Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat the chairman's description of the bill's contents, but I would note that his bill is identical to the text of the legislation we passed in the last Congress by a vote of 418-0. H.R. 1038 helps the Multidistrict Litigation Panel discharge its responsibilities by streamlining the adjudication of complex, multidistrict cases in a manner that is fair to all litigants.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it's time for Congress to enact meaningful bankruptcy reform. Unless we take action, people will continue to abuse the system by filing for bankruptcy as an easy out. When people avoid their debts, someone still has to pay. Companies absorb the cost of unpaid debts by passing along these costs to consumers. Over a million people file for bankruptcy each year. Many of these filings are legitimate attempts by debtors to pay their debts and obtain a fresh start. However, bankruptcy is too often used as a way to avoid responsibilities. Unnecessary bankruptcy filings continue to increase at dramatic rates. Often, individuals go on spending sprees for luxury goods and services just before filing for bankruptcy, knowing that they can wipe the slate clean and avoid paying for what they bought. This is bad for consumers and bad for our economy. When individuals avoid their debts when they could be paid off, the costs are passed on to America's businesses and consumers. We must ensure that debtors actually belong in bankruptcy and are not using the system to avoid their obligations. This bill stops abuse by eliminating incentives in the current bankruptcy system that actually encourage consumer bankruptcy filings and abuse. It requires those who can repay their debts to do so. It also gives courts greater power to dismiss frivolous or abusive bankruptcy filings and punish lawyers who encourage these filings. This bill also contains provisions I support to address those who abuse state homestead laws and attempt to shelter their wealth in multi-million dollar mansions. It requires a debtor to own their homestead for at least 40 months before he or she can use state exemption law. And, if a debtor has committed an intentional tort, a criminal act, or violated securities laws, their homestead exemption will be capped at $125,000. These provisions will close the loophole that currently allows debtors to abuse the homestead provision. This legislation will encourage personal responsibility, protect consumers, and ensure that bankruptcy is used only as a last resort and is not abused by those who can afford to repay their debts.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for yielding this time. Mr. Speaker, in the last 2 years, the economy has created over 3 million new jobs. The unemployment rate is down. Our Nation's total output, or Gross Domestic Product, is up. Home ownership is at a record high, and personal income has increased. Our economy is strong. To ensure that we continue to enjoy prosperity, Congress should support a pro-economic growth agenda that creates jobs and helps small businesses grow. This includes reducing taxes. Our families and our country are better off when they keep more of what they earn. One way to enable them to do that is to pass H.R. 8, which permanently repeals the punitive death tax. This tax often prevents parents from passing along their life's work and savings to their children. Family farms, ranches and small businesses are forced to be sold to satisfy the death tax rates which can reach 55 percent. No one should be taxed throughout their lifetime and then have their property retaxed at the time of their death. It is the wrong tax at the wrong time on the wrong people.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time to consider in the House a resolution honoring the life and achievements of His Holiness Pope John Paul II and expressing profound sorrow on his death; the resolution shall be considered as read; the resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees; and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and the preamble to final adoption without intervening motion.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 867.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. And, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Last October, 282 Members of Congress voted for landmark legislation that fulfilled our duty to our constituents to make America an appreciably safer place. H.R. 10 truly reflected the hard-earned lesson of 9/11. Unfortunately, the other body saw fit to strip from the bill some of its most vital provisions, measures designed to ensure that terrorists would never again be able to carry out their nefarious plots by abusing our immigration system and our identity documents. Today, leadership is fulfilling a commitment that it made to the American people that these provisions would yet become law. Today's rule makes the text of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, a self-executing amendment to the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) introduced, and the House last month passed, the REAL ID Act containing many of the provisions stripped from the intelligence reform bill last year. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for ensuring that the will of this House will be done, and that this crucial legislation will be enacted into law. The goal of the REAL ID Act is straightforward. It seeks to prevent another catastrophic terrorist act by deterring terrorist travel. These terrorist methods of operation were mentioned both in the 9/11 Commission report and the 9/11 staff report on terrorist travel. Page 49 of the terrorist travel report states: ``Abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activities.'' Page 59 states: ``Members of al Qaeda clearly valued freedom of movement as critical to their ability to plan and carry out the attacks prior to September 11.'' The REAL ID Act contains four provisions aimed at disrupting terrorist travel. First, it addresses the use of a driver's license as a form of Federal identification. American citizens have the right to know who is in their country, that people are who they say they are, and that the name on the driver's license is the real holder's name, not some alias. The REAL ID Act will establish a uniform rule for all States that temporary driver's licenses for foreign visitors expire when their visa terms expire and establish tough rules for confirming identity before driver's licenses are issued. Second, this legislation will tighten our asylum system. Some judges have made asylum laws vulnerable to fraud and abuse. We will end judge- imposed presumptions that benefit suspected terrorists so that we will stop providing them a safe haven. The REAL ID Act will reduce the opportunity for immigration fraud so that we can protect honest asylum seekers and stop rewarding the terrorists and criminals who falsely claim persecution. Third, the REAL ID Act will waive Federal laws to the extent necessary to complete gaps in the San Diego border security fence which is still unfinished 8 years after congressional authorization. The REAL ID Act contains one final commonsense provision that helps protect Americans from terrorists who have been able to successfully infiltrate the United States: currently, certain terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility to our country are not also grounds for deportation. The REAL ID Act makes aliens deportable from the U.S. for terrorism-related offenses to the same extent that they would be inadmissible to the United States to begin with. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me time, and I do support the Graves-Boucher amendment. This commonsense amendment would prevent car and truck rental companies from being held liable for injury and property damage in situations where they are not at fault. Currently, some States allow vehicle rental companies to be held vicariously liable. This means they are held responsible even when they are not at fault. When a company rents a car or truck and has no way to foresee or prevent an accident, they should not be held liable simply because they have deep pockets. The Graves-Boucher amendment would create a national standard, providing that vehicle rental companies can only be held liable in situations where they have actually been negligent. This amendment in no way lets companies off the hook when they have been negligent. Mr. Chairman, I support the Graves-Boucher amendment because it requires the legal system to treat vehicle rental companies fairly.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, all Americans should thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for their leadership on this most important issue. The Class Action Fairness Act is a bipartisan, sensible bill that clarifies the rights of consumers and restores confidence in America's judicial system. It reforms the class action system and addresses the abuses that harm so many Americans. We have all heard of the lawsuits in which plaintiffs walk away with pennies, sometimes literally, while the attorneys walk away with millions of dollars in fees. This problem will be addressed by providing greater scrutiny over settlements that involve coupons or very small cash amounts. This legislation also ensures that deserving plaintiffs are able to make full use of the class action system. It allows easier removal of class action cases to Federal courts. This is important because class actions tend to affect numerous Americans and often involve millions of dollars. Federal court is the right place for such large lawsuits. Moving more class actions to Federal courts also prevents one of the worst problems in class actions today, forum shopping. Mr. Speaker, while many concessions were made on both sides, this is still a very worthwhile bill that contains many good reforms, and I fully support it and look forward to its enactment into law and also encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, frivolous lawsuits bankrupt individuals, ruin reputations, drive up insurance premiums, increase health care costs and put a drag on the economy. For example, the chief executive officer of San Antonio's Methodist Children's Hospital was sued after he stepped into a patient's room and simply asked how he was doing. Of course, a jury cleared him of any wrongdoing. Today, almost any party can bring any suit in almost any jurisdiction. But there is a remedy: The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. It requires judges to issue sanctions, including reimbursement of attorney's fees when an attorney files a frivolous claim. This will make a lawyer think twice before filing a frivolous lawsuit. Also this legislation prevents forum shopping. It requires that personal injury claims be filed only where the plaintiff resides, where the injury occurred, or in the State or county where the defendant's principal place of business is located. The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act is sensible reform that will help restore confidence in America's justice system.