Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, credit goes to the gentlewoman from Florida, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, for introducing this bill in the House and for advancing this piece of legislation to the point where we are considering it today. Child pornography is a reprehensible, yet profitable, global criminal enterprise. And it is growing rapidly in technical sophistication in response to efforts to detect and disrupt these criminal operations. It is a despicable and vicious victimization of children. The Internet is a virtual playground for sexual predators who satiate their desire for child pornography with relative anonymity. Law enforcement officials have identified nearly 500,000 individuals trafficking in child pornography over the Internet. However, due to the lack of resources at the Federal, State and local levels, law enforcement officials are able to investigate only about 2 percent of these child pornographers. S. 1738, the Combating Child Exploitation Act of 2008, will assist law enforcement officials with apprehending these dangerous predators. This legislation combines two House bills, H.R. 3845, the PROTECT Our Children Act and H.R. 3791, the SAFE Act, both of which passed the House last year with overwhelming support. This legislation establishes a national strategy for child exploitation prevention and interdiction and provides additional funding for the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces. These multi-jurisdictional task forces are on the front-lines of combating Internet child pornography. State and local agencies will now be given much-needed resources to combat this growing problem. S. 1738 also provides critical funding to expand computer forensic capabilities for child exploitation cases at the Regional Computer Forensic Labs across the country. Finally, title V of S. 1738, which incorporates the provisions of the SAFE Act, will strengthen the requirements on Internet service providers to report violations of child pornography laws. It also enhances the ability of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to collect and report suspected instances of child pornography to law enforcement agencies across America and around the world. The Internet has become a magnet for child exploitation and child pornography. This legislation will help deter it. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, child predators will stop at nothing to prey on innocent children. The Internet affords them not only a virtual world within which to lure children into meeting them but also significantly hampers the ability of law enforcement to identify and apprehend them. The Internet is constantly evolving. A decade ago, email was the revolution that connected people in the workplace, on college campuses, and across the country. Today, chat rooms and social networking sites boast users in the millions from around the world and attract young children who may not be aware of the risks involved with sharing personal information online. We were all shocked to learn last year that over 20,000 registered sex offenders were on commercial social networking sites. In response to media attention, these sites removed the sex offenders and continue to actively monitor their sites. S. 431, the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act or KIDS Act of 2007, will help these sites and other Internet providers, as well as law enforcement officials, to identify sex offenders lurking on the Internet. The bill contains an important provision requiring sex offenders to update their registration information to include their electronic mail addresses, instant messaging addresses and other similar Internet identifiers. The KIDS Act also provides a mechanism to allow social networking sites to check sex offender registries to prevent sex offenders from accessing the site. The House passed similar legislation, H.R. 719, last year. However, many of these important provisions had been stripped from the bill before it was brought to the floor. I am pleased that S. 431 reinstates many of these provisions, most importantly, the requirement that sex offenders report their email addresses and other Internet identifiers. S. 431 also incorporates a provision originally introduced by my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Randy Forbes, in H.R. 4094. This provision amends the Adam Walsh Act to revise the minimum standards for electronic monitoring of sex offenders. This important correction will improve the use of these monitoring devices under the Adam Walsh Act pilot program. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), a former chairman of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee and now the ranking member of that subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the principal purpose of S. 3325, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, or PRO-IP Act, is to improve the government's response to the threats posed by counterfeiting and piracy. At the outset, I want to recognize Chairman Conyers, IP Subcommittee Chairman Berman, and IP Subcommittee Ranking Member Coble, each of whom helped to advance the House version of this legislation, H.R. 4279, which passed the House in May by an overwhelming vote of 410-11. I also want to say at this point that I happen to agree with the concerns expressed by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren). And while I agree with their concerns, particularly their objection to the provision that was changed by the other body, I am still going to support this legislation as it stands and hope to make a change in the future that will address their concerns. Over the past 25 years, perhaps no group of industries has been more responsible for the sustained growth in our economy than those who rely on strong patent, trademark and copyright protections. Today, our technology, entertainment, and productivity-based enterprises stand as pillars of our economic and export strength. They employ 18 million Americans and account for 40 percent of our economic growth. The successes of our IP rights-holders--family-owned small businesses and Fortune 500 companies alike--make them prime targets for international pirates and counterfeiters. