Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the New York Times recently decided to print classified State Department documents obtained illegally by WikiLeaks. But one year ago, The Times declined to print information released during the ClimateGate scandal that showed scientists were hiding contradictory temperature data. Regarding its decision to print the WikiLeaks documents, The Times wrote: ``For The Times to ignore this material would be to deny its own readers the careful reporting and thoughtful analysis they expect when this kind of information becomes public.'' In contrast, The Times said they did not publish the ClimateGate documents because, ``The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here.'' There is no better example of a double standard.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, during the lame duck session, Democrats in Congress want to pass the DREAM Act, which uses taxpayer dollars to give illegal immigrants amnesty and in-state tuition at public universities. The national media are doing their best to help. For example, out of 13 recent articles regarding the DREAM Act in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times, 11 were overwhelmingly one-sided and sympathetic to illegal immigrants. That means 85% were biased. In one such article, the term ``conservative'' was used to describe opponents of the legislation, but not one of the left-wing amnesty groups or activists mentioned in the article was described as ``liberal.'' The national media should give Americans all the facts about immigration, not just one side.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I support S. 1338, which requires the accreditation of English language training programs for student visa holders, and I am a cosponsor of the House version of the bill. Accreditation of English programs will ensure that foreign students here on temporary visas receive the high-level English language education they deserve and expect. And this legislation will help give the students a positive experience in America as well. The bill prevents fraud in the student visa program and raises the quality of English language training programs in the United States. It does so by requiring accreditation, which is achieved only after certain learning criteria are met. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a foreign national can get a student visa to study at a U.S. college, high school, or other learning institution such as an established ``language training program approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security after consultation with the Secretary of Education.'' This bill requires that a nonimmigrant foreign student seeking to enter the United States to study at a language training program must enroll in a program that is recognized and accredited by the Secretary of Education. The Senate has passed this legislation by unanimous consent, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Intensive English Programs (``IEPs'') serve to teach English to foreign students. There are 90,000 such students in the United States. The programs range in length from two weeks to one year, but average 12 weeks. There are nearly 1,000 IEP's in the U.S., and students must study a minimum of 18 hours per week to meet their visa requirements. Currently all IEPs must be officially recognized, but that sometimes means there is just a check to see that the building in which the IEP is supposedly located, actually exists. The result of such lax monitoring is widespread fraud in the IEP community. Illegitimate IEPs either do not teach English well or serve as scams for individuals who want to come to the United States through fraudulent means. In April 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported, ``The operator of two English language schools was charged Wednesday with running a scheme that allowed foreign nationals, including several Russian prostitutes, to fraudulently obtain student visas to enter and stay in the United States.'' In April 2009, two individuals who ran an English language school for immigrants in Duluth, GA, were indicted for submitting fraudulent documents to the Department of Homeland Security. They did so in order to get student visas for ``dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of `students.' '' And last March agents in the Miami Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office conducted the ``largest single visa fraud takedown in [the] agency's history,'' when they arrested two women who helped obtain fraudulent student visas for over 200 individuals who were supposedly attending an English school, but who were not actually doing so. Such fraudulent programs, along with IEPs that do not function well, tarnish the reputation of the entire IEP industry. That's why the American Association of Intensive English Programs supports this legislation. And legitimate IEPs are interested in ensuring the quality of their programs. Under this bill, IEPs can meet the accreditation requirement in one of two ways. First, they can be under the governance of a university or college that has been accredited by a regional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Or, second, they can be individually accredited by The Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training or the Commission or English Language Program Accreditation. The three typical steps in the accreditation process are (1) the completion of a written self-study that documents how the program or institution meets the standards of the accreditation agency; (2) a site visit by an agency team to verify that standards are being met; and (3) follow-up measures on the part of the school to correct any deficiencies, subject to review and final approval by the accreditation agency. Currently, many legitimate IEPs are voluntarily becoming accredited on their own. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, criticism of H.R. 3808 focuses on its potential application to the ongoing crisis in the foreclosure markets. News accounts have detailed stories of fraudulent activity involving affidavits used to rid banks of bad mortgage inventories. I support any effort to combat that activity, but this situation does not involve H.R. 3808. The bill applies only to ``any lawful notarization made by a licensed notary public.'' There is nothing in its language that pertains to fraudulent acts of notarization. The bill advances the legitimate purposes of the Interstate Commerce Clause by ensuring that a lawfully notarized document from one State will be acknowledged by another State in an interstate legal proceeding. The Courts Subcommittee conducted a hearing on this issue 4 years ago, and it learned of instances in which States rejected otherwise lawfully notarized documents, for petty reasons, from other States. For example, State A requires a notarized document to bear an ink stamp while State B requires a raised, embossed seal. They should be mutually recognized. The legislative history of the bill and the text, itself, has nothing to do with fraudulent notarizations. We should override the veto and support the legitimate purpose of H.R. 3808. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support House Resolution 716, which commends Gail Abarbanel for her dedication to advancing forensic sciences and reducing the DNA evidence backlog. Ms. Abarbanel is the founder of the Rape Treatment Center at the Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center, where she established the Fast Track Forensics Program. I would like to thank a good friend and colleague, Patrick Kennedy, for his sponsorship of this bill, as well as for his longstanding dedication to people in need. His compassion for others will be remembered and missed after he leaves Congress later this year. One of the most significant issues facing the criminal justice system today is the substantial backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples and biological evidence from crime scenes. This issue is particularly urgent in sexual assault and murder cases. The Fast Track Forensics Program was developed by Gail Abarbanel to help crime laboratories speed up the processing of DNA evidence. This in turn gives local law enforcement agencies a headstart on bringing criminals to justice. DNA evidence is important in cases where a suspect has been identified and proof is needed to link the suspect to a crime scene or victim. It is equally important in cases where there is no suspect. In a case without a suspect, DNA from the crime scene or the victim can be compared to offender profiles in DNA databases in an effort to identify and apprehend the perpetrator. DNA technology that improves the analysis process is increasingly vital to ensure accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system. In 2008, Congress reauthorized the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, which provides Federal grants to States to help fund initiatives such as the Fast Track Forensics Program. Programs designed to help alleviate DNA backlogs are imperative in ensuring that this forensic evidence is preserved, tested, and used in criminal cases to bring violent offenders to justice. Congress must continue its commitment to assisting backlog initiatives. This is especially true for rape and sexual assault cases. In the United States, a person is sexually assaulted every 2\1/2\ minutes. According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, the Nation's largest anti-sexual assault organization, one of every six American women will be the victim of an attempted or actual rape in her lifetime. With the use of DNA, our State and local law enforcement agencies and officials can bring these attackers to justice. The development of programs such as the Fast Track Forensics Program is important to our criminal justice system. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I yield back the balance my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, CNN claims to be the fair cable news alternative. They say they report the news ``without playing favorites,'' according to a new slogan. The facts tell a different story. In the weeks leading up to election day, liberal guests on CNN outnumbered conservative guests by a margin of more than 3 to 2, according to an analysis by the Media Research Center. From October 4 through October 29, there were a total of 88 liberal guests to just 56 conservative guests. And all three of the network's prime-time news programs featured more liberals than conservatives, according to MRC. So much for not playing favorites. CNN should give Americans the facts, not skew their programming to support a liberal agenda. Members of National Public Radio's board of directors have a clear and overwhelming liberal bias, according to an analysis by National Review. The study found that ``nearly all [NPR board members] have demonstrably liberal political sympathies, with heavy support for the Democratic party, pro-abortion-rights groups, and environmental activism in particular.'' Furthermore, ``[NPR's] board members also sit on the boards of explicitly progressive advocacy groups, and have given millions of dollars to Democrats and liberal PACs--at the same time that they control the country's `public' radio network.'' With liberals dominating NPR's board, it's no surprise its news coverage also shows a liberal bias. NPR should give Americans the facts, not tell them what to think.