Lamar Smith

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, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, The report on pre-GATT applications refers to applications that were filed prior to the Uruguay Round amendments taking effect in June 1995. The 103rd Congress intended for a brief transition period as the United States patent system was updated. Unfortunately, a small number of applicants have engaged in clearly dilatory behavior and continue to maintain pending applications with effective filing dates that predate 1995. In fact, some of these applications have been pending for 20, 30, and even 40 years. The 103rd Congress never intended for such applications to stay pending for half a century. To remove such technology from the public domain in 2012, would bear no relation to the patent system's Constitutional purpose to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Now it is important for the 113th Congress and the Public to learn fully about these applications from the USPTO. The Committee expects that the report will contribute to an understanding of whether these applications present special circumstances that require further action to protect the public's interests. Those who may have concerns about this report must understand that there is no way to ``target'' these submarine applications--the targets are, in fact, the people who will be sued once these submarine patents surface. The real targets are American job creators like small businesses, innovators and university researchers. And the public has a right to know in advance if certain widely used and long known technology is about to be withdrawn from the public domain. The patent system was never intended to be a playground for trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuits. Sound patents should issue in a timely manner and should be used to create wealth and jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last weekend, America watched as Kerrville, Texas' own star quarterback received College Football's most prestigious award--the Heisman trophy. Johnny Manziel, the Tivy High School graduate and current Texas A&M University quarterback, became the first college freshman to follow in the footsteps of some of the sport's greatest athletes. Known by his fans as ``Johnny Football,'' it seems as if Manziel was born to play the game. His first year at Tivy High School, Manziel started out on the freshman football team. By the end of the season, he was playing on Varsity. He was the only quarterback in America named as a Parade All-American his senior year. This year, Manziel led the Aggies to a victory over Alabama, the number one ranked team in the nation. He is the first freshman and only the fifth player in the NCAA to pass for 3000 yards and rush for 1000 yards in a season. The champion who Americans have now been introduced to is the same humble young man that Kerrville, Texas, has known all along. Hard work, determination and graciousness have been Johnny Manziel's trademark all along. From the halls of Congress, and from the heart of Texas District 21, congratulations, Johnny, on well-deserved award.

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 S. 3486, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Senate ratified both The Hague Agreement on Industrial Designs and the Patent Law Treaty in December of 2007. Each treaty is noncontroversial and helps American inventors who need overseas patent protection. However, the treaties cannot take effect until we amend our national patent law to cohere with our new obligations. Now that patent reform is behind us, we turn to implement both treaties through S. 3486. And I thank Ranking Member Conyers, Senator Leahy, Senator Grassley, and PTO Director Kappos for their work on this bill. The Hague Agreement makes the process of registering industrial designs in other countries much easier for American applicants. Its signature provision allows a design owner to apply for protection in a number of African, Asian, and European nations through a single filing. Currently, an American design applicant must file separate applications for design protection in each country or intergovernmental organization. The centralized registration procedure under the agreement will bring substantial cost savings to American industrial design owners. In addition, the filing of a single application that is accepted by a centralized office will lead to fewer processing mistakes and delays by the applicant and foreign patent offices. The Hague Agreement also specifies administrative procedures to be followed by design patent applicants seeking multinational registration under the act. This allows us to provide the United States with the administrative benefits of a multinational design protection system and still retain our own substantive system. The Patent Law Treaty, or PLT, also simplifies the formal obligations imposed on inventors and reduces cost for patent applicants and owners. The PLT furthers our policy of strong and intellectual property protection. It simplifies national and international formal requirements associated with patent applications and patents. This makes it easier for American patent applicants and owners to obtain and maintain patents throughout the world, as well as in the United States. The drafting of S. 3486 was a collaborative effort that included the bipartisan and bicameral participation of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the House legislative counsel. I again want to thank Ranking Member Conyers, Senator Leahy, Senator Grassley, and PTO Director Kappos for their contributions to the project. S. 3486 saves American inventors money and expands their patent protection outside the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have no other speakers on this side, and 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. 3486) to implement the provisions of the Hague Agreement and the Patent Law Treaty.

