Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 is to protect famous trademarks from uses that blur the distinctiveness of the trademark or tarnish or disparage it. Dilution does not rely upon the standard test of infringement, that is, likelihood of confusion, deception, or mistake. Rather, it applies when the unauthorized use of a famous trademark reduces the public's perception that the trademark signifies something unique, singular, or particular. Dilution can result in the loss of the trademark's distinctiveness and possibly the owner's rights in it. Congress enacted amendments to the original dilution statute in 2006. Last year, two law professors discovered a technical problem with one of the 2006 changes. During Senate consideration of the House bill, the section that provides a Federal registration defense to a dilution action was reorganized. This produced an unexpected and unintended change to the law. As originally drafted in the House, the provision was designed to encourage Federal registration of trademarks. This is a worthy policy goal that prevents State laws from interfering with federally protected trademarks and ensures that registered trademarks are protected nationwide. The House version promoted this goal and barred a State action for dilution against a federally registered trademark. However, the Senate reformatted the House text in such a way as to create a bar against State action for dilution as well as a State or Federal action based on a claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a trademark. This means the Federal registration defense is available to both State sand Federal dilution claims. Congress did not intend such an outcome. If all dilution claims, including Federal claims, are barred by registration, it becomes difficult to cancel a diluting trademark that is registered. This encourages illegitimate trademark holders to register diluting trademarks, which forces legitimate trademark holders to expend greater resources to monitor registrations, as well as other trademarks being used in commerce. That is why I introduced H.R. 6215 to amend the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. This bill simply reformats the affected provision to clarify that Federal registration only constitutes a complete bar to a State claim based on dilution, or actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a trademark. The change applies prospectively. This bill ensures that the trademark community is protected from those who seek to use this loophole as a way to disparage legitimate trademarks and cost their owners time and money. The only change to the bill, as reported, is a technical correction to a boilerplate reference regarding the date of enactment of the Trademark Act of 1946. The reported version inaccurately identifies the date of enactment as July 6, 1946. The correct date is July 5, 1946. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6214, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 6080, currently under consideration.

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 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 with 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. 6080. The bill makes technical improvements to title 41 of United States Code, which contains Federal laws that govern public contracts. The bill makes no changes to substantive law. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. 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. 6080) to make improvements in the enactment of title 41, United States Code, into a positive law title and to improve the Code.

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. 6189, as amended, 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, Congressman Conyers, in cosponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan bill, the Reporting Efficiency Improvement Act, and I thank him for introducing this legislation. The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 requires Federal agencies to identify reports that may be outdated or duplicative. Then the executive branch must consult with Congress to determine if these reports can be eliminated. Here, the administration suggests that Congress repeal the two reports eliminated by this bill. Both of these reports are prepared by the Office of Justice Programs and the Department of Justice, but the underlying grant programs have not been funded by Congress for many years. Adopting this commonsense bill is a simple step that Congress can take to help Federal agencies work more efficiently. I hope this bill sets a precedent for many similar bills in the future. I again thank Mr. Conyers for his initiative on this issue. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill, and 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. 6189) to eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements for unfunded programs under the Office of Justice Programs, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for his nice comments, and I'll yield back the balance of my time as well.

