Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, collectively, these organizations represent over half a million sworn law enforcement officers. On this last day of National Police Week, let's join them in supporting this bill. In this body, Members tend to frequently use the term ``common sense'' to describe a piece of legislation. I don't think many more pieces of legislation are as common sense as this bill. It really boils down to this question: Should a law enforcement officer be able to arrest the individual who forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with that officer? That is it. That is all we are talking about today. Common sense tells us that the answer is a resounding ``yes.'' It has been insinuated that probation officers aren't real law enforcement and lack the training to make arrests. I think the brave men and women who serve as Federal probation officers, who have received extensive training, and have ongoing training requirements as part of their jobs, might disagree with that insinuation. Further, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and its Federal Probation and Pretrial Academy offer nationally standardized training programs and advanced training programs targeting specialized areas of supervision. Common sense tells us that these officers are qualified to make arrests. Opponents of this bill would prefer to have these law enforcement officers retreat when confronted by third parties. Let's think about what some of the consequences of retreat might mean. If forced to retreat, that officer is forced to terminate interaction with a probationer who may urgently require services, such as substance abuse or mental health treatment. It also means contraband, such as firearms or narcotics, which could have been removed by the parole officer, remains in the community. In short, the consequences of retreat place public safety in jeopardy. Common sense tells us that retreat is not a viable option. There is nothing revolutionary going on here. There is no new Federal crime being added. This bill simply says that when someone forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with a probation officer, that probation officer can arrest that individual. It is already a crime to engage in the behavior I just described. An individual who commits that act is going to get arrested. All we are debating today is who puts the handcuffs on the arrestee. Common sense tells us that the officer who was assaulted should have the authority to make the arrest. Use common sense. Support H.R. 1039, the Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017, so that Federal probation officers can do their jobs safely and effectively. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, support the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, who called H.R. 1039 a ``critical officer safety measure'' in their letter of endorsement. Support the National Association of Police Organizations, who said H.R. 1039 is a ``sensible solution that ensures the safety of the officer, the probationer, and the community.'' Mr. Speaker, I enter in the Record these letters. Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Cabin John, MD, May 17, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker and Leader Pelosi: I am writing on behalf of the nearly 27,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association to advise you of our strong support for H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer Protection Act,'' and to express our appreciation for the Congress's consideration of this important officer safety measure during National Police Week. FLEOA opposes the amendment that will be offered on the floor to sunset the authority provided by the bill, as you cannot put a stopwatch on critical law enforcement officer protection measures such as H.R. 1039. The ``Probation Officer Protection Act'' is a critical officer safety measure. At a time when U.S. Probation Officers have seen their workloads increase due to changes in sentencing policy and are being asked to ``do more with the same,'' ensuring that they have the means to protect themselves when placed in harm's way is paramount. H.R. 1039 will fully authorize a U.S. Probation Officer to arrest any third party who violates 18 USC 111. This statute has been on the books since the 1940s and makes it a crime for any person to forcibly assault, resist, intimidate, or interfere with any federal officer in the performance of their official duties. Current law, however, only allows Probation Officers to make arrests of individuals on probation or under supervised release who violate 18 USC 111. This authority does not extend to ``third parties,'' which could include a former associate of the offender or an unidentified member of the community. In many instances third parties are well aware that a federal officer's authority is limited to individuals on supervision, and when a third party does impede or assault a U.S. Probation Officer, the Officer's only recourse is to retreat and call for local law enforcement. While in major cities local law enforcement may respond depending on availability, the same is not true for U.S. Probation Officers who work in rural communities where response by local law enforcement may be a single officer or none. This places Probation Officers at even greater risk, particularly in those situations where retreat is not even a reasonably safe alternative. During the forthcoming debate on this bill, there will undoubtedly be those who go to great lengths to demean U.S. Probation Officers as something less than ``real'' law enforcement officers or to diminish the hazards that they face. Some may also raise inchoate objections about the constitutionality of H.R. 1039. For example, you will hear that Congress cannot extend Executive Branch police powers to the Judicial Branch, despite the fact that it was Congress that established the U.S. Supreme Court Police that resides directly across the street from the U.S. Capitol. Not only are such statements factually inaccurate, they display a basic lack of understanding about those who serve our nation as U.S. Probation Officers and the purposes behind the ``Probation Officer Protection Act.'' Make no mistake: U.S. Probation Officers are fully trained federal law enforcement officers. They attend basic training at the National Training Academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Charleston, SC, and receive ongoing in-service training throughout the year. Their training covers