Bob Goodlatte

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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 4909, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who is a cosponsor of this legislation and former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks).

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, compassion, goodwill, and the strong desire to help others in need are all characteristics embodied by my constituents, Brent Berry and his family, of Harrisonburg, Virginia. I am honored to represent the Sixth Congressional District in the House of Representatives, home to kind-hearted and caring Virginians like the Berry family. This March marks the 10th annual Brent Berry Food Drive. For a decade, Brent has worked countless hours, often in below freezing temperatures, collecting food for local families in his hometown of Harrisonburg. The food drive benefits the Salvation Army, collecting most of the food the organization needs to feed over 300 families per month. In 2017, the Brent Berry Food Drive collected nearly 11,000 food items. Brent's strong desire to serve the community is remarkable, and he's a familiar face around Harrisonburg. You'll find him outside of grocery stores, shopping centers, and on local university campuses. Brent has also recruited the help of the local fire, police, and sheriff's departments to assist in collecting donations. I've participated in the food drive several times myself, and I am often amazed by the support it receives from friends and neighbors. And what's most touching is that Brent's partner in service is his father, Bucky, who once relied on the services from the Salvation Army himself. He recalls living in a shack as a 5-year-old boy, his family not having enough to eat. The same organization that his son now passionately volunteers for provided young Bucky and his family with meals and even presents at Christmas. Brent's passion for service and selfless nature are unmatched. So much so, that in February of this year, he was presented with a key to the City of Harrisonburg by the City Council. This is a well-deserved honor. It is hard-working and dedicated volunteers like Brent Berry who make real differences in our communities. I thank Brent, his father Bucky, and his team of volunteers who make the good work of the Salvation Army in Harrisonburg possible. I wish Brent continued success as he works to positively impact the lives of many Virginia families and ensure no family in Harrisonburg goes hungry.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's good work on this legislation. In my district and in many rural communities around the country, wood burning stoves and heaters are a popular heat source, and an affordable one as well; and it is a renewable fuel. And I will tell you what: the person who utilizes a wood stove to heat their home is not a special interest. The EPA's New Source Performance Standards for products like wood and pellet stoves and wood furnaces have raised significant concerns. This regulation sets forth an unrealistic and unachievable timeline for manufacturers of these products to come into compliance with the standards in time. I have heard from manufacturers and retailers, like England's Stove Works in Amherst County in my district, that it is not that they don't want to comply with the rule, they just simply need more time. For just one wood stove, it can take up to 6 months to complete the EPA certification process. In the meantime, the availability of wood stoves--the affordability of this heating source for my constituents and other people in mostly rural areas, but other communities as well around the country, is going to go up. The BRICK Act, before the House today, includes provisions from a bill that I introduced along with Representative Collin Peterson, the Relief from New Source Performance Standards Act. This provision is a simple one. It simply extends the time wood stove manufacturers have to comply with Federal regulations by 3 years. Affordable heat is important to my constituents, and Federal regulations must take into account the real world needs and time constraints of the industries that make these products and must now develop new technologies. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill today to give this industry more time and ensure consumers can choose wood heat sources to help keep their families warm.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1865, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, and urge my colleagues to do the same. This legislation will finally make a meaningful difference in combating online sex trafficking. For too long, bad actor websites have operated with impunity in selling young women and girls forced into the commercial sale of sex. They have, beyond any shadow of a doubt, profited off the misery of others. They have convinced courts to misapply the Communications Decency Act, a Federal law that was originally intended to encourage websites to police content and rid platforms of illegal content. They have misused the Communications Decency Act as a shield to avoid criminal liability in State courts. Given the number of local websites that are deliberately selling women and children for sex, we must now take steps to allow Federal, State, and local prosecutors to hold these websites accountable and dismantle these illicit, heinous online markets. H.R. 1865 will ensure vigorous criminal enforcement against bad actor websites by creating a new Federal law to prosecute these sites and explicitly permitting States the ability to enforce comparable laws. While the Federal code does not criminalize the knowing advertisement of sex trafficking, this statute is, unfortunately, of limited utility. Nearly all websites responsible for rampant sex trafficking advertisements host ads that rarely, if ever, state that the victim being sold is either underage or subject to force, fraud, or coercion. Therefore, this bill takes measures to target websites that are deliberately promoting and facilitating prostitution. Additionally, H.R. 1865 provides for an aggravated violation that applies to websites that promote prostitution in reckless disregard of the fact that sex trafficking is occurring on their platform. I want to highlight, Mr. Chairman, an amendment that will be offered to this legislation. Though I applaud my colleague's dedication to this issue and fully appreciate the suffering of victims, I have concerns about this amendment which states that the provisions of the bill apply regardless of whether the conduct alleged occurred or is alleged to have occurred before, on, or after such date of enactment. Had regular order been followed, Mr. Chairman, the Judiciary Committee would certainly have fixed this issue, which I believe could subject this legislation to a constitutional challenge under the ex post facto clause, a concern shared by the Justice Department. I hope we have an opportunity to fix this problem as we move forward with the bill, and I include in the Record a letter from the Department of Justice highlighting these constitutional concerns. Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, February 27, 2018. Hon. Robert W. Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter presents the views of the Department of Justice (Department) on H.R. 1865, the ``Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017.'' The Department supports H.R. 1865. We applaud House and Senate legislative efforts to address the use of websites to facilitate sex trafficking and to protect and restore victims who were sold for sex online. The Department appreciates this opportunity to provide technical assistance to ensure that these goals are fully met through narrowly tailored legislation. The Department also notes that a provision in the bill raises a serious constitutional concern. Every day, trafficking victims in America appear in online advertisements that are used to sell them for sex. The Department works diligently to hold the traffickers accountable for their crimes but faces serious challenges. This is due in part to the high evidentiary standard needed to bring federal criminal charges for advertising sex trafficking, but also because the Communications Decency Act (CDA), codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230, bars our state and local partners from bringing any criminal action that is inconsistent with that section. H.R. 1865 addresses both issues and would take meaningful steps to end the industry of advertising trafficking victims for commercial sex.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I will support this bill since its strong reforms will allow State and local prosecutors to vigorously enforce the law against some of the worst criminals in society today. This bill will allow law enforcement to effectively dismantle this lucrative, expansive, immoral, reprehensible market. Our children and vulnerable women are not commodities to be sold. This legislation emphatically affirms that fact. It will truly make a difference. I would like to commend my colleague Mrs. Wagner from Missouri and her dedicated staff for their work on this legislation and for their continued dedication to combatting sex trafficking and supporting victims. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment makes small but important changes to the bill. Most significantly, the bill narrows the class of defendants covered in the new section 2421A, which criminalizes the deliberate promotion or facilitation of prostitution. As the creation of this law is designed to target bad actor websites, this amendment narrows defendants covered to those who own, manage, or operate an interactive computer service with the intent to promote or facilitate prostitution. This amendment avoids creating a broad Federal law that covers conduct that is not necessarily Federal in nature. Second, the manager's amendment strikes language from the underlying bill's civil recovery provision that was intended to encourage victims to successfully plead their cases. However, the language could have created a risk of confusion by the courts, and so it has been removed. Further, the manager's amendment clarifies that mandatory restitution provision is only applicable to victims of sex trafficking, not to those who voluntarily have engaged in prostitution. Finally, the manager's amendment adds language inadvertently omitted from the original bill, which permits defendants who face an aggravated charge for promoting or facilitating more than five people to assert the statute's affirmative defense if a defendant can prove that advertisements were targeted to a locality where promotion or facilitation is legal. Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment is the product of the Judiciary Committee's repeated and thoughtful effort to produce a workable and technically sound piece of legislation. This bill will do a great deal to protect victims of sex trafficking. I am proud of the hard work by my colleagues and staff to ensure that the criminal law is appropriately tailored to achieve that goal. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 620.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Private enforcement of title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act is a critical tool for disabled individuals to gain access to places like restaurants and shopping centers. Most businessowners, however, feel blindsided when they are sued for violations they were unaware of. This has been the case even for disabled businessowners who have testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Lee Ky testified in 2016. She runs one of her family's doughnut shops that was sued for technical violations of the ADA because a restroom sign was in the shape of a triangle instead of a square. A person who has never walked in her life, Ky testified that she is proud of this Nation's effort to improve accessibility by enacting the ADA, but she thinks that businesses should be given an opportunity to remove barriers before getting sued. Donna and David Batelaan have also testified. They were co-owners of a store that sold accessibility devices in Florida. Despite employing two people who used wheelchairs, despite themselves using wheelchairs, and despite the fact that virtually their entire clientele was composed of customers who had mobility limitations, they were sued because they had not painted lines and posted a sign for a ``handicapped'' spot required by the ADA. Indeed, according to their testimony, it was later found that they had been just one of many businesses targeted by an unscrupulous, out- of-state attorney. According to Mrs. Batelaan, it did not matter that their parking lot and store were totally accessible. It was greed that was driving these suits. These examples are among many shared by businesses across the country. The ADA's private right of action, which was originally intended to be the primary enforcement mechanism to achieve greater access, has instead encouraged a cottage industry of costly and wasteful litigation that neither benefits the business nor disabled individuals seeking more accessibility. A report aired on ``60 Minutes'' on December 4, 2016, for example, featured several small-business owners who were subject to what are known as ``drive-by'' lawsuits. In such lawsuits, commonly filed by opportunistic trial lawyers, the plaintiff need only drive by the property, not actually visit it, to file a lawsuit alleging an ADA violation. In other cases, plaintiffs can even use Google Earth to target alleged violations and, in turn, file lawsuits before even notifying a small-business owner of the problem. The fact that these types of small businesses are ill-equipped to defend an ADA lawsuit is the reason why they are sued. Indeed, opportunistic attorneys are more often willing to settle for just less than it would cost those mom-and-pop businesses to defend themselves in court. According to a 2017 op-ed published in The Hill, a conservative estimate of the average settlement amount is $7,500. Given that plaintiff attorneys' motive is often to line their own pockets, there is little or no incentive to work with businesses to cure a violation before a lawsuit is filed. This results in wasted resources that could have been used to improve access. H.R. 620 is a commonsense solution because it gives businesses a fair chance to cure title III violations before they are forced into a lawsuit, while still preserving the power of the threat of a lawsuit when businesses fail to make the required fixes in a timely manner. H.R. 620 will create more access for more Americans more quickly because businesses would much rather fix an access problem quickly than face an unpredictable and expensive lawsuit that could hurt their ability to expand access in other ways. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense reform, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from New York. In point of fact, the United States Code contains several examples in which a potential plaintiff must provide notice before filing a lawsuit. For example, title I of the ADA, in fact, requires a plaintiff to first file an administrative complaint with the EEOC. Unlike a complaint filed in Federal court, it is a method for parties to try to resolve the case before litigation through a conciliation process. As part of this process, the complainant is required to fill out a form that puts the recipient on notice of the alleged issues. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has a similar process. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters), the primary cosponsor of this legislation.