Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Daikin Corporation and its North American ``Konwakai,'' which is celebrating its tenth annual meeting this year. Daikin, the world's largest air conditioning company, produces commercial chillers at the Daikin Applied Staunton Facility in Verona, which I represent in Virginia's Sixth Congressional District. There are more than 500 people who work at the plant. They are among the 15,000 employees Daikin employs in the United States. Daikin, which is based in Osaka, Japan, hosts the Konwakais around the world as a way to bring the company's leaders together with leaders in academia and experts in the industry to discuss the future of the HVAC industry and indoor air quality. I am happy to recognize Mr. Yasushi Yamada, a Senior Executive Officer with Daikin. He launched the first North American Konwakai ten years ago. Mr. Yamada's leadership has produced ten gatherings of the group in various locations in the United States and other countries. The two-day conferences have resulted in important discussions about energy efficiency and even internet-of-things-connected products in Daikin's diversified global portfolio. I wish Mr. Yamada and the folks attending Daikin's tenth annual North American ``Konwakai'' a productive meeting. I trust the get-together will result in important attention to advances in the air conditioning sector, leading to the creation of additional jobs in facilities like the one in Verona, Virginia and improvements in indoor air quality.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland and Ranking Member Nadler and others for their work on this legislation, as well as Congressman Issa and Senator Hirono. This is very good legislation and it's overdue. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, E-1 visas are nonimmigrant visas available for treaty traders, and E-2 visas are available for treaty investors. Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, these visas are available to aliens who are ``entitled to enter the United States under and in pursuance of the provisions of a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and the foreign state of which he is a national, and their spouse and children . . . solely to either carry on substantial trade, including trade in services or trade in technology, principally between the United States and the foreign state of which he is a national, or to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which he has invested . . . a substantial amount of capital. . . . '' Alien employees of treaty traders and treaty investors may receive visas if they are coming to the United States ``to engage in duties of an executive or supervisory character, or, if employed in a lesser capacity, if they have special qualifications that make the services to be rendered essential to the efficient operation of the enterprise.'' There are no numerical caps on E-1 or E-2 visas. Aliens may be admitted initially for a period of 2 years and can apply for extensions in 2-year increments. The United States has entered into treaties of commerce since at least 1815, when we entered into a Convention to Regulate Commerce with the United Kingdom. Currently, the nationals of 83 countries are eligible for E-1 or E-2 status. In fiscal year 2017, in total, about 50,000 E-1 and E-2 visas were issued. In the past, countries became eligible for the E-1 and E-2 programs through treaties signed with the United States. However, in 2003, the Judiciary Committee reached an understanding with the U.S. Trade Representative that no immigration provisions were to be included in future trade agreements. Henceforth, legislation would be required to add countries. The bill we are considering today, S. 2245, makes New Zealand nationals eligible for E-1 and E-2 visas. I want to thank Mr. Issa for all of his work on this issue, and for introducing companion legislation in the House. I am also appreciative of the Embassy of New Zealand for seeking E visa status in the right way. I urge my colleagues to support S. 2245, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2245, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2245) to include New Zealand in the list of foreign states whose nationals are eligible for admission into the United States as E- 1 and E-2 nonimmigrants if United States nationals are treated similarly by the Government of New Zealand.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the mission of the Federal Bar Association is to ``strengthen the Federal legal system and administration of justice by serving the interests and the needs of the Federal practitioner, both public and private, the Federal judiciary, and the public they serve.'' The Federal Bar Association's membership includes more than 18,000 Federal lawyers, including 1,500 Federal judges, who, as the Association states, ``work together to promote the sound administration of justice and integrity, quality, and independence of the judiciary.'' The FBA received a Federal charter in 1954. Steve Chabot has introduced H.R. 4100, the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association Charter Amendments Act. The Foundation wrote to the Judiciary Committee stating that: We wholeheartedly endorse H.R. 4100, which would provide for technical changes to the Federal charter of the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association. . . . The technical amendments embodied in H.R. 4100 will provide reasonable and necessary flexibility to the Foundation to assist in the governance and management of the Foundation's affairs. Under the legislation, the mission of the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association will remain unchanged in the promotion and support of legal research and education concerning the Federal administration of justice, the advancement of the science of jurisprudence, and the fostering of improvements in the practice of Federal law. . . . Since 1954, and especially over the past two decades, the Foundation has devoted significant effort toward the enlargement of its educational and charitable programs, including the creation of a fellows program, support of academic and legal scholarship, creation of donor advised funds, establishment of assistance funds for the victims of terrorism and natural disasters, creation of scholarship programs for law students and the children of Federal attorneys, and grant assistance for Federal Bar Association chapters conducting pro bono and other community service projects. . . . These wide-ranging efforts have been successful, but also have exposed the limitations of the Foundation's 1954 charter, particularly with respect to eligibility for membership and governance of the Foundation. . . . The technical corrections . . . would address these concerns and provide greater flexibility to the Foundation in a fashion similar to the authority and privileges enjoyed by other . . . organizations federally chartered by Congress. . . . The bill, among other things, allows the Foundation to have its principal office outside of the District of Columbia, gives its board of directors more leeway in meeting its responsibilities, and adds a nondiscrimination clause. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4100, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4100, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4100) to amend title 36, United States Code, to revise the Federal charter for the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey), who has been a real champion in protecting the rights of the victims of terrorism.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Congress enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1992 in order to help combat international terrorism and to provide some level of financial justice to American victims of terrorism. The 1992 act added a civil remedy to the ATA's existing criminal regime, removing jurisdictional hurdles that often confounded terrorism victims' ability to get their day in court. The act has been largely successful. However, from time to time, the 1992 act has also needed modifications to ensure that it is fully serving its purposes. For instance, just last Congress, in the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, I helped lead the charge in the House to amend the civil liability provision to make sure that those who aid and abet or conspire with foreign terrorist organizations are liable under the ATA. In addition, in 2012, the Judiciary Committee worked to lengthen the statute of limitations on civil ATA claims to provide victims with the time they need to file these often complex lawsuits. The bill we are considering today, the Anti-terrorism Clarification Act, builds on these previous technical amendments to the ATA. It makes three needed improvements in order to better ensure that victims of international terrorism can obtain justice in U.S. courts against terrorists and their supporters. First, the bill clarifies the ATA's act of war exception. Defendants accused of aiding and abetting acts of international terrorism have been attempting to use this exception as a means of avoiding civil liability, even in cases in which the plaintiffs' injuries were caused by the actions of designated terrorist groups. For example, in Kaplan v. Central Bank of Iran, the defendant financial institution successfully argued that rocket attacks against civilians carried out by Hezbollah, a designated foreign terrorist organization, were acts of war and, thus, outside the scope of the ATA's civil liability provisions. The act of war exception should not be a liability shield for those who aid or abet attacks carried out by designated terrorist organizations. This legislation amends the definition of ``act of war'' in the ATA to clarify that the exception does not apply to U.S. Government- designated foreign terrorist organizations or specially designated global terrorists. Second, at the urging of Representative Posey, the author of the CAPTIVE Act, we included language in the bill to strengthen the ATA's civil enforcement regime by permitting victims of narcoterrorism to satisfy their court-awarded judgments with the assets of foreign narcotics drug kingpins. Assets blocked by the Federal Government under the Kingpin Designation Act are not currently available to victims, leaving victims of the FARC and other narcoterrorists without a meaningful method of getting compensation for their injuries. Finally, this legislation addresses recent Federal court decisions that have called into question the continued ability of victims to bring terrorists and their supporters to justice under the ATA's civil liability regime. The ATA was specifically designed to provide extraterritorial jurisdiction over terrorists who attack U.S. nationals overseas. However, these recent cases have severely limited the extraterritorial scope of the ATA. The Anti-terrorism Clarification Act amends the jurisdiction and venue section of the ATA to make clear that defendants who take advantage of certain benefits provided by the U.S. Government shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction in U.S. courts in ATA civil actions. No defendant should be able to accept U.S. foreign assistance while simultaneously dodging responsibility in U.S. courts for supporting or carrying out terrorist attacks that harm Americans. I want to thank Ranking Member Nadler, along with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Ranking Member Nelson for joining me in introducing this bicameral and bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to support us in passing this legislation to clarify ambiguities in the ATA that terrorist sponsors have exploited to evade liability so that we can help ensure that Americans are able to hold terrorists and their supporters accountable. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5954, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5954) to amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the meaning of the terms ``act of war'' and ``blocked asset'', and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, the protection of private ownership of property is vital to individual freedom and national prosperity. It is also one of the most fundamental constitutional principles, as the Founders enshrined property rights protections throughout the Constitution, including in the Fifth Amendment, which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. This clause created two conditions to the government taking private property: first, the subsequent use of the property must be for the use of the public and, second, that the government must pay the owner just compensation for the property. However, more than a decade ago the Supreme Court, in the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London decision, expanded the ability of State and local governments to exercise eminent domain powers beyond what is allowed by the text of the Constitution, by allowing government to seize property under the vague guise of economic development, even when the public use turns out to be nothing more than the generation of tax revenues by another private party after the government takes property from private individuals and gives it to another private entity. As the dissenting Justices observed, by defining public use so expansively, the result of the Kelo decision is, effectively, to delete the words ``for public use'' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. The government now has license to transfer property from those with few resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. In the wake of this decision, State and local governments can use eminent domain powers to take the property of any individual for nearly any reason. Cities may now bulldoze citizens' homes, farms, churches, and small businesses to make way for shopping malls or other developments. To help prevent such abuse, using Congress' constitutional legislative powers, it is important Congress finally passes the Private Property Rights Protection Act. I want to thank Mr. Sensenbrenner for reintroducing this legislation. He and I have worked together on this issue for many years, and I am pleased that this legislation incorporates many provisions from legislation I helped to introduce in the 109th Congress, the STOPP Act. Specifically, the Private Property Rights Protection Act would prohibit State and local governments from receiving Federal economic development funds for 2 years when they use economic development as a justification for taking property from one person and giving it to another private entity. In addition, this legislation grants adversely affected landowners the right to use appropriate legal remedies to enforce the provisions of the bill and allows State and local governments to cure violations by giving the property back to the original owner. The bill also includes a carefully crafted definition of economic development that protects traditional uses of eminent domain, such as taking land for public uses like roads and pipelines, while prohibiting abuses of the eminent domain power. No one should have to live in fear of the government's taking their home, farm, or business simply to give it to a wealthier person or corporation. As the Institute for Justice's witness observed during a hearing on this bill, using eminent domain so that another richer, better-connected person may live or work on the land you used to own tells Americans that their hopes, dreams, and hard work do not matter as much as money and political influence. The use of eminent domain for private development has no place in a country built on traditions of independence, hard work, and protection of property rights. This legislation has passed the House three times previously, either by voice vote or with the support of at least 80 percent of House Members in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, only to be stalled in the Senate. But the fight for people's homes continues, as will this committee's efforts to protect Federal taxpayers from any involvement in eminent domain abuse. Just a few years ago, every single Republican Member voted for the very same legislation on the House floor, as did two-thirds of Democratic Members. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this overwhelmingly bipartisan effort. I want to respond to some of the issues raised by the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Maryland. Pursuant to Congress' powers under the Constitution's Spending Clause, the Private Property Rights Protection Act conditions the receipt of Federal economic development funds on State and local governments agreeing not to use eminent domain for private economic development takings. Federal law currently permits expending Federal funds to support the use of eminent domain for these abusive takings. In our current economy, and with the Federal Government running deficits every year, Congress should not be spending American taxpayers' scarce economic development funds to support State and local governments that unconstitutionally deprive hardworking Americans of their homes, farms, and small businesses. By conditioning the receipt of Federal economic development funds on State and local governments agreeing not to take property for commercial development, this provision in the bill ends the Federal Government's complicit support of eminent domain abuse. The enforcement provisions in the base bill are comprehensive, and they include all manner of relief from preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, to the awarding of attorney's fees, to the ability of the State or locality to return or replace the property to avoid the penalties under the bill. Even those comprehensive enforcement mechanisms, on their own, are not enough. We must end Federal monetary support for economic development takings. If State governments retain control over eminent domain decisions, then, of course, those States should be held responsible for the State's own actions. But in Virginia, my State, local governments are not allowed to condemn property for economic development purposes. In Virginia, the so-called Dillon Rule provides that localities can act only in areas in which the State general assembly has granted clear authority. So, in Virginia, local governments have only the authorities granted to them by the General Assembly, and the Virginia General Assembly has empowered local governments in Virginia to condemn property for roads, schools, and other public uses, but local governments do not have the right to condemn property for economic development. In fact, back in 2000, Virginia Beach city government tried to condemn private property on the oceanfront to help a Hilton hotel build a parking garage, but Circuit Court Judge H. Thomas Padrick, Jr., ruled that Virginia Beach could not use eminent domain for that purpose, finding that the legislature did not intend to allow a city to condemn property solely for its economic benefit and development. Indeed, after the Supreme Court handed down its notorious decision in the Kelo case, a spokeswoman for the Virginia attorney general said the following: As per the constitution of Virginia, public use in eminent domain is defined by the general assembly. There is no proviso in our constitution to use eminent domain for economic development. As a result of the Kelo decision, this bill won't have an impact on Virginia. Finally, regarding Representative Raskin's comments about how the bill relates to the Supreme Court's NFIB v. Sebelius case, the ObamaCare case, the bill, as currently drafted, would certainly not run afoul of anything in it for several reasons. The court made clear in the case that Congress may attach appropriate conditions to Federal taxing and spending programs to preserve its control over the use of Federal funds. That is what the bill does: deny the use of Federal economic development funds to jurisdictions that have demonstrated their willingness to abuse eminent domain and thereby demonstrated their willingness to use Federal funds to further future abuses of eminent domain if allowed to do so. The court went on to cite the South Dakota v. Dole case, in which a Federal law threatened to withhold 5 percent of a State's Federal Highway Fund if the State did not raise its drinking age to 21. The court found that the condition was directly related to one of the main purposes for which highway funds are expended: safe interstate travel. In the same way, the bill's restrictions are directly related to one of the main purposes for which Congress should intend Federal economic development funds to be expended: economic development that does not infringe on the property rights of individual property owners. The court pointed out that, in the South Dakota v. Dole case, the Federal funds at stake constituted less than one-half of 1 percent of South Dakota's budget at the time; whereas, the potential loss of funds at issue in NFIB v. Sebelius were such that Medicaid spending accounts were over 20 percent of the average State's total budget. No one is claiming that Federal economic development funds, however defined, would constitute anything near 20 percent of a State's total budget. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the court also cited the Pennhurst v. Halderman case and characterized its holdings as, though Congress' power to legislate under the Spending Clause is broad, it does not include surprising participating States with post-acceptance or retroactive conditions. That, of course, is not the case with the bill, which applies its prohibition upon the receipt of Federal economic development funds only after a State had been found by a court, in a final judgment on the merits, to have violated the act. Finally, not only is it implausible that the bill would ever run afoul of Supreme Court precedent due to the relatively small size of Federal economic development funds in the context of a State or a locality's entire annual budget; the bill contains a further safety valve in that it gives the attorney general the discretion to promulgate precisely which Federal funding streams are Federal economic development funds under the bill. So, if a constitutional issue ever arose, the attorney general could simply scale back the size of its promulgated list accordingly. It seems to me it can't be claimed this bill is unconstitutional under any reasonable reading of any existing Supreme Court precedent. Regarding federalism values generally, the key point is that there actually is a very close nexus between Federal development funding and eminent domain, even if the funding is not used on eminent domain projects. Money is fungible, of course. If the bill were amended to disallow only the use of Federal economic development funds on eminent domain projects, it would be very easy for an offending jurisdiction to game the system by artificially segmenting a project into parts that use eminent domain and parts that don't. That segmentation would happen both vertically, by dividing a project into stages, and horizontally, by dividing a single project into very small geographic segments. The entirely appropriate federalism message the base bill sends to States and localities is that, if you are going to do economic development but abuse eminent domain, that is fine, but you will be on your own for a while and go without Federal taxpayer complicity in your abuse of eminent domain. Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation. The concerns addressed by the minority are addressed clearly in this legislation. There is strong bipartisan support for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this and, once again, send it to the United States Senate, where we can only hope that they will someday see the wisdom of protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say, this amendment does not in any way take any resources away from any of the six States in the Chesapeake Bay region to improve water quality. What it does take away is the ability of the EPA to dictate to those States one way, their way, to do it. The Clean Water Act was written with it in mind that the Federal Government would set the standards and the States would figure out how to meet those standards. And that flexibility has been taken away starting in the Obama administration, and it is time for this Congress to stop them from doing that so that we can have the kind of collaborative effort just described by the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Calvert, and get back to doing things the right way. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to urge support for my amendment, which would reaffirm and preserve the rights of the States to write their own water quality plans. My amendment simply prohibits the EPA from using its Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load and the so-called watershed implementation plans to hijack States' water quality strategies. Over the last several years, the EPA has implemented a Total Maximum Daily Load blueprint for the six States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which strictly limits the amount of nutrients that can enter the Chesapeake Bay. Through its implementation, the EPA has basically given every State in the watershed an ultimatum: either the State does exactly what the EPA says or it faces the threat of an EPA takeover of its water quality programs. Congress intended that the implementation of the Clean Water Act be a collaborative approach, through which the States and the Federal Government work together. This process was not meant to be subject to the whims of politics and bureaucrats in Washington. Therefore, my amendment instructs the EPA to respect the important role States play in implementing the Clean Water Act. I want to make it perfectly clear that this amendment would not stop the EPA from working with the States to restore the Chesapeake Bay, nor would it undermine the cleanup efforts already underway. My language only removes the ability of the EPA to take over a State's plan or to take retaliatory actions against the State if it does not meet EPA- mandated goals. Again, it ensures States' rights remain intact and not usurped by the EPA. It is important to point out that the correlation between the EPA's outrageous waters of the United States rule and the Bay TMDL, at the heart of both issues is the EPA's desire to control conservation and water quality improvement efforts throughout the country and to punish all those who dare to oppose them. The bay is a national treasure, and I want to see it restored, but we know that in order to achieve this goal, the States and the EPA must work together. The EPA cannot be allowed to railroad the States and micromanage the process. This amendment has passed the House with bipartisan support several times, and I urge my colleagues to once again vote to ask the EPA to respect the important role States play in implementing the Clean Water Act and prevent another Federal power grab by the administration. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.