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Sessions amendment. This amendment helps ensure that deportable aliens are actually removed from the United States. Incredibly, only 13 percent of the illegal aliens arrested and ordered deported are actually removed from the country. Illegal aliens trying to sneak across the borders realize that, even if they get caught, they likely will never be required to leave. Of course, this only encourages illegal immigration. The Sessions amendment helps correct this problem by giving the Department of Homeland Security guidance on the use of delivery bonds. Delivery bonds are already authorized under current law. This is nothing new. They require aliens to post a cash deposit and provide a written commitment they will appear in court. If the alien who posts bond violates any conditions of the bond, the bonding agent can take the alien into custody and surrender him to the Department of Homeland Security. The Sessions amendment improves the use of delivery bonds by setting up 10 turn-in centers around the country to help bonding agents turn over deportable aliens to the Department of Homeland Security. It also sets up a system to encourage bonding agents to keep looking for deportable aliens and turn them into DHS when they are found. Illegal aliens, who comprise over 20 percent of all Federal prisoners today, are a serious problem in the United States and pose, obviously, a homeland security threat. We need to make sure that aliens who are deported by a court of law are in fact removed from the country. The Sessions amendment helps make sure that happens.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Nadler amendment, which would strip the asylum reforms from the ``REAL ID Act.'' The asylum provisions in the REAL ID Act are essential. The 9/11 Commission specifically noted that ``a number of terrorists . . . abused the asylum system.'' Just last year, a Pakistani national who had applied for asylum was caught while planning to blow up a subway station during the Republican Convention in New York City. Under a 9th Circuit decision, a judge can determine that an asylum applicant is lying and still be required to grant the applicant admission. The DOJ Inspector General reported that it was common for asylum applicants to make claims that they were falsely accused of being terrorists. In this situation, even if the judge believes that the applicant is lying and is a terrorist, the judge may still be required to approve the application. The REAL ID Act reverses this 9th Circuit decision and makes it harder for terrorists to exploit our asylum system. It allows immigration judges--like judges in most other courts--to determine whether the asylum seeker is telling the truth. Judges in ordinary criminal courts of law are routinely allowed to determine whether they believe a defendant is lying. Yet, under current law, immigration judges cannot make this common sense determination. The REAL ID Act is essential in stopping asylum abuse. This amendment would strike the asylum reform provisions and make it easier for suspected terrorists to receive asylum.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this bill is the first step back on the long road to real homeland security. First, this bill prevents terrorists and others from getting driver's licenses by requiring applicants to prove that they are in the country legally. Driver's licenses can be used to board an aircraft, open a bank account and get a job. To preserve our security, we must deny terrorists the ability to obtain this form of identification. In addition, this legislation makes it harder for terrorists to exploit our asylum system. It also requires the completion of the 14- mile San Diego border fence, which Congress approved in 1996. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this legislation strengthens our ability to deport terrorists. Current law makes terrorists inadmissible for certain offenses but not deportable for those same offenses. Congress can improve homeland security by passing this legislation. But if the administration wants to continue to protect the lives of Americans, it can also take immediate steps to change policies that have encouraged illegal immigration. It should start by requesting funding for all of the border enforcement positions that Congress authorized last year. The President's budget only requests enough funds for 210 new border patrol agents, even though Congress authorized 2,000 new agents. Further, the administration must start fining employers for hiring illegal immigrants. Last year it did not fine a single employer. The administration also should change its policy of recognizing consular identification cards issued by other countries. These cards are simply not secure or reliable. They give terrorists and illegal aliens another way to remain undetected in the United States. Mr. Chairman, the REAL ID Act marks the beginning of an effort to make America safer. I hope the administration will fully support us in this effort.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the University of Texas Longhorns, playing in the Rose Bowl for the first time in the team's 110-year history, made the New Year's Day game a memorable one. Twice the Longhorns came from behind the Michigan Wolverines to win 38-37 as the clock ran out in what many contend was the most exciting Rose Bowl ever. UT Quarterback Vince Young rushed for 192 yards and four touchdowns, a Rose Bowl record. He also threw for 180 yards and a touchdown. This capped a 10-1 regular season record. The University of Texas has a great football team, coached by Mack Brown. But it has a great academic reputation, too. Led by President Larry Faulkner, UT recently was ranked as the 15th best university in the world by the Times of London newspaper. Among U.S. public universities, only the University of California at Berkeley was listed ahead of UT. It's a pleasure to cite the strengths of UT. It's also a pleasure to represent such a premiere University in Congress.