H.Res. 872

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Nadler, and the chairman of the committee, Mr. Goodlatte, who is now managing the bill; and I certainly acknowledge my fellow Texan and know that he has all good intentions on important legislation dealing with the question of safety and security.

H.R. 2152, unfortunately, has been noted possibly to have requirements that would undermine the privacy of those who participate in the program, who are disproportionately poor Americans, and discourages the use of pretrial service programs in communities across the country because of the punitive measures in this bill. I rise to oppose H.R. 2152 because it is flawed and needs to address the disparate treatment of poor Americans.

I believe the consideration of the issues underlying the bill is timely but, unfortunately, not directed in the right way. The House should examine pretrial services and bail issues with the goal of reforming our Nation's bail system, not for the purpose of protecting the use of money bail which is unfair to the indigent, unproductive, and expensive for American taxpayers.

In fact, in Harris County, we have a money bail system, and a Federal judge, Judge Lee Rosenthal, indicated that it was disproportionately unfair to poor constituents in the State of Texas and, particularly, Harris County. We have been working to come together and have an agreement in our local community on recognizance bonds for individuals who work, and put a certain criteria in.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, we are as concerned about the safety and security of our constituents, but it would be inappropriate for us to enhance the commercial bond industry, which I certainly appreciate-- they create jobs and they are businesses--in contrast to individuals who simply cannot afford a money bond.

In this instance, this bill would penalize those entities, those communities that use Federal funds for pretrial release programs if they don't provide all of this data. Now, it might be important to provide this data for someone who is particularly dangerous, but, Mr. Speaker, you know just like I do, those individuals do not get a bond.

So, as I indicated, the Citizens' Right to Know Act would require a State or local government that uses Justice Department grant funding to pay for pretrial services, which are important programs, to report, annually, certain information to the Department of Justice about defendants who participate in the pretrial services program.

The very fact that you are in the program is an indication, in most jurisdictions, that you are not a violent felon. You would hope that you are not a person accused of sex crimes, sex trafficking, human trafficking. Those are matters that can be fixed.

Information that will be required to be reported includes the name of each defendant participating in the pretrial release program and each occasion that the person failed to make an appearance, the record of prior convictions of each participant, and the amount of money allocated for the pretrial services program.

If a unit of government fails to comply with the reporting requirement, it would lose its entire funding under the relevant program for the following fiscal year, penalizing smaller communities, innocent communities that didn't have the wherewithal to provide all that data. Certainly, it would be better spent on making sure that they use the pretrial program efficiently and safely and secure.

The requirements in this bill largely mirror legislative initiatives being advanced by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, in the States, under the false guise of transparency.

Citizens have a right to know what their government is doing. I absolutely agree with that, and I support the reporting of information that will educate us as to what is taking place. As for H.R. 2152, however, I question whether the categories and information that must be reported under the bill are designed to do that or are adequate to tell us about the efficacy of these programs. In addition, the bill requires that this information be made publicly available by the Attorney General.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the ACLU, NAACP, Human Rights Watch, and Color of Change have written to us opposing the bill and expressing concerns about this publication requirement and the harm to individuals resulting from a sharing of criminal records and personally identifying information. I share these concerns. The groups that I have named have been historic organizations that have dealt with the civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, and constitutional rights of Americans, no matter who they are.

Although the Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment to eliminate the reporting of arrest records of the participating defendants, I see no need to compile and make public information about prior convictions and the failures to appear in connection with identifier-specific defendants--maybe overall numbers, but this would be unnecessary and unproductive.

The main crux of what we should be about is that a pretrial program is a secure and safe program. The levels of a person who can participate should be utilized with guidelines, restrictions, and, certainly, local monitoring. But to penalize an organization, entity, a governmental entity trying to do its best and to be fair and balanced in the criminal justice system based on money bail is something that I would raise the question.

You can document, in Harris County, that we have had an enormously disproportionate impact on individuals with small offenses who have had to go no other route but either jail or money bail. They have no money bail. They are in jail. They could have a legitimate job. They could be a teacher.

We just had an incident with a mother who was placed in--she was, unfortunately, at least the allegations are, that she was driving, unfortunately, in a school zone and had a minute amount of marijuana. Whatever our positions are on that, she was sent to the Harris County jail, of course, lost her job. She was gainfully employed and is, obviously, distraught.

I hate to say it; her allegations are that she was raped in the Harris County jail, sad to say that. But the point is, just think if she could have been released on her own recognizance and/or a small amount in a pretrial release program. Not given that opportunity, she was taken in and, unfortunately, suffered these unfortunate consequences.

Members submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to address some of these concerns and also to encourage States to eliminate monetary bail, but none were made in order for consideration on the floor today. That is unusual, a closed rule on a Judiciary Committee bill that is the arm of decency as relates to decency, dignity, liberty, justice, and freedom.

Those are very important elements to the American people, and, certainly, the amendments should have been at least given consideration for the Representatives of the people of the United States in the people's House to debate these amendments. That was not the case, so we have a closed rule. I am baffled by that.

Instead of considering this bill, the House should be taking up legislation to encourage States to end the practice of requiring money bail, a practice that disparately impacts the poor and most vulnerable in our society.

For instance, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1437, the No Money Bail Act of 2017, which would reduce Justice Department grant awards to States that do not eliminate money bail and would also eliminate bail at the Federal level. Instead of considering H.R. 2152, we should be advancing legislation such as H.R. 1437, or, minimally, both bills should on be on floor at the same time.

