Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2800) to amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to reauthorize the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2800, as amended, currently under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2800, the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization Act of 2012, is sponsored by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). I thank her for her work on this issue.

Alzheimer's disease is a serious condition that is becoming more and more prevalent. The disease affects as many as 5 million people in this country, or one in eight older Americans, and a new person develops Alzheimer's every 69 seconds. This pace is expected to increase with time.

It is estimated that more than half of the people with Alzheimer's or other types of dementia will become lost from their families or caretakers at some point. Many of these people cannot remember their name, their family members or their address. This makes returning home safely difficult for law enforcement officers and Good Samaritans.

As is true whenever a person goes missing, time is of the essence when attempting to locate a lost Alzheimer's patient. One study found an almost 50 percent mortality rate for Alzheimer's patients who are not found within 24 hours of becoming lost.

To address the problem of missing Alzheimer's patients, Congress created the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program in 1996. This Justice Department program provides grants to locally based organizations to protect and locate missing patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. Congress has appropriated money for this every year since its creation.

The Justice Department has provided grants to several programs, including the Alzheimer's Association's Safe Return program. In this program, people with Alzheimer's and dementia are registered in a data base and receive a bracelet that indicates the individual is memory impaired. The bracelet also includes a 24-hour emergency response number to call if the person is found wandering or has a medical emergency.

The Alzheimer's Association reports a 99 percent success rate for reuniting enrolled missing individuals with their caretakers through the Safe Return program.

H.R. 2800, the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization Act of 2012, reauthorizes this program at $1 million a year for 5 years. This authorization level reflects the fiscal year 2012 appropriations level. H.R. 2800 helps to ensure that people with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia are returned safely home when they become lost.

Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for her leadership on this issue, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6185) to improve security at State and local courthouses, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6185, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank our Judiciary Committee colleague, Mrs. Adams of Florida, for her work on this issue to make America's courthouses safer. This bipartisan, bicameral bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by unanimous consent last May.

Before I yield to her, I do want to urge my colleagues to support this bill and thank Mrs. Adams again for all of her work that brought us to this point we are here today.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my Judiciary Committee colleague, Mrs. Adams of Florida, for her work on this issue to make America's courthouses safer. This bipartisan, bicameral bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by unanimous consent last May.

State and local courthouses are the workplace for many people. Judges, secretaries, custodians, clerks and attorneys are there every workday. Police officers, litigants and the public go to these courthouses for many reasons. Many of us are called upon to report there for jury duty.

Often in these courthouses, the stakes, and emotions, are high when defendants confront their accusers and victims confront there perpetrators.

Threats against judges and acts of violence in courthouses and courtrooms are occurring throughout the country with greater frequency than ever before. The number of threats and violent incidents that target the judiciary has increased dramatically in recent years.

At the federal level, the U.S. Marshals Service's Center for Judicial Security reports the number of judicial threat investigations has more than doubled to over 1,200 in the past nine years. At the state and local levels, data collected by the Center for Judicial and Executive Security shows that the number of violent incidents in state courthouses has gone up every decade since 1970.

Since 2010, there has been about one shooting per month at local courthouses across the country. In September 2011, for example a defendant opened fire in the Crawford County Courthouse in Arkansas, killing a judge's secretary.

In December 2011, a defendant retrieved a gun from his car, walked into the Cook County Courthouse in Minnesota and shot the prosecuting attorney, a witness and the bailiff.

So far in 2012, there have been at least five courthouse shootings, including a fatal attack in my home State of Texas.

Security at many local courthouses is lax, particularly in rural and suburban areas where access to equipment, training and resources is especially scarce. Law enforcement officers, court personnel and members of our communities are in harm's way as a result.

One Minnesota judge put it well in a recent correspondence to his colleagues: ``I'm no longer willing to risk my life, the life of court staff, [and] the life of the public who have no choice about going to court.''

This bill accomplishes three objectives. First, the bill gives State and local courthouses direct access to security equipment that the Federal Government no longer uses.

