H5504 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 31, 2012 

Schedule of Laws Repealed—Continued 

Act Section United States Code 

Former Classification 

Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–24) .............. title V, §512 (relating to 

National Park System).

16 U.S.C. 1a–7b (relating 

to National Park System).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. SMITH) and the gentleman 

from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT) each will 

control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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 userfriendly 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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

I rise in support of H.R. 1950. Dating 

back to the mid-19th century, numerous laws have been enacted pertaining 

to the organization and management of 

the National Park System by the National Park Service. 

The Service is also responsible for 

carrying out the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act, the National 

Historic Preservation Act, and other 

laws relating to the protection and 

preservation of sites that illustrate 

America’s history. 

Over the ensuing years, laws specifying the Service’s responsibilities 

have been codified in various sections 

of title 16 of the United States Code. 

And as laws relating to the National 

Park Service were amended and new 

laws were added to the Code, classifications have become more cumbersome 

to use. 

b 1940 

H.R. 1950 simply gathers all of these 

provisions pertaining to the National 

Park Service and restates them in a 

new positive law title of the United 

States Code. The new title 54 of the 

Code replaces and repeals these provisions of the former law. 

All changes in existing law made by 

H.R. 1950 are purely technical, and they 

reflect the understood policy, intent, 

and purpose of Congress in the original 

enactments. These changes include corrections to remove ambiguities, contradictions, and other imperfections. 

We should note that this measure 

was drafted by the Office of the Law 

Revision Counsel as part of that office’s ongoing statutory responsibility 

to ‘‘prepare a complete compilation, 

restatement, and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United 

States.’’ 

I commend the Office of the Law Revision Counsel for its good work on 

H.R. 1950 and for its many valuable 

contributions to our legislative process. 

Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I urge my 

colleagues to support the measure. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 1950, as amended. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

The point of no quorum is considered 

withdrawn. 

STUDENT VISA REFORM ACT 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 3120 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Visa 

Reform Act’’. 

SEC. 2. ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENT FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. 

Section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (15)(F)(i)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘section 214(l) at an established college, university, seminary, conservatory, academic high school, elementary school, 

or other academic institution or in an accredited 

language training program in the United 

States’’ and inserting ‘‘section 214(m) at an accredited college, university, or language training program, or at an established seminary, conservatory, academic high school, elementary 

school, or other academic institution in the 

United States’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘Attorney General’’ each place 

such term appears and inserting ‘‘Secretary of 

Homeland Security’’; and 

(2) by amending paragraph (52) to read as follows: 

‘‘(52) Except as provided in section 214(m)(4), 

the term ‘accredited college, university, or language training program’ means a college, university, or language training program that is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by 

the Secretary of Education.’’. 

SEC. 3. OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR ACADEMIC 

INSTITUTIONS. 

Section 214(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(m)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 

the Secretary’s discretion, may require accreditation of an academic institution (except for 

seminaries or other religious institutions) for 

purposes of section 101(a)(15)(F) if— 

‘‘(A) that institution is not already required to 

be accredited under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i); 

‘‘(B) an appropriate accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary of Education is able to 

provide such accreditation; and 

‘‘(C) the institution has or will have 25 or 

more alien students accorded status as nonimmigrants under clause (i) or (iii) of section 

101(a)(15)(F) pursuing a course of study at that 

institution. 

‘‘(4) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 

the Secretary’s discretion, may waive the accreditation requirement in section 

101(a)(15)(F)(i) with respect to an established 

college, university, or language training program if the academic institution— 

‘‘(A) is otherwise in compliance with the requirements of such section; and 

‘‘(B) is making a good faith effort to satisfy 

the accreditation requirement. 

‘‘(5)(A) No person convicted of an offense referred to in subparagraph (B) shall be permitted 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5505 

by any academic institution having authorization for attendance by nonimmigrant students 

under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) to be involved with 

the institution as its principal, owner, officer, 

board member, general partner, or other similar 

position of substantive authority for the operations or management of the institution, including serving as an individual designated by the 

institution to maintain records required by the 

Student and Exchange Visitor Information System established under section 641 of the Illegal 

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372). 