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, CIA Director Porter Goss is the latest Bush administration official to encounter the media bias Americans know well: the use of anonymous sources to level partisan charges. It was on display in a front page Washington Post story this week. It quoted four former CIA officials, none of whom was mentioned by name. The frequent use of anonymous sources is part of the media's institutional problem. When anonymous sources are used it is too easy for disgruntled former employees or others to settle scores. It is also contrary to journalistic standards and ethics. In fact, the Washington Post editorial page has called for an overhaul of the CIA in light of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Director Goss is doing exactly what is needed to reform and restructure the CIA. For writing a story that quoted anonymous sources and placing it on the front page, this week's Media Bias Award goes to the Washington Post.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 150, the Internet Tax and Nondiscrimination Act. This legislation would reinstate the moratorium on Internet access taxation and multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce for three years. Internet commerce is still relatively new and has yet to reach its full potential. The imposition of taxes would threaten the future growth of e-commerce and would discourage companies from using the Internet to conduct business. Internet taxation would create regional and international barriers to global trade. The Internet is also a major source of information and resources for many individuals and families. Taxes could make Internet access unaffordable for some Americans. Our goal should be to encourage and promote Internet access. Americans should be able to access the Internet without being subject to state and local taxes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, most Americans now realize that Big Media, network TV news programs and the largest newspapers and news magazines, tried to determine the outcome of the Presidential election. A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism confirms what Americans already suspected: George Bush received more than twice as much negative coverage as John Kerry. Think what President Bush's margin of victory would have been without the media bias. But the danger is the media bias will continue. That is a real threat to democracy. When the American people do not have the facts, the unvarnished truth, they cannot make the best decisions and we do not have good government. Big Media needs to reassure the American people that they will strive for objectivity and seek to restore their reputation as the protector of democracy, rather than remaining a threat to it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1417 passed the House unanimously in March. The bill before us today reflects noncontroversial amendments added by the Senate. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) indicated, the Senate included some inadvertent, but serious, drafting errors when it passed the bill with these amendments in October. It is now necessary to adopt a concurrent resolution that reflects the fixes to those errors. The Senate passed this resolution yesterday. H.R. 1417 is a bipartisan effort to reform the process of copyright royalty rate-making and distribution in a way that is fair to all participants. It is important to the artists, songwriters, music publishers, and webcasters caught in a long, laborious, and costly royalty system. It will provide an incentive for the creation and distribution of content. The copyright royalty rate-making and distribution process is one of the most complicated and arcane areas of our legal system, but it affects an expansive universe of people and industries. This bill addresses two complaints about the current system: cost and lack of stability and accountability. Work on reforms to this system has been a long and tough process over the past 3 years. I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Berman) for their commitment to the process. This legislation is necessary to ensure an efficient and effective system for copyright royalties. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the day after the election President Bush said, ``So today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this Nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it.'' Regrettably, even after the election, the attacks on President Bush have continued. Leading the pack were opinion makers of the New York Times. A November 5 Times column headlined ``No Surrender'' described President Bush as ``a radical, the leader of a coalition which deeply dislikes America.'' Perhaps the most notable example of why national unity will be difficult to achieve were the words of Senator Kerry's running mate, Senator John Edwards. In his concession speech, Senator Edwards used the phrase ``the battle rages'' four times. He described the battle as one where ``the fight has just begun.'' President Bush has reached out to his opponents. Unfortunately, they have turned their backs on him.