Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of immigrants. There is not a person who has participated in this debate today who cannot go back a few years, a few generations or several generations and find someone in their family who came here to the United States, but we are also a nation of laws. The loss of respect for the rule of law is absolutely a serious problem in this country, and the step-by-step approach to restoring respect for the rule of law and reforming our immigration laws starts with these bills, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kate's Law. We are all about today, in this legislation, enhancing public safety, securing our borders, and restoring the rule of law. We give discretion to Federal judges--discretion to Federal judges, I would add--to make sure that people who have entered this country previously illegally and who reenter the country can be given enhanced sentences. It is not mandatory by any means, and, in fact, in many instances, it would be better to send the person outside the country and not have the taxpayers bear the expense. But in the case of the individual who murdered Kate Steinle and had reentered the country five times and had committed other crimes while in the United States, having that additional time that the judge could impose on that individual who was just being released for having been convicted of illegally entering the country, Bureau of Prisons should have turned him over to ICE to send him out again. But if the ICE agents wanted to, when he entered illegally the previous time, recommend that he be given more time than the sentence he just served, he would have still been in prison when Kate Steinle walked down that pier with her father and was murdered by him. So when those on the other side say this was not preventable by this law, they are entirely wrong. This law would have prevented that if a judge had chosen to impose that additional time that we are today providing in these cases. We also clear up some uncertainty regarding this current law, and I think it is entirely appropriate to do so. It will deal with some of the situations that those on the other side have discussed, but most importantly, it will discourage people from entering the United States illegally, particularly when they have already entered illegally earlier and have been convicted of a crime for doing so. So, to me, this is absolutely the beginning point of restoring to law enforcement at every level in our country the necessary tools to enforce our immigration laws, to work together to keep American citizens safe, like Kate Steinle and many, many others. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with about a dozen representatives of families who lost loved ones to the criminal acts of people who were not lawfully present in the United States. And so it is also entirely true to say that, had those individuals not been present in the United States, those crimes would not have been committed, those, in most instances, murders, in all instances, killings, would not have taken place. Therefore, when you enforce our immigration laws, unlike laws applying to American citizens who also commit crimes, in the case of people who are not lawfully present in the United States, these crimes are entirely preventable if we enforce our immigration laws. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to support Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act to make sure that we go down this road of restoring the trust of the American people in their system of government, in their protection by their government, and in their own respect for the rule of law and know that their government is upholding that with regard to other individuals as well. This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit not only changes the bill before us, but it also changes current law. It has long been Federal law that an alien who has been deported and who returns to the U.S. is subject to possible criminal prosecution. Under this bill, an alien who has received consent from the Department of Homeland Security to return or is not required to seek consent from DHS has an affirmative defense. Obviously, such an alien will never be prosecuted. Never has, never will. In fact, because this is current law--and the gentlewoman was the chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee for 4 years and never offered such an amendment to current law--I see no reason to address it in this legislation. I will say that we have all been committed in a very bipartisan fashion to combating sex trafficking. We passed several bills through this House, some with the gentlewoman's support, some without, that do indeed combat sex trafficking. But back to the issue before us today. Criminal aliens are reentering the United States after being removed all the time. Without stronger enforcement measures in place, this government cannot provide an appropriate deterrence for these reentries. Kate's Law takes a tough approach to dealing with criminal aliens who reenter the United States. Instead of the majority being subjected to no more than a 2-year maximum sentence, this bill takes an individual's criminal history into consideration and provides enhanced penalties accordingly. While the 2-year sentence may not deter illegal reentry, a potential 25-year sentence certainly would. Nothing can bring Kate Steinle back and nothing can absolutely prevent such crimes from occurring in the future. This legislation is meant to honor her memory and clearly demonstrate that this Congress will act. This legislation is another step in bringing stronger enforcement measures to improve our immigration enforcement capabilities. Longer sentences for those criminal aliens who reenter the United States illegally is an important aspect of that mechanism. I urge my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit, vote for the underlying bill, and to truly deter criminal aliens from reentering the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have only one speaker remaining, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is quite correct: everyone deserves to feel safe. Kate Steinle deserved to feel safe when she was walking down the pier with her father in San Francisco, when she was killed. Not enacting this legislation endangers public safety, not the opposite, as those on the other side have argued. How would you trust local government officials, who have instructed