Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to include in the Record a letter signed by 23 of those States' attorneys general who say, in part, in this letter: ``Strong evidence indicates that concealed carry permit holders actually deter and reduce crime.'' This is taking action by passing this legislation. Attorney General of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, December 1, 2017. Re Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 446) and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38). Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressional Leaders: As the chief legal officers of our States, we, the undersigned 23 state Attorneys General, write in support of the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 446) and the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38). We share a strong interest in the protection of our citizens' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and we are committed to supporting federal and state policies to preserve that constitutional right. These bills, if enacted, would eliminate significant obstacles to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms for millions of Americans in every State. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides an individual right to own and carry a firearm for self-defense. The Amendment states that ``[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' U.S. Const. amend. II. As the Supreme Court recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), the Second Amendment ``guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.'' Indeed, ``individual self-defense is `the central component' of the Second Amendment right.'' McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 767 (2010) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599). The core interest protected by this right is self-defense by law-abiding citizens. This right therefore extends to weapons ``in common use'' and ``typically possessed by law- abiding citizens for lawful purposes.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 624-25, 627 (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939)). The Second Amendment historically has guaranteed the right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. In Heller, the Supreme Court relied on the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation, William Blackstone, who explained that the right to self-defense, codified by the framers in the Second Amendment, was an ``individual right protecting against both public and private violence.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 594 (citations omitted). As Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have written, `` `[s]elf-defense has to take place wherever the person happens to be,' and in some circumstances a person may be more vulnerable in a public place than in his own house.'' Peruta v. California, 137 S. Ct. 1995, 1998-99 (2017) (Thomas, J., and Gorsuch, J., dissenting from the denial of certiorari) (quoting Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009)). To be sure, the right to carry firearms for self-defense is not unlimited, and the Supreme Court has stated that its decisions do not cast doubt on the ``longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27. But these exceptions all assume that the right to carry a weapon in self-defense applies in public places generally. The Second Amendment, moreover, applies to both the Federal Government and the States. The Second Amendment is a right ``fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,'' and so it applies not just to the Federal Government but also to the States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767; see also Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1027 (2016) (per curiam). Nevertheless, some activist courts have held that the Second Amendment has no application at all outside the home, and thus have upheld state laws banning any firearm ownership outside the home. See, e.g., Peruta v. California, 137 S. Ct. 1995, 1997, 1999 (2017) (Thomas, J. and Gorsuch, J., dissenting from the denial of certiorari) (collecting cases); e.g., Williams v. State, 10 A.3d 1167, 1177 (Md. 2011); Mack v. United States, 6 A.3d 1224, 1236 (D.C. 2010). Further, ten states refuse to recognize any out-of-state concealed carry permits, and many more refuse to recognize out-of-state concealed carry permits unless certain conditions are met. The citizen interest in self-defense, supported and protected by the Second Amendment, is called into serious question by such blanket refusals to permit carrying firearms in self-defense outside the home or to allow non-resident visitors to carry concealed weapons. Because some States refuse to give the Second Amendment its full import, Congress should enact concealed-carry reciprocity legislation, to help implement and enforce the constitutional right to self- defense for millions of law-abiding Americans across the country. The exercise of Congress's power is particularly warranted in this case because the States that refuse to allow law- abiding, non-resident visitors to carry concealed weapons place their occupants in greater danger--not less--from gun violence. These States leave citizens without any real option for self-defense, and so it is not surprising that they have been unable to show that their regulations reduce crime. Authorizing permit holders to carry across state lines will not result in an increased risk of crime. Concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding members of society, and those States that allow for reciprocal concealed-carry permits have not encountered any significant safety issues. In Texas, for example, state data on permit holders shows that, compared to the general public, they are ``ten times less likely to commit a crime, eleven times less likely to commit an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and seven times less likely to commit deadly conduct with a firearm.'' Kevin Ballard, Peruta v. County of San Diego: An Individual Right to Self-Defense Outside the Home and the Application of Strict Scrutiny to Second Amendment Challenges, 47 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 25, 59 (2017). Further, strong evidence indicates that concealed-carry permit holders actually deter and reduce crime. Those who engage in lawful and licensed concealed carry are not only less likely to be involved in criminal activity