Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. First of all, I want to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman-elect Bob Goodlatte, Ranking Member John Conyers, and IP Subcommittee Ranking Member Mel Watt for their work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, the Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012 deters and pushes criminals who target U.S. economic and security interests on behalf of foreign interests. In a dynamic and globally connected information economy, the protection of intangible assets is vital, not only to the success of individual enterprises, but also to the future of entire industries. In recent years, cybercriminals have shifted from the theft of personal information such as credit cards and Social Security numbers to the theft of corporate intellectual capital. Our intelligence community has warned us that foreign interests place a high priority on acquiring sensitive U.S. economic information and technologies. In the U.S., the Economic Espionage Act serves as a primary tool the Federal Government uses to protect secret, valuable commercial information from theft. Our intelligence community declares that there is a ``significant and growing threat to our Nation's prosperity and security'' posed by criminals both inside and outside our borders who commit espionage. Congress should also recognize and confront this increasing threat by adjusting our penalties so that we can enhance deterrents and provide appropriate punishments for those criminals who knowingly target our companies for espionage. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6029 as it was amended by the Senate. The original bill was developed in a bipartisan manner and was unanimously reported by both the Judiciary Committee and this House. This is a commonsense and much-needed measure that deserves our full support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I want to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman-Elect Bob Goodlatte, Ranking Member John Conyers and IP Subcommittee Ranking Member Mel Watt for their work on this bill. It has been a privilege to serve with them during my tenure as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. I look forward to continuing to explore areas where we can work together in the 113th Congress. Mr. Speaker, the Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012 deters and punishes criminals who target U.S. economic and security interests on behalf of foreign interests. In a dynamic and globally-connected information economy, the protection of intangible assets is vital not only to the success of individual enterprises but also to the future of entire industries. A global study released last year by McAfee, the world's largest security technology company, and Science Applications International Corporation, concluded that corporate trade secrets and other sensitive intellectual capital are the newest ``currency'' of cybercriminals. In recent years, cybercriminals have shifted from the theft of personal information such as credit cards and social security numbers to the theft of corporate intellectual capital. Our intelligence community has warned us that foreign interests place a high priority on acquiring sensitive U.S. economic information and technologies. We know that some individuals intentionally and persistently seek out U.S. information and trade secrets. The most recent report from the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive specifically cited Chinese as ``the world's most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.'' The report also described Russia's intelligence services as responsible for ``conducting a range of activities to collect economic information and technology from US targets.'' In the U.S., the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) serves as the primary tool the federal government uses to protect secret, valuable commercial information from theft. On December 18, the House passed S. 3642, an important bill that clarifies the scope of protectable trade secrets. Since enacting the EEA in 1996, Congress has not adjusted its penalties to take into account the increasing importance of intellectual property to the economic and national security of the U.S. H.R. 6029, which the House unanimously passed this summer, increases the maximum penalties for an individual convicted of committing espionage on behalf of a foreign entity. The bill the House passed increases the maximum penalty from 15 to 20 years imprisonment and increases the maximum fine from $500,000 to $5 million. Several Senators wanted to give further consideration to the proposed statutory maximum increase from 15 to 20 years imprisonment. The Senate amended H.R. 6029 by deleting this single provision. They then passed it unanimously on December 19, so that we may act again and send this bill directly to the desk of the President. I thank Senators Lee and Paul along with Senators Leahy, Kohl and Grassley for helping to resolve concerns and advancing this measure. Our Intelligence community declares that there is a ``significant and growing threat to [our] nation's prosperity and security'' posed by criminals--both inside and outside our borders--who commit espionage. Congress should also recognize and confront this increasing threat by adjusting our penalties so that we may enhance deterrence and provide appropriate punishments for those criminals who knowingly target our companies for espionage. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6029 as it was amended by the Senate. The original bill was developed in a bipartisan manner and was unanimously reported by both the Judiciary Committee and this House. This is a common sense and much-needed measure that deserves our full support.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6029) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for increased penalties for foreign and economic espionage, and for other purposes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 668) to refer H.R. 5862, a bill making congressional reference to the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28, United States Code, the Indian trust-related claims of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah) as well as its individual members, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for sponsoring House Resolution 668. This bill allows a Native American Tribe that resides in Oklahoma, the Quapaw, to appear before the United States Federal court of claims to plead for damages against the Federal Government for mismanagement of tribal funds. The court would issue a report, either favorable or unfavorable, to the tribe. If favorable, the Natural Resources Committee would be authorized to move separate legislation to effect the court's decision. In 2002, the tribe filed a lawsuit for an accounting in Federal district court of the U.S. Government's mismanagement of tribal and tribal member trust assets. In November 2004, the tribe and the U.S. Government agreed that the tribe and third-party contractors would conduct an accounting of the U.S. Government's actions and inactions related to the trust assets. This was to facilitate a mediated solution to this lawsuit's claims. In exchange for this mediated route, the tribe would dismiss the lawsuit. In June 2010, after 5 years of accounting and related analysis, the Quapaw