This provision is modeled after a Defense Department program that allows the Pentagon to give its excess equipment to local police and firefighters. This legislation gives State and local authorities access to excess metal detectors, wands and baggage screening machines.

Second, this bill gives States the flexibility they need to make courthouse security improvements, but requires modest matching funds.

The bill does not require any new spending and it does not impose any new mandates. States can use existing federal resources for courthouse security upgrades if they so choose.

Lastly, through existing programs and funding authorizations, training and technical assistance will be provided to local law enforcement officers to teach them how to anticipate and survive violent encounters.

The identical Senate bill has broad bipartisan support and its ten co-sponsors come from both sides of the aisle.

This bill has been endorsed by six organizations, including: the National Sheriffs Association, the National Association for Court Management, the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, the American Judges Association and the National Court Reporters Association.

The Congressional Budget Office scored this bill at zero cost.

This bill is a cost-effective approach to provide safety training and technical assistance to local law enforcement agencies. It improves security at State and local government courthouses, which are most in need of basic safety equipment and training.

Our State and local law enforcement officers need support to ensure the security of our courthouses. This bill does that as it recycles excess Federal security equipment and protects Americans at the same time.

I again thank Mrs. Adams for her work on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, bicameral bill.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, September 10, 2012.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Mr. Chairman: On August 1, 2012, the Committee on the

Judiciary ordered H.R. 6185, the ``Local Courthouse Safety

Act of 2012,'' reported to the House. Thank you for

consulting with the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform with regard to H.R. 6185 on those matters within the

Committee's jurisdiction. I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 6185.

In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of

H.R. 6185, I will forego consideration of the bill. However,

I do so only with the understanding that this procedural

route will not be construed to prejudice the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform's jurisdictional interest and

prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation

and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of

matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the

future.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform should this bill or a similar bill be

considered in a conference with the Senate. I also request

that you include our exchange of letters on this matter in

the Committee Report on H.R. 6185 and in the Congressional

Record during consideration of this bill on the House floor.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Darrell Issa,

Chairman.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1775) to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish a criminal offense relating to fraudulent claims about military service, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1775, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor Act of 2011, was introduced by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck). I want to thank him for his dedication to protect the honor bestowed on our Nation's military heroes.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor Act of 2011, was introduced by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck). I thank him for his dedication to protect the honor bestowed on our nation's military heroes.

In 2006, a man who had created several false identities fraudulently claimed to be a seriously injured Marine captain who suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and a recipient of the Purple Heart and Silver Star.

His tangled web of lies earned him credibility among other veterans, law enforcement officials and politicians. He told these false stories and used them for his own benefit, disrespecting those who had honorably earned these awards for their service.

This is an example of a man who did not simply lie about receiving a military award. He lied to defraud others and benefit himself, discrediting those veterans who actually deserve recognition.

H.R. 1775 prevents similar fraud in the future and reaffirms Congress' respect and gratitude for our Armed Forces. It ensures that those who seek to exploit these medals for fraudulent gain are held accountable.

We have a long-standing commitment to protect the status of military decorations awarded to our military heroes who sacrifice greatly for us in service.

The first honorary badges of distinction for military service date back to George Washington's presidency. Washington stated that anyone with the ``insolence to assume'' a badge that he did not earn would be severely punished.

It has been a federal crime for nearly a century to wear, manufacture, sell or fraudulently produce military decorations or medals without authorization. In 2006, Congress enacted the Stolen Valor Act after a rise in number of fraudulent claims of receipt of military decorations, particularly the Medal of Honor.

This past June, the Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Alvarez, held that the Stolen Valor Act wrongly criminalized speech protected by the First Amendment. Simply put, lying about receiving a Medal of Honor, although it may be offensive, is in fact protected free speech.

The Court did acknowledge that false claims about military decorations, such as the Medal of Honor, demean the value of the award and may offend the true holders of these decorations.

H.R. 1775, the ``Stolen Valor Act of 2011,'' clarifies the law to make it a crime to fraudulently hold oneself out to be a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor or other enumerated military decoration with the intent to obtain money, property or other tangible benefit.

