Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Regulatory reform plays a critical role in ensuring that our Nation finally achieves a full economic recovery and retains its competitive edge in the global marketplace. Congress must advance progrowth policies that create jobs and restore economic prosperity for families and businesses across the Nation, and it must make sure that the administration and its regulatory apparatus are held accountable to the American people. America's small-business owners are suffering under mountains of endlessly growing, bureaucratic red tape; and the uncertainty about the cost of upcoming regulations discourages employers from hiring new employees and expanding their businesses. Excessive regulation means higher prices, lower wages, fewer jobs, less economic growth, and a less competitive America. Today, Americans face a burden of over $3 trillion from Federal taxation and regulation. In fact, our Federal regulatory burden is larger than the 2014 gross domestic product of all but the top nine countries in the world. That burden adds up to $15,000 per American household, nearly 30 percent of the average household income in 2014. Everyone knows it has been this way for far too long. But the Obama administration, instead of fixing the problem, knows only one response: increase taxes, increase spending, and increase regulation. The results have painfully demonstrated a simple truth: America cannot tax, spend, and regulate its way to economic recovery, economic growth, and durable prosperity for the American people. Consider just a few facts that reveal the economic weakness the Obama administration has produced. In the June 2015 jobs report, the number of unemployed workers, workers who can only find part-time jobs and workers who are now only marginally attached to the labor force, stood at 10.8 percent. They number over 16 million Americans. America's labor force participation rate remains at lows not seen since the Carter administration, and the median household income still is below the level achieved before the financial crisis. The contrast between America's current condition and the recovery Ronald Reagan achieved is particularly stark. Four-and-a-half years after the recession began in 1981 the Reagan administration, through policies opposite to the Obama administration's, had achieved a recovery that created 7.8 million more jobs than when the recession began. Real per capita gross domestic product rose by $3,091. Real median household income rose by 7.7 percent. To truly fix America's problems, the REINS Act is one of the simplest, clearest, and most powerful measures we can adopt. The level of new major regulation the Obama administration has issued and plans to issue is without modern precedent. Testimony before the Judiciary Committee during recent Congresses has plainly shown the connection between skyrocketing levels of regulation and declining levels of jobs and growth. The REINS Act responds by requiring an up-or-down vote by the people's representatives in Congress before any new major regulation-- defined in the bill generally as a rule that has an effect on the economy of at least $100 million--can be imposed on our economy. It does not prohibit new major regulation. It simply establishes the principle ``No major regulation without representation.'' By requiring Congress, which is more directly accountable to the American people, to approve or deny major regulations proposed by the administration, the REINS Act provides Congress and, ultimately, the people with a much-needed tool to check the one-way cost ratchet that Washington's regulatory bureaucrats too often turn. During the 113th and 112th Congresses, the REINS Act was passed by the full House of Representatives multiple times, each time on a bipartisan vote. I thank Mr. Young of Indiana for introducing this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the REINS Act. I reserve the balance of my time. Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 20, 2015. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On April 15, 2015, the Committee on the Judiciary ordered H.R. 427, the ``Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015,'' reported to the House. As you know, the Committee on Rules was granted an additional referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant to the Committee's jurisdiction under rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives over the rules of the House and special orders of business. Because of your willingness to consult with my committee regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill by the Rules Committee. By agreeing to waive its consideration of the bill, the Rules Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 427. In addition, the Committee reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any House- Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any request by the Rules Committee for conferees on H.R. 427 or related legislation. I also request that you include our exchange of letters on this matter in the committee report to accompany H.R. 427 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of this legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Pete Sessions.

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. 427.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the facts speak for themselves. During the course of the Obama administration, which I think most people would agree has been very aggressive at imposing new regulations upon our economy and on our society--it has averaged 81 a year, not thousands, but 81 per year. I think many of us would agree that some of those regulations impose burdens that were not intended by the underlying legislation upon which those regulations are based, and therefore this is a very manageable way to make sure that regulations don't kill jobs and crush our economy. For that reason, I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Secret Service has two primary missions: criminal investigations and protection of the President, Vice President, and other dignitaries. As a result, the Secret Service is entrusted with protecting some of our most valuable assets. This is an extremely difficult, high-profile mission, in an environment with zero margin for error. The Secret Service is comprised of many outstanding and upstanding men and women who do excellent work; however, over the last few years, a series of embarrassing scandals, security failures, and instances of poor judgment have rocked the Secret Service. These incidents range from agents' use of prostitutes while on official travel to Colombia; to an incident in the Netherlands involving intoxicated agents; to the agency's failure to initially apprehend fence jumper Omar Gonzalez, who was later arrested inside the White House. Following these incidents, the President appointed a new director of the Secret Service, Joseph Clancy, who has implemented a number of reforms. The President also appointed a panel of experts to recommend changes to the Secret Service. Through this committee's oversight and the recommendations of the panel, it is clear that, despite Director Clancy's initiatives, legislative action is still necessary. We must ensure that the agency's officers and agents are properly trained in order to successfully identify potential threats and prevent them from materializing, as well as to ensure that the agency has the tools it needs to carry out its mission. H.R. 1656, the Secret Service Improvements Act of 2015, is bipartisan legislation introduced to provide much-needed resources to the agency and implement many of the U.S. Secret Service Protective Mission Panel's recommendations for improvements for the agency. I am pleased to have worked on this legislation with Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Ranking Member Jackson Lee. This bill makes much-needed improvements to the Secret Service. These improvements strengthen the security of the President, other protectees, and the White House complex; enhance