Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold) who is also a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) who is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and also chairman of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, every Member of this House has sworn a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution and to faithfully execute the office to which they have been entrusted by their constituents. The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act, goes to the heart of what it means to faithfully execute public office. The government exists to promote the public good, not to enrich government officials and employees. Those who are entrusted with public office are called public servants because their work should always serve the public rather than themselves. No one should violate the sacred trust of government office by turning ``public service'' into ``self-service.'' The risk of government self-dealing is heightened by the huge growth in recent years of the Federal Government and its increasing entanglement with the private economy. The risk of self-dealing increases when the government undertakes to spend nearly $1 trillion in stimulus money on private companies like Solyndra, or when the government inserts itself into the one-fifth of our economy represented by health care and dictates the terms of private insurance policies. The decisions made by Big Government can have big money consequences. Big Government can move markets. That's why we need strong rules to reassure the public that decisionmakers are not enriching themselves by investing based on insider knowledge of government policies. This is the goal of the STOCK Act, and the House version of the STOCK Act achieves this goal. It strengthens the Senate proposal by expanding the scope of the bill to require more disclosure and prevent all office holders from profiting from insider information. The House bill expands the legislation so that the ban on insider trading applies to all legislative, executive, and judicial branch officials and their staffs. The American people deserve to know that no one in any branch of government can profit from their office. All three branches should be held to the same standard because all three branches must be worthy of the public's trust. And the bill ensures that Members of Congress who commit a crime do not receive a taxpayer-funded pension. The STOCK Act clarifies that Members of Congress and other government insiders have to play by the same rules against insider trading that have applied to the private sector for nearly 80 years. Under the House bill, no Federal Government official may use nonpublic information which they learn about by virtue of their office for the purpose of making a profit in the commodities or stock markets. The bill strengthens financial disclosure rules for public officials. Financial disclosure forms will be made publicly available in searchable, downloadable databases on government Web sites. The bill requires prompt reporting of significant securities transactions by key legislative and executive branch officials. This will bring the financial dealings of public servants into the light of day. The STOCK Act also strengthens disclosure of officials' mortgages so that public servants do not receive special rates and offers by virtue of their office. The bill expands the list of crimes that result in a forfeiture of government pension rights, and it prevents Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from paying lucrative bonuses to the executives who bear so much responsibility for the housing crisis. The House bill adds a provision to prevent government officials from receiving special early access to the initial public offerings of stock, which can result in major profits for the well-connected. The bill requires executive branch officials to disclose their negotiations for private sector jobs, just like legislative branch officials do under current law. And the bill makes it a crime for executive branch officials to pressure private businesses to hire employees of a certain political party, a government law that currently only applies to Congress. The STOCK Act increases disclosure and accountability for every branch of the Federal Government and ensures that public servants don't breach the trust of the American people. Madam Speaker, for all the above reasons, I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross) who's an active member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2038) to prohibit Members of Congress and employees of Congress from using nonpublic information derived from their official positions for personal benefit, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am afraid I will have to object. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam 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. 2038, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, billionaire Warren Buffett's longtime secretary has become a symbol in the current Administration's fight over the tax code and economic fairness. While she was the President's chief stage prop in a show of the alleged unfairness of our tax system, this is hardly the truth. The national media have painted this as a case of the little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss. Thankfully, Forbes and a few media outlets have researched the facts. By reviewing the Internal Revenue Service's own detailed tax tables by income level, Forbes has determined she likely makes between $200,000 and $500,000. The national media have not done their homework on Mr. Buffett's longtime secretary. They have misled the American people on the important issue of income taxes and capital gains investments that help create jobs. We need to remind the national media of their obligation to provide the American people with the facts.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1059) to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports, and for other purposes.