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. 6605, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I join the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, in cosponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan bill which eliminates an unnecessary reporting requirement on the States from an unfunded Federal grant program. Earlier this year, I cosponsored, with Mr. Conyers, H.R. 6189, the Reporting Efficiency Improvement Act. In response to a specific request from the administration, H.R. 6189 eliminated two reports that the Department of Justice was required to prepare for grant programs that have not been funded by Congress for many years. One of these grant programs is the DNA Identification Act of 1994. On October 5, the President signed into law H.R. 6189. H.R. 6605, the bill before the House today, does for the States what H.R. 6189 did for the Federal Government: It eliminates the statutory requirement for States to report to the Attorney General about grants from the DNA Identification Act of 1994. Because Congress has not funded this grant program in nearly a decade, this statutory reporting requirement is unnecessary. I again thank Mr. Conyers, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for his initiative on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6605) to eliminate an unnecessary reporting requirement for an unfunded DNA Identification grant program.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6620, the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012, amends Federal law to uniformly provide lifetime Secret Service protection to all of America's former Presidents. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for sponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan legislation. America has a responsibility to protect its Presidents and their families, and not simply while they serve in office. We also have a duty to ensure the ongoing safety of those who serve in America's highest elected office after they leave office. In 1958, Congress first authorized Secret Service protection for former Presidents, which was limited to a reasonable period of time after a President leaves office. Congress expanded this to lifetime protection in 1965. But in 1994, Congress once again limited Secret Service protection for former Presidents, this time to 10 years after a President leaves office. This 10-year restriction applied to Presidents who took office after January 1, 1997. The role of a former President has changed throughout the years. Former Presidents now have a global presence, and they are often seen as de facto representatives of the United States. Whether it's former President Carter's work in peace negotiations with other countries or President Clinton's global initiative, former Presidents have a valuable role in using their experience and knowledge to help the U.S. in both a public and private capacity. The world has changed dramatically since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The threats to American personnel and interests continue as terrorists wage a war against the United States. Arbitrarily limiting Secret Service protection to 10 years may have made sense in 1994, after the Cold War had ended and before the war on terror had begun. In a world where Americans who serve the public interest are considered targets, we must make sure that the safety and security of our former Chief Executives is not jeopardized. H.R. 6620 recognizes that those who serve as President are symbols of America and American freedoms and deserve to be protected. There are only a handful of Americans who will be called upon to serve this country as President. These individuals represent America, not only while serving in office, but remain in the public consciousness long after they leave. H.R. 6620, simply recognizes that unique role and reinstates lifetime protection for all of our former Presidents. I want to again thank Mr. Gowdy and Mr. Scott for their work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee himself for those generous comments and say I've certainly enjoyed our working relationship over the last 6 years, and I know that that will continue as well.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6620) to amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate certain limitations on the length of Secret Service Protection for former Presidents and for the children of former Presidents.

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. 6620, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2367) to strike the word ``lunatic'' from Federal law, and for other purposes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the 21st Century Language Act is a relatively simple bill. It strikes the word ``lunatic'' from the United States Code. The term ``lunatic'' derives from the Latin word for ``moon.'' Before the modern era, it was used to describe a person who suffers from mental disease because of the belief that lunar cycles had an impact on brain function. But as science and medicine have progressed, society has come to understand mental illness with more clarity. Senator Conrad and Senator Crapo introduced the legislation under consideration to strike the word ``lunatic'' from the United States Code. I thank them for their effort, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this bill to modernize our codified law to reflect a 21st-century understanding of mental illness. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House entrust to the Judiciary Committee the responsibilities of revision and codification of the statutes of the United States. This power does not give our committee substantive legislative jurisdiction over all areas of law; it merely confers the authority to organize duly enacted laws into an efficient codification system. The nonpartisan Office of the Law Revision Counsel is responsible for properly codifying public laws into titles and sections of the United States Code. From time to time, that office provides the Judiciary Committee advice as to how to enact a more user-friendly and cohesive statutory system. This spring, Republican and Democratic committee staff worked cooperatively with the Office of Law Revision Counsel to develop H.R. 6602. The bill makes technical changes to title 36 of the United States Code, the laws that govern patriotic and national observances. Codification laws do not make any substantive changes to existing law. Industries, government agencies, and interested parties commented on the draft of H.R. 6602 before its consideration today. I am confident this bill will improve our legislative codification system, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6602) to make revisions in title 36, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current and make technical corrections and improvements.