everything from firearms regulation and safety and defensive tactics to handcuffing, the use of force, de-escalation training, and reality-based scenario training. It may be difficult for some to acknowledge, but there is an inherent risk to the work U.S. Probation Officers do--a risk that often outweighs that of traditional law enforcement. They do not enter into sterile offices, but often into environments that are uncertain. They are required to have frequent and regular contacts in the home and community and knowingly come into daily contact with individuals who have a history of violence, mental health issues, problems with authority, and troubles with substance abuse. U.S. Probation Officers are not able to anticipate what is going to occur during all contacts. There are and have been occasions when U.S. Probation Officers are threatened and/or attacked by third parties and they need the ability to take an affirmative step to protect themselves. U.S. Probation Officers are a unique profession. They have a knowledge base in law and human behavior, and a mix of skills in investigation, communication, and analysis. They strive to make our communities safer, to make a positive difference in the lives of those they serve, and promote fairness in process and excellence in service. But as the volume of approved searches they must conduct has markedly increased over the past year due to changes in sentencing policy, the absence of any authority to restrain or direct the movements of third parties places U.S. Probation Officers at a greater and unnecessary risk of physical harm. H.R. 1039 provides a modest expansion of U.S. Probation Officers' existing arrest authority to cover only violations of 18 USC 111. It does not in any way provide them ``peace officer'' status or grant them the same general arrest authority that state-level probation officers enjoy in many jurisdictions. Granting U.S. Probation Officers the authority to arrest third parties would not change who they are and what they are seeking. Nor will it interfere with or otherwise diminish U.S. Probation Officers' use of the de-escalation techniques that are the hallmark of their profession. It would simply afford them another tool, another avenue, if ever needed. In the end, this legislation will enhance officer safety while also protecting probationers and third parties by preventing obstruction from escalating to actual violence. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this legislation and for helping U.S. Probation Officers do their job more safely by passing H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer Protection Act.'' Sincerely, Nathan R. Catura, National President.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting the amendment to H.R. 1039 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I address the bill under consideration today, I would like to take a few minutes to honor a very special member of my staff, Burak Guvensoylar, who lost his courageous battle with cancer this past weekend. Burak was a valued member of the Judiciary Committee team and worked on a variety of issues, including digital privacy and intellectual property. His vast knowledge and grasp of the issues impacting the technology community was a tremendous asset to the committee. Most recently, Burak's work included the development of the committee's Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda; and his steadfast work and tenacious attitude were not only essential in making this initiative a success, but were also a testament to his character. In fact, while he was undergoing intensive cancer treatments, he was actively working and sending follow-up emails from his hospital bed. And just days before Burak passed away, he met with FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai to discuss a number of Judiciary Committee priorities. For Burak, nothing could prevent him from an opportunity to discuss and advance the policies he was so passionate about. Burak was a true technology policy enthusiast. Prior to joining the staff of the Judiciary Committee, Burak served as a legislative adviser for Congressman Randy Forbes. While working for Congressman Forbes, Burak handled the diverse range of issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, but it was always evident that technology policy was his first love. He cofounded the Congressional Tech Staff Association and served as an executive officer responsible for the professional development program. Prior to his career on Capitol Hill, Burak worked at TechAmerica and CompTIA, focusing on international trade policy. Burak has many friends here in the Halls of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I know all of my colleagues join me in extending our deepest sympathies to his mother, Filiz; his sister, Aylin Forbes; his girlfriend, Ashley Newsome; and all of his loved ones. Burak will be deeply missed. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1039, the Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017, and urge my colleagues to do the same. I want to thank the primary author of the bill, the gentleman from Washington, Congressman Reichert, for his leadership on this and many other law enforcement issues. Under current law, a Federal probation officer may arrest a probationer or an offender on supervised released if the officer has probable cause to believe that the offender has violated a condition of his or her probation or release. The officer may make the arrest with or without a warrant. Unfortunately, current law does not grant probation officers arrest authority in situations where a third party attempts to physically obstruct an officer or inflict physical harm on the officer. Despite the fact that interfering with a probation officer in the performance of his or her official duties is in itself a crime, Federal probation officers lack the authority to correct or restrain a physically interfering third party. In fact, a probation officer's only course of action is to retreat from the situation. This not only exposes these officers to a heightened risk of harm, as they are not permitted to subdue the assailant, it also allows the probationer to conceal evidence that he has violated terms of his probation or supervised release or any other criminal activity. H.R. 1039 is a reasonable and responsible remedy to this very real problem. This bill, which has the support of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, will protect probation officers and enhance their ability to do their job by giving them authority to arrest a third party who forcibly interferes with an officer's performance of his or her official duties. This bill would not give probation officers general arrest authority. Rather, as noted, it grants them the very limited authority to arrest a third party who is interfering with the duties of the officer, which is already a Federal crime. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense measure to ensure that these dedicated men and women have the necessary authority to undertake their duties safely and effectively. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have heard many arguments in opposition to this legislation. We have carefully explained how each of these arguments is unfounded. I simply want to again urge my colleagues to vote for this very simple, yet much-needed, piece of bipartisan legislation. Support the men and women of law enforcement with your vote. Support the Fraternal Order of Police who wrote a letter supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I enter in the Record the FOP letter. National Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC, 15 February 2017. Hon. David G. Reichert, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Reichert: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our support for H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer Protection Act.'' This legislation will amend section 3606 of Title 18, United States Code, to grant probation officers authority to arrest hostile third parties who obstruct or impede a probation officer in the performance of official duties. Probation officers supervise men, women and juveniles who are convicted of a crime. Instead of a judge sentencing these offenders to prison, the judge sentences them to close supervision while continuing to live and work with the general public. A probation officer's job title comes with an inherent element of danger due to the supervision of offenders such as drug addicts, sexual offenders and domestic violence offenders who could turn violent at any time. Offenders are often intimidated by the amount of power a probation officer has over their freedom. If they feel the officer will recommend a prison sentence or report illegal activity, which may lead to a prison sentence, they may try to eliminate this threat by harming the officer. When probation officers are accosted by a violent third party, they are forced to retreat because they have no third- party arrest authority. They also cannot assist any police officer at the scene who may have been called to assist. This subjects everyone involved in the situation to greater risk and can result in the loss of evidence, the escape of an offender, or harm to an individual. In the past, offenders typically reported to the probation officer's office for scheduled visits. Now many probation officers are required to make home visits where the offender may have easy access to weapons. While the officer may carry a gun, and have armed back up in some cases, often he or she will go into the home or workplace alone without knowing anything about other persons at the site. For these reasons, this authority is needed and we are proud to support your bill and look forward to working with you on it. On behalf of more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police, I want to thank you for introducing this legislation and amendment. If I can be of further help, please do not hesitate to contact me or my Senior Advisor, Jim Pasco, in my Washington office. Sincerely, Chuck Canterbury, National President.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 323, I call up the bill (H.R. 115) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide additional aggravating factors for the imposition of the death penalty based on the status of the victim, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Federal law provides a list of 16 aggravating factors a jury is required to consider when deciding whether a death sentence is warranted in a Federal capital case. These factors include whether the defendant acted in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner; whether the defendant engaged in substantial planning and premeditation; whether the victim was particularly vulnerable; and whether the victim was a high public official. High public official, as defined in the statute, includes a litany of high-ranking public persons from the President, to a foreign head of state, to a judge or law enforcement officer. Currently, however, the law only contains specific protections for Federal officers, not State and local officers. H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act, introduced by my colleague, Mr. Buchanan, amends Federal law to add the killing of a State or local law enforcement officer as an aggravating factor for a jury to determine during the sentencing phase of a trial, when the jury is considering whether a sentence of death is justified. This legislation enjoys widespread support in the law enforcement community. And, Mr. Speaker, we can all understand why. In recent years, police officers across our Nation have laid down their lives in the service of their communities, often with little recognition or support. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 17 police officers have already died as a result of gunfire this year. Most recently, 2 days ago, Deputy Sheriff Mason Moore of the Broadwater County, Montana, Sheriff's Office was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop. We honor Deputy Moore's sacrifice, which is a stark reminder of how a routine event can quickly turn fatal for an officer of the law. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the scenarios where the provision in H.R. 115 applies may be limited. It is true that the vast majority of homicide cases are prosecuted in State courts. It is also true that the circumstances where a defendant killed a State or local law enforcement officer during the commission of a Federal capital offense are probably limited. But H.R. 115 is, nevertheless, vitally important in the scenarios where it will apply--for example, in many terrorism cases. My colleagues may not remember that the terrorist who bombed the Boston Marathon also murdered an MIT police officer during their flight from the law. H.R. 115 would also apply to situations where a State or local officer is killed serving as a member of a Federal task force. And it would cover volunteer first responders, who are, of course, authorized by law to carry out their duties. Mr. Speaker, this legislation sends a simple message: The stalking and killing of law enforcement officers will not be tolerated. H.R. 115 is straightforward, commonsense legislation that will provide all the men and women of law enforcement, who serve and protect our communities every day, with the support they deserve. As we conclude the 2017 National Police Week, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of the bill. National Association of Police Organizations, Inc., Alexandria, VA, January 5, 2017. Hon. Vern Buchanan, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Buchanan: On behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), I am writing to you to express our strong support for the Thin Blue Line Act. NAPO is a coalition of police units and associations from across the United States that serves to advance the interests of America's law enforcement through legislative and legal advocacy, political action, and education. Founded in 1978, NAPO now represents more than 1,000 police units and associations, including the Florida Police Benevolent Association, 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers, and more than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to fair and effective crime control and law enforcement. The Thin Blue Line Act increases penalties on those who harm or target for harm public safety officers by making the murder or attempted murder of a local police officer, firefighter, or first responder an aggravating factor in death penalty determinations. This bill is critical, as law enforcement officer assaults, injuries, and deaths have increased sharply in recent years. In 2016 alone, ambush-style killings of law enforcement officers increased by 167 percent. Establishing stricter penalties for those who harm or target for harm law enforcement officers will deter crime. Any persons contemplating harming an office must know that they will face serious punishments. NAPO strongly believes that increased penalties make important differences in the attitudes of criminals toward public safety officers, and ensure protection for the community. We thank you for your continued support of the law enforcement community and we look forward to working with you to pass this important legislation. Sincerely, William J. Johnson, Esq., CAE, Executive Director.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 115.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 583) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize COPS grantees to use grant funds to hire veterans as career law enforcement officers, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time only to say that I very much appreciate the work on both sides of the aisle, particularly the gentleman from Michigan. This is a good, bipartisan bill which should be passed today. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 1976 Congress passed and the President signed into law the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act. The act was designed to offer peace of mind to men and women seeking careers as public safety officers, namely, that if something happened to them in their dangerous roles, their families would have support. It shows that America places enormous value on those in our communities who protect and serve, those whose response to danger is to face it head-on and who put others before themselves daily. The PSOB program, administered by the Department of Justice, provides death benefits in the form of a one-time financial payment to eligible survivors of public safety officers who have died in the line of duty. The program also provides benefits to public safety officers who are permanently and totally disabled because of injuries sustained in the line of duty. Finally, the PSOB program provides financial assistance to help pay higher education costs for the spouses and children of public safety officers who have died or been injured in the line of duty. It is a program that is meant to help the loved ones of fallen officers move forward in the aftermath of tragedies. Unfortunately, in recent years, the PSOB program has had some incidents of delay, and some families were left in the dark about the status of applications. These families were unable to move forward after their tragic losses, and we recognize that is not acceptable for a family that has sacrificed so much for their communities. Legislation was introduced in the last Congress, and again this Congress as S. 419, to address these regrettable failings. This bill provides for transparency in the processing of claims in the PSOB program and codifies measures to ensure the system is streamlined and operates in a fair manner. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for their work and strong support of these law enforcement families. I would especially like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) for his unwavering support of the families of law enforcement. In his second inaugural address, President Lincoln reminded the American people: ``To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' This legislation is designed to do exactly that for the brave men and women in blue who protect and serve all of us every day. Mr. Speaker, yesterday this bill passed the Senate unanimously. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 419) to require adequate reporting on the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program, and for other purposes.

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 S. 419, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to Dave Reichert for taking the lead on this very appropriate Special Order to recognize our Nation's law enforcement. No one better represents that law enforcement here in the United States Congress than former Sheriff Reichert. And I thank him for not only his leadership in the House but also for his service as a sheriff for many years prior to his election to Congress. Our Nation was founded on the rule of law. The Preamble to the United States Constitution stated that its purpose was, in part, to ``establish justice'' and ``insure domestic tranquility.'' Every day, law enforcement officers carry out this legacy. They fight crime, promote justice, and keep the peace. They patrol late at night and early in the morning, while we sleep in the comforts of our homes. And over the past 16 years, our Nation's law enforcement officers have often been the first to respond to terrorist attacks. On that fateful day, nearly 16 years ago, first responders