Again, this is no attempt to undermine how we secure our communities. I certainly take no backseat to the fact that our families, communities, police officers, and people in the criminal justice system should be protected, and those who have been given the benefit of a pretrial release should adhere to the rules that are there; but I can see no reason to be punitive to the local governmental entities as relates to not reporting names and all those details, including prior convictions, et cetera, et cetera.

What is the Federal Government going to do, say, if you have two prior convictions, you can't be in the pretrial release program? That is a local, State issue as opposed to a Federal issue, and what you are doing is connecting desperately needed criminal justice dollars from the Department of Justice to communities that may be trying to do their best.

With the version of H.R. 2152 that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, we are not doing that, unfortunately. Therefore, I oppose the bill and hope that the House will soon take steps to do something about the real problem: our Nation's unjust money bail system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. He is a dear friend. As we debate this question, I think it is a very important moment as we look at comprehensive criminal justice reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me indicate and reemphasize points that I made and, as well, points that Mr. Johnson made.

This will have a disparate impact, and what strikes me of great concern is that this amendment was, in essence, a closed rule.

I submitted an amendment that would basically gather data--which, I think, is what the proponent of this legislation wants--to ensure that pretrial release is working, to show that people who would be a threat to the community are not running without restraint, and to show the number of people who would appear for their appearance, if you will, in court who were beneficiaries of the pretrial release program. Those are all good elements, but it concerns me, again, that we don't have any clear parameters of whom this will hurt.

And also, small communities are dependent upon Federal grants. Their structure may not be the best, and so, if you are now asking them for reporting of individual names and past offenses, I beg the question of the value of that information.

What we really should have is aggregate numbers of who, under the pretrial program, is able to or is, in essence, not meeting the criteria and is breaking the agreement and commitment they have to either appear or to stay in a certain area. That is important information, and I think the DOJ could utilize that in an aggregate form.

Why are we giving names that will remain in the DOJ database for someone who may ultimately go back to work, as this mother may go back to her family and her life would hopefully--even though she experienced a tragedy in the jail and lost her job, let's hope that she has a future.

But if she were caught in this bill, would her name now be in the database? I have not researched her case. It seems that this might have been her first offense, but it certainly was a minor offense with a small amount of marijuana. As the facts evidence, it was the jurisdictional, the geographic area that she was in that caused the greatest trouble.

So the other side of it is that money bail is another issue that we should have looked at. We should have put both bills on the floor of the House because there is a movement across the Nation to begin to address, again, disparate treatment of money bail--not on the issue of race, but on the issue of economics.

So the person working in the fast-food place is in jail and, most likely, loses their job. We know that people who work in fast-food are mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers taking care of families, and being in jail does not help them take care of their family. You can be assured--unlike maybe other positions where you can say I was on vacation or that you didn't even stay in jail because you had the money to get out of jail--you cannot say you are on vacation for a couple of days or that you were nothing because you are right out back at work. You are fired.

A very evident case is the gentleman who was wealthy in Texas--a very renowned case--found in a hotel room in Galveston. He had decapitated his roommate's head and disposed of it--is my recollection. I stand to be corrected if my recollection is not correct--in the Galveston Bay, and because he could post a $100,000-plus bond, Mr. Speaker, he was released. Put that on any poor person, and we would be aghast at even how this person got bond set. But he did. Ultimately, he was acquitted in that case. I still shake in my boots.

So the issue is there is more to this than giving names and putting it in a database in the DOJ for persons who may never commit another offense in life. Money bail contributes, again, to the unnecessary detention of many low-risk pretrial defendants, inappropriate release of high-risk defendants who have financial means--as I just indicated, a person who decapitated a person's head--unwarranted financial burdens on low-income communities, and the gamble of placing public safety in the hands of a bail bonding industry that will always profit before the public good, a real point to the unfairness of the money bail.

Yet you would deny funds to small towns that are doing pretrial release, or even big counties and cities that are trying to do their best, but they need these Federal funds. Find another way for us to be able to assess what is going on.

Wealth-based detention has disastrous consequences: overcrowding of local jails, lost jobs, lost housing, poor sanitation and medical care, broken families, and it drains local budgets.

In many cases, an arrestee may be held longer in jail while awaiting trial than any sentence she or he would likely receive if convicted. Right now, in my own county and other big counties around the Nation that have not corrected that, they are doing that right now: causing innocent people to plead guilty to offenses that they did not commit in order to shorten the lengthy pretrial detention. Individuals who are detained are not able to assist their attorneys in the investigation of charges against them, resulting in many wrongful convictions and longer sentences.

So I only offer this thought so that we can have a viable discussion on the money bail issue and the disparate treatment that this legislation--though, not intended--would bring about when you ask communities to give the names and prior convictions of persons who may have had one or two marijuana or DUI--which all of us abhor-- convictions. But the privacy issues are a concern, and the lack of debate on the impact of money bail and its unfairness are not being discussed, and the lack of a rule that allows amendments, I think, concerns me.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP, Human Rights Watch, and Color of Change, who expressed their opposition to this legislation.

May 8, 2018.