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, this criminal activity costs U.S. citizens up to $250 billion every year, and has contributed to the loss of up to 750,000 jobs. The PRO-IP Act is a measure that is designed to respond to these challenges. The bill contains provisions that; one, strengthen our laws against counterfeiting and piracy; two, provide new resources to key agencies involved in the enforcement of IP rights; and three, require a new and unprecedented level of coordination and leadership on IP enforcement issues from the White House. Mr. Speaker, while our government agencies are doing more today to protect IP than ever before, the reality is that we must do even more if we are to increase the cost of doing business for counterfeiters and traffickers, some of whom are connected to organized crime. With competing priorities and limited resources, our government agencies must work in a cooperative and coordinated fashion to leverage our IP enforcement efforts. By statutorily elevating these issues to the White House level and requiring the continuous and systematic development of an unprecedented national strategy to target IP theft, the PRO-IP Act represents an important first step towards ensuring our government agencies work efficiently and in concert to develop a joint response to this pervasive threat. Congress has a duty to ensure that IP enforcement is made a permanent priority of every administration. This measure, while not containing all of the provisions that were in the House measure, is a first step towards achieving our goals. By supporting S. 3325, the House will send a clear message to the White House and future administrations that there is a bipartisan and bicameral commitment to the protection of our vital national and economic interests. So I urge my colleagues to support S. 3325.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a former chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and now the ranking member of that subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes the 100th anniversary of The Christian Science Monitor newspaper on November 25, 2008. Thanks go to Congressman Mike Capuano (MA), who agreed to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan resolution and whose district includes the Boston headquarters of The Christian Science Monitor. Rep. Capuano's public service is appreciated by all those who know him. I also want to thank Ranking Member Tom Davis (VA) of the Government Reform Committee, who was an active supporter of this resolution. His energy and knowledge will be missed, since he is retiring at the end of this session. Congressman Henry Waxman (CA), Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, offered his essential endorsement of this resolution. Without his assistance, this resolution wouldn't be on the floor today. I happen to have a personal interest in commemorating the 100th anniversary of The Christian Science Monitor because I worked at the paper in Boston for two years shortly after graduating from college. Starting out as a copyboy, I then became a clerk and eventually a staff writer for the Business and Financial page. So I was able to witness the high standards of journalistic integrity maintained at The Christian Science Monitor, which has rightfully gained a reputation for fair and objective news reporting. The Monitor has earned that reputation because of its dedicated and committed editors, reporters and staff. This resolution highlights some of the ways in which The Monitor serves as an exceptional newspaper. Established by Mary Baker Eddy 100 years ago, The Monitor remains the oldest surviving paper in the U.S. founded by a woman. Its mission was and continues to be ``to injure no man, but to bless all mankind.'' And the Monitor has won worldwide respect for its international news coverage and been awarded seven Pulitzer Prizes for excellence in journalism. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the 100th anniversary of The Christian Science Monitor.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, whether it is a financial crisis or Presidential debate, the media just can't seem to help themselves. They always show a bias against Republicans. That is no surprise, since they make contributions to Senator Obama over Senator McCain by a 20-1 ratio. The greatest threat our country faces is not an economic recession; it is a partisan bias. The media should give the American people the facts, not tell them what to think. Otherwise, we will lose our democracy, which is a greater danger than the economy. The media is hurting its credibility for the future. They should instead adhere to the highest standards of journalism and report the news fairly and objectively.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee as well, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), as well as my colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe), for championing this issue. I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas again for his efforts on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today, dangerous drug traffickers are surreptitiously moving tons of cocaine across our oceans and into America. Cocaine traffickers operate with stealth and are virtually undetectable thanks to their use of self-propelled submersible and semi- submersible vessels or SPSS. These submarine-like vessels have unusual construction. They are typically less than 100 feet long with most of their bulk under water. They can carry up to five crew and as much as 12 metric tons of cocaine from the north coast of South America to the southeastern United States without refueling. The U.S. Coast Guard has successfully apprehended two SPSS vessels in just the last few weeks. One carried seven tons of cocaine with a street value of $187 million. The second vessel seized was carrying 295 bales of cocaine. However, under current law, it is not illegal to operate one of these vessels. Therefore, in order to successfully