their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with Federal law enforcement officers to take dangerous criminals off of our streets, when this motion to recommit would say: ``Oh, they will have to certify that such compliance would endanger public safety and then the law wouldn't apply?'' It is circular reasoning. The nonenforcement of immigration laws has led to the bolstering of sanctuary jurisdiction policies in communities throughout the United States. These policies hamper the enforcement of Federal law and do nothing to truly promote trust between law enforcement and U.S. citizens. This bill provides a commonsense approach to fixing the damage caused by sanctuary policies without mandating any affirmative duty. In order to be in compliance with section 1373 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended in this bill, States and localities have no affirmative duties to act. They have no obligations to cooperate or communicate, or even engage with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at any level. Instead, they simply may not affirmatively restrict a government entity, including law enforcement, from cooperating or communicating with ICE. So I am shocked that so many on the other side of the aisle view compliance with this provision as a condition for eligibility for certain grant programs as outlandish. This is not a novel concept. And compliance with section 1373 is already a condition of eligibility for these grant programs. As for detainers, H.R. 3003 creates the probable cause standard that so many have argued was lacking for so long. Once enacted, States and localities can look to Federal law to receive clarification on what probable cause standard is employed before a detainer request is placed. To further aid jurisdictions, the threat of expensive and time- consuming frivolous litigation is abated by providing immunity for jurisdictions that exercise good faith in honoring a detainer. Finally, this bill ensures that dangerous criminal aliens convicted of drunk driving or not yet convicted of very serious crimes are prevented from freely walking the streets of our communities during their removal hearings. This bill is a strong first step in ensuring that our immigration laws are enforced. I urge my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit, to vote for the base bill, and to send a message that sanctuary policies will not be tolerated so that the rule of law will prevail. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is modeled on California's highly successful litigation reforms that have lowered healthcare costs and made healthcare much more accessible to the people of that State. Because the evidence of the effects of those reforms on lowering healthcare costs is so overwhelming, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, if the same reforms were applied at the Federal level, they would save over $50 billion over a 10-year period. Because the evidence that those reforms increase access to healthcare is so overwhelming, they are supported by a huge variety of public safety and labor unions, community clinics and health centers, and organizations dedicated to disease prevention, all of which have seen the beneficial effects of these reforms in California. So popular are these reforms among the citizens of California that a ballot initiative to raise the damages cap, backed and funded by trial lawyers, was defeated by an over 2-to-1 margin in 2014. This bill's commonsense reforms include a $250,000 cap on inherently unquantifiable noneconomic damages and limits on the contingency fees lawyers can charge. They allow courts to require periodic payments for future damages instead of lump sum awards so bankruptcies in which plaintiffs would receive only pennies on the dollar can be prevented. They include provisions creating a ``fair share'' rule by which damages are allocated fairly in direct proportion to fault. This bill does all this without in any way limiting compensation for 100 percent of plaintiffs' economic losses, which include anything to which a receipt can be attached, including all medical costs, lost wages, future lost wages, rehabilitation costs, and any other economic out-of-pocket loss suffered as the result of a healthcare injury. Far from limiting deserved recoveries in California, these reforms have led to medical damage awards in deserving cases in the $80 million and $90 million range. Unlike past iterations, this bill only applies to claims concerning the provision of goods or services for which coverage is provided in whole or in part via a Federal program, subsidy, or tax benefit, giving it a clear Federal nexus. Wherever Federal policy directly affects the distribution of healthcare, there is a clear Federal interest in reducing the costs of such Federal policies. The legislation before us today also protects any State law that otherwise caps damages--whether at a higher level or lower than the caps in the bill--or provides greater protections that lower healthcare costs. When President Ronald Reagan established a special task force to study the need for Federal tort reform, that task force concluded as follows: ``In sum, tort law appears to be a major cause of the insurance availability and affordability crisis which the Federal Government can and should address in a variety of sensible and appropriate ways.'' Indeed, the Reagan task force specifically recommended ``eliminate joint and several liability,'' ``provide for periodic payments of future economic damages,'' ``schedule''--that is, limit--``contingency fees'' of attorneys, and ``limit noneconomic damages to a fair and reasonable amount.'' All of these recommended reforms are part of the bill before us today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that would enact much-needed commonsense and cost-saving litigation reforms that would increase healthcare accessibility for all. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, March 21, 2017. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I write in regard to H.R. 1215, Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017, which was referred in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I wanted to notify you that the Committee will forgo action on the bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. The Committee on Energy and Commerce takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1215, the Committee does not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation and will be appropriately consulted and involved as this or similar legislation moves forward to address any remaining issues within the Committee's jurisdiction. The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation and asks that you support any such request. I would appreciate your response confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1215 and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in your committee's report on the legislation or the Congressional Record during its consideration on the House floor. Sincerely, Greg Walden, Chairman.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