The term ``fraudulently'' incorporates the necessary knowledge requirement. Black's Law Dictionary defines ``fraud'' as ``a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her injury.'' It clarifies that there must be specific intent to engage in the crime, namely that the fraud is committed for money, property or other tangible benefit.

The term ``tangible benefit'' is intended to cover those ``valuable considerations'' beyond money or property, such as offers of employment, which Justice Kennedy identified as appropriately prohibited benefits to a fraud.

H.R. 1775 clarifies the Stolen Valor Act to protect the right to free speech but also ensures that those whose speech is intended to defraud and do not enjoy First Amendment protection will be held responsible.

I again thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck) for his leadership on this issue. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield as much time as he might

consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin) who is an active member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6215) to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to correct an error in the provisions relating to remedies for dilution, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6215, as amended, currently under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 is to protect famous trademarks from uses that blur the distinctiveness of the trademark or tarnish or disparage it. Dilution does not rely upon the standard test of infringement, that is, likelihood of confusion, deception, or mistake. Rather, it applies when the unauthorized use of a famous trademark reduces the public's perception that the trademark signifies something unique, singular, or particular.

Dilution can result in the loss of the trademark's distinctiveness and possibly the owner's rights in it.

Congress enacted amendments to the original dilution statute in 2006. Last year, two law professors discovered a technical problem with one of the 2006 changes.

During Senate consideration of the House bill, the section that provides a Federal registration defense to a dilution action was reorganized. This produced an unexpected and unintended change to the law.

As originally drafted in the House, the provision was designed to encourage Federal registration of trademarks. This is a worthy policy goal that prevents State laws from interfering with federally protected trademarks and ensures that registered trademarks are protected nationwide.

The House version promoted this goal and barred a State action for dilution against a federally registered trademark. However, the Senate reformatted the House text in such a way as to create a bar against State action for dilution as well as a State or Federal action based on a claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a trademark. This means the Federal registration defense is available to both State sand Federal dilution claims.

Congress did not intend such an outcome. If all dilution claims, including Federal claims, are barred by registration, it becomes difficult to cancel a diluting trademark that is registered. This encourages illegitimate trademark holders to register diluting trademarks, which forces legitimate trademark holders to expend greater resources to monitor registrations, as well as other trademarks being used in commerce. That is why I introduced H.R. 6215 to amend the Federal Trademark Dilution Act.

This bill simply reformats the affected provision to clarify that Federal registration only constitutes a complete bar to a State claim based on dilution, or actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a trademark. The change applies prospectively.

This bill ensures that the trademark community is protected from those who seek to use this loophole as a way to disparage legitimate trademarks and cost their owners time and money.

The only change to the bill, as reported, is a technical correction to a boilerplate reference regarding the date of enactment of the Trademark Act of 1946. The reported version inaccurately identifies the date of enactment as July 6, 1946. The correct date is July 5, 1946.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6214, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6189) to eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements for unfunded programs under the Office of Justice Programs, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6189, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I join the ranking member, Congressman Conyers, in cosponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan bill, the Reporting Efficiency Improvement Act, and I thank him for introducing this legislation.

The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 requires Federal agencies to identify reports that may be outdated or duplicative. Then the executive branch must consult with Congress to determine if these reports can be eliminated. Here, the administration suggests that Congress repeal the two reports eliminated by this bill. Both of these reports are prepared by the Office of Justice Programs and the Department of Justice, but the underlying grant programs have not been funded by Congress for many years. Adopting this commonsense bill is a simple step that Congress can take to help Federal agencies work more efficiently. I hope this bill sets a precedent for many similar bills in the future.

I again thank Mr. Conyers for his initiative on this issue. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for his nice comments, and I'll yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6080) to make improvements in the enactment of title 41, United States Code, into a positive law title and to improve the Code.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6080, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House entrust to the Judiciary Committee the responsibilities of revision and codification of the statutes of the United States. This power does not give our committee substantive legislative jurisdiction over all areas of law. It merely confers the authority to organize duly enacted laws into an efficient codification system.

