Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy) who, as Mr. Scott said awhile ago, is the original author of similar legislation. Were it not for Mr. Murphy's efforts in the last Congress to pass his bill unanimously, we would not be here tonight. We thank him for his leadership and for his initiative last year.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who is a member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and who is chairman of the House Republican High-Tech Working Group, and who is also the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 740, the Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement Act, or PHONE Act, and I thank Chairman Conyers and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their support of this bill which unanimously passed the House at the end of the 109th Congress. Mr. Speaker, a new type of fraud known as ``spoofing'' is becoming more prevalent. Spoofing involves masking one's caller ID information to facilitate a fraudulent telephone call to the recipient. Those who engage in spoofing use incorrect, fake or fraudulent caller identification to hide their identity, and then obtain personal information from the victim. Call recipients unwittingly divulge their names, addresses, or Social Security numbers under the mistaken belief that the caller represents a bank, a credit card company, or even a court of law. Spoofing is not simply annoying; it is the latest tactic for committing identity theft and other types of fraud that costs victims thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Spoofing not only victimizes the phone call recipient, but also invades the privacy of those individuals whose caller ID is used to mask the fraudulent calls. To address this, H.R. 740 specifically prohibits the use of an actual person's caller ID information for spoofing. Although the technology needed to spoof has been available for some time, it previously required special equipment and knowledge to use the masking technology. Recently, this technology has become more accessible either through the purchase of Internet telephone equipment or through Web sites specifically set up for spoofing. These Web sites claim to protect one's privacy. However, the use of this technology has been linked to fraud, prank phone calls, political attacks, and telemarketers' attempts to avoid ``do not call'' restrictions. Additionally, calling cards can be purchased or accounts set up to facilitate multiple telephone calls. One of the greatest concerns related to spoofing is the use of the technology by criminals to mislead law enforcement officials and evade prosecution. H.R. 740 addresses these concerns by creating a new Federal crime to prohibit the modification of caller ID with the intent to deceive the recipient of a telephone call as to the identity of the caller. The bill imposes a fine and/or a prison term of up to 5 years for violations. However, the legislation does not affect legally available blocking of caller ID technology, or lawfully authorized activities of law enforcement or intelligence agencies. This legislation will help deter telephone fraud, protect consumers from harassment, and protect consumers and their personally identifiable information from identity thieves. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. 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 rise in support of H.R. 545, the Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007, which provides urgently needed funds to Native American communities for the enforcement and treatment of methamphetamine addiction. The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 was enacted last year as part of the U.S. PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act. It included three critical grant programs to assist States with America's escalating methamphetamine problem: the COPS Meth Hot Spots program, the Drug-Endangered Children program and the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders program. However, the act inadvertently omitted Native American communities from participation in two of these grant programs. At a hearing before the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee in February, Mr. Ben Shelly, vice president of the Navajo Nation, stated that methamphetamine is the drug of choice in Indian country. In 2005, 40 percent of all calls seeking police assistance on the Navajo Nation were meth-related. Even more troubling is that 40 percent of all violent crimes committed on the Navajo Nation are directly related to methamphetamine use trafficking. Mr. Udall of New Mexico, the sponsor of H.R. 545, testified at the hearing that 74 percent of Native Americans surveyed in a recent study say that meth is the single biggest threat to Native American communities today. The Native American Meth Enforcement and Treatment Act corrects this oversight and gives Native Americans full access to all three meth grants. This legislation is critical to our continuing fight to eliminate the meth epidemic in America. Mr. Speaker, I support this bipartisan legislation and urge my colleagues to do so as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the ranking member of the Courts, Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of this legislation and believe it is necessary to protect judges, their family members and the other courthouse personnel by preventing disclosure of personal information that can be used to target and retaliate against them. This legislation extends the authority of Federal judges and court personnel to redact sensitive and personal information from financial disclosure reports for security