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the national media have shown a clear liberal bias in their coverage of immigration. For example, The New York Times frequently give large amounts of coverage to small pro-amnesty protests, but they ignore or downplay big protests by conservative groups. This week, The Times featured a 1200-word story about a rally of ``dozens'' in support of the DREAM Act, which would grant amnesty to millions of individuals. Earlier this year, The Times covered pro-amnesty demonstrations with as few as four or five protesters. The Times is not alone ire their biased coverage of immigration. By a margin of 12 to 1, the television networks featured more negative reports than positive reports about Arizona's immigration enforcement law; according to a Media Research Center analysis. The national media should give Americans the facts, not advocate for a liberal, pro-amnesty agenda.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Democrats in Congress won't tell the American people how much they're going to raise their taxes. They're going to wait till after the election when we come back into session. And Democrats in Congress won't tell the American people how they're going to spend their money. For the first time in 35 years, no budget was offered. Meanwhile, the Democrats are spending almost $2 for every $1 the Federal Government collects. That puts a drag on the economy and kills jobs. The American people have had enough. It's time to end the one-party monopoly in Washington.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close on this side; so at the appropriate time I will do so. Meanwhile, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill presents a sensitive issue with regard to compensation for those who are suffering ailments as a result of the recovery and cleanup efforts at the World Trade Center site. No doubt there are many with legitimate claims as a result of their efforts at Ground Zero. However, this legislation as written creates a huge $8.4 billion slush fund paid for by taxpayers that is open to abuse, fraud, and waste. That is because the legislation creates an inexplicable and unprecedented 21-year long fund. The case of the bill's namesake, James Zadroga, is indicative of the problems with this bill. Rather than finding that Detective Zadroga's death was the result of exposure to Ground Zero dust, the New York City medical examiner concluded that, ``It is our unequivocal opinion, with certainty beyond doubt, that the foreign material in Detective Zadroga's lungs did not get there as a result of inhaling dust at the World Trade Center or elsewhere.'' So the bill is deceptive, starting with its title. The danger here is not simply the occasional unsupported claim, as in the case of Detective Zadroga, but the creation of a massive and expensive compensation system that will be subject to pervasive problems over the unprecedented 21 years it will be open to claimants. The legislation also vastly extends the geographic scope of the fund to cover ``routes of debris removal.'' This will result in the potential for a huge number of additional claimants with tenuous connections between their medical problems and the cleanup efforts at Ground Zero. The bill allows claims to be filed until the year 2031, an unjustifiable length of time. As Ken Feinberg, Special Master of the original 9/11 fund and the administrator of the BP oil spill claims process stated, ``no latent claims need such an extended date.'' Additionally, the bill permits those who have settled their lawsuits to reopen their claims and seek additional taxpayer-funded compensation through the 9/11 fund. This is contrary to both the terms of the original 9/11 fund and to normal legal principles regarding final settlements. By greatly expanding the fund's eligibility criteria, these proposed changes not only will increase the cost of the fund, but will present more opportunities for fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars. Also the bill does little, if anything, to limit the special master's unbounded authority. The amount of discretion given to the Special Master may have been acceptable under the original 9/11 fund because it was designed to compensate a limited number of claimants with relatively noncontroversial claims as soon as possible. However, this amount of discretion will not work for the 21-year-long fund created by this bill with its larger set of potential claimants who have injuries with more ambiguous causation. If nothing else, this structure will be an open invitation for spurious claims. The original 9/11 fund was an understandable expression of a nation's compassion and generosity following the deaths of thousands of innocent people. It was designed to settle the claims of those covered once and for all. Maybe that claim should be reopened to protect the construction contractors from the financially ruinous litigation they now face. But if we are going to reopen the funds, we should do so in a much more narrow way, with far less discretion for the Special Master than that provided for in H.R. 847. It is hard to explain spending billions of additional taxpayer dollars when Special Master Ken Feinberg has emphatically stated that the $1.5 billion in taxpayer money, charitable contributions, and insurance coverage currently available for distribution is ``more than sufficient to pay all eligible claims, as well as lawyers' fees and costs.'' Why does Congress continue to overreach and consider taxpayers to be their personal slush fund? There is no excuse for this kind of legislation, and I hope thoughtful Members will want to oppose the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each side?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents an irresponsible overreach and does not contain the protections necessary to safeguard valuable taxpayer dollars from abuse, waste, and fraud. Ken Feinberg, Special Master of the original 9/11 Fund, testified twice before the Judiciary Committee on this legislation. Both times Mr. Feinberg advocated reenacting the 9/11 fund, but doing so on a much more limited basis than is done in this legislation. Why are we ignoring his advice? Mr. Feinberg stated that if the fund is reenacted, it should be for ``a window of 5 years,'' not 21, and that it should be done with ``the understanding that there would be no changes in the rules and regulations governing the original fund and that the new law would simply be a `one line' reaffirmation of the original 9/11 fund.'' Mr. Feinberg warned that ``any attempt to modify the statutory provisions and accompanying regulations of the original fund will undercut political consensus.