Vote ``No'' on the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act of 2017'' (H.R. 2152)

Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union

(ACLU), the NAACP, Human Rights Watch, and Color of Change,

we urge you to vote ``No'' on H.R. 2152, the ``Citizens'

Right to Know Act of 2017,'' as the House considers this

bill. This legislation raises serious privacy concerns for

the civil and human rights community 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 members to instead consider

H.R. 1437, the ``No Money Bail Act of 2017,'' and other

bipartisan efforts to encourage the elimination of money bail

systems.

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 percent of the DOJ grant

program funds that are used to support pretrial services

programs.

While we appreciate 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, we

believe 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

efforts to reform money bail systems, like the No Money Bail

Act, which many of our organizations support. 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.

We support 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,

Congress should take up the No Money Bail Act of 2017. This

legislation would incentive jurisdictions to reform their

money bail systems using federal resources. The No Money Bail

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, we urge members of the

House to vote ``No'' on the Citizens' Right to Know Act.

Instead, we encourage the House of Representatives to give

serious consideration to bail reform bills through

legislative and oversight hearings on the issue.

Sincerely,

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,

American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP, Human Rights

Watch, Color of Change.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am clear and I think my colleague Mr. Johnson is clear on the pretrial release versus the money bail, but in many instances, pretrial release may have a negative impact on a poor, alleged actor of criminal activity as the money bail system. But this will add additional pain and lack of promise.

As I said, my amendment was to have the aggregate number of those who did not appear. That is viable and important information. You could have it by counties, small towns, villages, and cities to indicate what the impact is of pretrial release.

What strikes me as a concern is to have names and prior convictions, because it becomes part of a DOJ database and these persons may never commit another crime. They might have been in the hospital, maybe they get back and say why--I don't know what it means if you didn't make the first one and they got information that Mr. Smith was in the hospital, didn't have a lawyer, is coming back, but his name has already been sent out. And then you are going to penalize the local jurisdiction for the Federal funds that they are so desperately in need of.

By the way, I am grateful that in the omnibus that we recently passed, we plussed up all of those numbers. And I can assure you, our communities are jumping for joy in the work that they have to do in criminal justice reform or to secure or to make safe their communities, particularly, our police officers for whom I have championed the COPS on the Beat, and I just wish we could really plus that program up because it is a very viable program that we had from the 1990s.

So taking money away is going to be, in this instance, when there could be a positive alternative to giving the information, something that I would be concerned about.

I have already mentioned the issue that wealth-based detention has disastrous consequences: overloading the local jails, the lost jobs, the lost housing, poor sanitation, medical care, broken families, and draining local budgets. So let us have a moment on the floor that we can discuss the reform of money bails, as was done in the Federal court in the Southern District of Texas.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that this bill is, as they say, an effort at finding a problem. It is important that we promote transparency and accountability in government, but this bill does not move in that direction. I am willing to extend my hand of friendship to my friend from Texas. We will see where this bill goes.

But we know what it may really do. The bill was written for the purpose of burdening pretrial services programs, publicizing the sensitive information of defendants who are charged with but not convicted of a crime--and I think that is an important element; you really do deserve privacy if you are just an accused and not yet convicted--and in order to undermine the efforts to reform the money bail system.

That is why civil rights organizations have written to oppose this bill. I would like to think that they would be willing as well to work with us and come halfway to address the question of the money bail disparate treatment, discriminatory impact. By the way, it is not just a racial disparate treatment; it is a poor people's disparate treatment; it is a working people's treatment, when they don't have money.

We have heard the stories. They put up grandmother's house, their house, and it becomes a real tall mountain to climb. The money bail has been harmful and, in some instances, shameful in what it has done to poor, working families. And instead of considering the

bill that would help us reform that, we should be considering--rather, this bill with the ask of private information. I would like to see if we have to have this bill to do it in aggregate. No names on it would be very helpful. And we should be advancing legislation to eliminate the placing of financial conditions on someone's release from jail pending trial, which is taking money away from the local jurisdiction.

The bill today does that, and I think that we can work to do better. And I am not pleased to be opposing, but I would ask my colleagues to consider all that I have said about bail reform and disparate treatment and how we can best handle the needs of finding out who leaves pretrial release and who doesn't. Let's just get the numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this bill. I ask my colleagues to join me, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for bringing this legislation to the floor.

I have several comments that I would like to make in response to my friend from Houston, Ms. Jackson Lee, about this legislation and about what it is and, more importantly, what it is not.

I served 22 years on a criminal court in Houston, Texas, felony cases, saw about 25,000 people work their way through my court. Before that, I was a prosecutor for 8 years in State court. Mr. Speaker, I saw a lot of people charged with criminal conduct, and this legislation is necessary because of some problems that the system has created.

As the chairman pointed out, pretrial release is a relatively new concept in our justice system. When a person comes and is charged with a crime, generally speaking, in most jurisdictions, there are four ways in which that individual can be released until their day in court:

One way is to put up a cash bond, where they put up the cash to the sheriff's department sometimes, and after the case is over with, they get that cash back.

Another way is to go through a bonding agency where they pay a bonding agency a percentage and they, the bond company, are responsible for making sure the person appears in court. If they don't appear, the bonding company loses the entire bond money.

There is a personal recognizance bond, where an individual comes to court and tells the judge and promises: Judge, I will come back to court for my trial.

It is an agreement between the judge and the individual.

And then there is the pretrial release system.