reasons. The current authority to redact personal and sensitive information from financial disclosure reports expired at the end of 2005. Recent assaults and threats against Federal judges and their family members demonstrate the need for this redaction authority to continue. I believe this is an important safeguard to prevent vindictive offenders and litigants from seeking their revenge by harming or intimidating judges, probation officers and others. H.R. 1130 extends the authority for 4 years, expands the coverage to include immediate family members, and improves the annual reporting requirements on the use of this authority. Although I favor a permanent extension of redaction authority, I support a 4-year extension to ensure the bill's timely passage by the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Ohio yielding me time, and I also want to thank Ranking Member Tom Davis and Chairman Henry Waxman for their hard work on this issue. I know how strongly they feel about the need for more open government, and I and many others appreciate their efforts. The process for obtaining government information is overly burdensome, and Federal agencies have become less and less responsive to requests for information. This deters citizens from obtaining information to which they are entitled. H.R. 1309, the Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007, has much to recommend it, but it contains at least one fatal flaw, the statutory presumption of disclosure. For that reason, I oppose this legislation. The presumption of disclosure would reverse the FOIA guidelines set out by former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Shortly after September 11, 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft directed that FOIA be used to ensure an open and accountable system of government while at the same time protecting national security and personal privacy. The directive encouraged agencies, when making a decision on discretionary disclosure, to carefully consider whether national security, privacy, and government's interest would be jeopardized. Unfortunately, this bill only exacerbates national security and personal privacy concerns. Instead of allowing agency discretion regarding national security concerns, this statutory language would mandate the release of information if the information does not blatantly fall under an existing exemption. For instance, under the bill's language there is no discretion to determine whether the information requested will invade personal privacy. Also, if information requested is required by FOIA to be released, under this language it could tip off a terrorist to an investigation that is being conducted. So the bill could set in motion events that could compromise our national security. Last year, neither the House nor Senate bipartisan legislation included this questionable presumption of disclosure language. It is my understanding that this year's bipartisan Senate version also will not include this questionable language. And, furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the administration opposes this provision, too. There is no good reason to support a flawed bill, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent to have the statement of opposition by the administration be made a part of the Record. Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 1309--Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007--(Rep. Clay (D) Missouri and two cosponsors) The Administration shares the goals of H.R. 1309 of increasing the timeliness of Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, responses and ensuring a customer-oriented approach to FOIA processing. The Administration has been pursuing these goals, and will be continuing to pursue them, through the strong management review and reforms that the President directed 15 months ago in the first-ever Executive Order on FOIA--Executive Order 13392, ``Improving Agency Disclosure of Information''--which he signed on December 14, 2005. However, the Administration cannot support H.R. 1309. The Administration believes it would be premature and counterproductive to the goals of increasing timeliness and improving customer service to amend FOIA before agencies have had sufficient time to implement the FOIA improvements that the President directed them to develop, put into place, monitor, and report on during FYs 2006 and 2007. For example, as explained below, several of the bill's provisions would impose substantial administrative and financial burdens on the Executive Branch. These provisions could result in slower, not faster, agency processing of FOIA requests, and the personnel and funds needed to implement them would have to come from existing agency resources. Moreover, the agency reports that were issued last summer, and the improvement plans that are being implemented, illustrate that the challenges that agencies face in responding to FOIA requests are often unique to each agency and, therefore, require agency-tailored reforms, not a government-wide, one-size- fits-all legislative approach. The Administration's specific concerns with the bill include the following. The Administration strongly opposes expanding the definition of ``representative of the news media.'' The bill would exempt a larger class of requesters from the obligation to pay fees assessed for searching for responsive documents. Expanding the definition would have serious fiscal consequences for the Executive Branch. Moreover, with no requirement that requesters pay search fees, they have no incentive to tailor their requests and will likely make overly broad requests, which, in turn, will