The nonpartisan Office of Law Revision Counsel is responsible for properly codifying public laws into titles and sections of the United States Code. From time to time, that office provides the Judiciary Committee with advice as to how to enact a more user-friendly and cohesive statutory system.

This spring, Republican and Democratic committee staff worked cooperatively with the Office of Law Revision Counsel to develop H.R. 6080. The bill makes technical improvements to title 41 of United States Code, which contains Federal laws that govern public contracts. The bill makes no changes to substantive law.

I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3245) to extend by 3 years the authorization of the EB-5 Regional Center Program, the E-Verify Program, the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program, and the Conrad State 30 J-1 Visa Waiver Program.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 3245, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to thank the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and ranking member for introducing this legislation and for working with me to help ensure that four key immigration- related programs do not expire at the end of this month.

This Congress must ensure there is a national business climate that fosters the ability of private enterprise to create jobs for Americans and legal workers.

S. 3245, which extends for 3 years the E-Verify, EB-5 Regional Center Pilot, the Conrad 30 J-1 Visa Waiver, and the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker programs, helps achieve this goal in several ways.

First, the E-Verify program allows employers to electronically verify that newly hired employees are authorized to work in the United States. The program is free, quick, and easy to use. Nearly 400,000 American employers use E-Verify, and over 1,000 new businesses sign up for it every week.

The American public overwhelmingly supports E-Verify. Last year, a Rasmussen poll found that 82 percent of likely voters ``think businesses should be required to use the Federal Government's E-Verify system to determine if a potential employee is in the country legally.''

E-Verify has also received bipartisan congressional support in the past. In 2008, the House passed a 5-year extension of E-Verify by a vote of 407-2. And in 2009, the Senate passed a permanent E-Verify extension by voice vote.

Ensuring that businesses have access to E-Verify will help preserve jobs for the 23 million Americans who are currently unemployed or looking for full-time work.

The investor visa program also helps create jobs for Americans. Under this program, 10,000 immigrants can receive permanent residence each year if they engage in a new commercial enterprise, invest between $500,000 and $1 million in the business, and see that it creates 10 full-time jobs for American workers.

The Regional Center Pilot Project, which is almost two decades old, has reinvigorated the investor visa program. Investment through a regional center is especially attractive to potential investors because they are relieved of the responsibility of running a new business. They can also count indirect job creation towards the job creation requirement. Most investor visa petitions now involve regional centers.

It appears that investors may feel more confident about a regional center that is operated through a State or city government. In these hard economic times, many State and local governments have turned to regional centers as a method of generating economic growth.

The Association to Invest in the United States of America has estimated the regional center program has created or saved over 65,000 jobs in the U.S. and has led to the investment of over $3 billion in the U.S. economy.

S. 3245 also extends for 3 years a program that has successfully brought needed doctors to medically underserved areas in the U.S. This program was designed by Senator Kent Conrad. It allows foreign doctors who have been in the U.S. on exchange programs to stay at the conclusion of their residencies if they agree to practice medicine for at least 3 years in health professional shortage areas. This is a valuable provision, and I support its reauthorization.

Finally, S. 3245 extends the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program. Under this program, 5,000 immigrant visas can be issued to nonminister individuals who have been members of the denomination and who have worked in the capacity for which they are applying for at least the 2 years immediately following the visa applications. Historically, the program has been plagued by fraud, but the Bush administration took steps to help prevent much of the fraud, and now many churches and religious organizations in the United States rely on these immigrant nonministers. I look forward to making statutory changes aimed at even more fraud prevention, and I support the program's extension.

Again, I want to thank Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley for their leadership on this bill. All four of these programs are important, and I urge my colleagues to support S. 3245.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for her continued interest and leadership in the subject of immigration, and I especially appreciate her support of this bill today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, September 10, 2012.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to the consideration of S. 3245, a

bill that reauthorizes certain immigration provisions. Thank

you for consulting with the Committee on Education and the

Workforce with regard to S. 3245 on those matters within the

committee's jurisdiction.