The pretrial release system is similar to personal recognizance, except the person is supposed to be supervised by a government agency, usually called the pretrial release agency, that makes sure that that person abides by certain conditions, doesn't leave town, and that pretrial release agency is usually run by the local judiciary or the justice system like the county, four different ways.

This legislation deals only with the pretrial release programs in our Nation, the 300 pretrial release programs.

The Citizens Right to Know Act is really not reforming pretrial release, it is an accountability portion of pretrial release to let people know how the Federal money is being used to operate.

Each year, millions of dollars in Federal grant money goes to State and local pretrial release agencies to operate those programs. These programs allow the accused individual to be released and await trial, usually to stay in the jurisdiction.

However, some jurisdictions overuse the programs and release many repeat and dangerous individuals with no

oversight by anybody. They are just released into the community.

Some of these released individuals disappear from the justice system indefinitely. We don't know how many do because there is no reporting of people under the pretrial release program to the Federal Government when they receive Federal funds.

In many cases, repeat, violent, and hardened criminals participate. As a result, in jurisdictions across the country, taxpayers are literally bailing out individuals with a long criminal record on a new criminal offense.

All across America, terrible crimes are being committed by individuals who are bailed out on a pretrial release program because there is no accountability of the program.

This bill is an accountability bill. Who is being released? What types of cases are being released? How many people repeat a crime while they are out on pretrial release?

We don't know because those records are never kept. So if the taxpayers are going to fund pretrial release programs, as they should in local jurisdictions, let the pretrial release program report back to the Federal Government the results of the program. Is it working? Is it not working? That is what we need to know, and we have no idea today.

It doesn't have anything to do with determining who is released on pretrial release, it just wants these organizations to report back to the Federal Government because the public has the right to know if the program is working.

Right now, that is neither collected or reported in any systematic fashion.

Why not? Why don't these pretrial release programs in the country say: Yes. It is working. Everybody comes back, or a great percentage comes back. Or: No. It is not working. People disappear. They commit crimes. We don't know, Mr. Speaker.

All this bill does is help pretrial release let us know and let them know and the public know, is the pretrial release program working in that jurisdiction?

You are using Federal money to operate the program, therefore, report back to the Federal Government on how that program is working or not working.

It doesn't change the pretrial release program, except it requires accountability. For too long, we have not allowed or required accountability of what takes place under the pretrial release program.

It does not collect data on each pretrial release defendant to determine if these agencies are effective in ensuring that defendants adhere to their pretrial requirements and whether the defendants actually show up for trial. It collects it on all defendants that the pretrial release program must report to the Federal Government.

Congress must be able to determine the effectiveness of these programs, and without basic information like this, Congress can't ensure that the programs are working around the country.

Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers need to know if their resources are being spent wisely, and that communities are being protected.

There have been numerous cases where individuals were released on pretrial release bonds, and they had a long criminal record, and they commit another offense.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter regarding pretrial release programs.

October 27, 2017.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, House Judiciary Committee,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles Grassley,

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,

Washington, DC.

Gentlemen: We are writing to express our strong support for

HR 2152, the Citizens Right to Know Act, sponsored by Rep.

Ted Poe (R-TX). The legislation has been referred to the

House Judiciary Committee.

This legislation is long overdue. It requires pre-trial

release agencies receiving federal funds to report to the

Department of Justice, who participates in their programs,

including participant:

Criminal history, including previous charges filed

Previous failures to appear for trial

Previous and current non-compliance infractions

Currently these pre-trial release programs aren't required

to report any information about the defendants released

through their programs. Basic information on defendants is

neither collected nor reported in any systematic fashion. The

DOJ only collects data from pre-trial release agencies

related to crime rates and trends in the aggregate. It does

not collect data on specific participants and programs. Thus,

there is no mechanism to determine if pre-trial release

agencies are effective in ensuring that defendants adhere to

their pre-trial release requirements or whether these

defendants actually show up for trial.

Without this legislation, policymakers and taxpayers have

no ability to determine the effectiveness of taxpayer-funded

pre-trial release programs. And without such data, hundreds

of federally funded pretrial release programs lack sufficient

accountability to U.S. taxpayers. This lack of accountability

has allowed many repeat and violent offenders to get out of

jail on our tax dollars.

Until the 1960's, principal options for the accused were

ROR (release on one's own recognizance) commercial bail or

incarceration. Commercial bail ensured the appearance of the

defendant in court at no cost to the taxpayer. Pre-trial

release programs began in the 1960's for the purpose of

securing release for indigent, non-violent offenders who

couldn't afford monetary bail.

However, over the last four decades, pre-trial release

programs have expanded well beyond their original scope and

purpose. Today there are over 300 pre-trial release programs

nationwide whose participants routinely include violent and

repeat offenders, many of whom are able post a commercial

bond and have done so in the past. In many instances, the

federal government has become a major source of funding for

pre-trial release programs.

If Congress continues to fund pre-trial release programs,

then Congress must be able to determine the effectiveness of

such programs. Taxpayers deserve to know if their limited

resources are being spent wisely and their communities are

being protected.

We believe swift passage of H.R. 2152 will provide greater

transparency for pre-trial programs, greater accountability

for taxpayer funds, and increased public safety for our

communities.

