Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, with great deference and respect to my friend and colleague, the ranking member, this amendment would subject certain class members to unfair treatment and, thus, should be rejected. First, the bill's provisions on type and scope of injury only apply to proposed classes ``seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss.'' Insofar as civil rights cases do not seek money damages, they are completely unaffected by the bill and would proceed just as they do today. However, if money damages are sought by a proposed class, then, of course, they should be subject to the procedures in the bill. The purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of evaluating like claims, not to provide a means of artificially inflating the size of a class to extort a larger settlement value. Exempting a subset of money damage cases from the bill, as this amendment would do, would serve only to incentivize the creation of artificially large classes to extort larger and unfair settlements from innocent parties for the purpose of disproportionately awarding uninjured parties. Any claims seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss should be grouped in classes in which those who are the most injured receive the most compensation. Why should civil rights claimants seeking money damages be subject to particularly unfair treatment by being allowed to be forced into a class action with other uninjured or minimally injured members, only to see their own compensation reduced? That does a disservice to those claimants. Yes, that is exactly what this amendment would do. Further, the bill's provision on attorneys' fees won't affect fee awards in civil rights cases at all because both the monetary and equitable relief attorneys' fees provision in the bill are qualified with the initial phrase ``unless otherwise specified by Federal statute.'' The Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Award Act of 1976 allows a court, in its discretion, to award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs to a prevailing party in Federal civil rights lawsuits, including cases brought under 28 U.S.C. section 1983, the statute most commonly used to assert civil rights claims. Consequently, this bill will not affect attorneys' fees in civil rights class actions at all, including, of course, cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which has its own attorneys' fees provision. The conflicts of interest provision reflects a valid concern in all class actions. The courts need to know how the named plaintiffs came to be involved in class actions in all types of cases to ensure there aren't conflicts and that the due process rights of all class members are protected. The issues class provision won't disrupt the manner in which civil rights cases are normally litigated. Discovery stays while dispositive motions are pending won't disrupt civil rights cases. Like any other case, the plaintiffs need to show they have a facially valid complaint before discovery should commence. Disclosure of third-party funding is no less important in civil rights cases than in other class actions. The appeals provision benefits both plaintiffs and defendants, giving either side the right to appeal if class certification is granted or denied. I urge all my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which would set back the just causes of civil rights claimants. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will be pleased to know that tomorrow we will consider on the floor of this House legislation that, under rule XI, would impose mandatory sanctions on attorneys who engage in the type of activity he just described. That is an abuse as well. It will be covered by that legislation. But this legislation is appropriate to make sure that justice is done in class action litigation. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, constitutional rights are priceless, but attorney's fees have to be set by the court. Who else is going to set them in those cases? I want to correct the gentleman, again, on this point about section 1983 cases because this bill says very clearly: unless otherwise specified by Federal statute. So this bill is not affected by the very example that he cites because that is something that is otherwise specified by Federal statute. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this needless and harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated. Insofar as a class action seeks equitable relief, that is, the nonmonetary relief, including any injunctive relief that seeks to stop the defendant from doing something wrong, the portion of any class action lawyer's fee should be limited to a reasonable percentage of the value of that relief as determined by the court. This provision won't affect fee awards in civil rights cases because both the monetary and equitable relief attorney's fees provision in this bill are qualified with the initial phrase, ``unless otherwise specified by Federal statute.'' The Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Award Act of 1976 allows a court, in its discretion, to award reasonable attorney's fees as part of the costs to a prevailing party in Federal civil rights lawsuits, including cases brought under 28 U.S.C. section 1983, the statute most commonly used to assert civil rights claims. Consequently, this bill won't affect attorney's fees in civil rights class actions at all. Regarding other equitable relief cases that don't involve civil rights claims, Federal courts routinely determine the value of intangible relief such as equitable or injunctive relief for purposes of determining whether the amount in controversy requirement--currently, $75,000 to get into court--is met. A majority of courts consider only the value of the injunctive relief from the plaintiff's perspective or viewpoint. Some courts determine the jurisdictional amount by evaluating the claim from the perspective of the party seeking Federal court jurisdiction. Others have adopted the ``either viewpoint'' rule, which allows the court to look to either the plaintiff's or the defendant's viewpoint in establishing the amount in controversy in cases seeking some form of injunctive relief. The bottom line is that, under this bill, Federal courts will be able to use either approach in deciding the value of the injunctive relief provided to class members; and generally speaking, counsel should be paid on the basis of what lawyers actually deliver to their clients. This base bill, of course, does not alter in any way the relief that would be granted to equitable relief class action members. It only limits the fees attorneys would receive to a reasonable percentage of the value of what the class members actually received. So all this amendment would do would be to put more money in the hands of lawyers and less in the hands of victims. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the base bill contains provisions that allow all claims to go forward as class actions and also maximize awards to deserving victims. Why would anyone want to single out safe drinking water victims for adverse treatment and deny them the benefits of the base bill that would maximize any recovery they might receive in a class action? This motion to recommit would do that, and it should be defeated. In closing, let me say that we know that only the tiniest fraction of consumer class action members ever bother to claim the compensation awarded them in a settlement. That is clear proof that the vast majority--the vast large numbers of class members are satisfied with the product they purchased. They don't want compensation. They don't want to be lumped into gigantic class action lawsuits. Federal judges are crying out for the Congress to reform the class action system, which currently allows trial lawyers to file classes with hundreds and thousands of unmeritorious claims and use those artificially inflated classes to force defendants to settle the case. As I have recounted, some class action settlements have left lawyers with millions in fees while the alleged victims receive absolutely nothing. This bill prevents people from being forced into class actions with other uninjured or minimally injured members, only to have the compensation of injured parties reduced. It requires that lawyer fees be limited to a reasonable percentage of the money injured victims actually receive. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this motion to recommit and supporting this bill on behalf of the consumers and injured parties everywhere. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide relief from an onerous mandate that has been placed upon the backs of the American people for over 10 years. The mandate I'm referring to is none other than the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a mandate requiring that increasingly larger volumes of corn-based ethanol be blended into our gasoline. The RFS mandates that 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels be part of our nation's fuel supply by 2022. After 10 years, it is clear that the federal government's ethanol mandate is not working, and Congress must have a serious conversation about continued market-distorting ethanol promotion. One of the big drivers of ethanol prices and supply is an artificial market created by the federal government. The federal government's creation of an artificial market for the ethanol industry has quite frankly resulted in a domino effect that is hurting consumers. This year over 35 percent of the U.S. corn crop will be used for ethanol production. With increasing food and feed stocks being diverted into fuel, we are seeing volatility in the marketplace which negatively impacts livestock and food producers. While the RFS is causing instability in food prices, it has not provided its intended relief for consumers at the pump. It is a known fact that ethanol-blended gasoline has a lower energy density than that of traditional gasoline. Therefore, Americans are forced to buy more fuel to make up the difference. In fact, some studies show that drivers in the U.S. pay at least $10 billion more each year because of the RFS. The RFS is causing unintended and negative consequences for American consumers, energy producers, livestock farmers, and food manufacturers and retailers. It is clear that the RFS needs fundamental reform. That's why I am introducing legislation to accomplish this task, and I am pleased to have the support of Reps. Costa, Welch, and Womack in introducing this bipartisan bill. The RFS Reform Act will eliminate the corn-based ethanol requirements, cap the amount of ethanol that can be blended into conventional gasoline at 10 percent, require the EPA to set cellulosic biofuel levels that reflect industry production levels, and decrease the total volume of renewable fuel that must be contained in gasoline sold or introduced into commerce for years 2017 through 2022. The RFS Reform Act has the support of a broad range of agriculture producers, consumer groups, energy manufacturing, retailers, environmental, and taxpayer organizations. I am a proponent of renewable fuels when they compete fairly in the marketplace, but the current policy needs fundamental reform. I ask my colleagues to support meaningful reform of the current status quo and advance this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to eliminate a well-intentioned, but deeply flawed, policy that has negatively impacted every family and business in the country. The policy I'm referring to is none other than the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a mandate requiring that increasingly larger volumes of corn- based ethanol be blended into our gasoline. The RFS mandates that 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels be part of our nation's fuel supply by 2022. Since the implementation of the RFS, Americans have seen increased costs at the grocery store, larger bills on their restaurant receipts, and higher prices at the gas pump. Corn is used in 75 percent of the food we buy, yet a great deal of corn is now being diverted from food products and into the gasoline tank. It's no surprise that ethanol has caused instability in the corn market. As for fuel, ethanol-blended gasoline has a lower energy density than that of traditional gasoline; therefore, Americans are forced to buy more fuel to make up the difference. In