In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of

S. 3245, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will

forgo further consideration on this bill. However, I do so

only with the understanding that this procedural route will

not be construed to prejudice the committee's jurisdictional

interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar

legislation and will not be considered as precedent for

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my

committee in the future.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the

Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in

a conference with the Senate. I also request that you include

our exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee

Report on S. 3245 and in the Congressional Record during

consideration of this bill on the House floor. Thank you for

your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

John Kline,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3796) to reauthorize certain programs established by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3796, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was enacted in 2006 to honor the victims of several violent crimes against children, including Adam Walsh, a 7-year-old boy who was abducted from a store where his mother was shopping in July 1981 and found murdered just 2 weeks later.

This important legislation is primarily known for its efforts to create a national sex offender registry.

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA, created a more uniform system of sex offender registries throughout the country by providing minimum standards that each State must meet.

In addition to SORNA, the Adam Walsh Act made the U.S. Marshals Service responsible for the apprehension of both Federal and State fugitive sex offenders, as well as for the investigation of sex offender registry violations. The Marshals Service apprehended over 11,000 fugitive sex offenders in 2010 alone.

H.R. 3796, the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012, introduced by Crime Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, reauthorizes the two key programs created by the Adam Walsh Act. It provides funding for the U.S. Marshals' sex offender apprehension activities and gives grants to States and other jurisdictions to implement the national sex offender registry requirements. These two programs are reauthorized for 5 years at amounts that reflect the fiscal year 2012 appropriation levels.

The original Adam Walsh Act contained over 20 different programs and was scored at approximately $1.5 billion over 5 years. By contrast, H.R. 3796 is targeted, fiscally responsible legislation that only reauthorizes the act's most primary programs at an estimated cost of less than $300 million over the same period.

I thank Mr. Sensenbrenner for his leadership on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3796.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1950) to enact title 54, United States Code, ``National Park System'', as positive law, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1950, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House entrust to the Judiciary Committee the responsibilities of revision and codification of the statutes of the United States. This power does not give our committee substantive legislative jurisdiction over all areas of law; it merely confers the authority to organize duly enacted laws into an efficient codification system.

The nonpartisan Office of the Law Revision Counsel is responsible for properly codifying public laws into titles and sections of the United States Code. From time to time, that office provides the Judiciary Committee advice as to how to enact a more user-friendly and cohesive statutory system.

This spring, Republican and Democratic committee staff worked cooperatively with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel to develop H.R. 1950. The bill creates a new title of positive law--title 54--to compile all of the laws that relate to the National Park System.

Codification bills do not make any substantive changes to existing law. Before the Judiciary Committee marked up H.R. 1950, industries, government, and interested parties commented on the draft. Based on their comments, I offered a manager's amendment in committee to further ensure this bill makes no changes to substantive law.

I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3120) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to require accreditation of certain educational institutions for purposes of a nonimmigrant student visa, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3120, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would first like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for introducing this legislation.

H.R. 3120 helps prevent student visa fraud by requiring that any college or university that admits foreign students on F visas must be accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the Department of Education. Accreditation of academic institutions ensures that foreign students in the United States on temporary visas receive the high-level education they deserve and expect as opposed to an education from a sham school only interested in the student's money.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a foreign national can get a student visa to study at a U.S. college or university. Those schools must be officially recognized, but that sometimes means that there's just a windshield check to see that the building actually exists.

Foreign students were admitted to the US 1.5 million times on F visas during fiscal year 2010. We must ensure that the colleges or universities they attend are not simply visa mills that exist only to provide the students with a way to enter the United States. Examples of rampant student visa fraud can be found in many recent news reports.

H.R. 3120 helps ensure a school's legitimacy for foreign students who want to come to the United States in order to receive an education. It also helps ensure the integrity of our immigration system by reducing the opportunities for visa fraud.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3120.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6029) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for increased penalties for foreign and economic espionage, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6029 currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member John Conyers, IP Subcommittee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, IP Subcommittee Ranking Member Mel Watt, and the other Members of the House from both sides of the aisle who joined as original cosponsors of this commonsense bill.

The Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012 focuses on one goal: to deter and punish criminals who target U.S. economic and security interests on behalf of foreign interests.

In 1975, tangible assets, such as real estate and equipment, made up 83 percent of the market value of S&P 500 companies. Intangible assets, which include trade secrets, proprietary data, source code, business processes, and marketing plans, constituted only 17 percent of these companies' market value.

By 2009, these percentages had nearly reversed. Tangible assets accounted for only 19 percent of S&P 500 companies' market value while their intangible assets had soared to 81 percent. In a dynamic and globally connected information economy, the protection of intangible assets is vital not only to the success of individual enterprises but also to the future of entire industries.

A global study released last year by McAfee, the world's largest security technology company, and Science Applications International Corporation concluded that corporate trade secrets and other sensitive intellectual capital are the newest ``currency'' of cybercriminals. The study found the motivation for such crimes in the cyber underground is almost always financial. In recent years, cybercriminals have shifted from targeting the theft of personal information, such as credit cards and Social Security numbers, to the theft of corporate intellectual capital. Corporate intellectual capital is vulnerable, of great value to competitors and foreign governments, and its theft is not always discovered by victims.

Our intelligence community warns that foreign interests place a high priority on acquiring sensitive U.S. economic information and technologies. Targets include information and communications technologies, business information, military technologies, and rapidly growing civilian and dual-use technologies, such as those that relate to clean energy, health care, and pharmaceuticals.

We know that certain actors intentionally seek out U.S. information and trade secrets. The most recent report from the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive identified Chinese actors as ``the world's most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.'' The report also described Russia's intelligence services as responsible for ``conducting a range of activities to collect economic information and technology from U.S. targets.'' Of seven Economic Espionage Act cases resolved in fiscal year 2010, six involved links to China. Five companies were accused of the theft of trade secrets earlier this year. Four are Chinese state-owned enterprises or subsidiaries.

In the U.S., the EEA serves as the primary tool the Federal Government

uses to protect secret, valuable commercial information from theft. The EEA addresses two types of trade secret theft. Section 1831 punishes the theft of a trade secret to benefit a foreign entity. Section 1832 punishes the commercial theft of trade secrets carried out for economic advantage whether or not the theft benefits a foreign entity.

Since enacting the EEA in 1996, Congress has not adjusted its penalties to take into account the increasing importance of intellectual property to the economic and national security of the U.S. The bill increases the maximum penalties for an individual convicted of committing espionage on behalf of a foreign entity. Currently, the maximum penalty for someone convicted under section 1831 of the EEA is 15 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $500,000. This bill increases the maximum penalty to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $5 million. Earlier this year, the FBI estimated that U.S. companies had lost $13 billion to trade secret theft in just over 6 months. Over the past 6 years, losses to individual U.S. companies have ranged from $20 million to as much as $1 billion.

Our intelligence community has recognized a ``significant and growing threat to our Nation's prosperity and security'' posed by criminals, both inside and outside our borders, who commit espionage. Congress should also recognize this increasing threat and enhance deterrence and more aggressively punish those criminals who knowingly target U.S. companies for espionage.

So I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6029, which was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee this month.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6063) to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to child pornography and child exploitation offenses.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6063, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Internet child pornography may be the fastest-growing crime in America, increasing by an average of 150 percent per year. Every day, online criminals prey on America's children with virtual anonymity, and according to recent estimates there are as many as 100,000 fugitive sex offenders in the U.S. Congress has taken important steps to combat child exploitation, including the passage of the Adam Walsh Act in 2006 and the PROTECT Our Children Act in 2008.

But our work is not yet done.

That is why Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz and I introduced H.R. 6063, the Child Protection Act of 2012, that provides law enforcement officials with important tools and additional resources to combat the growing threat of child pornography and exploitation. This bipartisan legislation increases penalties for child pornography offenses that involve young children and strengthens protections for child witnesses and victims.

The bill allows a Federal court to issue a protective order if it determines that a child victim or witness is being harassed or intimidated and imposes criminal penalties for a violation of that protective order. The Child Protection Act ensures that paperwork does not stand in the way of the apprehension of dangerous criminals. This bill gives the U.S. marshals limited subpoena authority to locate and apprehend fugitive sex offenders.