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, thousands of illegal aliens pour over our southern border each day. A significant number of these aliens are not Mexican, and cannot simply be sent back over the border. Border Patrol agents must process aliens from countries other than Mexico and are forced to release them into our communities pending a hearing. This is because there is not enough bed space in our detention facilities. When illegal aliens are released pending a hearing, it is estimated that 85 percent will never be heard from again. This process has become known as the ``catch and release'' program, and it threatens our national security. The Department of Homeland Security recently reported that from October through June over 44,000 non-Mexican aliens were apprehended on the southern border from countries such as Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. The hard work of our Border Patrol agents is wasted when we do not have enough detention space. The Bonilla amendment would help correct this problem by authorizing an increase of 2,500 detention bed spaces for each of the next two years. The lack of detention space has reached a crisis. Every day we are releasing aliens from dozens of countries into our communities. We don't know if these individuals are criminals or terrorists. The Bonilla amendment curtails the catch and release program on our southern border. It lets the U.S. detain illegal immigrants who enter our country rather than release them in our communities.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, September 14 2004, the House debated and passed H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, a bill I authored to help prevent frivolous lawsuits and the notorious practice of forum shopping from ruining America's small businesses. In the midst of floor debate on H.R. 4571, the Congressional Research Service issued a self-described ``rush memorandum'' dated September 14, 2004, to the minority staff of the House Judiciary Committee, which stated ``H.R. 4571 does provide an option for filing [a lawsuit] where a business has a principal place of business . . . However, if a defendant's principal place of business was not in the United States, then this option could not be exercised in a United States court. Consequently, it would appear that in certain circumstances, a United States citizen or resident injured in this country would not have a judicial forum in the United States in which to seek relief.'' This statement left the misleading impression that H.R. 4571, were it to become law, would somehow make it more difficult to bring some personal injury lawsuits in the United States. Not surprisingly, the misleading impression left by the CRS memorandum was exploited by those on the opposite side of the aisle in the midst of debate on H.R. 4571, and later by the press. For example, a report in CongressDaily/A.M. describing debate on H.R. 4571 stated ``Many Democrats . . . cited a Congressional Research Service memorandum advising lawmakers that the bill could prevent U.S. citizens from having their cases heard in a U.S. court if the defendant's main place of business is located in a foreign country. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., sarcastically called the legislation `the Foreign Corporation Protection Act.''' Those statements are deeply misleading, and here's why. In fact, nothing in H.R. 4571 would prevent cases from being brought against foreign defendants that are not already precluded under current law. I wrote to CRS requesting a clarification of current law, and I received the following response: ``[U]nder the Due Process Clause, a foreign corporation that had its principal place of business overseas, engaged in little or no economic activity in the United States, and did not otherwise subject itself to the jurisdiction of the United States, could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the various state courts. If such a corporation engaged in a tortious activity such as manufacturing a defective product, then a plaintiff would be unable to bring an action in a state court forum for such tortious activity, even if the product caused an injury in the United States. In such a case, an injured party would be required to seek compensation in the courts of another country.'' This makes clear that while some Members on the other side of the aisle claimed that H.R. 4571, if enacted, would preclude certain lawsuits from being brought that could be brought under current law, the Due Process Clause of the Constitution has precluded under current law, and would continue to preclude under H.R. 4571, some plaintiffs from bringing an action in a state court forum against a foreign defendant for tortious activity in certain circumstances, even if the product caused an injury in the United States. The bottom line is that H.R. 4571 would do nothing to change current law in that regard. Indeed, no legislation could change current law in that regard since the constitutional requirements of the Due Process Clause cannot be changed by legislation. In fact, the venue statute of the gentleman from Washington Mr. Inslee's own state provides that ``An action . . . for the recovery of damages for injuries to the person or for injury to personal property may be brought, at the plaintiffs option, either in the district in which the cause of action, or some part thereof, arose, or in the district in which the defendant, or, if there be more than one defendant, where some one of the defendants, resides at the time the complaint is filed.'' That venue standard is for all practical purposes the same as that provided in H.R. 4571. H.R. 4571 provides that a personal injury lawsuit could be brought in any state where the person bringing the claim resides at the time of filing or resided at the time of the alleged injury, any state where the alleged injury or circumstances giving rise to the personal injury claim allegedly occurred, or where the defendant's principal place of business is located. Insofar as opponents of H.R. 4571 have a complaint regarding the inability to bring certain lawsuits against foreign corporations in the United States, their complaint is with the Constitution's Due Process Clause, and not with H.R. 4571, which simply reflects the same standard that prevails among the state's venue laws, subject of course to the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. If a foreign corporation's contacts with the United States are so minimal as to make it unconstitutional under the Constitution's Due Process Clause to subject them to suit in the United States regardless of whether the venue criteria of H.R. 4571--or of any State venue statute--are met, there is nothing a legislature can do by statute to remedy that situation. To help set the record straight, I am submitting for the record both my letter to CRS requesting a clarification, and the CRS memorandum I received in response. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, September 16, 2004. Kenneth R. Thomas, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Thomas, It is my understanding that, under each State's venue statutes, there might occur circumstances in which a foreign corporation with its principal place of business outside the United States causes personal injury to a person within the State, yet a tort lawsuit brought by such injured person against such foreign corporation would be precluded in the United States. I am writing to request that the Congressional Research Service provide me with the following information: Under each State's venue laws, are there any circumstances in which a foreign corporation with its principal place of business outside the United States would not be subject to suit in such State (or elsewhere in the United States) by a person within the State who alleges such foreign corporation caused such person personal injury within the State? I would greatly appreciate this information by September 27, 2004. Sincerely, Lamar Smith, Member of Congress.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 10. This legislation includes important immigration provisions that are vital to improving homeland security. The expansion of expedited removal is particularly important to me because it is a provision I originally authored in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act of 1996. Back in the mid 1990s, thousands of aliens arrived at our airports without valid documents and then made fraudulent asylum claims. They knew they would be released into the community pending their asylum hearing, and few were ever heard from again. We created expedited removal to allow us to immediately return an alien to their country of origin if they showed up in the U.S. without proper documentation. The result is that we no longer have a serious problem of aliens arriving with false documents at airports. The situation is much different on our land borders. Every day thousands of aliens enter the country illegally, and because we do not have adequate detention space, they are released pending a hearing. A high percentage of these aliens, and this should not surprise anybody, are not from Mexico, they are from every other country you can imagine. The Department of Homeland Security recently reported that aliens have been apprehended on our borders from such countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. The 1996 Act created authority for the administration to use expedited removal for any alien in the country illegally, but until recently, they have not made use of that authority. The 9/11 Commissioners expressly pointed out how dangerous it is not to have expedited removal at our land borders. Potential terrorists will attempt to cross our land borders, and we should help the administration stop these terrorists from entering the United States. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that section 3006 of this legislation would expand expedited removal to our land borders.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago the ``CBS Evening News with Dan Rather'' broadcast a story about alleged Bush administration efforts to revive the draft. This story was based on a phony anonymous e-mail that claimed a new draft was imminent, and it featured a mother who said she was fearful her children would be drafted, but CBS did not reveal she is a leader in a group that opposes the draft. Two days ago the House rejected legislation that would have revived the draft by a vote of 402 to 2. CBS apparently is not aware of the House vote because last night's broadcast made no mention of it. Mr. Speaker, so after airing a major story about the possibility of a draft, CBS failed to report an overwhelming vote of the Congress not to resume the draft and, unfortunately, made no efforts to provide the American people with the facts. Mr. Speaker, this week's media bias award again goes to the ``CBS Evening News.''

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to submit for the Congressional Record two letters that were forwarded to me by Bill and Bonnie Nofsinger. Their nephew, 1st Lt. Robert I. Nofsinger, is stationed in Iraq with the United States Marine Corps. Lieutenant Nofsinger's letters contradict much of what has been reported in the national news media about the war on terror in Iraq. Reports have led some Americans to conclude that all of Iraq is in turmoil and despair, which is not supported by the facts. Much of the country is making the successful transition to stability. Lt. Nofsinger writes: ``When you watch the news and see doomsday predictions and spiteful opinions about our efforts over here, you can refute them by knowing that we are doing a tremendous amount of good. So spread the word.'' Mr. Speaker, I will follow Lt. Nofsinger's advice and spread the word by submitting his eloquent and heartfelt letters for my colleagues and others to read. Hello Everyone: I am taking time to ask you all for your help. First off, I'd like to say that this is not a political message. I'm not concerned about domestic politics right now. We have much bigger things to deal with, and we need your help. It seems that despite the tremendous and heroic efforts of the men