fact, some studies show that drivers in the U.S. pay at least $10 billion more each year because of the RFS. Unfortunately, the high cost of the RFS is not limited to food and gasoline. Ethanol is known to be harmful to the small engines found in lawn mowers and leaf blowers and even motorcycles and all-terrain- vehicles. As a result, owners of these devices are forced to spend more to repair the damage caused by the ethanol-infused gasoline that they were forced to buy. So, what benefits do Americans in your district and mine receive for all of these extra costs? There are certainly few benefits of an environmental nature. Environmental groups have expressed concerns about the impact of the RFS on the air we breathe and have stated that the conversion of high volumes of land into corn fields is detrimental to the environment. In fact, I can find no benefit to the hard working Americans who are paying the cost of the RFS. It is time for Congress to recognize that this policy has failed and remove this mandate from the backs of the American people. That is why I am introducing the Renewable Fuel Standard Elimination Act, which will totally eliminate the RFS. Washington has created this artificial demand for ethanol that is distorting the market, and it is our responsibility to provide relief from its unintended consequences. This legislation is a common sense solution to ensure that renewable fuels compete fairly in the marketplace and avoid causing unintended and negative consequences for American consumers, livestock farmers, and food manufacturers. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to reverse this policy by supporting this legislation in the 115th Congress.

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. 1033, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I begin by thanking Representative Doug Collins of Georgia and the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee Ranking Member Steve Cohen of Tennessee for introducing this important government transparency legislation. Every year, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, the Federal Government, through settlement or court order, pays millions of dollars in legal fees and costs to parties to lawsuits and administrative adjudications that involve the Federal Government. However, despite the large amount of taxpayer dollars paid out each year, the Federal Government no longer comprehensively keeps track of the amount of fees and other expenses awarded pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, nor does the government compile and report on why these fees and expenses were paid and to whom these costs were awarded. This is because, in 1995, Congress repealed the Department of Justice's reporting requirements and defunded the Administrative Conference of the United States, the agency charged with reporting this basic information. The Administrative Conference was established in 2010, but the requirements to report on fee and cost payments have not been reenacted. Accordingly, there has been no official governmentwide accounting of this information since fiscal year 1994, over 20 years ago. This lack of transparency is troubling, given that the Equal Access to Justice Act is considered by many to be the most important Federal fee-shifting statute. Fundamentally, the act recognizes that there is an enormous disparity of resources between the Federal Government and individuals and small businesses who seek to challenge Federal actions. Congress enacted the Equal Access to Justice Act to provide individuals, small businesses, and small nonprofit groups with financial incentives to challenge the Federal Government or defend themselves from lawsuits brought by the Federal Government. As the Supreme Court has noted, the act was adopted with the specific purpose of eliminating for the average person the financial disincentive to challenge unreasonable governmental actions. But how can we know if the act is working well toward this end if we have no data on awards? Without the data this bill requires the Administrative Conference to compile and report, we have nothing more than anecdotal evidence as to whether the act is providing some measure of relief to the financial disincentive to seeking judicial and administrative redress against the Federal Government. The legislation we are considering today will end this lack of transparency and restore the reporting requirements that were repealed in 1995. I want to, once again, thank Representatives Collins and Cohen for introducing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage. 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. 1033) to amend titles 5 and 28, United States Code, to require the maintenance of databases on, awards of fees and other expenses to prevailing parties in certain administrative proceedings and court cases to which the United States is a party, and for other purposes.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), the chief sponsor of the bill, and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have any speakers remaining. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to remove deed use restrictions on one acre of property used for the Plains Area Day Care Center in Broadway, Virginia. For over 25 years, the Plains Area Day Care Center has utilized this land to provide childcare on a sliding scale to many families who otherwise could not afford such a benefit. In 1989, the federal government deeded, with restriction, three acres of land to Rockingham County, a county in the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia, which I represent. The government transferred this land to the county on the condition that this property be used for public purposes. Rockingham County then decided that the non-profit day care center could benefit from the use of the old buildings already housed on the land. Therefore, in 1990, Congress enacted Public Law 101-479, which allowed a specified portion of the three acres of the transferred land to be used for a child care center. Donations by the community totaling $75,000 turned the garage building into a nursery, daycare, and afterschool care facility. Additionally, the creation of the day