Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to take this time to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and many Members on his side of the aisle, including Mr. Polis. I especially want to thank Mr. Yoder, who has worked long and hard on this legislation for which he is the chief sponsor. I most especially want to take note of the fact that we have very disparate points of view from a whole array of people around this country, from law enforcement, to technology companies, to civil liberties organizations. It took a long time to sort through that and find the common ground that is the legislation we have before us today. That ground would not have been found without the outstanding work of our staff, most especially Caroline Lynch, the chief counsel of the Judiciary Committee's Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, and her able team of attorneys, and Aaron Hiller, minority counsel as well. They deserve a great deal of gratitude for the years of work to bring us to this point where we can pass this important, important legislation by what I believe will be a resounding majority. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia is home to a number of first-rate educational institutions. The Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) at Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, Va., is no exception. In addition to rigorous academic standards and leadership training, VWIL is the only all-female corps of cadets in the nation. VWIL has been developing women leaders for 20 years through its elite program. Opened in 1995, VWIL is a public-private partnership with the Commonwealth of Virginia and Mary Baldwin College. This four-year program integrates academics, fitness, leadership development, ethics, and military training. Following graduation, VWIL cadets have the opportunity to receive a commission into any branch of the United States military. The mission of VWIL over the past 20 years has been to prepare and develop women to become active and engaged leaders in the military, public service, and private sector. This is a mission they have lived up to today. VWIL demands that cadets achieve their highest level of performance, and that is seen clearly in the caliber of graduates produced by the program. To date, 382 women have graduated from the VWIL program. This community of alumnae has gone on to seek higher education as well as careers in a variety of fields, including government and management. Additionally, 130 graduates have been commissioned into military service. A VWIL alumna also made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. USAF 1Lt Sarah K. Small, a member of VWIL's Class of 2002, was killed in the line of duty in 2005 and is interred at Arlington National Cemetery. On Friday, April 22, VWIL will hold a 20th Anniversary Parade and Awards Ceremony to commemorate the history and achievements of the Institute, honor the program's alumnae, and celebrate the future. I congratulate Brigadier General Teresa Djuric (USAF, Ret.), Commandant of Cadets, as well as faculty and staff, current cadets, and alumnae on this milestone. I wish VWIL many more years of success in developing future leaders.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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 within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4676, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4676) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an additional tool to prevent certain frauds against veterans, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4676, the Preventing Crimes Against Veterans Act of 2016, was introduced by Congressman Tom Rooney of Florida, a former member of the Judiciary Committee, and Congressman Ted Deutch of Florida, a current member of the Judiciary Committee. This legislation fixes a loophole in Federal law and provides Federal prosecutors with an additional tool to go after criminals who seek to defraud veterans. In recent years, financial predators have increasingly targeted veterans, particularly elderly veterans in low-income housing, in an effort to defraud the veterans out of their Veterans Affairs benefits. These criminals offer to help veterans with their cases, claim to get their benefits approved in record time, charge fees that are often in the thousands of dollars, and then provide them with little or no assistance. Under current law, many of these fraudsters would be vulnerable to prosecution under the mail or wire fraud statutes if they engage in this sort of fraudulent scheme by calling a veteran on the phone, sending them an email, mailing them a letter, or otherwise using the instrumentalities of interstate commerce to commit fraud. However, increasingly these criminals are taking advantage of a loophole in Federal law by conducting in-person seminars or meeting in person at a veteran's home or assisted living facility. In at least one recent example, a fraudster visited an assisted living facility in Florida and asked the staff to round up all the veterans for a seminar. This sort of conduct--swindling an elderly veteran out of his or her benefits--is truly reprehensible and worthy of Congress' attention. H.R. 4676, which has the support of the veterans service community, addresses this conduct. This vulnerable population has done its duty to protect us from harm. It is our duty to help protect them. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, some people wonder all their lives if they have made a difference. Veterans don't have that problem. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and protect our Nation's veterans. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2947) 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. Speaker, I only have one speaker remaining, myself, to close. So I am prepared to do that once the gentleman from Georgia yields back. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, 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. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important reform. I thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for their bipartisan effort to produce this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 2947, 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 examined how best to prevent another similar crisis from occurring and how 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 other things, this responded to provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which called for an examination of how to improve the Bankruptcy Code in this area. Last Congress, after three hearings, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act, which is legislation that improved the Bankruptcy Code to better facilitate the resolution of a financial firm. 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. The bill ultimately passed the House by a voice vote under a suspension of the rules. This Congress, Representative Trott reintroduced the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act as H.R. 2947. Following its introduction, the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law conducted a hearing on the bill. The hearing witnesses all supported the legislation while providing recommendations for further refinements to the bill. Those recommendations were incorporated, and the Judiciary Committee approved the legislation by a unanimous vote of 25-0. The bill under consideration today is the product of a careful, deliberate, and thorough process, and it 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 the efficient resolution of a financial firm through the bankruptcy process. The bill allows for the speedy transfer of a financial firm's operating assets 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 there being any significant impact on the firm's employees, suppliers, and customers. The bill also requires expedited judicial review by a bankruptcy judge who has been randomly chosen from a pool of judges, who has been designated in advance, and who has been selected by the chief justice for his 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 am pleased that Ranking Member Conyers is a lead sponsor of this important legislation, and I thank him and his staff for their efforts in developing this bill. I thank Representative Trott for introducing this important legislation, and I thank Chairman Marino of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, who is one of the original sponsors of the bill and who helped to usher the bill through the Judiciary Committee. I also commend my colleague from Georgia, who is also involved in this work and who is the ranking member of that same subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Judiciary Committee, and the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2745, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that, because of ObamaCare and government regulation, the cost of prescription drugs is going up--and going up too fast. We definitely need to reform our healthcare system, starting with repealing ObamaCare and putting in place real patient-centered reforms to our healthcare system, but that is not what this legislation is about today. The SMARTER Act is predicated on a very simple notion: the results of an antitrust merger review should not be dependent on which antitrust enforcement agency happens to review the deal. The outcome should not be determined by the flip of an agency coin. The SMARTER Act is a process reform that ensures that all parties have their day in court and are subject to the same standards, regardless of which antitrust enforcement agency reviews their merger. The motion to recommit defeats this simple reform by carving out an exception for one area. Why, if we are seeking justice, why, if we are seeking a fair standard for all people before these antitrust review agencies, would we take this particular area and say, no, we are not going to have a consistent standard for reviewing something that the gentleman feels is so important. We all feel that is very important, and that is why we all should oppose this motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, since I have one speaker remaining, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 1914, Congress passed the Federal Trade Commission Act, marking the beginning of a dual antitrust enforcement regime in the United States. Because both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission enforce our Nation's antitrust laws, companies may and often do have different experiences when interacting with one agency relative to the other. One area in which the disparity can be the most striking and troubling is in the merger review process. When a company wishes to merge with or purchase another company, it must notify both antitrust enforcement agencies of the proposed transaction. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission then determine which agency will be responsible for reviewing the transaction. As there are no fixed rules for making this determination, it can appear that the decision is made on the basis of a flip of the coin. There are two substantive differences that companies face based on the identity of the antitrust enforcement agency that reviews the company's proposed transaction. The first difference arises if the agency seeks to prevent the transaction by pursuing a preliminary injunction in Federal court. A different legal standard is applied to a preliminary injunction request based solely on the identity of the requesting antitrust enforcement agency. The second difference lies in the process available to each antitrust enforcement agency to prevent a transaction from proceeding. The FTC may pursue administrative litigation against a proposed transaction even after a court denies its preliminary injunction request. In contrast, the Department of Justice cannot pursue administrative litigation. There is no justification for these disparities in the merger review processes and standards. The bipartisan Antitrust Modernization Commission recommended that Congress remove these disparities, and the bill before us today, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act, or SMARTER Act, does just that. I applaud Mr. Farenthold of Texas for introducing this important legislation that will enhance the transparency, predictability, and credibility of the antitrust merger review process. By enacting the SMARTER Act into law, Congress will ensure that companies no longer will be subjected to fundamentally different processes and standards based on the flip of a coin. Notably, the legislation has garnered the support of former and current FTC Commissioners, including former Chairman David Clanton, former Commissioner Josh Wright, and sitting Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen. The SMARTER Act is an important step toward ensuring that our Nation's antitrust laws are enforced in a manner that is fair, consistent, and predictable. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this good government bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Let's look at the arguments, the straw men that have been set up by the other party claiming that this legislation does a manner of things that it simply does not do. First, they say enacting the SMARTER Act only benefits large companies that wish to merge, but the SMARTER Act protects small and midsize companies which also come under the Federal Trade Commission's scrutiny. This legislation is not designed to help big companies get bigger. Indeed, large companies have the resources to hire the lawyers, economists, lobbyists, and other regulatory professionals to wrestle with the FTC. It is the small- and medium-size companies that would benefit from a fair process and an assurance that they would have their day in court. The FTC does not always focus its attention on the large companies. In fact, a Wall Street Journal article from 2013 documents how the FTC pursued anticompetitive practices of the Music Teachers National Association, a nonprofit with about a dozen employees. In short, this nonprofit was a collection of piano teachers. So if you think the FTC only engages with conglomerates, you are mistaken. They will even prosecute your after-school piano teacher. The SMARTER Act ensures that, if the FTC does focus its efforts on piano teachers, on the small- and medium-size companies, they will have the benefit of a fair process. Then they make the argument that the SMARTER Act will make it more difficult for antitrust enforcement agencies to stop a merger, but the SMARTER Act only changes the process. It does not have any substantive impact on merger reviews. The SMARTER Act does not make any substantive changes to antitrust law. Rather, the legislation only standardizes the process between the two antitrust enforcement agencies. The witnesses at the committee hearings on the SMARTER Act testified that the legislation only affects the process and not the substantive standard. As Deborah Garza, former chairwoman of the Antitrust Modernization Commission stated: No one on the AMC believed at the time, and I do not believe today, that this legislation would make it difficult or impossible for the FTC Commission to do its job. The Justice Department has done very well in pursuing its merger enforcement agenda working with the standards that apply to it. And I firmly believe that the FTC can do so as well. Indeed, even the current Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General for the antitrust division stated: I do not think there is a practical difference in how the courts assess the factual and legal basis for enjoining a merger challenged by the FTC on the one hand and the Department on the other. Let me also quote from a letter written by 15 leading antitrust professors who wrote to Congress expressing their support for the SMARTER Act: The FTC is a very impressive agency that plays a valuable role in antitrust enforcement. The SMARTER Act does nothing to undermine the FTC's authority. It simply ensures that the merger review processes and standards are equally applied to merger parties, regardless of which agency reviews the transaction. The gentleman from New Jersey complained about what was going on with the review of proposed mergers by health insurance companies. Guess what. Who is doing those reviews? Not the FTC. The Department of Justice. It doesn't make any sense. What does make sense is that there are lots of companies going through lots of things caused, in part, by ObamaCare forcing healthcare providers, insurance companies, and others to look at mergers and acquisitions. When they do so, the public should have the right to know that justice is being done. This is not about big business or small business. This is about making sure that the laws are fairly and equally applied. When that happens, we should have this legislation at hand so that we have the assurance that we are going to have justice done. The FTC should operate by the same merger review processes and standards that the Department of Justice does. I believe in the vigorous prosecution of antitrust practices and transactions by the Department of Justice and the FTC. I would not support the SMARTER Act if I thought that it would disadvantage our antitrust enforcement agencies. The Congressional Record demonstrates that the SMARTER Act only makes the process more fair and predictable while providing the antitrust enforcement agencies with the same powers to prosecute antitrust practices. The SMARTER Act is a commonsense process reform that ensures fairness and parity in the narrow field of merger reviews. The bill was recommended to Congress by a bipartisan commission and is supported by former top Department of Justice antitrust enforcement officials and past and present FTC Commissioners of both political parties. This legislation will help America continue to serve as a leader and innovator in competition law, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 653, I call up the bill (H.R. 2745) to amend the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the Federal Trade Commission shall exercise authority with respect to mergers only under the Clayton Act and only in the same procedural manner as the Attorney General exercises such authority, and ask for its immediate consideration.