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 to include extraneous material on the motion to concur currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I support H.R. 1059 and thank Mr. Conyers for sponsoring it. I also thank Mr. Cohen of Tennessee and Mr. Johnson of Georgia for serving as cosponsors. H.R. 1059 promotes an important goal, providing security for Federal judges. Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-level judicial branch officials must file annual financial disclosure reports. This requirement increases public confidence in government officials and better enables the public to judge the performance of those officials. However, Congress enacted legislation that allows the Judicial Conference to redact statutorily required information in a financial disclosure report where the release of the information could endanger the filer or their family. Those who seek to harm or intimidate Federal judges might use a disclosure form to identify where someone's spouse or child works or goes to school on a regular basis. Individuals targeting judges for harassment have also been known to file false claims on property owned by judges and their families. Harassers could use judicial financial disclosure reports to more easily identify such property. The Judicial Conference delegated to its Committee on Financial Disclosure the responsibility to implement the financial disclosure requirements for judges and judicial employees under the Ethics in Government Act. The committee monitors the release of financial disclosure reports to ensure compliance with the statute. In consultation with U.S. Marshals Service, the committee also reviews and approves or disapproves any request for redaction or statutorily mandated information where the filer believes the release of the information could endanger the filer and their family. Under the Judicial Conference's regulations, no redaction will be granted without a clear nexus between a security risk and the information for which redaction is sought. The law has worked well through the years and has been reauthorized twice since 2001; but it expires at the end of this calendar year if we fail to act, an outcome that is unacceptable. Last year the Marshals Service investigated and analyzed almost 1,400 threats and inappropriate communications to judicial officials, nearly three times as many threats as recorded in 2003. And there were more than 3,900 incidents and arrests at U.S. court facilities in 2010. Financial disclosures help maintain an open and transparent government, but government transparency should not come at the cost of personal security for government officials. Judges and other judicial employees perform important work that is integral to our democratic system of government. In order to preserve the integrity of our democracy, we must protect the integrity of our courts; and that means ensuring the security of judges and other judicial employees from intimidation and threats. The Senate made two minor amendments to the bill, which we accept. The first amendment involves an annual report that the administrative Office of the U.S. Courts submits to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The report summarizes the redactions made in the preceding year and explains why they were made. The first amendment mandates that the report also be sent to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as well as the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee. The second amendment sunsets the redaction authority after 6 years, in 2017. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1059, as amended by the Senate, and urge my colleagues to extend the redaction authority. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close; so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me try again to address some of the concerns of two of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. I want to reemphasize that extraterritorial laws do not require that the conduct be illegal in foreign countries. Congress has enacted numerous laws with extraterritorial effect. Our decision to do so rarely, if ever, hinges on whether the conduct is also criminalized in the foreign country. Once again, terrorism, drug-related money laundering, genocide, child soldiers--these are all extraterritorial offenses that do not require that the conduct also be against the law in a foreign country. Moreover, most extraterritorial statutes don't even require that the criminal engage in any illegal conduct inside the United States either. If they engage in terrorism or money laundering or genocide in a foreign country and simply come into the U.S., they can be prosecuted. The issue of conduct being criminal in a foreign country is not addressed in extraterritorial laws but in extradition treaties. Also, extradition treaties do not require that conduct be illegal in foreign countries. Before the U.S. can extradite anyone for violation of U.S. law, it must first establish ``dual criminality'' as required by most extradition treaties. Dual criminality is the principle that a crime in one country has to be a crime in a country extraditing you. If a drug trafficker engages in a conspiracy here in the U.S., but is later apprehended in a foreign country, the government will have to establish that dual criminality to extradite him back to the U.S. The extradition laws and treaties among the countries of the world properly provide for this. This principle is rightly excluded from this legislation because it already exists in Federal law. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to also emphasize that the Obama administration clearly supports this legislation. The Department of Justice supported similar legislation in the last Congress, and the Department of Justice stands by its position, as expressed in the 2010 views letters, and supports this legislation tonight. I urge my colleagues to support this very strong bipartisan piece of legislation, 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. 313) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that persons who enter into a conspiracy within the United States to possess or traffic illegal controlled substances outside the United States, or engage in conduct within the United States to aid or abet drug trafficking outside the United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the United States, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 313, the Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and me, closes a loophole in Federal law. Drug traffickers are currently exempt from prosecution in the United States when they conspire to traffic drugs outside of the United States. This bill clarifies Congress' intent that the drug trafficking conspiracy statute should be given extraterritorial application. A Federal criminal case demonstrates how the loophole is being exploited. In 1998 two individuals conspired with members of a large Colombian drug trafficking organization and a Saudi Arabian prince. The goal of the conspiracy was to traffic 2,000 kilograms of cocaine, worth over $100 million, from South America to Europe. Several meetings among the coconspirators occurred in Miami, Florida, and elsewhere around the world. Specifically while in Miami, they planned in detail to purchase the cocaine in Colombia and ship it to Europe for distribution. The prince used his royal jet under the cover of diplomatic immunity to transport the cocaine from Venezuela to Paris, France. Although part of the cocaine was seized by law enforcement authorities in France and Spain, about 1,000 kilograms of cocaine were distributed and sold in the Netherlands, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe. In 2005 two of the conspirators were convicted of drug trafficking and conspiracy in the Federal district court in Florida, and each was sentenced to over 20 years in prison. However, in 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated their convictions. The court reasoned that there is no violation of Federal law when, absent congressional intent, the object of the conspiracy is to possess and distribute controlled substances outside of the United States. This is true even though meetings and negotiations to further the crime occurred on U.S. soil. Crime is usually a territorial issue, specific to the place where the crime occurs. However, drug trafficking is inherently global in nature now more than ever. In fact, two other provisions of the Controlled Substances Act are already explicitly extraterritorial as they relate to narcoterrorism, terrorism financed through drug trafficking and the foreign manufacture of drugs for importation into the United States. The primary anti-money laundering statute used in drug trafficking cases is also extraterritorial. Three years ago, Congress enacted the Federal Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act in response to the increase in use of vessels to traffic drugs around the world. Congress gave this law express extraterritorial effect. Congress stated ``that trafficking in controlled substances aboard vessels is a serious international problem and is universally condemned. Moreover, such trafficking presents a specific threat to the security and societal well-being of the United States.'' The United States is a signatory to two major international drug- control treaties. Of the 194 countries in the world today, 184 are parties to the 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which acts as the foundation for most of the world's drug trafficking laws. Drug trafficking is a global problem, universally condemned by law-abiding nations. Some argue that a person should not be subject to the new conspiracy offense created by this bill unless his conduct is expressly illegal in every country where the drug trafficking occurs. Such a requirement is rarely, if ever, imposed on extraterritorial statutes. In fact, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proponents of a number of extraterritorial laws that contain no requirement that the conduct be illegal in the country where it occurs. Such crimes include genocide, the recruitment or use of child soldiers, or the use of semi-submersible submarines. These laws are significantly broader than the bill before us today because they do not require any illegal conduct to occur inside the United States. H.R. 313, however, does require that the conspiracy to traffic drugs take place here in the U.S. This legislation is narrowly tailored to reach drug trafficking conspiracies that occur on U.S. soil, but which promote the global distribution of drugs. To require the government to prove that the crime violated foreign law would also render this law essentially ineffective. Drugs are not simply manufactured in one country and sold in another. Drug shipments make several stops along the way to their final destinations. For instance, cocaine is manufactured and processed in Colombia. It will likely be shipped by ground to Venezuela. It may then be put in a shipping container, transit several Caribbean islands, and then be sent to Africa or Europe. It could be off-loaded in Spain, divided up into smaller, but substantial, shipments and wind up in a dozen European countries. The proceeds from this multi-million-dollar shipment will make their way through the banking systems of a dozen other countries before being delivered to Colombia. The government should not be required to prove that each of these acts violated each country's laws to prove that the traffickers plotted their conspiracies inside the U.S. This bill, as amended in the Judiciary Committee with unanimous bipartisan support, excludes conspiracies to possess drugs. This legislation aims to eliminate the safe harbor for drug traffickers and distributors whose primary motive is financial gain. If we do not pass this bill, we continue to invite drug traffickers to plan their schemes within our borders. The United States should not provide a safe haven for the world's drug traffickers to plot their international drug trafficking operations. This commonsense bill prevents drug traffickers from benefiting from their legal exemption from prosecution, and it tells drug traffickers not to plot their illegal activities in the U.S. If they do, they will be brought to justice. I do want to thank Mr. Schiff again for sponsoring this legislation with me, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, October 26, 2011. Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing concerning H.R. 313, the ``Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011,'' which was ordered to be reported out of your Committee on October 6, 2011. I wanted to notify you that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will forgo action on H.R. 313 so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. This is being done with the understanding that the Committee on Energy and Commerce is not waiving any of its jurisdiction, and the Committee will not in any way be prejudiced with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding, and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 313 on the House floor. Sincerely, Fred Upton, Chairman.

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. 313, as amended, currently under consideration.