Analysis was completed and shared with the U.S. Government. This set the stage for mediation. That analysis confirmed that the government's mismanagement of the Quapaw's trust constituted a breach of trust. The tribe initiated multiple attempts to resolve their claims, which the government rejected. By 2011, the tribe sought relief in court from the government's failure to fulfill its trust obligations and to mediate and settle the trust claims. Last year, eight Quapaw Tribe members filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other individuals for damages based on breach of trust. The government filed motions to dismiss the case and also refused to respond to a formal settlement demand proffered by the tribe. The government's foot-dragging necessitates our passage of House Resolution 668 today. The bill doesn't guarantee a desired outcome; it only allows the Quapaw a chance to go before the Federal court of claims and make their best case. Even if the court rules in their favor, the Natural Resources Committee must still move subsequent legislation that incorporates the court's decision through both Houses of Congress. Also, a revision to the bill stipulates that an award of damages by the court only applies to claims that are not already pending before the Court of Federal Claims. This ensures that claimants will not be doubly or excessively compensated. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for his persistence on this issue and for introducing this particular bill. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 668. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, H.R. 6671 makes a minor, overdue change to update the Video Privacy Protection Act. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for sponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan legislation. The Video Privacy Protection Act prohibits video stores from disclosing certain ``personally identifiable information'' of their customers. In the event of an unauthorized disclosure, an individual can sue in civil court for damages. But the law has always allowed some personally identifiable information to be released in limited circumstances, such as in response to a court order or when the customer gives their prior, written consent. However, the technologies of entertainment are changing. Today, consumers are just as likely to stream a movie from the Internet as they are to rent a movie from a video store. And when people view entertainment on the Internet, often they like to share their activities with friends through social media like Facebook and Twitter. Under current law, the social media sites would have to obtain written consent each time someone wishes to share their video choices. H.R. 6671 does not change the prohibition on disclosure of personal information or expand the exceptions when information can be disclosed. It does not change the requirement for informed, written consent by a consumer. It simply allows the consumer to consent once before using new social media programs to share their movie or TV show preferences. An earlier version of this bill passed the House last year, by a vote of 303 to 116. In the Senate, two amendments were adopted to make the bill even more consumer friendly. This new version adopts these amendments to accommodate concerns about consumer choice and privacy. H.R. 6671 adopts an amendment proffered in mark-up by Congressman Nadler, which requires the consumer consent agreement to be in a completely separate form apart from the other contract details. In addition, H.R. 6671 adopts two Senate amendments that place limitations on how consent is obtained from consumers. The bill now limits the disclosure agreement to 2 years. The bill also requires the video provider to give consumers easy options to end the sharing agreement. These changes will ensure that consumers are aware they are sharing information and are voluntarily taking part. Rather than dramatically alter the Act's existing provisions, H.R. 6671 keeps the vast majority of the Act in place and simply modernizes the way in which consumers can give their informed consent. This bill brings the Video Privacy Protection Act into the 21st century. And the changes adopted made from the previous bill increase consumer protection from the beginning of the process to its end. I again thank my colleague from Virginia, the Chairman-Elect of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, for his work on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 3642, the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012, clarifies the scope of the Economic Espionage Act, EEA, and protects American jobs and businesses from the theft of their valuable trade secrets. I want to thank Senator Leahy for his hard work on this piece of legislation. Since 1996, the EEA has served as the primary tool the Federal Government uses to protect secret, valuable, commercial information from theft. The Second Circuit's Aleynikov decision revealed a dangerous loophole that demands our attention. In response, the Senate unanimously passed S. 3642 in November. We need to act today to send this important measure directly to the President. We must also take action in response to the Second Circuit's call and ensure that we have appropriately adapted the scope of the EEA to the digital age. I again thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, S. 3642, the ``Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012,'' clarifies the scope of the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) and protects American jobs and businesses from the theft of their valuable trade secrets. I thank Senator Leahy for his hard work on this bill. Sergey Aleynikov was convicted for stealing and transferring valuable proprietary computer source code that belonged to his former employer, Goldman Sachs. Earlier this year, he was released from a federal penitentiary after serving only one year of an eight-year sentence. According to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, he had accepted an offer in 2009, to become a senior executive at a Chicago-based startup that intended to compete against Goldman in the provision of high frequency trading (HFT) services. The Appeals Court explained: just before his going-away party, Aleynikov encrypted and uploaded to a server in Germany more than 500,000 lines of source code for Goldman's HFT system . . . On June 2, 2009, Aleynikov flew . . . to Chicago to attend meetings at Teza. He brought with him a flash drive and a laptop containing portions of the Goldman source code. When Aleynikov flew back the following day, he was arrested by the FBI . . .'' Aleynikov was convicted of violating the EEA and the National Stolen Property Act. After reviewing the trial record, the Appeals Court issued an order in February 2012, which reversed Aleynikov'convictions on both counts. The court's decision construed the scope of the two federal criminal statutes. It observed that there is a limitation that products be ``produced for'' or ``placed in'' interstate or foreign commerce. The court concluded, ``Goldman's HFT system was neither `produced for' nor `placed in' interstate or foreign commerce,'' despite evidence that it facilitated millions of proprietary trades and transactions each year. It then determined that the theft of source code was not an offense under the EEA. The court explained that