Unlike the other 300 Federal administrative subpoena powers, which are used at the beginning of a criminal investigation, a marshal's use of subpoena authority under this bill will occur only after, and only after, these actions occur:

The fugitive is arrested pursuant to a judge-issued warrant, indicted for committing a sex offense, convicted by

proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentenced in a court of law;

The fugitive is required to register as a sex offender;

The fugitive pleas or otherwise violates their registration requirements; and

A State or Federal arrest warrant is issued for violation of the registration requirements.

This narrow subpoena authority is critical to help take convicted sex offenders off the streets.

H.R. 6063 also reauthorizes, for 5 years, the Internet Crimes Against Children task forces. The ICAC task forces were launched in 1998 and officially authorized by Congress in the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008.

The ICAC Task Force Program is a national network of 61 coordinated task forces that represent over 3,000 Federal, State, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies dedicated to child exploitation investigations. Since 1998, the ICAC task forces have reviewed more than 280,000 complaints of alleged child sexual abuse and arrested more than 30,000 individuals. The Child Protection Act increases the cap on grant funds for ICAC training programs and makes several clarifications to provisions enacted as a part of the PROTECT Our Children Act.

Finally, the bill requests a report from the Justice Department on implementation of a national Internet crimes against children data system. Yesterday, Senator Blumenthal and Senator Cornyn introduced the companion bill in the Senate. This bipartisan, bicameral bill is supported by a number of outside organizations, which include the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Major City Chiefs of Police, Futures Without Violence, the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National District Attorneys Association, the National White Collar Crime Center, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Surviving Parents Coalition, the Rape Abuse Incest National Network, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, and the National Association to Protect Children.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her great work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation to protect America's children.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on this side and reserve the balance of my time.

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

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. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4362) to provide effective criminal prosecutions for certain identity thefts, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4362 currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 4362, the Stopping Tax Offenders and Prosecuting Identity Theft Act of 2012, with my good friend and colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This is a bipartisan bill that strengthens criminal penalties for tax return identity thieves.

Tax fraud is a very real problem, and Congress should do all it can to protect citizens from this costly crime. Tax fraud through identity theft is a rapidly growing criminal enterprise in the United States. Criminals use stolen identities to steal income tax refunds from unsuspecting victims and from the Federal Government.

With nothing more than stolen identity information--Social Security numbers and their corresponding names and birth dates--criminals have electronically filed thousands of false tax returns and have received hundreds of millions of dollars in wrongful refunds.

The thieves deceive the Internal Revenue Service and file a return before the legitimate taxpayer files. The criminals then receive the refund, sometimes by check but often through a convenient but hard-to- trace prepaid debit card. The criminals then wait for the mail to deliver the cards and checks at abandoned addresses. According to reports in the media, postal workers have been harassed, robbed, and, in one case, murdered as they have made their rounds with their mail truck full of debit cards and master keys to mailboxes.

Tax thieves victimize innocent taxpayers in a number of ways. These thieves will file fake returns under a false name or claim someone who is no longer living as a dependent on their own forms. Often, the fraud is not detected until an individual files a tax return that is rejected by the IRS because someone else has already falsely filed and claimed their return.

The IRS has detected 940,000 fake returns for 2010 alone, from which identity thieves would have received $6.5 billion in refunds. And those are just the ones they caught early. It is estimated by the IRS that they missed an additional 1.5 million returns with possibly fraudulent refunds worth more than $5.2 billion. The number of these cases has increased by approximately 300 percent every year since 2008.

H.R. 4362 is a bipartisan bill that strengthens criminal penalties for tax return identity thieves. It adds tax return fraud to the list of predicate offenses for aggravated identity theft and expands the definition of an ``identity theft victim'' to include businesses and charitable organizations.

H.R. 4362 also improves coordination between the Justice Department and State and local law enforcement officials in order to better protect groups that are most vulnerable to tax fraud from becoming future victims. The changes to Federal law proposed by H.R. 4362 are important to keep pace with this ever-increasing crime.