Sincerely,

Patricia Wenskunas, Crime Survivors; Mark Klaas, Father

of Polly Klaas, Klaas Kids Foundation; Ronald Lampard,

Criminal Justice Reform, Reform Task Force, American

Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC); Jim Backlin,

Christian Coalition; Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring; Kay

Daily, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary; Susan Carleson,

American Civil Rights Union; Harriett Salerno, Crime

Victims United; Beverly Warnock, Parents of Murdered

Children; Gary Bauer, American Values; Jim Gilmore,

Free Congress/American Opportunity Foundation; Beth

Chapman, Professional Bail Agents Association; Larry

Cirignano, Children First Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, the Citizens Right to Know Act simply states that if a State or local jurisdiction is going to use Federal money for a pretrial release program, they must report to the Federal Government information on who participates in the program, the criminal records of those individuals, the appearance rate at trial, and the previous failure to appear of those programs.

I also want to be clear that any State or local jurisdiction that does not report this information will lose the portion of Federal funds which they use for pretrial release programs only. Other Federal funds will not be affected that go to, for example, Byrne grants. I just want to clear that up because my friend, Ms. Jackson Lee, mentioned that they are going to lose all Federal funds. No. They just lose the funds that apply to Federal pretrial release programs if they don't report those statistics.

There is some question about the privacy of individuals. If States have a law to protect the privacy of certain persons on pretrial release, this bill does not change that. This bill says that if the State has those privacy laws for individuals, which some do, that is fine. That will not be affected or overruled by this Federal law.

I think that this legislation is necessary to see if these programs are working. If they are working, maybe we ought to expand them. If they are not working, maybe Congress needs to reform the pretrial release program.

This legislation enjoys widespread support. One of those supporters is the National Association of Police Organizations. I include in the Record a letter indicating their support.

National Association of

Police Organization, Inc.,

Alexandria, VA, May 9, 2017.

Hon. Ted Poe,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Poe: On behalf of the National Association

of Police Organizations (NAPO), I am writing to you to

express our support for the Citizens' Right to Know Act of

2017, H.R. 2152.

NAPO is a coalition of police unions and associations from

across the United States that serves to advance the interests

of America's law enforcement through legislative and legal

advocacy, political action, and education. Founded in 1978,

NAPO now represents more than 1,000 police units and

associations, 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers, and

more than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to

fair and effective crime control and law enforcement.

Each year, millions of dollars in federal grant monies go

towards state and local pre-trial release programs, which

allow accused criminals to await their trial at home, rather

than in jail These programs, which in many cases serve

repeat, dangerous criminals, often operate with little

oversight, putting public safety at risk. Increased oversight

of these programs would decrease the possibility of the

accused committing crimes while on pretrial release or simply

disappearing to avoid facing justice.

The Citizens' Right to Know Act addresses the lack of

oversight of these programs by mandating that federally-

funded pre-trial service agencies publicly report on program

participants, including if they have a history of criminal

behavior, whether they appear for their trail, and whether

they have ever previously failed to appear for trial. As

federal dollars are going towards bailing out criminals, this

Act helps ensure that the accused face justice and our

communities are protected.

We look forward to working with you to pass this important

legislation.

Sincerely,

William J. Johnson,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this so we can know exactly what is taking place with Federal funds that are being used to keep people and let people, as Ms. Jackson Lee pointed out, out of jail without having to use some other type of system. And if it is working, let's expand it. If it is not working, maybe Congress needs to be involved to make sure that people do show up for trial, because that is the whole key of a bond, is to release the person under some type of bond, like a pretrial release bond, but we want them to appear in court.

I had cases in my court where people were released on pretrial release bonds; they would show up for trial. I had cases in my court where they were released on pretrial release bonds, and they are still running loose years later.

We don't know the statistics of who is released and who comes back and who is released who never comes back.

This legislation just wants a report to Congress so we can decide on reforms if necessary in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, when a person is arrested and charges are filed, usually, now, in our country, they don't sit in jail waiting to see a judge for weeks or months. They see a judge within 24 hours. They appear in court. The judge sets bail. This is all public record, including the name and what the person is accused of. It is already public record. So it is not something that is new.

The judge sets bail and determines if the person can afford a lawyer or not and appoints a lawyer right then, within 24 hours. I think that is marvelous in our country. I remember the old days when that did not happen.

This idea that we are denying a person's right of privacy, it is public already, people who are charged with crimes.

My friend from Georgia said pretrial release works. It is a proven thing to work. Well, how does he know that? Because he says so? We don't know if it works or not.

Mr. Speaker, in April of 2017, 26-year-old Christian Rogers was walking along the street in New Jersey and he was shot 22 times. His assailant, Jules Black, a 30-year-old from Vineland, New Jersey, had just been arrested 4 days earlier by the State police and charged with possession of a handgun. He was released on pretrial release and had a long criminal record.

Christian Rogers is just one example of a victim who was killed because of the pretrial release program. So I would disagree with my friend from Georgia that it is working. We don't know the statistics.

I told you this earlier when I spoke. I was a judge in Harris County for 22 years. People were released on pretrial release. The very people who are released on pretrial release are the people that my friend from Texas is talking about: people who can't afford a surety bond, people who can't afford any kind of bond.

So pretrial release serves its purpose and it serves it to a specific part of the community, but we need to know if it is working, if these people come back for their day in court or they don't come back for their day in court or if they commit a crime while they are on pretrial release. We don't know the statistics.