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. 3245, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for her continued interest and leadership in the subject of immigration, and I especially appreciate her support of this bill today. I yield back the balance of my time. Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, September 10, 2012. Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding with respect to the consideration of S. 3245, a bill that reauthorizes certain immigration provisions. Thank you for consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce with regard to S. 3245 on those matters within the committee's jurisdiction. In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of S. 3245, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will forgo further consideration on this bill. However, I do so only with the understanding that this procedural route will not be construed to prejudice the committee's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my committee in the future. I respectfully request your support for the appointment of outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a conference with the Senate. I also request that you include our exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on S. 3245 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, John Kline, Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to thank the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and ranking member for introducing this legislation and for working with me to help ensure that four key immigration- related programs do not expire at the end of this month. This Congress must ensure there is a national business climate that fosters the ability of private enterprise to create jobs for Americans and legal workers. S. 3245, which extends for 3 years the E-Verify, EB-5 Regional Center Pilot, the Conrad 30 J-1 Visa Waiver, and the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker programs, helps achieve this goal in several ways. First, the E-Verify program allows employers to electronically verify that newly hired employees are authorized to work in the United States. The program is free, quick, and easy to use. Nearly 400,000 American employers use E-Verify, and over 1,000 new businesses sign up for it every week. The American public overwhelmingly supports E-Verify. Last year, a Rasmussen poll found that 82 percent of likely voters ``think businesses should be required to use the Federal Government's E-Verify system to determine if a potential employee is in the country legally.'' E-Verify has also received bipartisan congressional support in the past. In 2008, the House passed a 5-year extension of E-Verify by a vote of 407-2. And in 2009, the Senate passed a permanent E-Verify extension by voice vote. Ensuring that businesses have access to E-Verify will help preserve jobs for the 23 million Americans who are currently unemployed or looking for full-time work. The investor visa program also helps create jobs for Americans. Under this program, 10,000 immigrants can receive permanent residence each year if they engage in a new commercial enterprise, invest between $500,000 and $1 million in the business, and see that it creates 10 full-time jobs for American workers. The Regional Center Pilot Project, which is almost two decades old, has reinvigorated the investor visa program. Investment through a regional center is especially attractive to potential investors because they are relieved of the responsibility of running a new business. They can also count indirect job creation towards the job creation requirement. Most investor visa petitions now involve regional centers. It appears that investors may feel more confident about a regional center that is operated through a State or city government. In these hard economic times, many State and local governments have turned to regional centers as a method of generating economic growth. The Association to Invest in the United States of America has estimated the regional center program has created or saved over 65,000 jobs in the U.S. and has led to the investment of over $3 billion in the U.S. economy. S. 3245 also extends for 3 years a program that has successfully brought needed doctors to medically underserved areas in the U.S. This program was designed by Senator Kent Conrad. It allows foreign doctors who have been in the U.S. on exchange programs to stay at the conclusion of their residencies if they agree to practice medicine for at least 3 years in health professional shortage areas. This is a valuable provision, and I support its reauthorization. Finally, S. 3245 extends the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program. Under this program, 5,000 immigrant visas can be issued to nonminister individuals who have been members of the denomination and who have worked in the capacity for which they are applying for at least the 2 years immediately following the visa applications. Historically, the program has been plagued by fraud, but the Bush administration took steps to help prevent much of the fraud, and now many churches and religious organizations in the United States rely on these immigrant nonministers. I look forward to making statutory changes aimed at even more fraud prevention, and I support the program's extension. Again, I want to thank Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley for their leadership on this bill. All four of these programs are important, and I urge my colleagues to support S. 3245. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3245) to extend by 3 years the authorization of the EB-5 Regional Center Program, the E-Verify Program, the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program, and the Conrad State 30 J-1 Visa Waiver Program.