themselves, but their presence also deters others from engaging in violent crime. See John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 3d ed. 2010). County-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, the period in which many concealed-carry laws took effect, shows annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5 percent and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law was in effect, and the total economic benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between approximately $2 billion and $3 billion per year. Florenz Plassmann & John Whitley, Confirming ``More Guns, Less Crime,'' 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1313 (2003). ``Violent crime falls after right-to-carry laws are adopted, with bigger drops the longer the right-to-carry laws are in effect.'' John R. Lott, Jr., What a Balancing Test Will Show for Right-to-Carry Laws, 71 Md. L. Rev. 1205, 1212 (2012). Our experience as attorneys general further reinforces this data. Law-abiding individuals who choose to exercise their constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense promote public safety. Our states have chosen to respect the rights of residents and non-residents alike to carry arms for their defense, and we ask Congress to protect the same rights of our law-abiding residents as they travel throughout the United States. States should not be able to deny citizens of other States the basic constitutional right to self-defense. We thus urge Congress to enact legislation such as the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 446) or the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38). These bills aim to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed handgun. They do not allow for carrying firearms by felons, those involuntarily committed to mental health facilities, and other persons prohibited by federal law from possessing or receiving firearms. And these bills would not prevent States from allowing governmental and private entities to preclude concealed carry on their own property. As the Supreme Court held in McDonald, it is ``unmistakably'' true that ``the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms'' is ``fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty'' and ``deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.'' McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767-68. Congress should act to safeguard and implement this deeply rooted right for those traveling across state lines. Thank you for the opportunity to address this legislation. As the chief legal and law enforcement officers of our respective States, we urge Congress to pass this important legislation implementing one of the most basic American freedoms, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Very truly yours, Joshua D. Hawley, Missouri Attorney General; Steve Marshall, Alabama Attorney General; Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General; Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney General; Pamela Jo Bondi, Florida Attorney General; Chris Carr, Georgia Attorney General; Lawrence Wasden, Idaho Attorney General; Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Indiana Attorney General; Derek Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General; Jeff Landry, Louisiana Attorney General; Bill Schuette, Michigan Attorney General; Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General. Doug Peterson, Nebraska Attorney General; Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General; Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota Attorney General; Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General; Alan Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General; Marty J. Jackley, South Dakota Attorney General; Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General; Sean Reyes, Utah Attorney General; Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia Attorney General; Brad D. Schimel, Wisconsin Attorney General; Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), the lead sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. Mr. Speaker, throughout my career in elected office, I have believed in and adhered to two fundamental principles regarding firearms policy: first, the right guaranteed to law-abiding Americans by the Second Amendment must be aggressively protected and preserved; second, the laws we have on the books need to be enforced to the fullest extent possible. The bipartisan bill before us today does both. H.R. 38 ensures that law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment right does not end when they cross State lines. The bill allows law-abiding gun owners with valid State-issued concealed carry firearm permits or those who live in so-called constitutional carry States to carry a concealed firearm in any other State that also allows concealed carry. We know that citizens who carry a concealed firearm are not only better prepared to act in their own self-defense, but also in the defense of others. Take, for instance, an incident that occurred just last November on a highway in Florida. Lee County Sheriff's Deputy Dean Bardes had just concluded a high-speed chase just off Interstate 75. As Deputy Bardes approached to apprehend the suspect, the suspect, Edward Strother, violently attacked Deputy Bardes. A witness on the scene told reporters that the attacker ``just started punching him and hitting and hitting and hitting. I was afraid for the police officer. I thought he was going to kill him.'' Fortunately for Deputy Bardes, Ashad Russell, a Florida concealed carry permit holder, was also watching the attack unfold. Mr. Russell pulled his gun and approached the altercation. He told Strother he would shoot him if he didn't stop beating the deputy. The State Attorney's Office said Strother ignored Russell's commands to stop beating the deputy, so Russell fired his gun three times, hitting and fatally wounding the assailant. Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott has hailed Russell as a hero. Importantly, this bill also contains the Fix NICS Act of 2017. This is a bipartisan and bicameral measure. The Fix NICS Act takes steps to ensure that State and Federal agencies enter all relevant records into the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This bill will help ensure people who are legally prohibited from having guns, like those with violent felony convictions, do not obtain them. The shooting at Virginia Tech and the church shootings in Charleston, South Carolina, and Sutherland Springs, Texas, are tragic reminders of what can happen when all relevant records are not entered into the system. Our NICS system is only as good as the information within it. This important piece of legislation will ensure that more of the information already required to be uploaded to NICS under current law is actually placed in the NICS system. Taken together, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and the Fix NICS Act preserve and protect the right guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment and ensure that those prohibited by existing law from receiving a firearm are prevented from doing so. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I want to thank the lead sponsor, Mr. Hudson of North Carolina, for his hard work on this bill. I would also like to thank the authors of the Fix NICS provisions, Mr. Culberson and Mr. Cuellar, for their important contributions to the legislation before us today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I support the passage of H.R. 3731 today to strengthen the resolve of our men and women in the Secret Service to continue performing their essential duties in protecting the President while receiving the appropriate compensation for their efforts which go beyond normal working hours. This legislation ensures that a pay cap is no longer a barrier to paying Secret Service agents who stand watch at all hours of the night, often racking up significant overtime. The current pay cap restricts the Secret Service from paying their employees what is due to them. Director Alles believes this legislation to be such an important initiative to pass that he personally came to discuss it with me as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee with oversight of the Secret Service. I am glad that we are, in a bipartisan way, enabling the men and women of the Secret Service to now receive the necessary compensation for the significant overtime work they perform. The GAO reporting requirement in the legislation will also provide to Congress important analysis of how well the Secret Service has implemented the recommendations of the Protective Mission Panel. Knowing these results will help in conducting crucial oversight of the agency. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the Stopping Abusive Female Exploitation, or ``SAFE,'' Act addresses the internationally-recognized human rights violation of female genital mutilation (FGM). The Center for Disease Control estimates that approximately 500,000 women and girls in the US have undergone the procedure or are at risk of having it inflicted upon them, and it has only grown in prevalence over the last two decades. FGM provides no health benefits for women and girls, and has long- lasting and harmful physical and psychological consequences. While FGM is rightly a federal crime under current law, the current penalty is insufficient. It does not reflect the barbaric and medieval nature of the crime; nor does it reflect the harm caused to these young girls. That is why we are considering the SAFE Act today. As a father and grandfather, I can think of no more important work than protecting our children from those who seek to do them harm. I commend Representative Dave Trott, an alumnus of this Committee, and Representative Carolyn Maloney, for introducing the SAFE Act and for their tireless efforts on behalf of FGM victims. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to Eva Lynne Disbro of Collegedale, Tennessee, on her retirement after nearly 40 years at McKee Foods Corporation. Ms. Disbro retires from the position of Vice President of Human Resources to the family-owned bakery of snack cakes, granola, and many other baked goods. In her current role, she manages over 6,000 employees across Tennessee, Arkansas, Virginia, and Arizona. During her time at McKee Foods, she helped launch the company's Government Relations team and oversaw the establishment of a new bakery in Stuart's Draft, Virginia, which now employs about a thousand people in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. It is truly an honor to represent McKee Foods and its dedicated employees in Virginia's Sixth District. Ms. Disbro's future plans include participating in church mission trips and serving as an active member of the Board of Trustees to Laurelbrook Academy in Dayton, Tennessee. She is also determined to write at least two books in the coming years. Throughout her retirement, she also plans to spend ample time with her grandchildren and extended family. Thank you to Eva Lynne Disbro for her decades of dedication to her colleagues and community. I wish her a healthy and joyous retirement.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2228) to provide support for law enforcement agency efforts to protect the mental health and well-being of law enforcement officers, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today we are voting on H.R. 2228, the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act. This bill is designed to equip local law enforcement agencies with information and resources to address mental health challenges faced by officers. Our policemen and -women report for duty every day, facing and responding to danger on our behalf. We often see them and we always appreciate them. However, we often don't consider the mental aspect of the challenges facing our officers who put themselves in harm's way to protect our communities. Today we consider the toll their jobs take on their psychological well-being. Every day, these brave men and women face some of the highest stress situations one can imagine. When officers hang up their badges at the end of a shift, they cannot easily hang up the lingering effects of their high-stakes encounters. As this stress accumulates, it can lead to serious physical and mental health problems. Research has shown time and again that police officer occupational stress is directly correlated to heart disease, divorce, alcohol abuse, and major psychological illnesses, including acute stress disorder, post- traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety disorders. Over 900,000 men and women serve as sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. Each year, more of them die from suicide than from gunfire and traffic accidents combined. Many departments have started mental health programs as preventative measures. These programs have been successful in reducing the number of police officer suicides from 300 in 1998 to 126 in 2012. But in departments where mental health and wellness programs remain absent, these problems continue. We must address this gap. H.R. 2228 directs the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, to equip local law enforcement agencies to address mental health challenges faced by police officers. It also permits DOJ's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to award grants to peer mentoring pilot programs, and it directs the Attorney General to make recommendations on how to make these and other programs more effective. Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the profound challenges faced by law enforcement in this country. Today we also acknowledge the unseen toll that these challenges can take on the health of these brave men and women. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Brooks from Indiana for introducing this bill, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this important step in providing law enforcement agencies with the resources to treat severe mental and physical stress. Our men and women in blue deserve the appreciation and support of all of us. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 2228, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to again thank the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings) for their leadership on this issue. I will say again how much I appreciate the work of the gentlewoman from Texas on a whole host of law enforcement and criminal justice reform issues; and it is my hope that we will move a great many of these reforms through this House in the very near future. The gentlewoman certainly has my support for working together in a bipartisan way to accomplish that. This piece of legislation is a great step in that direction. You can't expect law enforcement to keep all of us safe if we are not looking out for their mental health, which I can only imagine how stressful the job is. I have had the opportunity to do several ride-alongs over the years with police officers in my district, and they have my utmost respect. I hope that every Member of this House will vote for this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, our system of government is a tripartite one, with each branch having certain defined functions delegated to it. The Congress is charged with writing the laws, the President with executing the laws, and the judiciary with interpreting them. The Constitution divides powers between the branches in this manner in order to guard against the abuse of power by any one branch. The separation of powers is at the core of the fundamental premise of our constitutional design that a limited government, divided into three branches exercising enumerated powers, is necessary to protect individual liberty and the rule of law. Unfortunately, over the last several decades, Congress has allowed its powers to gradually be chipped away at by the other branches. By allowing its powers to be diminished, Congress, especially this House, effectively is permitting the people to be deprived of their most responsive voice in the Federal Government. Through the legislation before us today and other legislation that the House has actively pursued in recent years, we can begin to reestablish and enforce the limits on the authority of the other two branches. Although no package of bills by itself can rebuild Congress' institutional strength and restore the Constitution's integrity, it is absolutely necessary that Congress begin reasserting the powers that it has ceded to the other branches. This package of bills promotes the restoration of Congress' Article I powers. The first bill in the package addresses executive branch negotiated regulatory decrees and settlements. Over the past several decades, consent decrees and settlement agreements increasingly have been used in Federal litigation to allow the executive branch to write new law in ways that give short shrift to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and other laws by which Congress has prescribed how agencies must conduct rulemaking. While the executive does have some regulatory authority, these settlements and consent decrees have been used to aggrandize that authority and shift regulatory priorities under the cloak of judicial authority. This subverts the boundaries both the Constitution and Congress have placed on administrative authority. The Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act limits the ability of the executive branch to collude with plaintiffs to abuse consent decrees and settlement agreements in a manner that allows the executive to thwart laws written by Congress and increases the power of the judiciary beyond its constitutional limits. The second bill in the package, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act, increases transparency over Federal spending by requiring the Treasury Department to publish data on settlements and court-offered judgments entered against the Federal Government. One of Congress' core powers is the authority to authorize and appropriate money from the Treasury. In order to properly exercise this power, Congress needs to know how the bill it has appropriated is being spent. This bill will allow Congress to better scrutinize and understand where Federal taxpayer dollars are going. Only through the transparency this bill provides can Congress make the executive and the judiciary more accountable for the money that comes out of the Judgment Fund. The final bill in the package, the Article I Amicus and Intervention Act, makes clear Congress' ability to defend and assert its institutional interests in litigation that puts the powers and responsibilities of Congress into question. Currently, when the executive branch declines to pursue litigation in defense of an act of Congress, it is not required to give Congress notice sufficient to allow the House or Senate to defend the lawsuit before court filing deadlines have expired. In addition, the House of Representatives, unlike the Senate, does not have a statutory right to intervene or file amicus briefs in cases questioning congressional authority. This legislation ensures that both Houses of Congress have adequate time and a right to intervene in litigation that questions congressional authority. We cannot continue to abdicate our powers and responsibilities to the other branches of government, weakening the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution and threatening the very liberty divide powers were designed to protect. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last Congress, the House Judiciary Committee commenced an investigation into the Obama Justice Department's pattern or practice of requiring settling defendants to donate money to third-party groups. In its final 2 years, the Obama DOJ directed nearly $1 billion to third parties entirely outside of Congress' spending and oversight authority. All along, the Obama Justice Department strained to deny the obvious problem: that mandatory donation provisions create opportunities to play favorites. Deputy Associate Attorney General Geoffrey Graber testified that the Department was not ``in the business of picking and choosing which organization may or may not receive any funding under the agreement.'' But internal DOJ documents tell a different story. They show that, contrary to Graber's sworn testimony, the donation provisions were structured to aid the Obama administration's political friends and exclude conservative groups. From the outset, Graber's boss, Associate Attorney General Tony West, was keenly interested in choosing the organizations that would receive settlement money. In the lead-up to the first troubling settlement, West's deputy emailed the Office of Legal Counsel asking: ``Can you explain to Tony the best way to allocate some money toward an organization of our choosing?'' Explaining the final settlement to the press team, West's deputy wrote that the donation provisions require banks to ``make donations to categories of entities we have specified, as opposed to what the bank might normally choose to donate to.'' Sure enough, Congress received testimony, in 2016, that the donation beneficiaries were Obama administration allies. These include the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, whose director calls himself a bank terrorist. But aiding their political allies was only the half of it. The evidence of the Obama DOJ's abuse of power shows that Tony West's team went out of its way to exclude conservative groups. On July 8, 2014, 6 days before DOJ finalized its settlement with Citi, Tony West's top deputy circulated a draft of the agreement's mandatory donation terms. A senior official from the Office of Access to Justice, who had been working closely with Tony West to direct settlement money to legal aid organizations, responded, requesting a word change. She explained that the rewording would achieve the aim of ``not allowing Citi to pick a statewide intermediary like the Pacific Legal Foundation,'' which she explained, ``does conservative property-rights free legal services.'' The change was made. It is not every day in congressional investigations that we find a smoking gun. Here we have it. Unfortunately, the chief architect of this outrage was lauded, not punished. The recipients of the donations, from which PLF was excluded, circulated an email seeking ways to recognize ``Tony West who, by all accounts, was the one person most responsible for including the donation provisions.'' One organization replied: ``Frankly, I would be willing to have us build a Tony West statue and then we could bow down to this statue each day after we get our $200,000-plus.'' Mr. West's abuse of power stands in stark contrast to the reassertion of integrity by the current Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Attorney General Sessions shut down the use of mandatory donations to benefit outside groups, barring the practice through a policy directive issued earlier this year. This legislation, however, remains necessary because history shows that we cannot rely on the current DOJ policy remaining in place. In point of fact, in 2009, the incoming Obama administration reversed course from previous DOJ guidance that had started imposing limits on settlement payments to nonvictims. This reversal led to the abuses I highlighted. H.R. 732 is a bipartisan bill that would make the ban on settlement payments to nonvictim third parties binding on future administrations. The bill makes clear that payments to provide restitution for actual harm directly caused, including harm to the environment, are permitted. It was obvious, from the outset, that mandatory donation provisions create opportunities for abuse; that such abuses actually occurred is now proven. Mr. Chairman, I call on my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support this good governance measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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 materials on H.R. 732.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017 prohibits settlements that provide for payments to nonvictim third parties. But what happens to leftover money if the settlement does not specifically provide for its disposition? It turns out that this situation is ripe for abuse. In 2013, a shocking New York Times expose revealed that the Obama administration bilked over a billion dollars from the taxpayer-funded Judgment Fund and handed it to special interests. The case, called Keepseagle, concerned claims against the Department of Agriculture. The settlement, spearheaded by then Assistant Attorney General Anthony West, vastly overstated the number of claims against the government. One result was a $60 million windfall for the plaintiff's lawyer, who was on President Obama's transition team the year before. The other result was $380 million in funds left over. This was taxpayer money. But instead of demanding it back, the Department of Justice agreed to direct it to nonvictim third parties to be selected by the same plaintiff's lawyer and member of President Obama's transition team. This, quite rightly, troubled the presiding judge. My amendment would close this loophole by requiring that money left over after all victims have been compensated must be returned to wherever it came from. This amendment also clarifies that permitted remedial payments must go to victims who suffered the injuries on which plaintiffs' claims are based. This prevents situations in which a payment is classified as remedial but is directed to an intermediary. The abuses of power that I outlined today in the settlement context are truly disturbing. This is our opportunity to stop the abuse. We should be as comprehensive as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.