stretch agency resources and increase the time it takes to process all requests. Further, under current law, agencies have authority to waive or reduce fees upon a determination that disclosure of information will contribute significantly to public understanding. The Administration also strongly opposes reinstating the so-called ``catalyst theory'' for the reimbursement of FOIA litigation fees. The Administration is concerned that its reinstatement would serve as a disincentive to an agency's voluntarily revisiting decisions and improving procedures with respect to FOIA requests, because doing so could make the agency liable for a complainant's legal fees. Furthermore, the bill could be interpreted to include an ``administrative action'' through the FOIA appeals process as a possible means by which a requester can obtain ``relief'' that would justify attorneys fees. Such an interpretation would be a major departure from long-standing administrative law practice and would severely undercut the traditional function of the administrative appeal process, which is designed to provide the requester with an avenue of further review at the agency, thereby reducing the likelihood of a lawsuit. If this provision covers relief provided at the administrative appeal stage, this could increase the FOIA program costs dramatically and would serve as a disincentive to release records at the administrative appeal stage. The Administration strongly opposes commencing the 20-day time limit for processing FOIA requests on the date that the request ``is first received by the agency,'' and preventing the collection of search fees if the timeline is not met. This provision represents a very significant change from current practice in which the 20-day clock begins once the appropriate element of an agency has received the request in accordance with the agency's FOIA regulations. The provision fails to take into account the complexity of many requests, the need to consult with other Executive Branch entities, or the need to search for records in multiple locations, including at Federal records centers. As noted above, the Executive Order requires agencies to implement improvement plans specifically focused on eliminating or reducing any backlog of FOIA requests, and the Justice Department's preliminary review of the agencies' annual reports indicates that some agencies have already realized meaningful backlog reductions. The Administration is opposed to the creation of an ``Office of Government Information Services'' within the National Archives and any intent that the proposed Office would be given any sort of policymaking role with respect to FOIA compliance. The FOIA compliance function remains appropriately placed with the Department of Justice, the lead agency in implementing Executive Order 13392. Finally, the Administration strongly opposes the provision in the bill that appears to be an attempt to repeal Attorney General Ashcroft's FOIA Memorandum and return to Attorney General Reno's pre-9/11 FOIA guidance. The Administration believes that the structure of the FOIA reflects the appropriate balance between the public's right to know how the government is operating and the equally important need to safeguard certain information, such as that pertaining to personal privacy or homeland security.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, today I introduced the ``Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007'' (the ``OPEN Government Act''). This legislation will give the public more information and better insight into the workings of government by strengthening the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The OPEN Government Act also creates a broader definition of ``news media'' so that additional types of news media can obtain government documents at minimal cost. The legislation establishes a system that assigns individualized tracking numbers to requests for information so individuals can track their requests. I want to protect our open system of government and ensure that the Federal government responds to the American people. Unfortunately, the process for obtaining government information is overly burdensome and federal agencies have become less and less responsive to requests for information. This deters citizens from obtaining information to which they are entitled. Taxpayers should have the opportunity to obtain information quickly and easily from the Federal government. I had hoped to work with the Democrats to draft bipartisan legislation this year and we were able to compromise on several provisions of the bill. Unfortunately, we could not come to an agreement on all provisions. The bill I am introducing today includes provisions regarding recovery of attorneys' fees when an individual has been wrongly denied information, penalties for agencies that do not comply within the specified FOIA time limits, and additional agency reporting requirements. However, the key issue the Democrats insisted on adding to the bill was a statutory presumption of disclosure surrounding FOIA. It would in essence reverse the FOIA guidelines set out by former Attorney General John Ashcroft. In 2001, then Attorney General Ashcroft established a policy that information from the government should not be provided if it was likely to threaten national security or invade personal privacy. My bill would continue this policy and make FOIA requests subject to these national security and personal privacy concerns. This bill makes it easier for citizens to get an answer to their requests for information. Citizens should have the opportunity to obtain information quickly and easily from the Federal government.