Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 285) expressing the sense of the United States House of Representatives that Congress and the President should empower the creation of police and community alliances designed to enhance and improve communication and collaboration between members of the law enforcement community and the public they serve.

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. Res. 285, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased the House is considering this resolution today, which highlights the critical need to strengthen relationships between police departments and the communities they serve. This resolution, cosponsored by the gentleman from the great Commonwealth of Virginia (Mr. Taylor), expresses the sense of the United States House of Representatives that Congress and the President should empower the creation of police and community alliances designed to enhance and improve communication and collaboration between members of the law enforcement community and the public. Over the past several years, our country has witnessed the tension between certain police departments and communities come to a head. We have seen communities grieve over the loss of young men killed in police shootings. At the same time, we have seen a concerning spike in ambush attacks on police officers. We have heard complaints from communities about not being able to trust the police. We have also heard complaints from police that certain communities will not help the police in investigating the violent crimes that plague those very communities. To address this strain and divide, in July 2016, the Judiciary Committee established the bipartisan Policing Strategies Working Group. This group has held several roundtables and traveled around the country to speak to police departments and community leaders. Our objective is to examine police accountability, aggregation towards law enforcement, and public safety concerns. Our work to highlight and address these issues is ongoing. H. Res. 285 continues this progress by publicly supporting the creation of community-police alliances so that perhaps one day we can come to a point where there is no divide between the police and the communities they serve, no longer a sense of profound mistrust, no longer any sort of us versus them mentality. When it comes to protecting and serving the community, there shouldn't be sides. We hope for a day when everyone can realize that police departments and community leaders seek the same goals: peace, prosperity, and safety. We hope that this resolution and our continued work on the Policing Strategies Working Group and the Judiciary Committee helps to continue the progress the country is making. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Taylor for introducing this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Taylor), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any additional speakers and am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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. 4854, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4854, the Justice Served Act of 2018, introduced by the gentleman from Texas, Judge Carter. All of us in this body are familiar with Debbie Smith and the tragedy of her attack and the triumph of the law that bears her name. Many of us have had the pleasure of meeting Debbie and her husband, Rob, and hearing her story firsthand. The Debbie Smith Act was the Nation's first piece of legislation aimed at ending the DNA backlog that plagued our State crime labs. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program was created in 2004, and since then it has enabled States to process more than 725,000 cases and upload more than 327,000 DNA profiles into the FBI's Combined DNA Index System, or CODIS. I had the honor to be the chief sponsor of the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2014. When Judge Carter reached out to me about this bill, I was encouraged, but I also wanted to know how Debbie Smith felt about it. I learned that not only did she support it, she and others helped craft it. When we reached out to Debbie and Rob to get their thoughts on the bill, they stated, ``getting hits doesn't mean as much if we cannot prosecute.'' I agree with Debbie and Judge Carter on this very important point. The bill in front of us today makes a very small but important change to the Debbie Smith Act. That small change will increase the capacity of prosecutors to address the backlog of violent crime cases involving suspects identified through DNA evidence. This bill will allow victims of crime and their families to receive justice by giving prosecutors the tools they need to investigate, solve, and close cold cases. That small, but vitally important, change is why the Justice Served Act of 2018 is endorsed by the National District Attorneys Association; Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network; Debbie Smith; Major County Sheriffs of America; Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; Sergeants Benevolent Association; the Fraternal Order of Police; the National Association of Police Organizations; Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations; Joyful Heart Association; the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence; the Major Cities Chiefs; and the National Criminal Justice Association. We in this body should join these organizations in supporting this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas, Judge Carter, for introducing this legislation and all of his hard work in supporting it. To paraphrase Debbie and Rob, getting a hit is nice, but ensuring justice is served is better. Mr. Speaker, please join me in supporting the Justice Served Act of 2018. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase what Debbie and Rob Smith said, getting a hit is nice, but ensuring justice is served is even better. And it is, I think, a good amendment to the Debbie Smith Act that we allow these funds to be used for this purpose and close more of these cases that are solved by the DNA testing that was the original purpose of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, I thank Judge Carter for his fine work on it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 1914, Congress passed the Federal Trade Commission Act, marking the beginning of a dual antitrust enforcement regime in the United States. Because both Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission enforce our Nation's antitrust laws, companies may, and often do, have different experiences when interacting with one agency relative to the other. One area in which the disparity can be the most striking and troubling is in the merger review process. When a company wishes to merge with or purchase another company, it must notify both antitrust enforcement agencies of the proposed transaction. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission then determine which agency will be responsible for reviewing the transaction. As there are no fixed rules for making this determination, it can appear that the decision is made on the basis of a flip of a coin. There are two substantial differences that companies face based on the identity of the antitrust enforcement agency that reviews the companies' proposed transaction. The first difference arises if the agency seeks to prevent the transaction by pursuing a preliminary injunction in Federal court. A different legal standard is applied to a preliminary injunction request based solely on the identity of the requesting antitrust enforcement agency. The second difference lies in the process available to each antitrust enforcement agency to prevent a transaction from proceeding. The FTC may pursue administrative litigation against a proposed transaction, even after a court denies its preliminary injunction request. In contrast, DOJ cannot pursue administrative litigation. There is no justification for these disparities in the merger review processes and standards. The bipartisan Antitrust Modernization Commission recommended that Congress remove these disparities, and the bill before us today, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act, or the SMARTER Act, does just that. I applaud Representative Handel for introducing this important legislation that will enhance the transparency, predictability, and credibility of the antitrust merger review process. By enacting the SMARTER Act into law, Congress will ensure that companies no longer will be subjected to fundamentally different processes and standards based on the flip of a coin. Notably, the legislation has garnered the support of former and current FTC commissioners, including former Chairman David Clanton, former Commissioner Josh Wright, and current Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen. The SMARTER Act is an important step toward assuring that our Nation's antitrust laws are enforced in a manner that is fair, consistent, and predictable. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this good government bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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, pursuant to House Resolution 872, I call up the bill (H.R. 5645) to amend the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the Federal Trade Commission shall exercise authority with respect to mergers only under the Clayton Act and only in the same procedural manner as the Attorney General exercises such authority, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5645.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting the amendment to H.R. 5645 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Handel), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

