Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

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. 1695.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers remaining, and I am prepared to close when Ranking Member Conyers concludes. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I thank Ranking Member Conyers and many other Members across the aisle, as well as the subcommittee chair and the subcommittee vice chair of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet--Mr. Issa and Mr. Collins--for their hard work in support of this legislation, which is urgently needed. It is very straightforward. It has very broad bipartisan support here in the House. It is also strongly supported in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate. A wide array of outside organizations--virtually every copyright organization in the country--as well as a number of other organizations concerned about the importance of intellectual property protection and particularly copyright law want to see the status of the Register of Copyrights elevated by Presidential appointment with input from six leaders in the House and the Senate and the Librarian of Congress to select the next Register of Copyrights and have a 10-year term, which is compatible with terms of other important legislative branch positions. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I do not oppose the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Deutch. Mr. Deutch has been a strong supporter of intellectual property as well as the modernization of the Copyright Office during the House Judiciary Committee's copyright review. The needs of a modern copyright registration system require advanced information technology systems, so it is critical that all future Registers have a strong base of information technology knowledge within the Office to lead such efforts. By requiring all future Registers to have the skills necessary to identify and hire a chief information officer or other similar official to lead such efforts within the Office, the Deutch amendment ensures a strong Copyright Office. I want to thank the gentleman for making this important contribution to the legislation. I neglected to mention earlier--I don't see him here now--but I also want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), for the important contributions he has made to this legislation as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Intellectual property is a critical and growing part of our Nation's economy, and the Register of Copyrights has a crucial role in the numerous copyright policy issues that impact it. Four years ago, the Judiciary Committee began considering how to modernize our Nation's copyright laws, including how the Copyright Office is structured. Making the Register position subject to the nomination and consent process with potential candidates identified by a congressional selection panel was among the many issues considered by the House Judiciary Committee. Because the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, who has an equally important voice on patent and trademark issues, is already subject to the nomination and consent process, it provided a precedent for this approach. However, unlike the Patent and Trademark Office, the Copyright Office is part of the legislative branch. Thus, it is appropriate to also follow the precedent set for other legislative branch agencies, which gives Congress a greater say in selecting candidates for the heads of legislative branch entities to ensure those agencies are more accountable to Congress. Because the Register position is now vacant, filled on an acting capacity by a well-regarded Acting Register, Ranking Member Conyers and I introduced this bipartisan legislation to update the Register selection process. To mirror a recent change to the Librarian of Congress position that is now subject to a 10-year term limit, the legislation also makes the Register of Copyrights position subject to a 10-year term limit. The selection panel would be bipartisan and would consist of leaders of the majorities and minorities of the House and Senate, and would also include the Librarian of Congress. In the past, the authority of the Register of Copyrights to issue rulemakings has not been challenged in the courts because the Register is not subject to the nomination and consent process. This legislation would remedy that question, once and for all. H.R. 1695 was reported by the House Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote of 27-1. In addition to strong support from traditional copyright groups, such as the Copyright Alliance, and the publishing, movie, music, and software industries, the bill has been supported by a wide range of diverse groups, such as the American Conservative Union; the AFL-CIO; Heritage Foundation scholars; the Directors Guild of America; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; MANA, A National Latina Organization; Americans for Tax Reform; and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. With such strong support from a wide range of over 70 groups and a vacancy at the Register of Copyrights that needs to be quickly filled under the new process created by this legislation, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1695. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC, April 19, 2017. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I write to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on House Administration in H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017. The bill, as reported from the Committee on the Judiciary on March 29, 2017, contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the House of Representatives in an expeditious manner, and accordingly, I will waive Committee consideration of provisions that fall within the Committee's jurisdiction. However, agreeing to waive jurisdiction over these provisions should not be construed as waiving, reducing, or affecting the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration. Additionally, the Committee on House Administration expressly reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provision within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this, or any similar legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any request by the Committee for conferees on H.R. 1695 for provisions within the Committee's jurisdiction. I ask a copy of this letter and your response be placed in the Congressional Record during any floor consideration of

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the chairman of the Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