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Daletta Andreas, executive director of the Hill Country Chapter in Kerrville, TX, who passed away the weekend of February 24 following a brief illness. Ms. Andreas started working for the Hill Country Chapter in 1989 when the chapter was located in an old two-story house owned by the H.E.B. Foundation and leased for $1 a year. At the time she was the only chapter employee. Under her guidance and efforts, the chapter became more active in the community and surrounding areas. Today, it serves seven counties and has three full-time staff members. Ms. Andreas recruited a large and supportive group of volunteers from Kerrville and surrounding counties. She established a very good rapport with many organizations, such as fire and police departments and the sheriff offices. Through her fundraising efforts the Hill Country Chapter was able to obtain and purchase its own building. In 2001, Hill Country Chapter also was able to purchase its own mobile feeding unit or ERV, which can provide meals to disaster affected residents. During the aftermath of Rita and Katrina, the chapter fed many refugees from Louisiana and south Texas. Ms. Andreas worked hard for the job she truly loved, that of advancing the Red Cross mission. I want to recognize and honor her for the work she did that will continue to benefit the community and its citizens for years to come.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my friend and colleague from New Jersey for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, this nonbinding resolution is really a nonsensical political statement. It would deprive our troops of the reinforcements they desperately need. Let us trust their judgment and give them the reinforcements they want. How would you feel if you were an American soldier in Iraq and Congress passed this resolution? It is like telling you to fight with one arm behind your back, and that is no way to defeat a terrorist. It is our responsibility to assist our troops, not discourage them by ignoring their needs. This political resolution shortchanges our generals and their troops. Instead, we should support those who are sacrificing their lives to protect ours. Our men and women in uniform desire only to serve their country with honor. Rather than deny them what they want, we should give them the resources they deserve. Unfortunately, many terrorists hate our country, our citizens, our freedoms and our way of life. The global war on terror is fierce; this is no time to appear weak. London, Moscow, Madrid and six other cities around the world have suffered terrorist attacks since 9/11, but there is a reason no terrorist attack has occurred in America since 2001. It is not because some would second-guess our military; it is because our troops want to win, and we should give them that opportunity. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and send the troops this message: We are here to help you.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this nonbinding resolution is really a nonsensical political statement. It would deprive the generals and the troops of the reinforcements they desperately need. How would you feel if you were an American soldier in Iraq and Congress passed this resolution? It is like telling you to fight with one arm tied behind your back, and that is no way to defeat a terrorist. Let's trust the men and women in uniform who are sacrificing their lives to protect ours. There is a reason there has been no terrorist attack on America since 2001. It is not because some want to second-guess our military, it is because our troops want to win.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the ranking member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee and a former chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is widely recognized that patent litigation is too expensive, too time consuming, and too unpredictable. H.R. 34 addresses these concerns by authorizing the establishment of a pilot program in certain United States district courts that is intended to encourage the enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges. The need for such a program becomes apparent when one considers that fewer than 1 percent of all cases in U.S. district courts, on average, are patent cases and that a district court judge typically has a patent case proceed through trial only once every 7 years. These cases require a disproportionate share of attention and judicial resources, and the rate of reversal remains unacceptably high. The premise underlying H.R. 34 is simple. Practice makes perfect, or at least better. Judges who focus more attention on patent cases can be expected to be better prepared and make decisions that will hold up under appeal. This bill is the product of an extensive oversight hearing which was conducted by the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property in October 2005. The authors of H.R. 34, Representatives Darrell Issa and Adam Schiff, introduced this measure on January 4, 2007. This legislation is identical to H.R. 5418, a bill that passed the House unanimously last September. Unfortunately, the clock on the 109th Congress expired before the other body could take up this bipartisan measure. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 34 will require the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to select five district courts to participate in a 10-year pilot program that is to begin no later than 6 months after the date of enactment. The bill specifies criteria the director must employ in determining eligibility of districts. It contains provisions to preserve the random assignment of cases and to prevent the selected districts from becoming magnets for forum shopping litigants. The legislation also requires the director, in consultation with the director of the Federal Judicial Center and the chief judge of each participating district, to provide the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate with periodic progress reports. Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the superb job that the bill's sponsors did in seeking out and incorporating the advice of numerous experts as they developed this bipartisan legislation. Congratulations go to Congressmen Darrell Issa and Adam Schiff. Their success and cooperation have resulted in a worthy bill that deserves the support of the Members of the House. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), a member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee and one of the two principal sponsors of this very worthy legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support House Concurrent Resolution 44, which recognizes the 98th anniversary of the NAACP. For almost a century, the NAACP has fought to bring justice and racial equality to all parts of America. In 1917 the NAACP won a legal victory in the Supreme Court which held that States could not restrict and officially segregate African Americans into residential areas. The same year the NAACP fought for the right for African Americans to be commissioned as officers in World War I. In 1920 the NAACP held its annual conference in Atlanta, which at the time was one of the most active areas for the Ku Klux Klan. As a result, the NAACP showed the world it would not be intimidated by racial violence. In 1935, NAACP lawyers Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall won a legal battle to admit a black student to the University of Maryland. During World War II, the NAACP led the effort that resulted in President Franklin Roosevelt's ordering a non-discrimination policy in war-related industries and Federal employment. And in 1948, the NAACP convinced President Harry Truman to sign an executive order banning discrimination by the Federal Government. In 1954, under the leadership of Special Counsel Thurgood Marshall, the NAACP won one of the greatest legal victories in Brown v. Board of Education. In 1960, in Greensboro, North Carolina, members of the NAACP Youth Council launched a series of nonviolent sit-ins at segregated lunch counters. The segregation ended, and all Americans could finally break bread together. The history of America's modern struggle to live up to our constitutional principles was often written by the NAACP, and it continues to champion the cause of social justice today. The NAACP has served as the voice of those who were mute with fear. It has served as a key for those who were handcuffed and jailed under segregationist policies. And it carried the weight for those whose backs were broken by brutal beatings. It did so peacefully, and with dignity; and, as a result, America can hold its head higher. It is with great pleasure that I support this concurrent resolution, which I hope raises even higher the awareness of this organization's historic contributions to the cause of civil rights. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Issa), and would ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control said time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 742, the Antitrust Modernization Commission Extension Act of 2007. Our Nation's first antitrust laws were enacted at the turn of the 20th century. The Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002 created a commission to examine how to update our antitrust laws in light of the new technologies that have developed in recent years. The Antitrust Modernization Commission, or AMC, was required to produce a report 3 years after the date of its first meeting on April 2, 2004. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that the AMC will submit its recommendations to Congress and the President by the statutory deadline of April 2, 2007. The AMC is required to terminate 30 days after submitting its report. However, the commission has requested an extension of its authorization by an additional 30 days so that it can effectively conclude its operations. This additional 30 days will allow the AMC to properly archive its records and transfer property to other agencies. Pursuant to that request, H.R. 742 extends the authorization of the AMC by 30 days and also makes a small technical correction to the original authorization statute. This bill will not delay the submission of the AMC's report to Congress nor will it require the appropriation of any additional funds. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to cosponsor this bill, along with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to allow the AMC to wrap up its important work without imposing any additional cost on the American taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have any others who want to comment on this legislation, and so, because of that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I strongly support H. Res. 61, which observes and celebrates the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and encourages the people of the United States to celebrate his life and legacy. We should all thank Dr. King not only for his role in helping to end discrimination, but also for his role in helping to remove a stain on American history that had lingered far too long. Dr. King's commitment to nonviolent change never wavered. Between the time he assumed leadership of the Montgomery, AL, bus