Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of H.R. 1943, The Stop AIDS in Prison Act of 2007. I introduced this legislation in the last Congress and am an original cosponsor of it this year as well. And I want to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Waters, for her energetic help. I was happy to work with her in the last Congress, and I am pleased that we have worked together again this year. Also, I want to thank Chairman Conyers for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, the incidence of HIV and AIDS in Federal and State prison populations is difficult to measure because not all Federal and State inmates are routinely tested. There are approximately 170,000 prisoners in the Federal system. The Justice Department said in its 2006 report that about 2 percent of State prison inmates and over 1 percent of all Federal inmates were known to be infected with HIV. The occurrence of HIV and AIDS cases in Federal prison is at least three times higher than it is among the United States population as a whole. H.R. 1943 requires routine HIV testing for all Federal prison inmates upon entry and prior to release. For all existing inmates, testing is required within 6 months of enactment. This reasonable requirement will enable prison officials to reduce HIV among inmates and provide much needed counseling, prevention, and health care services for inmates who happen to be infected. Requiring Federal inmates to be tested when they enter prison and when they leave prison is just good common sense. For some prisoners tested when they enter prison, such testing will ensure that they receive adequate treatments, education, and prevention services while incarcerated. Similarly, it is important that prisoners are tested shortly before they are released into the community so that adequate services can be provided after their release. That, in turn, will protect the community. I believe in tough punishment for criminal offenders because the public deserves to be protected. But we have a duty to treat prisoners humanely and to rehabilitate them. Preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS among prisoners is an essential aspect of humane treatment and rehabilitation. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Before I reserve the balance of my time, I just want to thank Congresswoman Waters again for making sure that we are here today, for her leadership on this legislation, and for working with me both last year and this year on such an important bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank my friend from California for yielding. I certainly endorse his amendment and thank him for offering it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from California for pointing these provisions out, and I certainly do agree with them, and we will work towards that goal.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I want to be unequivocal, first of all, in saying that I support this manager's amendment. I yield to my friend from California (Mr. Herger) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the ranking member and former chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield a full 4 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) on the condition, of course, that he is not too critical of this legislation and that he is dispassionate in his remarks.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Issa, a member of the Judiciary Committee and the holder of 37 U.S. patents.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the deputy ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. (Mr. GOHMERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the former chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, the chairman of the House High Tech Caucus, and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I strongly endorse H.R. 1908, the Patent Reform Act of 2007, and I urge my colleagues to support American inventors, American businesses, and the American people by voting for this bill today. Last year we laid a substantial foundation for patent reform. It was a good start, but we need to finish the job now. The Patent Reform Act is the most significant and comprehensive update to patent law since the 1952 act was enacted. The Judiciary Committee has undertaken such an initiative because changes to the patent system are necessary to bolster the U.S. economy and improve the quality of living for all Americans. There are two major reasons the committee wrote the bill: first, too many patents of questionable integrity have been approved. Second, holders of these weak patents discovered a novel way to make money, not by commercializing the patents but by suing manufacturing companies whose operations might incorporate the patents. This combination of weak patents and ``seat-of-the-patents'' litigation has hurt the economy. Most companies don't want to risk shutting down their operations in response to a questionable lawsuit. Nor do they have much faith in a legal system in which juries and even judges become confused by the complexities of patent law. The result: legalized extortion in which companies pay a lot of money to use suspect patents. The bill will eliminate legal gamesmanship from the current system that rewards lawsuit abuses. It will enhance the quality of patents and increase public confidence in their legal integrity. This will help individuals and companies obtain money for research, commercialize their inventions, expand their businesses, create new jobs, and offer the American people a dazzling array of products and services that continue to make our country the envy of the world. All businesses, small and large, will benefit. All industries directly or indirectly affected by patents, including finance, automotive, manufacturing, high tech, and pharmaceuticals, will profit. Given the scope of H.R. 1908, it is impossible to satisfy completely every interested party. But the committee has made many concessions to accommodate many individuals and many businesses. The bill has not been rushed through the process. Over the past 3 years, our committee has conducted 10 hearings with more than 40 