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. 1775, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor Act of 2011, was introduced by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck). I want to thank him for his dedication to protect the honor bestowed on our Nation's military heroes. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor Act of 2011, was introduced by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck). I thank him for his dedication to protect the honor bestowed on our nation's military heroes. In 2006, a man who had created several false identities fraudulently claimed to be a seriously injured Marine captain who suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and a recipient of the Purple Heart and Silver Star. His tangled web of lies earned him credibility among other veterans, law enforcement officials and politicians. He told these false stories and used them for his own benefit, disrespecting those who had honorably earned these awards for their service. This is an example of a man who did not simply lie about receiving a military award. He lied to defraud others and benefit himself, discrediting those veterans who actually deserve recognition. H.R. 1775 prevents similar fraud in the future and reaffirms Congress' respect and gratitude for our Armed Forces. It ensures that those who seek to exploit these medals for fraudulent gain are held accountable. We have a long-standing commitment to protect the status of military decorations awarded to our military heroes who sacrifice greatly for us in service. The first honorary badges of distinction for military service date back to George Washington's presidency. Washington stated that anyone with the ``insolence to assume'' a badge that he did not earn would be severely punished. It has been a federal crime for nearly a century to wear, manufacture, sell or fraudulently produce military decorations or medals without authorization. In 2006, Congress enacted the Stolen Valor Act after a rise in number of fraudulent claims of receipt of military decorations, particularly the Medal of Honor. This past June, the Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Alvarez, held that the Stolen Valor Act wrongly criminalized speech protected by the First Amendment. Simply put, lying about receiving a Medal of Honor, although it may be offensive, is in fact protected free speech. The Court did acknowledge that false claims about military decorations, such as the Medal of Honor, demean the value of the award and may offend the true holders of these decorations. H.R. 1775, the ``Stolen Valor Act of 2011,'' clarifies the law to make it a crime to fraudulently hold oneself out to be a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor or other enumerated military decoration with the intent to obtain money, property or other tangible benefit. The term ``fraudulently'' incorporates the necessary knowledge requirement. Black's Law Dictionary defines ``fraud'' as ``a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her injury.'' It clarifies that there must be specific intent to engage in the crime, namely that the fraud is committed for money, property or other tangible benefit. The term ``tangible benefit'' is intended to cover those ``valuable considerations'' beyond money or property, such as offers of employment, which Justice Kennedy identified as appropriately prohibited benefits to a fraud. H.R. 1775 clarifies the Stolen Valor Act to protect the right to free speech but also ensures that those whose speech is intended to defraud and do not enjoy First Amendment protection will be held responsible. I again thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck) for his leadership on this issue. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1775) to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish a criminal offense relating to fraudulent claims about military service, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6185) to improve security at State and local courthouses, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6062) to reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program through fiscal year 2017.

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 object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1550, the Federal Law Enforcement Recruitment and Retention Act of 2012, was introduced by my friend and colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Pierluisi of Puerto Rico. It helps focus the Justice Department's law enforcement efforts on the areas of the country that need them the most. Crime in the United States began to rise sharply in the 1960s and continued up to its peak in the early 1990s. In response, Congress and the States reformed their criminal laws to include tougher penalties and truth-in-sentencing laws, and they dedicated additional resources to target the rising crime rate. To a great extent, our national focus on crime has been successful. The national violent crime rate in 2010 was almost half of what it was in 1991, and crime in the United States has continued to fall in spite of difficult economic times. The violent crime rate fell 5 percent from 2008 to 2009, and another 5 percent from 2009 to 2010. Despite this good news, we are far from a solution to the problem of violent crime in all areas of the country. There are still areas where violent crime remains a very serious issue and is even on the rise. For example, in my district, the number of murders in the city of Austin nearly doubled in 1 year, going from 22 homicides in 2009 to 38 homicides in 2010. Puerto Rico, home to the sponsor of this bill, has experienced an increase in drug-related violent crime. With more than 1,100 deaths in 2011, the homicide rate in Puerto Rico last year was more than five times the national average. The majority of this violence is attributed to the area's growing drug trafficking trade, which has implications, of course, for mainland U.S. The problem with high-crime areas may increase if there are not sufficient Federal law enforcement officers in these communities. To address this situation, the Justice Department started to dispatch surges of Federal law enforcement officers to prevent and investigate crime in high-crime cities like Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Oakland, California. H.R. 1550 continues this momentum. It directs the Department of Justice to consider, in coordination with State and local governments, the need to recruit, assign, and retain Federal law enforcement personnel in areas of the country with high rates of homicides and other violent crimes, which of course should include Puerto Rico. H.R. 1550 has bipartisan support and has been endorsed by the law enforcement community. The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a voice vote, and once again I want to thank Mr. Pierluisi for sponsoring this legislation. H.R. 1550 improves the safety of the many Americans who live in fear of violent crime in their neighborhoods. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.