were running into the crumbling towers as everyone else was running out. Following the Boston Marathon bombings in April of 2013, Boston police responded immediately to aid the wounded and implement emergency plans. That legacy has carried on through the recent catastrophes in San Bernardino, Orlando, and too many others. Sadly, many law enforcement officers have made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. Just this year already, 50 law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty, including Deputy Sheriff Curtis Allen Bartlett of Carroll County, Virginia, who was killed in a vehicle crash while responding to assist another deputy and a Virginia State Police trooper who were involved in a pursuit. These are tragic reminders that our law enforcement professionals face danger every day as they carry out their duties. Chillingly, in recent years, police officers have increasingly become targets for violence and ambush-style attacks. Tomorrow, this House will vote to ensure that State and local law enforcement officers receive the same protections as their Federal counterparts. In fact, this week, the House will pass more than half a dozen bills to help officers do their jobs and return home safely. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have the privilege to work with Federal law enforcement. All too often, we fail to recognize how the dedicated men and women of law enforcement make sacrifices to promote law and order and keep our neighborhoods safe. That is true at every level: our local police and sheriff's deputies, our State police, and Federal law enforcement officers in many different departments of the Department of Justice and other agencies. As a father, grandfather, husband, and citizen, the men and women in blue have my profound respect and sincere thanks.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, permanent bankruptcy judgeships have not been authorized since 1992. Over the past 25 years, we have limited our protection of the bankruptcy system to short-term temporary fixes. A well-functioning bankruptcy system, however, is too important to our economy to risk. Now is the time for Congress to address bankruptcy judgeship needs more permanently. The Bankruptcy Judgeship Act is a measured, long-term solution carefully crafted and based on the well-developed recommendation of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Not only does it ensure the viability of our bankruptcy system, but it also addresses the funding concerns of the Office of the United States Trustee. This bill is a bipartisan measure that enjoys broad support from outside groups, including the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, and the American College of Bankruptcy. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2266, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are here today to address an imposing threat to one of the foundational aspects of our economy, the national bankruptcy system. A well-functioning bankruptcy system provides relief to consumers, allows businesses to reorganize, preserves jobs, maximizes the value of assets, and ensures the proper allocation of resources. Our bankruptcy judiciary is the heartbeat that keeps this system moving. If that judiciary is strained and undermanned, that system will grind to a halt, eliminating the essential benefits it provides and sending repercussions throughout the economy. There are presently 29 temporary bankruptcy judgeships in the bankruptcy system with a lapse date of May 25. These temporary judgeships comprise more than 8 percent of the current bankruptcy judgeships nationwide. After May 25, 2017, these judgeships are at risk of being permanently lost, resulting in larger caseloads shared by fewer judges and causing further strain on our judiciary system. The Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 converts 14 of the existing temporary judgeships to permanent status and creates 4 new permanent bankruptcy judgeships in districts with some of the highest caseloads in the country. In fact, since the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, when a majority of the temporary judgeships were created, these districts have seen weighted filings increase by more than 55 percent. This bill is based on a comprehensive study of judicial resource needs conducted by the Judicial Conference and is supported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The Conference has assured us that its request comes only after it has taken steps to maximize all other alternatives to reduce judicial workloads. Moreover, the Conference has demonstrated that, while a district may have a permanent judgeship, it will not be filled unless completely necessary. Importantly, this bill will not present any new costs for the taxpayers. The Bankruptcy Judgeship Act includes an increase in the quarterly U.S. Trustee fees for large chapter 11 debtors, excluding small businesses. This fee increase is directly tied to the balance of the United States Trustee System Fund and will only be applied when the balance of the fund falls below a $200 million threshold, thereby ensuring that the Office of the U.S. Trustee is properly funded. These temporary bankruptcy judgeships were first set to lapse in 2010. Most have been extended for over 12 years, and some even longer. Despite this committee's efforts to address the issue, to date there have been only limited, short-term fixes. Additional permanent bankruptcy judgeships have not been authorized since 1992. The time has come for Congress to address bankruptcy judgeship needs more permanently. We need a bankruptcy system that has a sufficient number of judges to be able to manage the caseloads in a just, economical, and timely manner. The efficiency of this system is too important to our economy to risk. This bill helps ensure that we have such a system. I would like to thank Ranking Member Conyers for his efforts on this issue. I would also like to thank Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee Chairman Marino and Ranking Member Cicilline for joining me as original cosponsors of the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation. 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. 2266) to amend title 28 of the United States Code to authorize the appointment of additional bankruptcy judges; and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this good legislation. 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 materials on H.R. 1892, currently under consideration.