‘‘(B) An offense referred to in this subparagraph includes a violation, punishable by a term 

of imprisonment of more than 1 year, of any of 

the following: 

‘‘(i) Chapter 77 of title 18, United States Code 

(relating to peonage, slavery and trafficking in 

persons). 

‘‘(ii) Chapter 117 of title 18, United States 

Code (relating to transportation for illegal sexual activity and related crimes). 

‘‘(iii) Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324) (relating to unlawful bringing of aliens into the United States). 

‘‘(iv) Section 1546 of title 18, United States 

Code (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents) relating to an academic institution’s participation in the Student 

and Exchange Visitor Program.’’. 

SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENT. 

Section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(G)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘section 214(l)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 214(m)’’. 

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), the amendments made by sections 2 

and 3— 

(1) shall take effect on the date that is 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act; 

and 

(2) shall apply with respect to applications for 

a nonimmigrant visa under section 

101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i)) that are 

filed on or after the effective date described in 

paragraph (1). 

(b) TEMPORARY EXCEPTION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—During the 3-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, an 

alien seeking to enter the United States to pursue a course of study at a college or university 

that has been certified by the Secretary of 

Homeland Security may be granted a nonimmigrant visa under clause (i) or clause (iii) of 

section 101(a)(15)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) without 

regard to whether or not that college or university has been accredited or been denied accreditation by an entity described in section 

101(a)(52) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(52)), as 

amended by section 2(2) of this Act. 

(2) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.—An alien may 

not be granted a nonimmigrant visa under paragraph (1) if the college or university to which 

the alien seeks to enroll does not— 

(A) submit an application for the accreditation of such institution to a regional or national 

accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary 

of Education on or before the date that is 1 year 

after the effective date described in subsection 

(a)(1); and 

(B) comply with the applicable accrediting requirements of such agency. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. SMITH) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. ZOE LOFGREN) each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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 highlevel 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. 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 

bill, the Student Visa Reform Act. 

Our U.S. student visa program has a 

long and proud history. For decades, 

it’s helped American colleges and universities attract some of the brightest 

young minds in the world, while offering those students the opportunity to 

study in the world’s leading institutions of higher education. 

The benefits to our country have 

been great. International students have 

expanded and enriched the educational 

experiences for all students at U.S. universities and colleges. And by immersing foreign students in American culture, the program often creates a lasting and favorable understanding of our 

country that pays dividends in foreign 

nations for years to come. 

Unfortunately, some institutions 

have been undermining the laudable 

mission of this visa program. Last 

year, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement took down two 

schools in California after they were 

found to have engaged in widespread 

visa fraud and exploitation of students. 

Among other things, these schools 

misled students as to their accreditation. They lied about the ability of students to transfer credits to other institutions. Commonly known as ‘‘visa 

mills,’’ these schools took enormous 

sums of money from the students but 

provided questionable academic 

courses and essentially worthless degrees. 

To prevent this type of fraud in the 

future, H.R. 3120 requires that colleges 

and universities be accredited in order 

to host foreign students. Such accreditation would need to be given by a regional or national accrediting agency 

recognized by the Secretary of Education. Seminaries and other religious 

institutions would be exempt from this 

requirement. 

This bill follows in the footsteps of 

legislation enacted in the 111th Congress that requires the accreditation of 

language training programs before 

they can host foreign students. That 

bill, sponsored by my good friend, Representative BARNEY FRANK, and the 

chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 

Congressman LAMAR SMITH, has already helped the Department of Homeland Security crack down on fraud in 

language training programs. 

Like the Frank-Smith bill, the accreditation requirements instituted by 

this bill will prevent illegitimate institutions from cheating foreign students 

who legitimately seek a bona fide education in the United States. In addition, this requirement will prevent flyby-night institutions from engaging in 

student visa fraud to smuggle or traffic 

persons into the country. 