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Feinberg's sound advice was ignored there, too. Instead, we are considering a bill that creates a fund with an unnecessary 21-year long duration and that contains special protections for trial lawyers; unnecessarily extends the original fund's eligibility criteria; and does not include the protections necessary to safeguard the fund from abuse, waste, and fraud. This is another example of Congress' insatiable appetite for the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, more Americans than ever distrust the mass media, according to a new Gallup public opinion poll. Just 12 percent say they have ``a great deal'' of confidence in the media to report the news ``fully, accurately, and fairly.'' A majority have little or no confidence in the media. And by a margin of more than 3 to 1, Americans say the media are too liberal rather than too conservative, tying the highest mark of this decade. Americans have good reason to be skeptical of the media. They repeatedly promote a liberal agenda and give the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats a free pass. If the national media want to restore the public's trust, they should give Americans the facts, not tell them what to think.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, for journalists who criticize Democrats, the punishment can be severe. ABC's Washington, DC affiliate recently fired veteran anchorman Doug McKelway after he broadcast a negative report about President Obama and congressional Democrats, according to the Washington Post. During the Gulf oil spill, McKelway reported that an anti-oil demonstration attracted protesters from ``far-left environmental groups.'' He also mentioned that President Obama accepted over $77,000 in campaign contributions from BP. And he said that the Senate was unlikely to pass cap-and-trade legislation this year because Democrats don't want to ``propose a huge escalation in your electric bill'' before Election Day. Although McKelway's comments were true, he was subsequently fired. This is yet another example of the media protecting President Obama. The media should give Americans the facts, not fire journalists who tell the truth.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the national media label political candidates and organizations ``conservative'' far more often than ``liberal.'' For example, during the last year, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times used the word ``conservative'' almost twice as often as ``liberal'' in political news stories, according to an internet search. Furthermore, by margins of 3 to 1, the newspapers used the term ``far right'' more often than ``far left'' and ``right wing'' more frequently than ``left wing.'' And the term ``extreme right'' appeared five times more often than ``extreme left.'' This disparity shows the media's liberal perspective. To them, ``liberal'' is actually ``mainstream,'' and therefore not worth mentioning. But Americans describe themselves as conservative rather than liberal by a margin of 2 to 1. The national media should give Americans the facts, not use biased language.

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, H.R. 5932, the Organized Retail Theft Investigation and Prosecution Act of 2010, is an important step in combating a crime that costs retailers and taxpayers billions of dollars every year. I am pleased to join my Judiciary Committee colleagues Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, and Congressman Goodlatte as an original sponsor of this legislation. Organized retail theft involves the theft of large quantities of merchandise from retail stores. Unlike shoplifters, these thieves steal the merchandise with the intention of selling it back into the marketplace. In the past, the majority of these stolen goods were resold at swap meets, flea markets, or pawn shops. Today, the most popular venue for selling stolen goods is the Internet. Web sites such as eBay, Craigslist, and Amazon are being exploited by organized retail thieves to sell their stolen goods with relative ease and anonymity. This dynamic makes it increasingly more difficult for retailers and law enforcement agents to identify and apprehend these thieves. According to FBI estimates, organized retail theft rings cost businesses more than $30 billion in losses annually. A recent survey conducted by the National Retail Federation found that nearly 90 percent of the retailers surveyed have been victimized by organized retail theft, an 11 percent increase from 2007. The survey also found that roughly 6 out of 10 retailers have seen an increase in organized retail theft in just the last 12 months. In 2003, the FBI established an Organized Retail Crime Initiative to identify and dismantle large multijurisdictional organized retail crime rings. This initiative included the formation of a National Retail Federation FBI intelligence network. The network is intended to establish an effective means of sharing organized retail crime information and intelligence to discuss trends as they relate to specific sectors and regions of the retail market, and to identify and target the more sophisticated criminal enterprises. Earlier this year, the National Retail Federation partnered with eBay to develop greater information sharing between eBay and participating retailers. This partnership is a significant step forward in the fight against organized retail theft. Bringing these two industries together will hopefully increase the likelihood of linking thefts from retail stores to goods