Tax identity theft costs American families and taxpayers millions of dollars each year. It also results in confusion and needless worry, as taxpayers must work to correct the ID problem created by the false filers. It is critical that we take further steps to reduce the number of people who are victimized by this crime.

Again, I want to thank Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her great work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4362.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6062) to reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program through fiscal year 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6062 currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Judiciary Committee colleague Mr. Marino for his leadership on this law enforcement priority.

The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program is the centerpiece of the federal government's assistance for state and local criminal justice initiatives. It was created in 2005 when two existing federal grant programs were combined.

Byrne JAG is a streamlined block grant program that empowers states and localities to address specific law enforcement challenges.

Byrne JAG funding is distributed by the Justice Department based on a formula that considers the jurisdictions' population and crime rates.

Some of the money is kept at the state level but much of it is distributed to localities.

Jurisdictions can tailor their spending based on their own communities' needs. These include prosecution and court programs, drug treatment programs and crime victims programs.

In my district, Byrne JAG funds have been used by the City of Austin to hire additional 911-call operators, purchase protective gear for law enforcement officers and provide training on forensics technology. These are all important public safety initiatives that were prioritized by local leaders.

Byrne JAG is currently authorized at $1.1 billion per year, although this authorization is set to expire at the end of September when the current fiscal year ends.

In fiscal year 2012, Congress appropriated $470 million for the Byrne JAG program, although $100 million of this money was a one-time set aside for this year's presidential nomination conventions.

H.R. 6062 reauthorizes the Byrne JAG program for five years at $800 million a year.

H.R. 6062 enjoys bipartisan support and is widely supported by the law enforcement community.

I thank my Judiciary Committee colleague, Mr. Marino, for his work on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1550) to establish programs in the Department of Justice and in the Department of Homeland Security to help States that have high rates of homicide and other violent crime, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1550, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1550, the Federal Law Enforcement Recruitment and Retention Act of 2012, was introduced by my friend and colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Pierluisi of Puerto Rico. It helps focus the Justice Department's law enforcement efforts on the areas of the country that need them the most.

Crime in the United States began to rise sharply in the 1960s and continued up to its peak in the early 1990s. In response, Congress and the States reformed their criminal laws to include tougher penalties and truth-in-sentencing laws, and they dedicated additional resources to target the rising crime rate.

To a great extent, our national focus on crime has been successful. The national violent crime rate in 2010 was almost half of what it was in 1991, and crime in the United States has continued to fall in spite of difficult economic times. The violent crime rate fell 5 percent from 2008 to 2009, and another 5 percent from 2009 to 2010.

Despite this good news, we are far from a solution to the problem of violent crime in all areas of the country. There are still areas where violent crime remains a very serious issue and is even on the rise. For example, in my district, the number of murders in the city of Austin nearly doubled in 1 year, going from 22 homicides in 2009 to 38 homicides in 2010. Puerto Rico, home to the sponsor of this bill, has experienced an increase in drug-related violent crime. With more than 1,100 deaths in 2011, the homicide rate in Puerto Rico last year was more than five times the national average. The majority of this violence is attributed to the area's growing drug trafficking trade, which has implications, of course, for mainland U.S.

The problem with high-crime areas may increase if there are not sufficient Federal law enforcement officers in these communities. To address this situation, the Justice Department started to dispatch surges of Federal law enforcement officers to prevent and investigate crime in high-crime cities like Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Oakland, California. H.R. 1550 continues this momentum. It directs the Department of Justice to consider, in coordination with State and local governments, the need to recruit, assign, and retain Federal law enforcement personnel in areas of the country with high rates of homicides and other violent crimes, which of course should include Puerto Rico.

H.R. 1550 has bipartisan support and has been endorsed by the law enforcement community. The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a voice vote, and once again I want to thank Mr. Pierluisi for sponsoring this legislation.

H.R. 1550 improves the safety of the many Americans who live in fear of violent crime in their neighborhoods. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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.