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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) for introducing H. Res. 683, expressing the regret of the House of Representatives for the passage of laws that adversely affected the Chinese in the United States, including the Chinese Exclusion Act. I know, through conversations with several of my colleagues, including the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Berman, that this is an important resolution for them and their constituents. The resolution concerns laws passed by the House of Representatives that restricted the civil rights of certain individuals in the United States based solely on the ethnicity of those individuals. Specifically, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Congress passed, and Presidents signed, laws that restricted the rights of people of Chinese ethnicity. For instance, in March 1882, the House of Representatives passed the initial Chinese Exclusion Act that denied Chinese people the right to be naturalized as American citizens. And in April 1892, the House of Representatives passed the Geary Act, which reauthorized the Chinese Exclusion Act for 10 years and denied Chinese immigrants the right to be released on bail upon application for a writ of habeas corpus. Laws that deny certain civil rights to individuals legally in the United States are inconsistent with the values on which this country was founded. I thank the gentlewoman from California for working with me to refine the text of this resolution. I reserve 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 House Resolution 683 currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 683) expressing the regret of the House of Representatives for the passage of laws that adversely affected the Chinese in the United States, including the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Meehan of Pennsylvania and Ms. Linda Sanchez of California for their work on this issue. This is a bipartisan, bicameral bill. Similar legislation sponsored by Senator Leahy was approved by the Senate last March by voice vote. This bill enacts penalties for trafficking in counterfeit drugs similar to those for trafficking in military goods and services, as established in the National Defense Authorization Act, which Congress passed last December. Counterfeit military goods affect the credibility of the supply chains that support our national defense, and counterfeit drugs call into doubt the credibility of America's pharmaceutical legal drug supply. In both situations, the significant and multiple dangers to the public demand enhanced penalties. Counterfeit drugs are fake drugs. They may be contaminated, contain the wrong ingredient or no ingredient at all, or have the right active ingredient but the wrong dose. They are intentionally packaged to convince the consumer they are genuine. Counterfeit drugs are illegal and can be harmful to a person's health and even deadly. Counterfeit drugs present not only a financial loss to the manufacturer or mark holder, but also a real health risk to consumers. While current law technically includes counterfeit drugs, the law does not expressly prohibit trafficking in counterfeit drugs and carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years. Late last month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned consumers and health care professionals about a counterfeit version of Adderall that is available for sale on the Internet. Approved for treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorders, this medication is a prescription drug classified as a controlled substance, a class of drugs for which special controls are required for dispensing by pharmacists. The FDA's preliminary laboratory test revealed that the counterfeit version of this drug contained the wrong active ingredients. The counterfeit product contained none of the four active ingredients found in the genuine medication. In fact, it contained two different drugs found in medicines used to treat acute pain. Rogue Web sites and corrupt distributors now prey on the fears of Americans when medicines are in short supply. Drug shortages have increased in frequency and severity in recent years and adversely affect patient care. An unfortunate and potentially deadly side effect of drug shortages is counterfeit drug trafficking. Last February, the FDA warned health care professionals and patients about a counterfeit version of Avastin, a cancer treatment. Tests revealed the counterfeit version did not contain the medicine's active ingredient. This may have resulted in patients not receiving needed cancer therapy. Several medical practices in the United States may have purchased the counterfeit drug from a foreign supplier. The FDA requested that the medical practices stop the use of any remaining products from this supplier. Unfortunately, in this case alone, there were dozens of cancer patients who may never know that they did not receive lifesaving cancer drugs. Instead, they got a useless counterfeit drug, a drug counterfeited and sold only for the purpose of financial gain. These recent situations prove that those who traffic in counterfeit drugs should be subject to enhanced penalties. I urge my colleagues to support this bicameral legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3668) to prevent trafficking in counterfeit drugs, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last month, 43 Catholic institutions across America joined together to defend the First Amendment and filed a total of 12 lawsuits against the administration in order to protect their right to freedom of religion on behalf of all Americans. This is the most significant religious lawsuit in U.S. history, and Christian leaders all across America have joined in support of these Catholic institutions. Despite the unprecedented and historic nature of this event, the national media largely ignored it. The Catholic institutions filed the lawsuit due to new ObamaCare regulations that force some religious institutions to pay for coverage of antiabortion drugs, regardless of the employer's religious and moral objections. How can the liberal media ignore 12 different lawsuits being filed in Federal courts that each charge the administration with violating the First Amendment right of freedom of religion? The liberal national media continues to show their bias by their scanty coverage of this historical event.