Secret Service officers' and agents' training; and increase the agency's manpower. This legislation also improves transparency and accountability within the agency by requiring Senate confirmation of the Director of the Secret Service. The person entrusted to not only protect the President, but to also head a $1.5 billion Federal law enforcement agency, should be subject to the same process of advice and consent of the Senate as his counterparts at other comparable agencies. Finally, this legislation creates an ethics office within the office of the general counsel in order to respond to rectify and help prevent misconduct at the agency. The resources and improvements provided by this legislation will help to reform the Secret Service and to restore the trust that Congress, the President, and the American people must have in the vital tasks that the Secret Service carries out every single day. This bill passed unanimously from the Judiciary Committee, and I urge my House colleagues to join me in support of the legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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 to include extraneous materials on the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman from Georgia and the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Conyers, as well as Mr. Sensenbrenner and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Jackson Lee. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1656) to provide for additional resources for the Secret Service, and to improve protections for restricted areas, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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 to include extraneous materials on the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. S. 1482, the Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2015, continues an antitrust exemption that is set to expire on September 30, 2015. The exemption allows participating colleges and universities to collaborate on a set of criteria to determine applicants' needs for private financial aid. To be clear, this exemption does not apply to Federal financial aid, only to aid directly provided by the participating colleges and universities. The Antitrust Modernization Commission generally cautioned against antitrust exemptions and recommended that Congress closely examine any proposed antitrust immunities. The antitrust exemption continued by S. 1482 has been in place since 1992. Over the past 23 years, Congress has extended the antitrust exemption on four separate occasions, each time with broad, bipartisan support. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office conducted a study to determine whether the exemption adversely impacted the affordability of college and concluded that it did not. While S. 1482 continues the existing antitrust exemption, it also narrows it in recognition of the fact that one of the practices allowed by that exemption has not been utilized by participating colleges and universities. Accordingly, the legislation limits the scope of antitrust exemption to those activities that colleges and universities truly need and use. Given the lengthy legislative record, the narrowed scope of the exemption, the GAO study on the effects of the bill, and the 7-year sunset included in the bill, I believe that S. 1482 proposes a safe extension of a reasonable and worthwhile antitrust exemption. I thank the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Smith, for introducing the House version of this legislation, H.R. 2604, which the Judiciary Committee ordered favorably reported without amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1482) to improve and reauthorize provisions relating to the application of the antitrust laws to the award of need-based educational aid.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith); the ranking member, Mr. Conyers; and others for this very bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Science Committee, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the chief sponsor of the House version of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say again, nothing in the bill requires any officer to ask any question of any victim of crimes about their immigration status. All it does is prohibit cities and counties from ordering their officers to not communicate with ICE or to gather the information status of individuals. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit. It would give the discretion to the Attorney General of the United States and the ability to determine whether or not such reductions provided in this legislation would take place. This is the same Attorney General of the United States who is new to the position, but has already indicated her unwillingness to enforce title VIII, section 1373, of the United States Code related to the requirement that cities and all other government agencies communicate with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act helps to address one of the main factors contributing to the collapse of immigration enforcement in the United States. Hundreds of sanctuary cities are violating Federal law by prohibiting their law enforcement officers from sharing information with Federal immigration authorities to enable the removal of unlawful and criminal aliens. This bill will finally establish penalties to persuade these jurisdictions to comply with longstanding Federal law. Sanctuary cities present a clear and present danger to their citizens. In the first 8 months of 2014, they released 8,145 aliens who the Department of Homeland Security wanted to deport. Very quickly, almost a quarter of these aliens were arrested again for new criminal offenses. Most recently, San Francisco's refusal to honor a DHS detainer resulted in the tragic death of Kate Steinle. This is not an isolated incident. This is something that will continue again and again and again unless these cities start cooperating with law enforcement. And, yes, there are many other things that need to be done to protect American citizens from unlawful criminal aliens besides this bill. Those should be brought to the floor as well. But this bill represents an important first step in making rogue jurisdictions comply with Federal law and safeguard their communities. We will take further steps in the months ahead to ensure enforcement of immigration laws, but we have to start today. Federal grants--and there are three categories of grants covered by this legislation--are not entitlements to the States. They are gratuities that Congress has chosen to give to the States. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can place restrictions or conditions on the receipt of Federal funds to further policies that are aimed at protecting the general welfare. I support these law enforcement grants, but the solution to potential loss of these funds is simple: eliminate the policies that violate Federal law, eliminate the policies that prohibit information sharing with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and they will receive this funding. They will also receive safer communities, communities that are sanctuaries for law-abiding citizens, not sanctuaries for criminals. This legislation must be passed to protect American citizens and do right by them and do it in honor of people like Kate Steinle, who gave her life because of these bad policies. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit, support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to make very clear nothing in this bill requires any officer of the law to ask any question of any victims of crime about their immigration status. All it does is prohibit cities and counties from ordering their officers to not communicate with ICE or gather information from ICE about the status of individuals. This is a good bill. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the current chairman of the Science Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), the chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, to close our debate.