boycott in 1955, until his tragic assassination years later, Dr. King faced hundreds of death threats and a firebombing of his home with his wife and children inside. Still, he remained an unblinking beacon to all those who sought peaceful change. He grew from a person taught in segregated schools to a world leader who was awarded the Nobel Prize. Dr. King delivered his now famous speech entitled ``I Have a Dream'' following a march of 250,000 people in Washington, DC. Twenty years ago, the City of San Antonio's Martin Luther King, Jr., Commission began honoring Dr. King with a march that furthers his legacy and serves to educate local citizens regarding his deep, rich legacy. That march has become one of the largest in the country and this march marked its own 20th anniversary yesterday, the day Dr. King would have turned 78. Despite near freezing temperatures, the San Antonio march attracted thousands of people of diverse backgrounds, which in the past has featured Rosa Parks, the woman who sparked the modern civil rights movement by refusing to sit at the back of the bus. Those in the march knew that no matter what the weather, it paled in comparison to the slings and arrows--the death threats and beatings, and the repeated arrests--Dr. King faced during his too-short but immensely inspiring life. Such peaceful marches are possible today in large part because of Dr. King's abiding courage. The San Antonio march serves as a powerful reminder that if one person finds the strength to keep walking forward, determined to reach what Dr. King called the ``Promised Land,'' he or she can leave in their wake a lasting legacy of marches--stretching from generation to generation--that celebrate and encourage changes in both laws and attitudes that will continue to make America a better place.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the debate on H.R. 2, the ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007,'' would benefit from a discussion of the facts. For example, increasing the minimum wage would not have a positive impact on all working and non-working Americans. The number of people who would benefit from raising the minimum wage is not nearly as large as some claim and those individuals who receive the minimum wage are not nearly as poor as some suggest. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2005 only 2.5 percent of all hourly-paid workers earned the minimum wage. More than a quarter of those workers are teenagers and half are under 25. Those who support a minimum wage increase should be forthright--some Americans will lose their jobs if the minimum wage is increased, especially youth and low-skilled workers. If the minimum wage is raised, businesses will incur additional costs and some will be forced to layoff employees. Also, most individuals who receive the minimum wage have other sources of income, such as food stamps, government allowances, or earned income tax credits. Still, we are confronted with the stark reality that over one million families must survive on little more than $1,000 a month. These families need food, clothes, housing, transportation, and hope. Frankly, any person who engages in honest labor deserves a worthy wage and a dignified life. Some say there are jobs Americans won't do. That demeans hard-working Americans who do work in every occupation. It especially demeans those who work at back-breaking and dangerous jobs for little pay. If we want more Americans to take those jobs, then let's pay them more. And today is a good time to start.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Representative Aderholt's bill eliminates unnecessary impediments in handling the everyday transactions of individuals and businesses. Many documents executed and notarized in one state, either by design or happenstance, find their way into neighboring or more distant states. If ultimately needed in any one of the latter jurisdictions to support or defend a claim in court, that document should not be refused admission solely on the ground it was not notarized in the state where the court sits. H.R. 1458 ensures this will not happen. A notarization in and of itself neither validates a document nor speaks to the truthfulness or accuracy of its contents. The notarization serves a different function--it verifies that a document signer is who he or she purports to be and has willingly signed the document. By executing the notarial certificate, the notary public, as a disinterested party to the transaction, informs all other parties relying on or using the document that it is the act of the person who signed it. Consistent with the vital significance of the notarial act, H.R. 1458 compels a court to accept the authenticity of the document even though the notarization was performed in a state other than where the forum is located. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by pointing out that much of the testimony we received at our Subcommittee hearing on the bill addressed the silliness of one state not accepting the validity of another state's notarized document in an interstate legal proceeding. Some of the examples were based on petty reasons--for example, one state requires a notary to affix an ink stamp to a document, an act that is not recognized in a sister state that requires documents to be notarized with a raised, embossed seal. Passing the bill will streamline interstate commercial and legal transactions consistent with the guarantees of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the Gentleman from Wisconsin for moving this legislatIon to the House floor. The Committee Chairman did a good job of summarizing how the bill works, so I won't repeat his description. I would point out that granting the additional authority to the PTO Director under H.R. 4742 is consistent with other actions by the Committee and Congress to assist other individuals and institutions in the Gulf region. This includes enactment of legislation that allows Federal courts during emergency conditions to operate outside of their geographic domains; provide transportation and subsistence expenses for indigent defendants; and delay or toll judicial proceedings. Madam Speaker, this is a good bill that will help inventors, trademark holders, and other interested parties maintain their intellectual property rights under adverse conditions. I urge Members to support H.R. 4742.