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Franks for introducing the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, also called PRENDA. This legislation prohibits abortions based on the sex of the unborn child. The bill also prohibits the solicitation or acceptance of funds for such purposes and prohibits the federal funding of abortions based on sex. As the New York Times has reported, ``There is evidence that some Americans want to choose their babies' sex'' through abortions. U.S. Census numbers and national vital statistics show that certain communities achieve unnatural sex ratios at birth that are statistically impossible without medically assisted sex-selection, with the cheapest option being abortion. These sex-selection abortions discriminate strongly against females and are overwhelmingly opposed by the American people. According to a recent Charlotte Lozier Institute poll, 77% of those surveyed support a law that bans abortion in cases where ``the fact that the developing baby is a girl is the sole reason for seeking an abortion.'' Regardless of one's views on abortion generally, everyone should be able to agree that no abortions should occur based on the sex of the unborn child. It is time to end the practice of using sex as an excuse for abortion. I thank Chairman Franks again for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentlewoman from Florida, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee herself, for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor H.R. 4970, and I want to again thank my colleague from Florida, Sandy Adams, for her work on this legislation. H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012, provides funding for VAWA grant programs for 5 years at the same levels as the Senate-passed bill. There are only a few minor differences between this House bill and the Senate bill. H.R. 4970 doesn't include language to provide special protected status to certain categories of people because they are already covered under VAWA. H.R. 4970 doesn't include language to allow Indian tribes to prosecute non-Indians because that is unconstitutional. H.R. 4970 does include provisions that prevent fraud and abuse in the immigration process. This bill authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars for valuable services to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Those who have supported VAWA in the past should be eager to support this legislation today. Violence against women doesn't occur along party lines, and neither should reauthorization of these programs. Instead of working with Republicans in a bipartisan effort to protect women from domestic violence, rape, and stalking, some Democrats have chosen to place partisan posturing above the urgent needs of victims of violence. If Members choose to oppose this bill for political reasons, that's their decision; but there is no good reason to oppose this bill for substantive reasons. A vote against this bill, in my judgment, is a vote against common sense and a vote against helping abused women.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today the House continues its effort to restore the financial security of our country with consideration of H.R. 3534, the Security in Bonding Act of 2011. I thank Mr. Hanna for his sponsorship of this bill and Mr. Gowdy and Mr. Polis, both members of the Judiciary Committee, for their support as well. This bill protects the federal government from financial loss as it improves the effectiveness of surety bonds contractors must post when they perform construction projects for the United States. Also, this bill protects small business subcontractors and enhances the financial security of the United States. The bill amends federal acquisition law to requre individual sureties to post only low-risk collateral to back up their bonds. If the prime contractor defaults, the government and subcontractors will have recourse to real, stable, valuable assets to make them whole. The Miller Act, enacted in 1935, requires a contractor to obtain surety bonds in favor of the government when the contractor undertakes a construction job worth more than $150,000. These surety bonds protect not only the United States but also subcontractors whom the prime contractor hires. Unlike in the private sector, subcontractors on federal projects have no mechanic's lien rights; surety bonds are their sole protection. A bid bond assures the federal contracting officer that the contractor bids in good faith and will complete the job if it is the winning bidder. Similarly, a performance bond guarantees the United States that the contractor will not walk away from the job even if, for instance, the contractor found a more lucrative opportunity elsewhere. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) currently allows a contractor to obtain a surety bond through a corporate surety or an individual surety. Alternatively, a contractor may deposit low-risk collateral, like T-bills or other cash equivalents, with the government to cover the project cost. Corporate surety companies are regulated by the Treasury Department, which requires the sureties to be sufficiently funded in an amount over the risk of default on the bonds they underwrite. But individual sureties are not approved by the Treasury, and they may pledge collateral whose value may fluctuate. For example, the FAR allows an individual surety to pledge stocks and bonds or real property. The lax collateral requirements for individual sureties have seriously harmed subcontractors and the federal government. At a hearing on this bill in the Courts, Commerical and Administrative Law Subcommittee, the President of a minority-owned construction company in Colorado, testified that they lost $100,000 because the prime contractor's individual surety bond was backed by valueless assets. The federal government cannot afford to be left in the lurch because an individual surety bond proved to be worthless. American taxpayers deserve a government that acts carefully and with fiscal responsibility when it spends their money on construction projects. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) who is an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna), 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 to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3534, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in 1962, at the request of Congress, President Kennedy proclaimed today as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. Every May 15 we honor our Nation's law enforcement officers who have been killed in the line of duty. Earlier today, on the west front of the Capitol, we honored those officers who were killed last year while protecting us and enforcing the law. H.R. 365, the National Blue Alert Act of 2012, establishes a nationwide system for distribution of time-sensitive information to help identify a violent suspect when a law enforcement officer is injured or killed in the line of duty. Each year, hundreds of law enforcement officers are killed or seriously injured in the line of duty. America's law enforcement officers courageously put their lives on the line every day. They often work long and irregular hours in demanding and dangerous conditions. These officers run a high risk of being injured or killed by the same criminals that prey on Americans. Just last month, in my home State of Texas, an Austin police officer was shot and killed while responding to a call about a drunk man shoplifting at the local Walmart. What seemed to be a routine call turned out to be a dangerous and deadly situation. We cannot bring Officer Padron back, but we can honor his sacrifice by helping to apprehend and bring to justice criminals who harm our men and women in blue. In 1789, President George