prosecute these criminals, the Coast Guard must obtain evidence of drug trafficking or other illicit conduct--a dangerous proposition on the high seas. Coast Guard teams must physically board the SPSS, often in the dead of night, while it is travelling at up to ten knots. The teams must then risk their lives to apprehend the traffickers and seize the drugs aboard the SPSS. And the drug traffickers know the law. They know that the Coast Guard must obtain evidence of drugs so they will often scuttle the vessel and jump overboard--turning a criminal apprehension into a rescue mission. This legislation removes this dangerous hurdle. By prohibiting the possession of SPSS vessels without nationality, we protect the safety of these Coast Guard teams while ensuring swift prosecution of the cocaine traffickers. I wish to commend my colleagues, Mr. Lungren and Mr. Poe, for championing this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 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. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very similar to the legislation we passed in the House a week ago, H.R. 6855. The bill addresses an issue affecting the safety of the Justices and other officials who work at the United States Supreme Court. First, the legislation extends the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court Police to protect Court officials off the Supreme Court grounds through 2013. The current authorization expires on December 29, 2008. This provision is necessary and noncontroversial. Congress created the original authority in 1982 and has renewed it regularly. The last authorization was 4 years ago. Failure to extend the authority places the Justices and other Supreme Court employees and officers at risk. In light of heightened security threats, it is vital that the Supreme Court Police be empowered to carry out this service without interruption. In fact, Justice Souter was attacked off grounds while jogging in May 2004, the same year we last extended the authority. As with previous authorizations, it is contemplated that the authority extends to the immediate area in the District and surrounding environs. The Marshall Service would provide protection to the Justices when they speak or travel out of the D.C.-Virginia-Maryland metropolitan region. Finally, the legislation prohibits Federal judges from accepting honorary memberships to clubs that are valued in excess of $50. The last item is the only distinction between S. 3296 and the House bill. Mr. Speaker, S. 3296 acknowledges an unfortunate but realistic problem: sometimes the Justices must be protected off Supreme Court grounds. This is a legislative exercise that the Congress has regularly undertaken on behalf of the Court since 1982. I urge the Members to support the bill.

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

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. I am happy to have played a part in the creation of the Religious Worker Immigrant Visa program in 1990. These visas enable American religious denominations, large and small, to benefit from committed religious workers from other countries. Last April, the House passed legislation to extend the program for an additional 7 years. Senator Specter introduced legislation in the Senate to extend the program for 3 years. I support this bill today. However, it only reauthorizes the religious worker visa program for about 5 months. Why such a short reauthorization? Well, the reason is that some Democrats in the Senate are holding the reauthorization of another vital immigration program hostage. The E- Verify program provides tens of thousands of American employers who want to do the right thing with an effective tool to ensure that they are hiring a legal workforce. The authorization for E-Verify expires in November, so the House passed a 5-year reauthorization by the overwhelming vote of 407-2. Unfortunately, Democrats in the Senate have refused to pass an extension of E-Verify for longer than 5 months. They refuse to pass a longer extension unless we accede to their demand to increase immigration to the United States by about a half a million people. Such a demand goes against the clear preference of the American people who support current or reduced levels of immigration. It goes against the interest of American workers who compete with foreign workers for the same jobs, and it goes against the interest of American employers who want to count on E-Verify's being available to them for the long term. This body is right to reject the demand of the Senate Democrats. Unfortunately, since they will only extend E-Verify for 5 months, we will only get a 5-month extension of the religious worker visa program. So we will need to address this issue again after the 111th Congress convenes next January. I do appreciate the language in this bill that requires the Department of Homeland Security to expeditiously issue needed regulations to address fraud in the religious worker visa program. I have long been concerned about the high level of fraud that has been evident in this program. I urge my colleagues to support this 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. With the current antitrust exemption for need-based educational aid expiring on September 30, our timely action is necessary. Congressman Delahunt, the sponsor of this bill, has successfully guided it through Congress, and without his efforts, we might not have extended this extension before it expired. I appreciate Mr. Delahunt's leadership because this issue has long been of interest to me. I was a sponsor of the bill that extended the exemption in 1997 and in 2001, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill as well. The bills in 1997 and 2001 were like the bill that passed the House last April, a permanent extension of the moratorium. Both times, the Senate amended those bills, as they did again this year, to a term of years. This exemption originated because Congress disagreed with a suit brought by the Department of Justice against nine colleges for their efforts to use common criteria to assess each student's financial