offered for sale on eBay's Web site. H.R. 5932 builds upon these efforts by increasing the Federal resources dedicated to organized retail theft investigation. The bill requires the Attorney General to establish an Organized Retail Theft Investigation and Prosecution Unit within the Department of Justice. This unit will include representatives from the FBI, ICE, the U.S. Secret Service and postal inspectors, as well as prosecutors. The unit will investigate and prosecute large-scale organized retail thefts and provide assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies. The unit will also work in consultation with retailers and online marketplaces to gather information about and identify trends in organized retail thefts. H.R. 5932 instructs the Attorney General to prepare a report to Congress on how retailers and law enforcement agencies can best combat OCR. The bill authorizes $5 million a year over 5 years to operate the unit. This legislation is supported by the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the Coalition Against Organized Retail Crime, the Food Marketing Institute, the National Association of Chain Drugstores, eBay, and the Entertainment Merchants Association. I would like to thank my colleagues again, Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, and Congressman Goodlatte for their dedication to this issue and for working together to draft this bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I hope the individual I just mentioned, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, is on his way to the floor, and I hope he will be able to speak on this bill shortly. So I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), but since our expected speaker is not yet on the floor and I am not entirely certain of the time of his arrival, although I am stalling slightly, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010 contains a number of useful spelling, grammatical, and other purely technical amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. These amendments will facilitate the work of bankruptcy lawyers and judges. When any provision of law is unclear or its text inaccurate, judges and lawyers may become confused about how Congress intends for the law to operate. Sometimes legislative inaccuracies even open the door to judicial activism. It is particularly important that the Bankruptcy Code be error free, as the number of bankruptcy filings continues to rise. Last week, economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research told us that the recession technically ended in June 2009, but the American people have not seen the end of the recession's effects. The number of bankruptcy filings by small businesses and individuals continues to increase at a rate of about 30 percent per year. The bill under consideration today adopts many amendments suggested by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The Administrative Office suggested these changes in consultation with bankruptcy practitioners and judges. As a result, I expect this bill to yield a more user-friendly Bankruptcy Code. It is important to highlight on the record that this bill does not, and is not intended to, enact any substantive change to the Bankruptcy Code. The changes made to the Code by this bill are purely technical in nature. No Federal judge should interpret any provision of this bill to confer, modify, or delete any substantive bankruptcy right, nor should anyone infer a congressional intent to alter substantive rights from the bill's attention to one section of the Bankruptcy Code but not another. With this understanding, I am pleased to cosponsor the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Federal Courts and Venue Clarification Act brings more clarity to the operation of jurisdictional statutes and facilitates the identification of the appropriate State or Federal court in which action should be brought. I support this legislation and appreciate the bipartisan effort that has been made on the part of Mr. Scott, the gentleman from Virginia. Judges believe the current rules force them to waste time determining jurisdictional issues at the expense of adjudicating the underlying litigation. The contents of this bill are based on recommendations developed and approved by the United States Judicial Conference. The first version of the bill was developed in 2006, when I chaired the Courts Subcommittee. At the time, we confined our review to jurisdictional issues. Following a hearing and bill introduction, the Courts Subcommittee favorably reported the legislation to the full Judiciary Committee, but no further action was taken. Since then, jurists, legal scholars, bar groups, and policy-makers rekindled interest in resurrecting the project. This led to a rewriting of the bill to include a second title pertaining to venue. Given the press of legislative business, the Judiciary Committee was unable to conduct a hearing or markup of H.R. 4113. Instead, we processed, reviewed, and amended the bill informally, working closely with the judiciary and various stakeholders. In this regard, I thank the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which functioned as a clearinghouse to vet the bill with the Judicial Conference's Federal-State Jurisdiction Committee, academics, and interested stakeholders. The groups that assisted in this effort include the American Bar Association, Lawyers for Civil Justice, the Federal Bar Association, the American Association for Justice, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Legal scholars from the law schools at Houston, Chicago-Kent, Loyola, and Duke endorse suggested changes to the original text as developed by Professor Arthur Hellman of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, who testified at the 2005 Subcommittee hearing and contributed substantially to the project in the 111th Congress. The result is a thoroughly processed, well-conceived