care center provided for the construction of a playground that the center supports, which is open for public use. As one would imagine, after two decades of consistent use, the day care facility is in desperate need of repairs. Unfortunately, because of the narrow way Public Law 101-479 was drafted and because of the terms of the deed, the day care center has been unable to secure a loan to complete the much-needed renovations. To solve this issue, my legislation would remove the deed use restrictions from the one acre of property on which the building resides. This would allow the day care center and Rockingham County to make needed upgrades. This legislation, which was approved by the House of Representatives by a vote of 407-0 in the 114th Congress as H.R. 2288, is a simple formality. However, it is of great importance to those being served by this day care center in the Rockingham County community. By passing this legislation and allowing Rockingham County more authority over the land, it will ensure that more children and more of the community will be served by this land. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation in the 115th Congress.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this good legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, the House of Representatives will again vote to approve legislation that reforms and modernizes the Electronic Communications Privacy Act or ECPA. Last year, identical legislation passed with unanimous bipartisan support by a vote of 419-0. Reforming ECPA has been a top priority for me as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I have worked with Members of Congress, advocacy groups, and law enforcement agencies for years on many complicated nuances involved in updating this law. The resulting bill is a carefully negotiated agreement to update the procedures governing government access to stored communications content and records. Thirty years ago, when personal computing was still in its infancy and few of us had ever heard of something called the world wide web, Congress enacted ECPA to establish procedures that strike a fair balance between the privacy expectations of American citizens and the legitimate needs of law enforcement agencies. In 1986, mail was sent through the U.S. Postal Service, a search engine was called a library, and clouds were found only in the sky. In 1986, computer storage was finite and expensive. It was unheard of that a commercial product would allow users to send and receive electronic communications around the globe for free and store those communications for years with a third-party provider. So much has changed in the last three decades. The technology explosion of the last three decades has placed a great deal of information on the internet, in our emails, and on the cloud. Today, commercial providers, businesses, schools, and governments of all shapes and sizes provide email and cloud computing services to customers, students, and employees. The Email Privacy Act establishes for the first time in Federal statute a uniform warrant requirement for stored communication content in criminal investigations, regardless of the type of service provided, the age of an email, or whether the email has been opened. The bill preserves the authority for law enforcement agents to serve the warrant on the provider because, as with any other third-party custodian, the information sought is stored with them. However, the bill acknowledges that providers may give notice to their customers when in receipt of a warrant, court order, or subpoena, unless the provider is court-ordered to delay such notification. The bill continues current practice that delineates which remote computing service providers, or cloud providers, are subject to the warrant requirement for content in a criminal investigation. ECPA has traditionally imposed heightened legal process and procedures to obtain information for which the customer has a reasonable expectation of privacy, namely, emails, texts, photos, videos, and documents stored in the cloud. H.R. 387 preserves this treatment by maintaining in the statute limiting language regarding remote computing services. Contrary to practice 30 years ago, today, vast amounts of private, sensitive information are transmitted and stored electronically. But this information may also contain evidence of a crime, and law enforcement agencies are increasingly dependent upon stored communications content and records in their investigations. To facilitate timely disclosure of evidence to law enforcement, the bill authorizes a court to require a date for return of service of the warrant. In the absence of such a requirement, H.R. 387 requires email and cloud providers to promptly respond to warrants for communications content. Current law makes no distinction between content disclosed to the public, like an advertisement on a website, versus content disclosed only to one or a handful of persons, like an email or text message. The result is that law enforcement could be required to obtain a warrant even for publicly disclosed content. The bill clarifies that commercial public content can be obtained with process other than a warrant. Lastly, H.R. 387 clarifies that nothing in the law limits Congress' authority to compel a third-party provider to disclose content in furtherance of its investigative and oversight responsibilities. Thirty years ago, the extent to which people communicated electronically was much more limited. Today, however, the ubiquity of electronic communications requires Congress to ensure that legitimate expectations of privacy are protected, while respecting the needs of law enforcement. I am confident that this bill strikes the necessary balance and does so in a way that continues to promote the development and use of new technologies and services that reflect how people communicate with one another today and in the future. I would like to thank Congressman Yoder and Congressman Polis for introducing the underlying legislation. It is my hope that today the House will once again approve this legislation that embodies the principles of the Fourth Amendment and reaffirms our commitment to protecting the privacy interests of the American people without unduly sacrificing public safety. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 71, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 40) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 to H.J. Res. 40.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 40, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the rules submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. On December 19, 2016, in the waning days of the previous administration, the Social Security Administration published a rule finalizing the criteria for sending the names of certain Social Security beneficiaries to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS. Under the rule, an individual's name will be sent to the NICS if they receive disability insurance or supplemental security income benefits based on having a mental disorder, the person is between age 18 and the full retirement age, and the SSA determines that the person needs a representative payee to manage their benefits. Individuals who meet these criteria would be prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment right to possess firearms. This rule is a slap in the face of those in the disabled community because it paints all those who suffer from mental disorders with the same broad brush. It assumes that simply because an individual suffers from a mental condition, that individual is unfit to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights. No data exists to support such an egregious assertion. In fact, studies show that those who suffer from mental disorders are more likely to be victims of crime rather than perpetrators of crime. Furthermore, there is a total absence of any meaningful due process protections under the rule. Currently, citizens lose their right to possess a firearm when they have been convicted by a judge or jury of a felony or misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, when they have been dishonorably discharged after given a hearing, or when they have been deemed a fugitive after being given an option to appear and avail themselves of their due process rights, among other reasons. All of these have one thing in common: they all provide due process to the affected individual. Under the SSA rule, the affected party has no ability to defend himself or to even introduce evidence before the SSA denies his right to possess a firearm. Additionally, at no time during the process during which the SSA is seeking to deny someone his Second Amendment rights must the Social Security Administration make a determination that the individual poses a risk to himself or others. This is the standard that has long been used to determine if the right to possess a firearm should be prohibited. Some may point to the rule's appeals process as providing a form of due process. However, the appeals process is severely flawed because it puts the burden on individuals to prove that restoring their Second Amendment rights would not pose a danger to public safety or be contrary to the public interest. In every other instance in which someone is facing a loss of his ability to possess a firearm, the burden is on the government to prove that the individual should have his right taken away. Under this flawed system, the individual bears the burden against the government. This is not what due process looks like. During debate on the rule for this joint resolution, I heard a number of reasons from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as to why they opposed this joint resolution. Quite frankly, I am shocked at what little regard they have for the disabled community. The gentleman from Massachusetts claimed that this joint resolution was done at the bidding of the National Rifle Association. Yes, the National Rifle Association does support H.J. Res. 40. However, what my colleague from Massachusetts failed to mention during the debate yesterday was who else supports the joint resolution. Supporters include the American Association of People with Disabilities, the National Disability Rights Network, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Arc of the United States, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the Disability Law Center of Alaska, the National Council on Independent Living, and the National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery. Even the National Council on Disability--an independent Federal agency that makes recommendations to the President and Congress to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families--has called on Congress to utilize the Congressional Review Act in order to repeal this rule. It was also mentioned--and will, undoubtedly, be mentioned here later today--that this rule received over 91,000 comments. What they didn't tell you, and what I am guessing they won't tell you today, is that the overwhelming majority of the comments opposed the rule. Opposition wasn't based on small, technical issues. It was based on the fundamentally flawed concept of the rule. Many of the organizations I mentioned earlier provided comments to the agency. Rather than listen to the organizations advocating for the rights of the disabled, the previous administration decided to ignore them. I thank the gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for his hard work on this important issue that affects law-abiding citizens in every congressional district in America. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution--to stand with the disabled community and to stand with the Constitution. Support H.J. Res. 40. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent to yield the control of the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it's the people who make a community a great place to live, work, and in my case, represent. The generosity of the community and their care for their neighbors defines this part of Virginia. Over the past 75 years, the United Way has harnessed these values and used them as a catalyst to improve the lives of people in the community. Around 1942, United Way organizations were founded in Staunton and Waynesboro. As these organizations continued to grow, in 2004 they merged to become the United Way of Greater Augusta, Inc. in order to offer more effective services to the community. This organization has long worked toward positive change in their community, and I am honored to pay tribute to the United Way of Greater Augusta, Inc. as they celebrate 75 years of service to the people of Staunton, Waynesboro, and Augusta County. Through grants, workplace campaigns, corporate partnerships, and individual donations, the United Way has raised funds to help make a positive impact in the community. They have helped families and individuals in the Greater Augusta region by providing support to local agencies like the Valley Children's Advocacy Center, the Daily Living Center, Valley Hope Counseling Center, and Renewing Homes. The United Way has also made targeted investments in programs such as Stuff the Bus, the Financial Stability Center, and Imagination Library. The work of the United Way has evolved throughout its 75 year history, and I am confident that it will continue to do so to meet both the short-term and long-term needs of those it serves in the Greater Augusta region. There are many people responsible for the continued growth and success of the United Way of Greater Augusta. Countless volunteers have donated their time to serve the community. Board Members have served as active voices in the community for the United Way's work. Staff members have worked hard to promote the work of the United Way and make sure the wheels run smoothly on a day-to-day basis. While I extend my gratitude to all of these individuals, I also want to specifically recognize Cynthia Pritchard for her service as President and CEO of the United Way of Greater Augusta. As she prepares to leave this position, it is clear that much of the good work of this organization would not have been possible without her guidance and leadership over the past seven and a half years. Congratulations to the United Way of Greater Augusta on this momentous occasion. I wish them all the best, and look forward to the positive impact they will continue to make.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her ardent work on this important cause. However stark Americans' differences of opinion can be on the matter of abortion generally, there has been long, bipartisan agreement that Federal taxpayer funds should not be used to destroy innocent life. The Hyde amendment, named for its chief sponsor, former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, has prohibited the Federal funding of abortions since 1976 when it passed the House and Senate that was composed overwhelmingly of Democratic members. It has been renewed each appropriations cycle with few changes for over 40 years, supported by Congresses controlled by both parties and Presidents from both parties. It is probably the most bipartisan, pro- life proposal sustained over a longer period of time than any other. It is time the Hyde amendment was codified in the U.S. Code. H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, sponsored by Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, would do just that. It would codify the two core principles of the Hyde amendment throughout the operations of the Federal Government; namely, a ban on Federal funding for abortions and a ban on the use of Federal funds for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. As hundreds of thousands of people from across the country come to Washington to express their love of unborn children at the annual March for Life and as we now have a President who supports this legislation, let's reflect on what could be accomplished if the bill we consider today were signed into law. During the time the Hyde amendment has been in place, the most reliable estimates--and those of the Congressional Budget Office--are that millions of innocent children and their mothers have been spared the horrors of abortion. Millions of lives have been saved. And of those millions of lives saved, many more have grown up to bear their own children and to raise them in happy, loving families. This bill is more than a proposed law. It is a celebration of the lives of those millions of Americans--boys and girls, men and women of all races--who give joy and feel love and create and contribute all because of the policies this bill contains. And even more than that, this bill is a welcome sign for millions and millions more Americans to come. I congratulate the President for already reinstating the Mexico City policy, which prohibits the Federal funding of abortions overseas. And I look forward to his signing this bill into law to codify the same policy here in America.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to first express my great appreciation to Chairman Michael Conaway and Subcommittee Chairman Austin Scott for their hard work in crafting H.R. 238, the Commodity End-User Relief Act, legislation to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Chairman Conaway and Subcommittee Chairman Austin Scott held four hearings throughout the 114th Congress regarding the CFTC and its future, during which time they invited input from a wide variety of interested stakeholders. I believe that they have struck the right balance in providing the CFTC with the authorizations necessary for the agency to do its job, while increasing oversight, instituting reforms to protect end-users from regulatory overreach, and improving consumer protection against fraud or mismanagement. I am also pleased to see that since the House of Representatives last acted to reauthorize the CFTC, in light of many years of concern about aluminum markets and warehousing practices, the London Metal Exchange has implemented additional reforms to their aluminum warehousing practices and contracts. Now that the London Metal Exchange has been recognized by the CFTC as a Foreign Board of Trade, I look forward to continuing my review of these reforms and their impact on aluminum markets and end users, while remaining hopeful that these changes will accomplish their intended goal. Once again, I would like to thank all those involved in bringing this bill to the floor, Chairman Michael Conaway, Subcommittee Chairman Austin Scott, and Ranking Member David Scott. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.