witnesses representing a broad range of interests and views. The Patent Reform Act was amended at different stages of the process to address criticisms of the bill. Still, not all interests have endorsed the bill. I think their response is mostly resistance to change, any change. This bill is not intended to favor the interests of one group over another. It does correct glaring inequities that encourage individuals to be less inventive and more litigious. Supporters of the bill run the educational, consumer and business spectrum. The Business Software Alliance, the Information Technology Industry Council, the American Association of Universities, the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, and the Financial Services Roundtable, again, they all endorse this bill. Article I, section 8, as the chairman mentioned a while ago, of the Constitution empowers Congress, ``to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' The foresight of the founders, in creating an intellectual property system, demonstrates their understanding of how patent rights ultimately benefit the American people. Nor was the value of patents lost when one of our greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, himself a patent owner, Lincoln described the patent system as adding ``the fuel of interest to the fire of genius.'' Few issues are as important to the economic strength of the United States as our ability to create and protect intellectual property. American IP industries account for over half of all U.S. exports, represent 40 percent of the country's economic growth, and employ 18 million Americans. A recent study valued U.S. intellectual property at $5 trillion, or about half of the U.S. gross domestic product. The Patent Reform Act represents a major improvement to our patent system that will benefit Americans for years to come. Madam Chairman, this bill has been a bipartisan effort. We would not be here now without the steady hand and gentle suggestions made by our chairman, Mr. Conyers. I also want to acknowledge the indispensable contributions of Congressman Howard Berman and Congressman Howard Coble, among others. All three of us have been chairmen of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee over the past number of years, and we have worked together on developing this bill. But it is Mr. Berman's good fortune and a testament to his legislative ability that we are on the House floor today, and I congratulate him for that achievement. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, ranking member of the Anti-Trust Task Force, and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Indiana for yielding, and I want to point out that he is a member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. I know he is going to describe this amendment very well, so I will not go into that detail, but simply urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if I were present during the vote on the conference report on H.R. 2669, the ``College Cost Reduction Act,'' I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 1927, the Protect America Act of 2007. We are a Nation at war with foreign terrorists who are plotting deadly attacks. Al Qaeda recently released a video promising a big surprise in the near future. Yesterday, the Senate passed this national security bill, and the Senate got it right. It is time for the House to do the same. This morning, the President called on the House to pass this critical bill, stating, ``Protecting America is our most solemn obligation, and I urge the House to pass this bill without delay.'' Mr. Speaker, last night we wasted valuable time considering a bill on the same subject strongly opposed by the Director of National Intelligence. But that debate did serve a purpose. Now we know where the majority of the majority stands. Ninety percent of the majority voted to deny the Director of National Intelligence what he said he needs to prevent future terrorist attacks. The majority claimed that its legislation fixed the problem, knowing that the Director had publicly opposed the bill because it would not allow him to carry out his responsibility of protecting the Nation, especially in our heightened threat environment. In the 30 years since Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, telecommunications technology has dramatically changed. As a result, the intelligence community is hampered in gathering essential information about terrorists needed to prevent attacks against America. Congress must modernize FISA to address this problem. The bill, one, clarifies well-established law that neither the Constitution nor Federal law requires a court order to gather foreign communications from foreign terrorists; two, adopts flexible procedures to collect foreign intelligence from foreign terrorists overseas; three, provides court review of collection procedures for this new authority; and, four, requires semiannual reports to Congress on the use of this new authority. Unlike the majority's proposal from last night, this bill does not impose unworkable, bureaucratic requirements that would burden the intelligence community. Regrettably, the Protect America Act includes a 180-day sunset, but terrorists do not sunset their plots to kill Americans, so Congress must enact a permanent change in our laws. Mr. Speaker, last April, the Director submitted to Congress a comprehensive proposal to modernize FISA. That proposal already should have been approved. Congress must enact the Director's proposals from April to give the intelligence community the additional tools they need to keep our country safe. As we approach the sixth anniversary of the devastating 9/11 attacks, it is critical that we remain vigilant in our war against terrorism. President George Washington once said: ``There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy.'' Heeding his words, we must maintain our commitment to winning the war against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the minority whip.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who's a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who is also a member of the Intelligence Committee.