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

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes a series of useful technical and clarifying changes suggested by the Federal Trade Commission. At the FTC's request, the amendment adds language stating explicitly that the agency retains independent litigating authority in merger cases brought under the Clayton Act. This makes clear that the FTC is not forced to rely on the Department of Justice in these cases. The amendment also strikes language referring to the FTC's authority to issue civil investigative demands in merger cases. This is because the reference is unnecessary and could create a negative inference that the FTC does not enjoy such authority in other contexts. The amendment makes further technical improvements in several places in the bill that refer to the FTC bringing an action under section 7 of the Clayton Act. The FTC's authority to bring an action in court actually derives from section 15 of the act, so the amendment updates that citation. Furthermore, the amendment changes the phrase ``including'' FTC proceedings to ``or'' FTC proceedings in several places in the underlying bill. This is to underscore that FTC settlements are distinct from DOJ antitrust settlements and, thus, are not subject to the judicial review provisions of the Tunney Act. The amendment also refines language in the underlying bill that ensures the same legal standards are applied to FTC and DOJ injunctions, and that preserves FTC authority to use administrative adjudication as part of a settlement agreement. Specifically, the changes more clearly define the circumstances in which the FTC may seek an injunction and more clearly state that the FTC must proceed in Federal court, not administratively. The amended language also more accurately reflects the FTC's practices for administrative settlements, more clearly states that the district courts must apply the same standard in those cases as it would apply when the Department of Justice seeks injunctions, and more clearly provides that the new rules change only administrative adjudications, not investigative procedures. Finally, the amendment clarifies that the FTC's duty to use the courts, rather than administrative procedures, to block anticompetitive behavior, extends only to the merger-type actions that this bill is intended to cover. Again, these changes are of a technical nature and were all recommended by the FTC itself. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The arguments we have heard against this bill are without merit. It has charged that the SMARTER Act would make it more difficult for the FTC to fulfill its consumer protection mandate. This is incorrect. The FTC's consumer protection powers are completely independent from the antitrust laws. The SMARTER Act deals only with the antitrust piece, so, by its terms, does not impact the FTC's ability to prosecute ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices.'' As for harm to consumers from proposed mergers, the SMARTER Act does not, in any way, affect substantive antitrust law; it does not amend, in any form or fashion, section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act or any of the FTC's consumer protection powers. Opponents also claim that the SMARTER Act removes an important tool from the FTC by eliminating its ability to pursue administrative litigation. This, too, is a red herring. The SMARTER Act only removes the FTC's administrative litigation authority in the very narrow context of proposed transactions. A report from the bipartisan Antitrust Modernization Commission determined that any benefit from such authority was marginal and ``significantly outweighed by the costs.'' The FTC can still pursue administrative litigation in conduct cases and in actions against consummated mergers. Indeed, the AMC report stated specifically that: ``Elimination of administrative litigation in . . . merger''--review--``cases will not deprive the FTC of an important enforcement option.'' Opponents also charge that enacting the SMARTER Act will make it more difficult for the antitrust enforcement agencies to stop a merger, but the SMARTER Act only changes the process; it does not have any substantive impact on merger reviews. But don't take my word for it. A letter from 15 leading antitrust professors states: ``The SMARTER Act does nothing to undermine the FTC's authority; it simply ensures that the merger review processes and standards are equally applied to merger parties regardless of which agency reviews the transaction.'' But perhaps the most ironic argument brought against the bill is that it is unnecessary because the FTC rarely initiates administrative litigation after a court denies a preliminary injunction request. Administrative adjudications may be rare, not because regulators use the powers sparingly, but because the mere prospect of this protracted, costly process may prompt companies to abandon the merger even though they prevailed in court. That hardly seems fair. Parties to a merger should receive the same treatment and have the same process regardless of the reviewing antitrust agency, and the SMARTER Act accomplishes that goal. This legislation will help America continue to serve as a leader and innovator in competition law, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, this motion is unnecessary because this bill does nothing to undermine substantive antitrust enforcement. It might even hold up mergers that the court already found procompetitive and could help lower drug prices. This is simply a dilatory tactic used by my friends on the other side of the aisle to hold up this important legislation. For decades, American antitrust laws have been a shining example of how to protect against anticompetitive activities in a consistent, predictable, and fair manner. Other countries have looked to our laws as the template for the creation of their own competition laws. Let us continue to be a model of proper antitrust enforcement. The SMARTER Act is a commonsense process reform that ensures fairness and parity in the narrow field of merger reviews. The bill was recommended to Congress by a bipartisan commission and is supported by former top antitrust enforcement officials and past and present FTC Commissioners of both political parties. Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to do the smart thing by opposing this bill and supporting the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.