All this legislation says is let's audit pretrial release across the country and see if it is working, see if it is not working, see if we can make improvements. That is all it is. It is an audit. It is not denying anybody any rights under the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I think the legislation is a good idea. We need to know if taxpayer money is working. I appreciate the extra time the chairman has given me.

Mr. Speaker, that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 872 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

The rule makes in order two bills reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and a Senate joint resolution that gives this House an opportunity to utilize the Congressional Review Act to repeal the CFPB's onerous regulation on indirect auto lenders.

The first proposal we will consider today is the Citizens' Right to Know Act of 2018. This piece of legislation, offered by my friend and colleague from Texas, Judge Ted Poe, will bring much-needed sunlight to the Federal pretrial services programs.

We will also consider legislation offered by my fellow Judiciary Committee member, Representative Handel from Georgia, which ensures companies entering into merger proceedings will receive equal treatment, whether their case is reviewed by the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission.

Finally, the House will consider a joint resolution that will repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's burdensome guidance on indirect auto lending. Senator Moran's legislation previously passed the Senate 51-47 on March 22, 2018. President Trump has also signaled his support for this legislation.

The rule makes in order one amendment to the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules, or SMARTER, Act.

Why?

Because all other amendments offered were not germane to the subject matter being discussed in these important pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today, we have an opportunity to debate a crucial component of the criminal justice system: federal pretrial release programs. Before the 1960s, defendants had three options to be released prior to trial. Individuals were either released upon one's own recognizance, or if they posted commercial bail, or the individual would remain in prison until his or her hearing date.

However, in the 1960s, the Johnson administration established a fourth option: pretrial services programs. These programs were originally intended to assist nonviolent, indigent individuals who did not possess the means to post commercial bail. The program captured information about the alleged offender's community ties and released low-risk individuals without financial obligations. The program only required a signature and a promise to appear in court.

While pretrial release programs were created to serve those individuals who do not pose a threat to the community and could not afford to post commercial bail, these taxpayer-funded programs have quickly expanded and overgrown their original intent.

Today, more than 300 pretrial release programs exist across the United States. These programs are being used to slowly eliminate a successful service that operates independently of Federal tax dollars: the commercial bail system.

In fact, a number of major cities across the country are exploring the potential of moving completely to a pretrial release system while significantly reducing the use of commercial bail.

However, the problem with this expansion and these federally funded pretrial release programs is that they allow violent individuals and repeat offenders to participate even when many of these defendants are perfectly capable of posting a commercial bond and have previously done so.

Offenders are not required to post any collateral for their release. There is no supervision to ensure that they show up in court on their hearing date. Worst of all, there is no incentive to prevent a criminal from committing another crime in the meantime.

If you have ever watched an episode of the popular television show ``Dog the Bounty Hunter,'' you know that this is not how the commercial bail system works. These professionals ensure that defendants show up for trial on the correct date, or they will physically bring the individual in question to the courthouse for their hearing.

On top of these issues, federally funded pretrial release programs are not required to report to the Department of Justice any information regarding an offender's past criminal history, utilization of the pretrial release program, failure to appear before a court, and any other relevant compliance data. A judge is essentially releasing potentially dangerous individuals back into the community with so little as a wink and a promise that they will appear in court.

We cannot allow this practice to continue. Mr. Speaker, our constituents deserve to know whether their tax dollars are being spent responsibly.

Judge Poe's bill, the Citizens' Right to Know Act, will address these significant concerns by ensuring that the Department of Justice and Congress have the information we need to determine whether these programs that receive millions of dollars from the Federal Government are operating effectively.

The legislation requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress annually that includes information regarding each defendant participating in a pretrial release program. The report will include the individual's name, each occasion the individual failed to appear for court, and the individual's previous arrest record.

Additionally, this proposal ensures that local jurisdictions will submit required data to the Department of Justice by establishing that any failure to produce this report will result in forfeiture of a portion of the jurisdiction's Federal grant funds for the following year.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good government solution that will provide much-needed oversight for pretrial services programs and give communities an incentive to ensure we are not allowing violent repeat offenders back on the streets without the correct level of supervision.

Finally, this important legislation will also ensure that the millions of taxpayer dollars we spend annually on those programs are being utilized in the best way possible.

We owe it to our constituents to make sure that we know how their hard-earned money is being spent. It is about time that we brought a little sunlight to these programs that allow potentially violent offenders to go free in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee also moved an important piece of legislation that will bring parity to the merger and acquisition process no matter which Federal agency takes charge of the antitrust review process.

Currently, both the Federal Trade Commission and Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice have authority to enforce section 7 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers and acquisitions that could undermine competition in the marketplace or create a monopoly. Both agencies receive notice of proposed mergers and are given an opportunity to review the transaction, while only one agency ends up taking custody of the transaction.

However, the FTC and DOJ maintain different standards when seeking a preliminary injunction against a proposed merger. This disparity manifests itself in multiple ways. However, one main difference is that the DOJ will often seek both a preliminary and permanent injunction before a district court, while the FTC has fought against this consolidation of injunctions. That means that two separate Federal agencies with two different legal standards oversee the merger process without any clear guidance determining which agency and standard will be used to examine the transaction.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue fostering this double standard surrounding merger and acquisition review. Businesses need certainty before attempting to enter into major transactions, and Federal regulatory bodies must be as transparent as possible when making decisions that can create major ripples in the country's economy.