bill that addresses important if mundane jurisdictional and venue issues. It's legislation that helps federal judges process their work more promptly and fairly while clarifying what litigants should expect as they prepare their cases. H.R. 4113 contains a number of revisions to federal jurisdictional and venue law. Among the changes, the bill-- clarifies the definition of ``citizenship'' for foreign corporations and domestic corporations doing business abroad; separates the removal provisions governing civil cases and those governing criminal cases into two statutes; promotes timeliness of removal by giving each defendant 30 days after service to file a notice of removal; creates a general venue statute that unifies the approach to venue in diversity and federal question cases, while maintaining current venue standards; eliminates the outdated ``local action'' rule, which unnecessarily restricts venue choices for certain real-property actions; and stipulates that a natural person is deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled. Mr. Speaker, it's taken us about 5 years to reach this point, but the wait was worth the journey. The ``Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act'' illustrates how Congress can work with the Judiciary and stakeholders to pursue legislative initiatives that enhance the practice of law and the operations of our federal courts. This is a bill that ultimately benefits American citizens who use our legal system in defense of their legal rights and civil liberties. I urge the Members to support H.R. 4113. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Americans are abusing prescription drugs at alarming rates and a major source for this abuse is the unused or expired drugs in our medicine cabinets, nursing homes, and hospitals. Prescription drugs are now surpassing most illegal drugs as the drug of choice for abusers across America. The Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that ``prescription drugs account for the second most commonly abused category of drugs, behind marijuana, and ahead of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drugs.'' The most commonly abused prescription drugs are opioid painkillers, such as Oxycontin and Percocet and morphine. Accidental deaths caused by the abuse of such opioid painkillers now outnumber deaths caused by the use of cocaine and heroin. Today, an estimated seven million Americans abuse prescription drugs. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that the non-medical use of prescription drugs increased by 12 percent in 2009. Pain killers and other highly addictive prescription drugs have become increasingly popular with America's teenagers. The Centers for Disease Control reports that 20 percent of teens have admitted to taking prescription drugs without a prescription. Unfortunately, many teens believe these drugs, because they are available by prescription, are less dangerous than illegal drugs. Sadly, this can often be a deadly misconception. And a major source of prescription drugs is leftover, unused and expired drugs in our own homes and healthcare facilities. The Justice Department reports that prescription drug abuse is most prevalent among 18- to 25-year-olds, and most of these drugs are acquired for free from family and friends. The solution is safe and accessible drug disposal. Law enforcement agencies and pharmacies across the country are now sponsoring drug disposal or ``take-back'' programs to collect unused and expired prescription drugs. But these programs are at the mercy of a loophole in federal law that prevents individuals from legally disposing of controlled prescription drugs. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 or ``CSA'' utilizes a registration system for the distribution of controlled substances. Individuals are exempted from the registration requirement in order to receive a prescription from their doctor to fill at their local pharmacy. But the CSA does not authorize individuals to dispose of their unused or expired drugs to a ``take-back'' program. H.R. 5809, the Safe Drug Disposal Act, introduced by Mr. Inslee, Mr. Stupak, and myself, corrects this anomaly in the law. Once this bill is enacted, patients and long-term care facilities will be able to legally dispose of their controlled prescription drugs. H.R. 5809 establishes a public education campaign within the Office of National Drug Control Policy to increase awareness of the availability of drug take-back programs in their communities. The bill also directs the General Accountability Office to study the availability and effectiveness of drug disposal programs. Finally, the bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency to study the environmental impacts of the disposal of prescription drugs. It is imperative that Congress provide for the safe disposal of these highly-addictive and dangerous drugs. Without this change to our federal drug laws, prescription pain killers and sedatives will linger in medicine cabinets across the country, easily accessible to teenagers wishing to experiment or adults who become dependent. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the immigration tide has turned against the administration. A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 60 percent of voters disapprove of the way President Obama is handling illegal immigration. Fifty percent of Democrats and 87 percent of Republicans now agree that immigration reform should, quote, ``move in the direction of stricter enforcement of laws against illegal immigration.'' While the Obama administration sues to stop Arizona's immigration enforcement law, a CBS poll shows that 73 percent of Americans now say the law is just right or doesn't go far enough. Across the country, candidates are running on pro-enforcement, no amnesty platforms. While the Obama administration is moving in one direction, the American people are moving in the other.