need. Twenty-seven colleges and universities currently are members of the 568 Presidents' Group, which utilizes this antitrust exemption. They include Amherst College, Boston College, Brown University, Claremont McKenna College, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Davidson College, Duke University, Emory University, Georgetown University, Grinnell College, Haverford College, MIT, Middlebury College, Northwestern University, Pomona College, Rice University, Swarthmore College, the University of Chicago, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Pennsylvania, Vanderbilt University, Wake Forest University, Wellesley College, Wesleyan University, and Williams College. Several other colleges, including Yale and Harvard, participate as advisory members of this group. To my knowledge, there are no complaints about the existing exemption. In fact, a recent GAO study of the exemption found that there has been no abuse of the exemption, and it stated that there has not been an increase in the cost of tuition as a result of the exemption. This bill, as amended by the Senate, would extend the exemption for another 7 years. It would not make any change to the substance of the exemption. I had hoped that Congress would have been able to extend the exemption permanently, but I'm aware that some in the Senate objected. The need-based financial aid system serves a worthy goal that the antitrust laws do not adequately address--making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. No students who are otherwise qualified should be denied the opportunity to go to one of these schools because of the limited financial means of their families. This bill helps protect need-based aid and need-blind admissions. It has been noncontroversial in the past, and it is supported by a number of higher educational groups. I urge my colleagues to support this 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. Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of servicemembers serve with distinction and honor, and are never subjected to disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But when disciplinary action is necessary, the UCMJ and the military justice system provide a high degree of protection for the accused. In many cases, these protections extend well beyond those provided by the civil justice system. But from time to time, policymakers ought to review and contemplate proposals for change. I am told the particular section of the code this bill would amend has not been altered or subjected to a congressional review in a quarter of a century. And yet the bill before us proposes far-reaching and significant changes in terms of expanded appellate rights for servicemembers convicted of wrongdoing. I would support consideration of this measure in the regular order. But the regular order requires a review and consideration of the relative merits of the legislation by subcommittee and committee members with subject matter expertise; a hearing with witnesses who can present expert testimony and offer guidance as to the necessity, effect and scope of any proposals in the bill; a markup or markups after notice to the public and the stakeholders most likely to be impacted by changes; and a committee report that is written and made available to the public and future Congresses that explains the intent and rationale of the proposed changes. Regrettably, the committee and House leadership have decided to short-circuit the process and dispense with every single one of these steps. This is despite the fact that the bill was introduced by its sponsors and referred to the Courts Subcommittee, with no action, more than a year ago. The regular order did not fare any better in the other body where the committee of jurisdiction took up the measure just 2 weeks ago and reported it without a hearing, a report, or any other substantial process or record. Because of the haste with which this proposal is being considered, one might infer there are no questions that ought to be addressed or there are questions that might expose this bill as bad policy if Congress wasn't rushing to judgment. The truth is when a similar measure was introduced last Congress, the general counsel of the Department of Defense raised major questions about the wisdom and necessity of that bill, as well as its likely impact on the department. In a letter dated February 6, 2006, General Counsel William J. Haynes, II, wrote that the Department of Defense ``opposes the proposed legislation.'' He noted the department's view that ``there is demonstrable inequity that needs to be rectified''; that ``opening this additional avenue of Supreme Court appeal will require legal reviews and briefs from numerous counsel on the military departments' Government and Defense Appellate Divisions, the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel, as well as within the Office of the Solicitor General and the Supreme Court,'' and that the legislation provides no ``clear safeguards'' to preclude the possible abuse by petitioners of this new avenue for appellate review. I am particularly concerned by this last point as well as the fact that the bill is written to permit an appellant to repeal the case to the Supreme Court even when the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has declined to review it on the merits, let alone to issue a final decision. Unfortunately, by refusing to permit the subcommittee and committee members to study the issues and properly discharge their responsibilities, the House leadership is forcing Members to make assumptions without any evidence. Just as a court should not convict someone of an offense without due process and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, Members of Congress should not be placed in the position of changing long-standing policies without some formal process and actual consideration of the evidence for and against the proposal. The Democratic leadership increasingly has resorted to extraordinary tactics to move legislation. In so doing, they do a disservice to the Members of the House and of the people we represent. In closing, Mr. Speaker, the