Representative Handel's bill, the SMARTER Act, gives businesses certainty about how their merger will be reviewed before entering into a major deal. This important piece of legislation harmonizes the Federal antitrust review process by ensuring mergers and acquisitions will be treated identically no matter what Federal regulatory agency reviews the transaction. This bill will treat businesses in a way that will encourage continued economic growth, build market stability, and ensure the review process will be the same no matter which Federal agency reviews the transaction.

Mr. Speaker, while we are debating the topic of financial stability and economic growth, we are also here to discuss an important piece of legislation the Senate recently passed and we will consider on the House floor this week.

The House will debate S.J. Res. 57, Senator Moran's legislation that offers a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that would overturn the CFPB's onerous regulation of the indirect auto lending industry. In fact, despite being expressly prohibited from overseeing auto dealers in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the CFPB promulgated and issued guidance regulating the indirect auto lending industry.

To make matters worse, the CFPB tried to disguise this harmful regulation by issuing it in the form of a guidance document, which does not need to go through the typical notice and comment process. This arduous regulatory scheme sought to disrupt third-party lending, especially from small community banks and credit unions in the auto loan market. The CFPB did so by issuing guidance stating that, in order to avoid liability under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, institutions with indirect lending relationships with auto dealers must either place controls on dealer compensation or forbid dealers from offering a marked-up rate on loans.

The CFPB overstepped its statutory authority once again in what the agency described as an attempt to reduce discrimination in the marketplace. However, as Chairman Hensarling testified before the Rules Committee yesterday, the House sent 13 letters to the CFPB questioning the rationale for the rule and science the agency used to determine that there was discrimination occurring in the marketplace. Not surprisingly, the CFPB could not point to sound science that led to this decision. In fact, new evidence shows that the CFPB's expected outcomes could be off by as much as 20 percent.

To make matters worse, Chairman Hensarling also testified that this rule is expected to increase the per person cost of purchasing an automobile by $586 per loan. I know that in eastern Colorado, $586 makes a big difference. That is the difference between being able to put money aside for taking a family vacation or making much-needed home repairs.

This guidance has only resulted in removing options from consumers, reducing the ability to find affordable auto financing, and setting a dangerous precedent in how to dance around Federal rulemaking processes.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that this Congress takes steps to rein in the CFPB's unaccountable, overbroad regulatory powers. One agency should not have the ability to significantly curtail an entire facet of the lending market. Additionally, no agency should be able to skirt formal rulemaking procedures when issuing guidance of this magnitude.

The CFPB's indirect auto lending rules create an unworkable situation where an independent agency, manned by unaccountable bureaucrats, flagrantly ignored Federal statute to do what it thinks is best for the American people. Instead of benefiting the American people, though, this guidance

threatens to raise the cost of credit, cut back opportunity for indirect lending, and has created disincentives for financial companies to provide customers with discounted auto loans.

Congress must take this opportunity to overturn a detrimental guidance that is not only circumventing the rule of law by disguising new regulations in an effort to draw less scrutiny, but is also raising rates and providing fewer choices for consumers.

This resolution of disapproval will accomplish all of these goals. The legislation, which recently passed in the Senate 51-47, will utilize the Congressional Review Act process to overturn the CFPB's guidance while also sending a clear message that agencies should not be circumventing congressional oversight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have before us a rule that makes three pieces of legislation in order: a bill that increases transparency for pretrial release programs, legislation that streamlines the review process for mergers and acquisitions, and a resolution of disapproval for the CFPB's harmful indirect auto lending rule.

The Federal Government's greatest responsibility to its citizens is to secure their safety and security. Congress has a duty to recognize when there is a security problem that is putting people in jeopardy, especially when it is a Federal pretrial release program that is putting potentially violent offenders onto the streets without any supervision. The American people deserve to know that their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent in the most responsible way possible. We cannot continue pushing millions of dollars into broken programs that release dangerous individuals back on the street.

Additionally, Congress has a statutory duty to ensure that businesses are not pursuing anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. However, that does not mean that we should continue fostering the current climate that features the DOJ and FTC maintaining two distinctly different processes for reviewing these transactions. We have the unique opportunity to create certainty for businesses while harmonizing the review process with the SMARTER Act.

Finally, the House must take advantage of this opportunity to rein in the CFPB utilizing the Congressional Review Act's power to overturn harmful regulations on the indirect auto lending industry. Not only will this resolution of disapproval end a detrimental piece of guidance, but it will also send a strong message to regulatory agencies that they cannot overstep their statutory boundaries and will not get away with attempting to cloak major regulatory actions merely as guidance documents.

I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5645, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act. This bill would significantly undermine the Federal Trade Commission's ability to enforce the Nation's antitrust laws, which help protect Americans from anticompetitive behavior in the marketplace. In the guise of harmonization with the Department of Justice, it would eliminate the FTC's administrative litigation enforcement authority with respect to corporate mergers and other transactions. It would also change and potentially increase the burden the FTC must demonstrate in court when seeking a preliminary injunction against the proposed merger.

In doing so, the bill would undercut a critical tool that the FTC relies on to promote competition. It also risks sacrificing the fundamental nature of the FTC as an independent administrative agency, rather than an executive department, subject to the political whims of the President. This blatant attack on the FTC's congressionally mandated independence contravenes more than a century of legislative intent.

