Providing for Consideration of H.R. Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Citizens' Right to Know Act of and Providing for Consideration of S.J. Res. Providing for Congressional Disapproval of A Rule Submitted By Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last week, many of us spent our time in the district working, meeting with our constituents, seeing the good work that people are doing, and learning what issues people want us to take up when we return to voting.

I wish I were before you lauding the majority's leadership for finally taking up the most important and pressing work for our constituents, but, unfortunately, that is not the case. Instead, this rule brings three bills to the floor, three bills none of my constituents have been pleading for, three bills that don't require immediate action, bills that may not even see Senate consideration.

Last year, this majority set the record for the most closed rules in a session, and it seems that nothing has changed.

The first bill considered in this rule is H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act. While I understand the goal of this legislation, by attempting to improve the pretrial services programs to keep dangerous criminals off the streets, this bill fails to accomplish the real need to improve how our Nation's flawed bail systems operate. While this bill received a markup, it received no hearings and was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a straight party-line vote. Surely, we can do better than this.

The second bill we are considering is H.R. 5645, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act, or SMARTER Act. Quite simply, this bill aims to weaken the Federal Trade Commission's ability to carry out the agency's antitrust responsibilities.

Maybe things are different elsewhere in the country, but I have not had one constituent call my office complaining about the need to weaken the FTC's antitrust enforcement abilities. No. People in southern California are more concerned about good wages, finding affordable housing, and getting their children a good education. However, again, we will take up this legislation, which already died in the Senate last Congress. This legislation undermines the independence of the FTC and undercuts the congressional intent and purpose for the agency's creation.

There are far more important issues under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee that we should be considering instead, including bipartisan gun safety measures and legislation to protect Dreamers. However, instead of considering these very important issues facing our Nation, we are debating a bill to make technical changes to antitrust laws that, if enacted, would only be used in exceedingly rare situations.

Finally, the third legislation included in this rule is S.J. Res. 57, a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution of a CFPB rule relating to ``Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.'' Unlike the other two bills included in this rule, this joint resolution hasn't seen a single hearing or markup in the House.

If the majority is fine with bringing up legislation that has yet to have a hearing, why not bring up the Dream Act?

Two weeks ago, I spoke about some of the more important issues our constituents care about, and nothing about my time back home in California changed my beliefs of what we should be working on. In fact, over the past 2 weeks, we have seen even more Members sign on to Representative Denham's Queen of the Hill resolution. Three more Members of the majority now support an open process.

For those who may not understand what Queen of the Hill means, it is really quite simple: let the best idea win.

If Speaker Ryan allows us, Queen of the Hill would give all the competing immigration proposals in Congress a vote on the floor. All of us would have an opportunity to vote on the four most well-known proposals: the Dream Act, Chairman Goodlatte's bill, the USA Act, and any other bill the Speaker sees fit for a vote. This is how the House should work: an open process where we take up the most important issues of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule we have before us.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends like to claim that their tax scam bill they jammed through Congress last year, skewing all the benefits to the wealthy and rich corporations, is some sort of panacea that will eventually trickle down all of its benefits to American workers, curing all the ills in our economy. That tired idea hasn't worked before, and it isn't working now.

But don't take my word for it. Just ask the Republican Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, who said in a recent interview: ``There is still a lot of thinking on the right that, if big corporations are happy, they're going to take the money they're saving and reinvest in American workers. In fact, they bought back shares; a few gave out bonuses; there's no evidence whatsoever that money's been massively poured back into the American worker.''

All this Republican majority seems intent on doing is bringing up bills that benefit large banks and big businesses. When are we going to do something for workers?

As we toil on rolling back the Wall Street regulations and cutting taxes for the richest corporations, the 21st century economy is changing. Mr. Speaker, over the next decade, approximately 45 percent of all jobs will be in middle-skill occupations, which require more than a high school diploma but less than a bachelor's degree. Registered apprenticeship programs are a vital element of training for these middle-skill occupations and helping individuals contribute to an effective workforce.

A highly skilled workforce is necessary to compete in today's global economy, but this Republican majority has given working Americans a raw deal instead of extending a helping hand. Luckily for my Republican colleagues, today we will give them an opportunity to vote on legislation that will actually benefit American workers and finally help them get a better deal.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pocan's LEARNS Act, H.R. 2933, which would promote effective registered apprenticeships that would give students and workers the skills they need to find well- paying jobs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker,

As I mentioned, this rule includes three bills. One of those is H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act. The Citizens' Right to Know Act fails to address the real problems in our Nation's bail system and, instead, threatens to make things much, much worse.

I don't think many of us disagree with the need to assist our local governments in keeping dangerous criminals off the streets while respecting the rights of those who may be innocent of crimes and have yet to have had their day in court. This legislation makes things worse. It threatens Federal assistance and would encourage local governments to lean more on high bail demands.

Unlike many bipartisan proposals in Congress which seek to make real improvements to bail, this bill will likely result in more low-income individuals being kept in jail simply because they aren't one of the fortunate who can afford to pay bail. This is a real issue in southern California and why I have worked with my colleagues on legislation to implement ``ability-to-pay'' rules to bail demands. Your income shouldn't determine your freedom.