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. 1215.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This bill enjoys broad bipartisan support. It has 57 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. This bill will minimize compliance burdens on both workers and employers so they can get back to being productive, creating and performing jobs. We have received letters of support from hundreds of entities across the employment spectrum. But this bill is not just about business; it is about individuals. One businessman told the Judiciary Committee that the compliance burdens from the patchwork of State laws falls on his employees, who make less than $50,000 per year and have limited resources to seek professional advice. It has been questioned whether there will be revenue lost to the States. Analysis shows the impact is minimal, affecting mainly the allocation of revenues, not the overall size of the tax revenue pot. Similarly, concerns about tax evasion are unfounded. Unlike in the general income tax context, there is little motive here for fraud or gaming. The amount of money at issue, taxes on less than 30 days' wages, is minimal. More importantly, except in nine States, the employee will have to pay the tax, in any event, to the employee's home State, so the only savings would be from minor rate differentials between the two jurisdictions. This legislation is a great example of Congress working in a bipartisan way to relieve burdens on hardworking Americans. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for their bipartisan work on this legislation. I urge all of our colleagues to support the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from New York. I would like to point out that those revenues that might flow to New York because of their onerous system of imposing taxation for as little as one day's work in New York redounds to the benefit of the other 49 States, who would then receive that tax benefit, as it properly should. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop), the lead sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I am the only speaker remaining and prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam 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. 1393, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act provides a clear, uniform framework for when States may tax nonresident employees who travel to the taxing State to perform work. In particular, this bill prevents States from imposing income tax compliance burdens on nonresidents who work in a foreign State for 30 days or fewer in a year. The State tax laws that determine when a nonresident must pay a foreign State's income tax and when employers must withhold this tax are numerous and varied. Some States tax income earned within their borders by nonresidents even if the employee only works in the State for just 1 day. These complicated rules impact everyone who travels for work and many industries. As just one example, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony in 2015 that the patchwork of State laws resulted in a manufacturing company issuing 50 W-2s to a single employee for a single year. The company executive also noted, regarding the compliance burden, that ``many of our affected employees make less than $50,000 per year and have limited resources to seek professional advice.'' States generally allow a credit for income taxes paid to another State; however, it is not always dollar for dollar when local taxes are factored in. Credits also do not relieve workers of substantial paperwork burdens. There are substantial burdens on employers as well. The committee heard testimony in 2014 that businesses, including small businesses, that operate interstate are subject to significant regulatory burdens with regard to compliance with nonresident State income tax withholding laws. These burdens distract from productive activity and job creation. Nevertheless, some object that the States will lose revenue if the bill is enacted. However, an analysis from Ernst & Young found that the bill's revenue impact is minimal. There is little motive for fraud and gaming because the amount of money at issue, taxes on less than 30 days' wages, is minimal. Also, the income tax generally has to be paid; the question is merely to whom. Nor does this bill violate federalism principles. On the contrary, it is an exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority in precisely the situation for which it was intended. The Supreme Court has explained that the Commerce Clause was informed by structural concerns about the effects of State regulation on the national economy. Under the Articles of Confederation, State taxes and duties hindered and suppressed interstate commerce. The Framers intended the Commerce Clause as a cure for these structural ills. This bill fits squarely within this authority by bringing uniformity to cases of de minimis presence by interstate workers in order to reduce compliance costs. Last year's version of the bill passed the House on suspension by voice vote. This year's version is nearly identical, with two changes: The professional entertainer exemption is narrowed from ``a person who performs services'' to ``a person of prominence who performs services'' in order to ensure that other entertainers retain the benefit of the bill's protections. Second, the list of exclusions is expanded to cover film production employees if associated tax credits for instate productions are contingent on withholding film production wages earned in the State. This avoids disruption in such arrangements. I commend the bill's lead sponsors, Representatives Bishop and Johnson, and thank all of the bill's cosponsors. Madam Speaker, I urge the bill's passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.