Washington appointed America's first law enforcement officers, 13 United States Marshals. Since then, over 21,000 local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty. Despite the fact that national crime rates continue to drop, in 2011, 163 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty, a 14 percent increase over the previous year. Unfortunately, criminals are becoming even more violent, and their contempt for law enforcement and the rule of law is more evident than ever. This bill encourages expansion of an integrated Blue Alert communications network throughout the United States, much like the well-known AMBER Alert system used to locate missing and abducted children. A Blue Alert broadcasts information and speeds apprehension of violent criminals when a law enforcement officer is seriously injured or killed in the line of duty. Blue Alerts use the same principle as AMBER Alerts for missing children and Silver Alerts for missing seniors. The Blue Alert system is a cooperative effort among local, State, and Federal authorities, law enforcement agencies, and the general public. A Blue Alert provides a description of an offender who is still at large and may include a description of the offender's vehicle and license plate information. Like AMBER Alerts, Blue Alerts will help hinder the offender's ability to escape and will facilitate their capture. The bill directs the Department of Justice to designate an existing officer as the Blue Alert national coordinator, who will encourage those States that have not already done so to develop Blue Alert plans and establish voluntary guidelines. As of today, 14 States have Blue Alert networks in place, and Ohio will implement its network in June. An integrated nationwide Blue Alert system ensures that when tragedy strikes, the public is on notice and suspects can be more quickly apprehended and brought to justice. A nationwide Blue Alert network will be particularly effective when a suspect flees across State lines. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm) and Mr. Reichert of Washington for their work on this issue. This is a bipartisan, bicameral bill. Similar legislation was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last September. Supporters of this legislation include the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association. Too often, criminals in our society have no respect for authority and the rule of law. The goal of the Blue Alert is to immediately notify the entire community to assist in the location and apprehension of violent criminals who injure or kill police officers. This bill reaffirms our determination to ensure the future safety of our law enforcement men and women and the communities they serve to protect every day. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to say, we were hoping that the other author, the other cosponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), would be here. Unfortunately, he was detained. His flight was delayed from Arizona to Washington, D.C. But in his absence, I just want to thank him for his work on this bill and for all of his efforts to reduce the amount of cross-border drug smuggling and thereby protect the lives of individuals in Arizona and all Americans. He has done great work on this particular piece of legislation. We all appreciate those efforts. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters regarding H.R. 4119. May 15, 2012. Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith, On March 21, 2012, the Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 4119, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012, as amended, favorably to the House. The Committee on Ways and Means received an additional referral on the bill as a result of section 5(b) dealing with civil asset forfeiture, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. As a result of your Committee's agreement to remove section 5(b) of the bill, I agree to discharge the Committee on Ways and Means from further consideration of the bill so that a suspension version, incorporating the amendments to which we have agreed, may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor. The Committee on Ways and Means takes this action with our mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4119 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in section 5(b) in this or similar legislation, and that our Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved if that provision moves forward in any legislation so that we may address any issues that arise and fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. Our Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this provision, and requests your support for any such request. Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration thereof. Sincerely, Dave Camp, Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and we are prepared to close.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the American workforce is increasingly mobile. Fifty years ago, most people worked in the communities in which they lived. Today, many more Americans travel to other states for work. The complexity and variation among state income tax laws is a burden on interstate commerce. In some states, for example, a non-resident employee must pay income tax if they work there for only one day. But in other states, income tax liability is not triggered until the 60th day. Under this current patchwork system, employees who travel out of state for work must file tax returns in other jurisdictions even if their ultimate tax liability to a state is a few dollars. In addition to burdening our interstate employees, different state income tax laws require employers to comply with a wide variety of tax withholding laws. Many of those employers are small businesses who can least afford these administrative costs. This bipartisan bill, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act, is sponsored by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, Howard Coble. I also appreciate Congressman Hank Johnson's cosponsorship of this legislation. This bill simplifies state income tax policies without infringing on the rights of states to set their own tax rates. The bill provides that a state may not impose its income tax on non-resident employees unless they earn wages in the state for more than 30 days. The employee would still owe an income tax to their state of residence for wages earned during the first 30 days they work in a non-resident state. This bill eases the burden that the current patchwork of state income tax laws places on traveling employees and small businesses. So rather than increasing the expense of navigating the maze of tax rules, businesses can use their resources to invest in creating jobs for American workers. Finally, the bill we consider today reflects a few changes that were made at the request of state taxing authorities. I am pleased that the sponsors of the legislation were able to work cooperatively with all interested parties to bring a compromise version to the floor. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.