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation which was introduced by Congressman Chabot. It protects the Americans' private property. The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to private property. Such a right lies at the foundation of a democracy where citizens have the freedom to buy, sell, exchange, or make a profit on all forms of property. In recent years, it has become more and more common for the government to seize private property under the guise of eminent domain for ``public'' use. This is something that landowners in my home state of Texas are already frequently faced with under the Endangered Species Act, which prevents a landowner from developing their property if an endangered species is found on the land. Under last year's Supreme Court decision in Kelo, state and local governments now can take property from a private landowner in order to give or sell it to another private owner. So, we need to make sure Americans can protect their private property ownership. The Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006 clarifies current law in order to give America's property owners those tools. For instance, H.R. 4772 corrects an anomaly created by two Supreme Court decisions that prevents a property owner from having their federal takings claim decided in Federal Court without first pursuing the case in state court. And the legislation clarifies that the standard for due process claims in a takings case is ``arbitrary and capricious'' and not the much higher ``shocks the conscience'' standard that some courts are using and that almost no property rights case can meet. The bill also clarifies what constitutes a ``final decision'' on an acceptable land use from a regulatory agency for purposes of being able to take the claim to federal court. Some regulatory agencies have avoided making such ``final decisions'' in order to prevent the property owner from moving forward with the property rights claim. H.R. 4772 is a good bill that will protect Americans' property rights. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Chabot for offering this legislation, and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois, who is the chairman of the Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy for yielding to me; and I want to express my appreciation to Mrs. Biggert for assembling this legislation, which will contribute mightily to our energy independence. H.R. 6203, the Alternative Energy Research and Development Act, incorporates two pieces of legislation that I introduced: the Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006 and the Solar Utilization Now, or SUN Act, of 2006. They will reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil by promoting plug-in hybrid vehicles and the use of solar power. The Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act establishes a partnership between public and private entities and requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of research and development for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and electric drive transportation technology. The goal is to develop a plug-in vehicle that can travel up to 40 miles on battery power alone. The bill also establishes a pilot program of grants to State and local governments and metropolitan transportation authorities. Congress has a responsibility to help promote this new technology. I introduced the SUN Act of 2006 because the answer to much of our energy needs in fact comes up every morning. The goal of this legislation is to make electricity from solar power cost-competitive by 2015. The SUN Act encourages State governments and private industry to team up to apply for Federal grants. Solar power is clean, plentiful, and it generates zero emissions and zero waste. The Federal Government needs to ensure that the research and development of alternative energy technologies continues. Americans are concerned about high gas prices, our dependence on foreign oil and global warming. This bill addresses those concerns and is good for our energy security, national security and environmental security. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Biggert for taking the lead on these issues and for getting this package to the House floor.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the fair use exception is of great Importance to ensure that the threat of dilution claims does not chill the exercise of free speech, particularly in expressive works of authorship. Parody, criticism, and commentary are familiar and important examples of fair use. Another common example is the appearance of trademarks when products are used in motion pictures as props, ``set dressing,'' and the like. I also want to clarify that nothing in H.R. 683 is intended to amend, change, or disturb the fair-use defenses available in a claim of trademark infringement under Section 43 or other applicable sections of the Lanham Act.