unasked questions and lack of process compel me for the time being to oppose this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my Texas colleague, Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Speaker, the Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act creates an Office of the FBI Liaison within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This office will monitor the progress of naturalization applications filed by veterans and military personnel. It will also monitor the progress of naturalization applications filed by spouses of active duty soldiers stationed abroad. And the Liaison Office will track the naturalization process for the soldiers and their spouses and children who are eligible for citizenship under the provisions that grant posthumous citizenship to military personnel who die in service to the country. The intent behind the establishment of this Liaison Office is to address the delays that often occur in the processing of the necessary background checks for these categories of applicants. The haste under which this bill was added to the suspension calendar precludes any meaningful assessment of the need for such an office. However, I do not object to measures that facilitate the processing of naturalization applications of those who have honorably served our country or their spouses and children. This bill also requires USCIS to make a decision on these applications within 6 months of filing or, in circumstances in which that is not possible, to provide the reasons why. This is not an onerous burden since USCIS will still have the flexibility needed to be sure that all required security checks and eligibility criteria are met before granting citizenship. In this Congress, we have already passed legislation to ease the processing of naturalization applications for our soldiers. The Kendall Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act became law on June 26th of this year. That law permits soldiers to use the fingerprints they provided at the time of enlistment for their background checks. That law also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the FBI to take steps to ensure that soldiers' naturalization applications are adjudicated within 180 days after the background checks have been completed. This bill furthers those goals. The bill provides, but does not require, an earlier target date of 6 months after the filing of the application. But in cases in which that time frame cannot be met--even with the new FBI liaison office created under this bill--USCIS will need to explain why. I have no objection to these measures, which are intended to ensure the timely adjudication of naturalization applications filed by those who have served our Nation, and urge my colleagues to support the bill. 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. 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 yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my Texas colleague described the merits of this legislation so well, I will simply make my prepared statement a part of the Record. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of 9-11, the American media has become increasingly alarmed over a phenomenon called ``libel tourism.'' The term refers to the subject of a critical news story suing the American author or reporter of the story in a plaintiff-friendly overseas forum. This mostly occurs in the United Kingdom, since English libel and slander laws offer less protection to journalists compared to the U.S. system that features the protection offered by the First Amendment. Persons identified in news stories as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers have brought some of the higher-profile suits. In fact, H.R. 6146 is a legislative response to a New York case in which a Saudi billionaire sued an American author in the UK for defamation, based on the author's allegations that he had subsidized terrorist activities. What is the legal hook that allowed a British court to claim jurisdiction over the case? Twenty-three copies of the author's book detailing the billionaire's activities were purchased online in Great Britain. The reporter chose not to appear before the court, which subsequently found her liable and ordered her to pay $225,000 in damages, apologize to the plaintiff, and destroy any remaining copies of the offending book. Such a result is doubly troublesome. First, an author must worry about satisfying a judgment that would bankrupt most Americans. And second, an author must contend with the fall-out of being shunned by the publishing community. This is not an imagined result. It is a real threat to anyone wishing to earn a living by reporting and commenting on controversial subjects. And it's an outcome incompatible with our constitutional history and its commitment to the free-flow of ideas and to the robust debate contemplated by the First Amendment. H.R. 6146 combats libel tourism by proscribing enforcement of any foreign defamation case if it is not ``consistent with the First Amendment . . . .'' This proposal tracks U.S. case law, which holds that a foreign judgment will not be enforced in an American court if the foreign judgment is offensive to State or Federal law. H.R. 6146 does not overreach. It constitutes a straightforward and sensible response to the practical legal problems caused by libel tourism by codifying a principle already reflected in U.S. law. Mr. Speaker, I commend the primary authors of the bill, my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, Representatives Steve Cohen and Darrell Issa, for their hard work and persistence in addressing this important subject. I also want to acknowledge our colleague, Representative Peter King, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee, for his work on the issue. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6146.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. First of all, I support this legislation and I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for his persistent efforts in promoting this legislation. I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).