In our community, bail was so excessive that private companies found a way to get rich off people who couldn't afford to pay the high costs. We ended up with people stuck in permanent contracts, paying hundreds of dollars a month to companies that found ways to skirt the rules of bail bondsmen.

We support greater transparency in our criminal justice system; however, this bill falls short of that goal. Rather than shedding the light on our trial system, this bill undermines Americans' privacy rights and exposes defendants to vulnerability.

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, has come out in strong opposition to this bill, citing privacy concerns due to the personally identifiable information that will be collected and publicly reported by the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the text of the ACLU's position letter. American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, March 7, 2018. Re ACLU Opposes H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act of 2017. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Nadler: On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), we write to express our opposition to H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act of 2017,'' as the House Judiciary Committee considers this bill. This legislation raises privacy concerns for the ACLU given the personally identifiable data that is to be collected and publicly reported by the federal government. The bill also undermines efforts to eliminate or reduce jurisdictions' reliance on money bail systems. We urge the Committee to instead consider H.R. 1437, the ``No Money Bail Act of 2017,'' and H.R. 4019, the bipartisan ``Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act of 2017,'' two bills endorsed by the ACLU.

For nearly 100 years, the ACLU has been our nation's guardian of liberty, working in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. The ACLU takes up the toughest civil liberties cases and issues to defend all people from government abuse and overreach. With more than two million members, activists, and supporters, the ACLU is a nationwide organization that fights tirelessly in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, for the principle that every individual's rights must be protected equally under the law, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or national origin. The Citizens' Right to Know Act is inconsistent with the ACLU's mission. The Citizens' Right to Know Act Raises Privacy Concerns

The Citizens' Right to Know Act requires jurisdictions receiving funds from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to report to the Attorney General the names, arrest records, and appearance failures for those participating in DOJ funded pretrial services programs. The legislation allows the Attorney General to make public the names, arrest records, and failure appearances that jurisdictions report. Except for a clause that subjects the data ``to any applicable confidentiality requirements,'' the bill does not provide any explicit privacy protections for those whose personally identifiable information has been collected by the federal government and is subject to public release. The bill requires that the Attorney General penalize noncompliant jurisdictions by denying them 100% of the DOJ grant program funds that are used to support pretrial services programs.

While the ACLU appreciates the need for the federal government to collect and report data, personal privacy interests must be balanced with public interests. When personally identifiable information is being collected and publicly reported, the ACLU largely believes that such information should be obtained and disseminated only with individuals' informed consent. We also believe that the potential to harm individual reputations should be considered when arrest records are publicly shared. We are troubled that the Citizens' Right to Know Act would collect and publicly report personally identifiable information of individuals participating in pretrial services programs--individuals who have not been convicted of a crime given their pretrial status. The Citizens' Right to Know Act Undermines Bail Reform Efforts

The Citizens' Right to Know Act is inconsistent with bipartisan efforts to reform money bail systems, like the Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act, which the ACLU endorses. By collecting and reporting only certain data about pretrial services programs and those participating in them, the Citizens' Right to Know Act will depict a one-sided picture of pretrial services programs and participants. For example, the legislation's focus on when an individual has failed to appear promises a negative narrative around the pretrial stage. If this bill were serious about measuring the true impact of pretrial services programs, it would collect a more robust data set and not that which is of interest only to the bail bonds industry.

The ACLU supports bail reform that corrects the injustice of basing a defendant's release on how much money the person has. Instead of considering the Citizens' Right to Know Act, the Committee should take up the Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act. This legislation would incentive jurisdictions to reform their money bail systems through federal resources rather than penalize them like the Citizens' Right to Know Act, which denies DOJ grants to noncompliant jurisdictions. The Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act would build safer communities, stronger families, and a fairer criminal justice system by ensuring that people who are innocent in the eyes of the law are not deprived of their freedom because they cannot afford money bail.

For the above described reasons, the ACLU urges Members of the House Judiciary Committee against favorably reporting out the Citizens' Right to Know Act. Instead, we encourage the Committee to give serious consideration to bail reform bills through legislative and oversight hearings on the issue. If you have any questions, please contact Kanya Bennett, Legislative Counsel with the ACLU. Sincerely, Faiz Shakir,

National Political Director. Kanya Bennett,

Legislative Counsel.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, this bill fails to provide explicit privacy protections for the individuals whose personal information will be collected and subject to public release, and jurisdictions that fail to comply with these reporting requirements face the severe penalty of losing 100 percent of their DOJ pretrial services grant funding.

Not only does this bill fail to require consent from the defendants to publicly release information about their alleged crimes and their private information, but it also poses the very real threat of destroying their reputation. These individuals have not been convicted of a crime nor have they had their day in court, given their pretrial status.

These are the concerns that could have been raised if this legislation was given a full, robust debate through committee hearings.

I am disappointed that my amendment to this bill, which would have addressed one of the many abuses perpetrated by the money bail system, was not made in order. My amendment would have prohibited predatory companies from locking people into seemingly lifetime contracts of monthly fees.

We can do better. These are bipartisan issues. For this reason and many other concerns I have with the closed process we are operating under, I must oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source