and women serving here in Iraq to bring much needed peace and stability to this region, we are losing the war of perception with the media and American people. Our enemy has learned that the key to defeating the mighty American military is by swaying public opinion at home and abroad. We are a people that cherish the democratic system of government and therefore hold the will of the people in the highest regard. We love to criticize ourselves almost to an endless degree, because we care what others think. Our enemies see this as a weakness and are trying to exploit it. When we ask ourselves questions like, ``Why do they hate us?'' or ``What did we do wrong?'' we are playing into our enemies' hands. Our natural tendency to question ourselves is being used against us to undermine our effort to do good in the world. How far would we have gotten if after the surprise attacks on December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor, we would have asked, ``Why do the Japanese hate us so much?'' or ``How can we change ourselves so that they won't do that again?'' Here in Iraq the enemy is trying very hard to portray our efforts as failing and fruitless. They kill innocents and desecrate their bodies in hopes that the people back home will lose the will to fight for liberty. They are betting on our perceived weakness as a thoughtful, considerate people. Unfortunately our media only serves to further their cause. In an industry that feeds on ratings and bad news, a failure in Iraq would be a goldmine. When our so-called ``trusted'' American media takes a quote from an Iraqi doctor as the gospel truth over that of the men and women that are daily fighting to protect the right to freedom of the press, you know something is wrong. That doctor claimed that of the 600 Iraqis who were casualties of the fighting in Fallujah, the vast majority of them were women, children and the elderly. This is totally absurd. In the history of man, no one has spent more time and effort, often to the detriment of our own mission, to be more discriminate in our targeting of the enemy than the American military. The Marines and Soldiers serving in Iraq have gone through extensive training in order to avoid shedding innocent blood. Yet, despite all of this, our media consistently sides with those who openly lie and directly challenge the honor of our brave heroes fighting for liberty and peace. What we have to remember is that peace is not defined as an absence of war. It is the presence of liberty, stability, and prosperity. In the face of the horrendous tyranny of the former Iraqi regime, the only way true peace was able to come to this region was through force. That is what the American Revolution was all about. Have we forgotten? Freedom is not free and ``peace'' without principle is not peace. The peace that so-called ``peace advocates'' support can only be brought to Iraq through the military. And we are doing it, if only the world will let us! If the American people believe we are failing, even if we are not, then we will ultimately fail. That is why I am asking for your support. Become a voice of truth in your community. Wherever you are, fight the enemy's lies. Don't buy into pessimism and apathy and say that it is hopeless, that they hate us too much, that this part of the world is just too messed up and it is our fault anyway, that we are to blame. Whether you're in Middle School, working a 9-5 job, retired or a stay-at-home mom, you can make a huge difference! There is nothing more powerful than the truth. So, when you watch the news and see doomsday predictions and spiteful opinions about our efforts over here, you can refute them by knowing that we are doing a tremendous amount of good. Spread the word. No one is poised to make such an amazing contribution to the everyday lives of Iraqis and the rest of the Arab world than the American Armed Forces. By making this a place where liberty can finally grow, we are making the whole world safer. Your efforts at home are directly tied to our success. You are the soldiers at home fighting the war of perception. So I'm asking you as fellow soldiers to do your duty; stop the attempts of the enemy wherever you are. You are a mighty force for good, because truth is on your side. Together we will win this fight and ensure a better world for the future. God Bless and Semper Fidelis, 1st Lt. Robert L. Nofsinger USMC.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I support the manager's amendment to H.R. 4518, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 which I introduced. I, too, would like to acknowledge the contributions and support of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and our colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Without the hard work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), sitting to my right, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a bill this complex would not have been able to move under suspension. Also, I want to especially thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his leadership, as well as recognize the personal effort and contributions of both the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). This bill will reauthorize the Copyrights Act's distant-signal license, which benefits the satellite industry. Because of this bill, Americans will continue to be able to receive television programming over satellite. This legislation strikes a balance between the interests of intellectual property owners and the interests of the satellite providers who distribute copyrighted programming. With time running out this session, it is now critically important that H.R. 4518 be enacted without delay. The bill makes important changes to both the Copyright Act and the Communications Act to ensure that consumers will have greater choices in programming; that satellite providers have greater freedom to deliver the content consumers desire; that free over-the-air local broadcasters have the opportunity to serve needs that are specific to their communities; and that copyright owners receive the first adjustment to their compensation in 5 years. In addition, the bill requires the Copyright Office to complete a study and provide recommendations on whether Congress should take further steps to create more parity with the cable compulsory license. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize the hard work and countless hours that were dedicated by the Copyright Office's Bill Roberts, as well as by David Whitney of my staff, Sampak Garg of the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Conyers) staff, and Alec French from the gentleman from California's (Mr. Berman) staff. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4518 is a carefully crafted bill that promotes the interests of consumers, satellite providers, broadcasters and copyright owners. It is a fair and balanced bill that deserves the support of this House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert a copy of the September 23 letter by DirecTV, EchoStar, the Motion Picture Association, Major League Baseball into the Record, as well as an October 5 letter by Eddie Fritts of the National Association of Broadcasters that endorses H.R. 4518 at this point. National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, DC, October 5, 2004. Dear Representative: I understand that this week the House of Representatives will consider H.R. 4518, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act. On behalf of your local television stations, I am writing to urge you to support this critical legislation, which will help preserve localism in television and protect the interests of the American viewer. The legislation enjoys widespread, bipartisan support. The bill is the result of extensive compromise and negotiation between Members of the two Committees of jurisdiction, the Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee and is carefully crafted to address a range of satellite television issues in a pro-consumer fashion. For instance: The bill would create incentives for satellite subscribers to gradually shift to selecting their local television stations in their programming packages. It would phase-out a discriminatory ``2-dish'' practice which relegates some local television stations to a second dish, where they are all but invisible to satellite subscribers. The bill would give satellite providers parity with cable by allowing them to import ``significantly viewed'' out-of-market stations from adjoining markets. The legislation balances this new privilege with key safeguards ensuring such a practice is not abused to the detriment of local television and consumers. The bill provides a long needed update to copyright rates, increasing compensation for copyright holders. Some have argued the legislation should be modified to include a ``Digital White Areas'' provision, which would permit satellite companies to import national, distant, digital network digital networks from Los Angeles or New York into local television markets, supplanting local television stations. However, the vast majority of industry stakeholders, including local broadcast stations, the television networks, cable operators, and DirecTV have rejected this approach and are instead working to see local high-definition digital television available on cable and satellite systems. We urge you to reject the Digital White Areas proposal as well. Ultimately, as the product of an open process of hearings and mark-ups in both Committees of jurisdiction, H.R. 4518 would reauthorize the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act in a manner consistent with broadcast television localism. I strongly urge you to pass H.R. 4518 as written. The measure will take import strides in protecting the interests of consumers and furthering localism in television. Sincerely, Eddie Fritts.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) for his nice comments, and I am happy to join him in cosponsoring this legislation, but I especially want to express my appreciation to him for being the author and introducing this legislation. Computer spyware is a growing problem that threatens the future of commerce over the Internet. A recent report found that more than 3 million scans for spyware have been performed just this year alone. These scans revealed approximately 83 million instances of spyware. That is certainly disturbing. Spyware can be a confusing problem for consumers. Many do not know they have it, or if they do, they do not know how to get rid of it. A Yahoo! Internet search of the term ``spyware'' yields over 8 million results. It is no wonder that the problem is only getting worse. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4661 addresses spyware through the regulation of bad behavior rather than the regulation of technology. It provides strong penalties for those who engage in the illicit activities of spyware and phishing. Rather than add to an already confusing regulatory structure, the bill takes a very narrow approach. H.R. 4661 sets strong penalties for anyone who intentionally uses software to break into a computer in order to alter security settings or obtain personal information. It further authorizes money for the Department of Justice to prosecute spyware and phishing crimes. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to put an end to spyware and support this bill, and again I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) for introducing this piece of legislation.