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. 1667, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 2008, our economy suffered one of the most significant financial crises in history. In the midst of the crisis and in response to a fear that some financial firms' failures could cause severe harm to the overall economy, the Federal Government provided extraordinary taxpayer-funded assistance in order to prevent certain financial firms' failures. In the ensuing years, experts from the financial, regulatory, legal, and academic communities have examined how best to prevent another similar crisis from occurring and to eliminate the possibility of using taxpayer moneys to bail out failing firms. The Judiciary Committee has advanced the review of this issue with the aim of crafting a solution that will better equip our bankruptcy laws to resolve failing firms, while also encouraging greater private counterparty diligence in order to reduce the likelihood of another financial crisis. Among others things, this effort responded to provisions of the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that called for an examination of how to improve the Bankruptcy Code in this area. During the past two Congresses, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act, legislation that improved the Bankruptcy Code to better facilitate the resolution of financial firms. That legislation was the culmination of a bipartisan process that solicited and incorporated the views of a wide range of leading experts and relevant regulators. In both instances, the bill passed the House by a voice vote under suspension of the rules. This Congress, Chairman Marino of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law introduced the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act as H.R. 1667. Following its introduction, the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law conducted a hearing on the bill. H.R. 1667 is identical to previous legislation, with one minor change to refine the director liability protection provision. Last week, the Judiciary Committee approved the legislation by a unanimous voice vote. The bill before us today is the product of a careful, deliberate, and thorough process, and reflects a diverse range of views from a variety of interested parties. The Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act makes several improvements to the Bankruptcy Code in order to enhance the prospect of an efficient resolution of a financial firm through the bankruptcy process. The bill allows for a speedy transfer of the operating assets of a financial firm over the course of a weekend. This quick transfer allows the financial firm to continue to operate in the normal course, which preserves the value of the enterprise for the creditors of the bankruptcy without a significant impact on the firm's employees, suppliers, and customers. The bill also requires expedited judicial review by a bankruptcy judge randomly chosen from a pool of judges designated in advance and selected by the Chief Justice for their experience, expertise, and willingness to preside over these complex cases. Furthermore, the legislation provides for key regulatory input throughout the process. The Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act is a bipartisan, balanced approach that increases transparency and predictability in the resolution of a financial firm. Furthermore, it ensures that shareholders and creditors, not taxpayers, bear the losses related to the failure of a financial company. I would like to thank Chairman Marino, who chaired the hearing on this legislation and who is the lead sponsor of the bill. I am also pleased that Ranking Member Conyers and Subcommittee Ranking Member Cicilline joined in introducing this important legislation. I want to thank them and their staff for their efforts in developing this 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 yield myself the balance of my time. The Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act is a necessary reform to ensure that taxpayers will not be called on to rescue the next failing financial firm. The legislation relies on longstanding bankruptcy principles that will be applied in a predictable and transparent manner. The Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act is a bipartisan measure that enjoys broad support from outside experts, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important reform. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1667) to amend title 11 of the United States Code in order to facilitate the resolution of an insolvent financial institution in bankruptcy, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you why I am supporting this legislation, the American Health Care Act. Kaye, from Roanoke, contacted me about President Obama's promise that she could keep her health care. She shared that she received a letter from her insurer stating that her policy was going to increase by $600 per month--increase by $600 per month. Since she wasn't of age to be on Medicare but wasn't working because she was at home caring for her sick husband, she was frustrated with her situation. Kaye couldn't afford the extra money she owed on top of the bills for her husband's medical treatment. She told me: ``So I will now have to pay the fine, drop my insurance, and hope I do not get sick.'' I told Kay I would vote to repeal and replace ObamaCare. A nurse from Warren County wrote to me: ``The care that I give my patients is founded on their ability to choose their course of care. We advocate every day for our patients to have more choices in their care, and it will be very painful for us to deny them those options and to deny them care.'' She asked me to stand against ObamaCare, and I told her I would. Susan, from Bedford County, told me her health insurance premium increased 156 percent and her deductible increased 766 percent in just 2 years. She asked how we could make her pay such high rates. I told Susan I would vote to repeal ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, I told my constituents that I would stand for them to repeal this law that has hurt their ability to get the affordable care they want and need. Passing the American Health Care Act is the first step in repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with solutions that put patients first. I urge my fellow Members to support this bill. ObamaCare has failed far too many in the Sixth District of Virginia. The status quo cannot continue.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), who is the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was originally passed to leave the regulation of the business of insurance with the States and to allow insurers to engage in certain procompetitive collaborative activities. This legislation limits significant uncertainty and unnecessary litigation that would likely result from a broader McCarran-Ferguson repeal through the use of safe harbors for such historically procompetitive collaborative activities, specifically the collection and distribution of historical loss data, the determination of loss development factors, the performance of actuarial services that do not involve restraints of trade, and the use of common forms that are not coercive. Absent these safeguards, insurers will likely disengage from certain proconsumer collaborative activities, eliminating or impeding smaller insurers from competing and disincentivizing larger insurers from exploring new products and markets. This will lead to further market consolidation and fewer product choices, the impact of which will eventually be borne by the consumer. These narrow safe harbors create a presumption that certain procompetitive activities can continue while maintaining regulation and oversight to the extent any activity crosses over into a restraint of trade. As a result, insurers can continue to engage in proconsumer business practices, and will be encouraged to provide a diverse range of offerings at fair and reasonable prices. There is no reason to make an exception to these safe harbors. Therefore, I oppose the motion. I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and to support the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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