when a statute, particularly a criminal statute, is ambiguous, it is appropriate to construe it narrowly and, ``to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite'' before choosing a stricter interpretation. In his concurring opinion, Judge Calabresi [Cal-abress-E] directly called upon Congress to clarify the scope of the EEA as he wrote: [I]t is hard for me to conclude that Congress, in [the EEA], actually meant to exempt the kind of behavior in which Aleynikov engaged . . . [n]evertheless, while concurring [in the opinion], I wish to express the hope that Congress will return to the issue and state, in appropriate language, what I believe it meant to make criminal in the EEA. The FBI estimated earlier this year that U.S. companies had lost $13 billion to trade secret theft in just over six months. Over the past six years, losses to individual U.S. companies have ranged from $20 million to as much as $1 billion. Since 1996, the EEA has served as the primary tool the federal government uses to protect secret, valuable, commercial information from theft. The Second Circuit's Aleynikov [Alay-na-kov] decision revealed a dangerous loophole that demands our attention. In response, the Senate unanimously passed S. 3642 in November. We need to act today to send this important measure directly to the President. We must also take action in response to the Second Circuit's call and to ensure that we have appropriately adapted the scope of the EEA to the digital age. I again thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3642) to clarify the scope of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 3642, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time. Today we say good-bye to a friend and colleague and a friend on the House floor who has served Congress for more than three decades. I have known and appreciated Jay Pierson for many years. He's sitting to my right back here on the floor right now. Jay has been an integral part of the daily activities on the House floor, serving as floor assistant to Speakers Gingrich, Hastert, and Boehner. It seems there isn't a question to which Jay doesn't know the answer--except perhaps when we leave this week. Each time I see Jay on the floor, he is always informed and gives good advice. Jay has served the House of Representatives with a smile on his face for the last 34 years. His expertise and enthusiasm will be missed. And we all wish him the best on his well-deserved retirement. So, Jay, thank you again for all you've done for so many of us.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to, once again, thank my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Schiff) for introducing this bill and for getting us to the point at which we are now--hopefully, on the cusp of passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who happens to have passed legislation very similar to this when he was in the legislature in Colorado.

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. 6014, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6014) to authorize the Attorney General to award grants for States to implement minimum and enhanced DNA collection processes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for sponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan legislation. H.R. 6014, the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, authorizes incentive grants to States that implement programs to collect DNA samples from felony arrestees. DNA arrestee programs provide an important law enforcement tool to identify perpetrators of open and unsolved cases. DNA arrestee programs can also prevent crimes by linking career criminals to crimes and locking them up before they have the chance to strike again. By collecting DNA samples from arrestees and uploading them into the national DNA database, States can empower police and prosecutors to not only solve cold cases but also to apprehend violent criminals before more innocent people are victimized or precious lives are lost. Similar legislation passed the House last Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 357-32. H.R. 6014 adds a new purpose area to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act to fund State DNA arrestee programs. This is limited, cost-effective legislation that will help States make use of DNA evidence to catch serious criminals at the earliest stage possible. In the 20th century, law enforcement used fingerprints to link criminals to unsolved crimes. In the 21st century, law enforcement can now use DNA fingerprint technology to apprehend dangerous offenders. I want to thank my colleague from California, again, Mr. Schiff, for his hard work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6621) to correct and improve certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and title 35, United States Code, as amended.

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. 6621, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or AIA, was signed into law on September 16, 2011. It was the first major patent reform bill in over 60 years and the most substantial reform of U.S. patent law since the 1836 Patent Act. The Leahy-Smith AIA reestablishes the United States patent system as a global standard. Over the past year, the Patent Office has worked diligently to implement the provisions of the act to ensure that the bill realizes its full potential to promote innovation and create jobs. The bill that we consider today includes several technical corrections and improvements that ensure that the implementation of the bill can proceed efficiently and effectively. The bill is supported by all sectors of our economy from across the United States, including manufacturers, universities, technology, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, and innovators. I've also received letters in support from the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, which represents manufacturers, pharmaceutical, technology, defense companies, and universities; the Innovation Alliance, which represents high-tech companies and licensors; and the BSA, the Business Software Alliance, which represents a range of high technology and software companies. The Leahy-Smith AIA fundamentally changes our Nation's innovation infrastructure. With any such substantive and wide-ranging legislation, unforeseen issues may arise as implementation occurs. H.R. 6621 corrects many of these issues. This package consists of several technical corrections to the AIA that are essential to the effective implementation of the bill. Other technical corrections and improvements may arise in the future, for example, the issue surrounding the correction of the post-grant review estoppel provision in the Leahy-Smith AIA. This was the result of an inadvertent scrivener's error, an error that was made by legislative counsel. That technical error has resulted in an estoppel provision with a higher threshold than was intended by either House of Congress. Additionally, we must remain watchful as we examine ways to deal with the abusive and frivolous litigation that American innovators face from patent assertion entities or patent trolls. As the provisions of the Leahy-Smith AIA continue to take effect, our Nation's innovation infrastructure becomes much stronger, unleashing the full potential of American innovators and job creators. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.