Finally, in committee, I worked with 

the chairman to add a provision that 

would prevent persons who have committed certain crimes from owning or 

running an academic institution that 

seeks to host foreign students. Persons 

would be barred if they had been convicted of human trafficking, transportation for illegal sexual activity, alien 

smuggling, or harboring or visa fraud 

under the student visa program. 

We also added a provision to give the 

Secretary of Homeland Security additional flexibility with respect to 

schools that are playing by the rules 

and trying to get accreditation but 

may be running into bureaucratic 

delays. Specifically, the Secretary is 

given the ability to waive the accreditation requirements in cases where an 

educational institution is otherwise in 

compliance with the law and is taking 

good faith steps to obtain accreditation. 

I thank Chairman SMITH for working 

with me to bring this bill to the floor 

and for working with me to improve 

and strengthen the bill in committee. I 

urge my colleagues to support the bill. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5506 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 31, 2012 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 3120, as amended. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

object to the vote on the ground that a 

quorum is not present and make the 

point of order that a quorum is not 

present. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

The point of no quorum is considered 

withdrawn. 

f 

FOREIGN AND ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE PENALTY ENHANCEMENT 

ACT OF 2012 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6029 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Foreign and 

Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement 

Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. PROTECTING U.S. BUSINESSES FROM FOREIGN ESPIONAGE. 

(a) FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED BY INDIVIDUALS.—Section 1831(a) of title 18, United 

States Code, is amended, in the matter after 

paragraph (5)— 

(1) by striking ‘‘15 years’’ and inserting ‘‘20 

years’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘not more than $500,000’’ 

and inserting ‘‘not more than $5,000,000’’. 

(b) FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED BY ORGANIZATIONS.—Section 1831(b) of such title is 

amended by striking ‘‘not more than 

$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘not more than the 

greater of $10,000,000 or 3 times the value of 

the stolen trade secret to the organization, 

including expenses for research and design 

and other costs of reproducing the trade secret that the organization has thereby avoided’’. 

SEC. 3. REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Pursuant to its authority 

under section 994(p) of title 28, United States 

Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend 

the Federal sentencing guidelines and policy 

statements applicable to persons convicted 

of offenses relating to the transmission or 

attempted transmission of a stolen trade secret outside of the United States or economic espionage, in order to reflect the intent of Congress that penalties for such offenses under the Federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements appropriately, 

reflect the seriousness of these offenses, account for the potential and actual harm 

caused by these offenses, and provide adequate deterrence against such offenses. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out this 

section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall— 

(1) consider the extent to which the Federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements appropriately account for the simple 

misappropriation of a trade secret, including 

the sufficiency of the existing enhancement 

for these offenses to address the seriousness 

of this conduct; 

(2) consider whether additional enhancements in the Federal sentencing guidelines 

and policy statements are appropriate to account for— 

(A) the transmission or attempted transmission of a stolen trade secret outside of 

the United States; and 

(B) the transmission or attempted transmission of a stolen trade secret outside of 

the United States that is committed or attempted to be committed for the benefit of a 

foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent; 

(3) ensure the Federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements reflect the seriousness of these offenses and the need to 

deter such conduct; 

(4) ensure reasonable consistency with 

other relevant directives, Federal sentencing 

guidelines and policy statements, and related Federal statutes; 

(5) make any necessary conforming 

changes to the Federal sentencing guidelines 

and policy statements; and 

(6) ensure that the Federal sentencing 

guidelines adequately meet the purposes of 

sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of 

title 18, United States Code. 

(c) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out the review required under this section, the Commission shall consult with individuals or 

groups representing law enforcement, owners 

of trade secrets, victims of economic espionage offenses, the United States Department 

of Justice, the United States Department of 

Homeland Security, the United States Department of State and the Office of the 

United States Trade Representative. 

(d) REVIEW.—Not later than 180 days after 

the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete its consideration and 

review under this section. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. SMITH) and the gentleman 

from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT) each will 

control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. 

b 1950 

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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE