemented in 1992 by then Chief Nuchia, who is currently serving as a Justice in the Texas Judiciary's First Court of Appeals. The General Order includes the following provisions: Houston police officers may not stop or apprehend individuals solely on the belief that they are in this country illegally. Officers shall not make inquiries as to the citizenship status of any person, nor will officers detain or arrest persons solely on the belief that they are in the country illegally. Officers will contact the [Federal Immigration Authorities] regarding a person only if that person is arrested on a separate criminal charge (other than Class C misdemeanor) and the officer knows the prisoner is an illegal alien.'' The department has issued clarifications of our ``immigration'' policies and implemented changes to the department's enforcement policies to increase cooperation between the department and federal agencies on immigration matters that are criminal in nature. [Exhibit 2] In the summer of 2005, I directed Executive Assistant Chief Thaler, Assistant Chief Perales and Deputy Director/General Counsel Craig Ferrell to meet jointly with representatives of the U.S. Attorney's office and I.C.E. to discuss the department's response to immigration detainers. Based on those discussions, the department developed procedures to accept and act upon criminal immigration detainers issued by I.C.E. The police department further clarified that our officers are allowed to take into custody any person who the federal authorities state is a criminal suspect and for whom they will authorize detention directly into a federal detention facility. In addition, whenever the department has a person in custody on other criminal charges, the department will not release the person from custody for up to 24 hours after we have received formal notice from federal authorities that they are wanted for criminal violations. The City is committed to assisting I.C.E and any other federal agency wherever possible and reasonable to enforce against criminal violations and address criminal matters. The Houston Police Department has always acted to enforce laws relative to criminal violations and criminal matters, accepted criminal warrants and criminal detainers and assisted in criminal investigations, regardless of whether they emanated from other jurisdictions or arose out of federal or state laws. Our officers are currently involved in various federal task forces addressing criminal matters including violent criminal gangs. Because we have and will continue to enforce laws relative to criminal violations against any and all persons, regardless of their immigration status, the department and thus the City does not have a ``sanctuary policy'' as opponents of our policies have alleged. This is not only the City's or the police department's opinion but also that of Robert Rutt the Deputy Special Agent in Charge for Immigration and Customs Enforcement [I.C.E]. In a recent Houston Chronicle article he stated that ``Houston is not a sanctuary City . . .'' In the same article he further acknowledged the police department's significant cooperation with I.C.E. [Exhibit 3] Concerns with local enforcement of federal immigration law Local enforcement of federal immigration laws raises many daunting and complex legal, logistical and resource issues for the City of Houston and the diverse community it serves. Like other jurisdictions our policy in this area must recognize the obstacles, pitfalls, dangers and negative consequences to local policing that would be caused by immigration enforcement at the local level. * * * * * were detained by the police were later determined to be either citizens or legal immigrants with permission to be in the country. The Katy police department faced suits from these individuals and eventually settled their claims out of court. Because local police officers currently lack clear authority to enforce immigration laws, are limited in their ability to arrest without a warrant, are prohibited from racial profiling and lack the training and experience to enforce complex federal immigration laws, it is more likely the City/police department will face the risk of civil liability and litigation if we actively enforced federal immigration laws.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and appreciate Chairman King's leadership on this issue. There is perhaps no more important issue than national security. And border security is national security. So I am pleased that the House Leadership has chosen to bring this bill to a vote. And because our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol say they want to secure the borders, I am hopeful this bill will soon be signed by the President. The bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to prevent illegal entry into the United States within 18 months of enactment by using technological and physical infrastructures. Many of us have been calling for this for years. In fact, another provision of H.R. 6061 builds on a concept included in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which I authored as Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee. In that bill we required fencing to be built near San Diego, California, because of the large number of illegal border crossings. That fencing was built and it was effective--the number of illegal immigrants crossing in that area fell drastically. And now illegal immigrants cross the border in places with no barriers or that have only vehicle barriers that are easy to climb. Over one million people were apprehended crossing the border illegally last year; millions of others crossed illegally but were not apprehended. It is clear that Congress and the Administration need to do everything possible to secure the border. Anything less leaves our country more vulnerable to terrorist attack and leaves our citizens and legal immigrants paying the welfare, education, healthcare and other costs associated with illegal immigration. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution to reform the earmark process in Congress. Not all spending requests are bad. Many of them fund legitimate public projects. The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and Members of Congress are often in a better position to determine the priorities of their districts than government employees in Washington. However, the often secret process that has been used in recent years to fund earmarks has led to wasteful and unnecessary spending. The earmark process needs more sunshine on it, and this new rule provides for that. This bill will bring greater transparency to the legislative process, ensuring that Members of Congress are held accountable for their requests. By requiring a list of earmarks and their sponsors to accompany every bill and conference report considered by the House we will deter wrongful behavior and give the public a better view of what their elected officials are doing in Washington. Full disclosure will enable our constituents to decide whether spending requests are justified and whether they serve the public interest. I have long advocated for this important reform and I am glad the House is acting on it. Republicans in the House have a strong record of implementing ethics reform. This rule change governing earmarks represents a great improvement over the current system and is another example of our party's leadership on ethics reform. At this time, I request unanimous consent to place in the Record an op-ed I wrote on the subject. I am hopeful that we will continue to implement additional reforms, including greater public disclosure of lobbying activities, and continue to uphold the integrity of the House. Mr. Speaker, I am glad this resolution has been brought to the floor and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives has an opportunity to support the U.S. intellectual property industries by approving the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. The agreement is supported by both the International Intellectual Property Association, which is comprised of seven copyright-based trade associations representing over 1,900 different companies, and the Information Technology Industry Council, representing 35 leading high- tech industries, because it will raise the level of intellectual property protection in Oman in a number of ways. The agreement implements the WIPO Internet Treaties, which provide standards for digital copyrighted material; it protects copyrighted works for extended terms, including 95 years for sound recordings and performances; and it ensures that copyright owners will have the exclusive right to make their works available online. The agreement will also strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights in Oman by including agreed upon criminal standards for copyright infringement with stronger remedies and penalties and by criminalizing end user piracy. These provisions will provide a strong deterrence against piracy and counterfeiting. Finally, Oman has committed to zero tariffs on all software, movies, music, consumer products, books and magazines exported into the country and to zero tariffs on technology products used to access the Internet. I urge my colleagues to support this important sector of the U.S. economy and vote in favor of the Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation. It protects families and upholds the rule of law. Any gambling not currently regulated by the states is illegal in this country. To avoid such regulation, gambling organizations have established themselves offshore and have put their businesses on the World Wide Web. And the Internet has given anyone who knows how to use a computer-- including children--access to unlimited gambling. Unfortunately, illegal gambling businesses are rarely prosecuted. These 24-hour-a-day businesses entice children and adults and can lead to addiction, criminal behavior, financial troubles, and worse. What these Internet sites do impacts every American. Also, officials from the FBI recently testified that Internet gambling serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities by terrorists. The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act simply updates current law to make sure that all methods of gambling, even those done using the latest and ever-changing technologies, are covered under the established law known as the Wire Act. The bill does this while at the same time ensuring that a State has the right to regulate gambling that happens solely within that State's borders. And H.R. 4411 marginalizes organized gambling by banning those businesses from taking checks, wire transfers, and credit cards in payment for illegal gambling. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Leach for offering this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Ninety-Nines, Inc. the International Organization of Women Pilots, which was founded by Amelia Earhart in 1929, is holding their International Conference in Washington, DC, July 5 through July 9, 2006. Many of their members served as WASPS during World War II, ferrying airplanes throughout the United States and Europe. Today, their members are commercial airline pilots for major airlines, general aviation pilots and pilots in the Armed Forces serving all over the world. The Ninety-Nines mission in the fields of aviation and aerospace is primarily educational and charitable. They have sponsored aerospace workshops for teachers, airport tours for school children, fear-of- flying clinics for airline passengers and flight revalidation seminars. More than 75 percent of the Federal Aviation Administration pilot safety programs in the United States are sponsored by the Ninety-Nines. Their visit to Washington during the Fourth of July is a special celebration and will allow them to honor women in aviation in this very special city that speaks to the heart of each of their members.