In 1914, Congress responded to a wave of mergers and corporate abuses by establishing the FTC as an independent body of experts tasked with developing and advancing competition policy free from political pressure. In doing so, Congress specifically gave the Commission broad enforcement and investigatory authorities, including the power to challenge anticompetitive mergers and other conduct through administrative litigation.

This broad grant of statutory authority was not accidental. Louis Brandeis, a visionary architect of our Nation's competition system, advocated for the embrace of administrative litigation during Congress' consideration of the FTC Act, and President Woodrow Wilson said such authority was critical to the FTC's mission ``to warn where things were going wrong and assist instead of check.''

As former Republican FTC Chairman William Kovacic warned: ``Without a substantial, effective administrative litigation program, the aim of making the Commission an influential competition policy tribunal could not be accomplished.''

Nevertheless, this bill would eliminate this critical tool for promoting competition and, in the process, would erode the Commission's unique qualities and independence.

To further undermine the Commission's independence, the bill would also require the FTC to meet the same standard in court that the Justice Department meets when seeking a preliminary injunction against the proposed merger. But the FTC and the DOJ are two different agencies with different missions and different traditions.

Under current law, the Commission, by statute, must show that a preliminary injunction ``would be in the public interest.'' The Justice Department, on the other hand, has no statutory standard and must simply meet the common law preliminary injunction standard, such as the balance of equities and the risk of irreparable harm.

As our Nation's leading antitrust enforcers have previously testified, there is no practical difference between the standards or evidence that the Commission has abused its authority. So it is entirely unclear what problem the bill is attempting to solve. But in making this change, this bill could cause unnecessary confusion for the courts or could signal a desire to increase the burden on the agency to demonstrate the harms of an anticompetitive merger. That result alone is unacceptable.

But even more fundamentally, this legislation is a step in the wrong direction for our economy and for the prosperity and security of all Americans. The decline of antitrust enforcement over the past several decades has been an economic catastrophe for millions of workers who have lost their jobs or seen their wages lowered. It has resulted in fewer choices and higher prices for consumers, including increased costs for healthcare, prescription drugs, and other essential goods and services.

The importance of robust antitrust enforcement is not simply a question of preventing higher prices for consumers. In the absence of competition, employers have the power to suppress the wages and mobility of American workers through anticompetitive contracting practices, such as noncompete clauses and no-poach agreements.

And when large corporations run amok, locally owned businesses, the economic lifeblood of our communities, wither on the vine. Concentrated economic power is also a serious threat to our vibrant democracy. Large corporations with an outsized role in the policymaking process are able to further entrench their dominance through favorable rules and enforcement decisions.

And when a large corporation with market power has the ability to control the flow of information, it also has the power to shape public opinion in ways that erode democratic values and undermine the voice of the many in favor of the outsized profits of the few.

By further weakening our antitrust laws, H.R. 5645 would accelerate this disturbing trend. Accordingly, I must oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote against this very bad bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the distinguished ranking member of the Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Open Markets Institute, in its opposition to H.R. 5645 states: ``Given the severity of the concentration problem in America today, and its economic and political consequences, Congress should be looking to enhance the powers of all of America's antimonopoly agencies.''

I strongly agree: Congress should be strengthening, not weakening, our competition system to protect economic opportunity, innovation, and choice. That is why I have joined several of my Democratic colleagues-- Representatives Joe Crowley, David Cicilline, and Keith Ellison--in introducing a package of bold economic measures to strengthen protections that will help ensure that hardworking Americans have more economic opportunity by ending anticompetitive employment practices.

This package includes H.R. 5642, the Restoring and Improving Merger Enforcement Act, legislation that I introduced to prohibit the consideration of false economic efficiencies--like corporate layoffs, actually costing employment--to justify anticompetitive mergers.

But rather than address these important measures, which would actually

help American workers and consumers, or give the antitrust agencies the resources they need to really promote competition, this bill would do the opposite by undermining the FTC's ability to vigorously enforce antitrust laws under the guise of attempting to solve a problem that does not exist.

I would submit that an economy in which we are down to four major airlines and two major railroads, and going in the same direction in almost every other segment of the economy, we should not be weakening our antitrust laws and our antitrust enforcement, we should be strengthening them. This bill goes in exactly the wrong direction and is guaranteed to further increase the concentration of economic power in our economy, and to further decrease the bargaining power that workers have to get decent wages and working conditions.

Mr. Speaker, this is a deeply anti-employee bill, it is a pro- monopoly bill, and it is a very anti-economic growth bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this deeply flawed measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment makes several technical revisions to clarify that the bill does not apply to consummated mergers and other transactions. While this change marginally addresses one concern with the bill, it does nothing to change the most fundamental flaw with the bill, which is that it eliminates the Federal Trade Commission's administrative litigation authority in merger cases.

As we noted during consideration of this bill in the Judiciary Committee last year, and in prior Congresses, the SMARTER Act is overbroad as currently drafted and applies to both unconsummated and consummated transactions.

According to John Jacobson, a leading antitrust attorney, who served as commissioner of the Antitrust Modernization Commission, this bill could easily be ``construed as prohibiting a challenge to the consummation of any merger in administrative proceedings, even a post- merger challenge, notwithstanding the term `proposed.' ''

Technical feedback by senior staff at the FTC, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, confirmed this view.

While the amendment makes the useful clarification that H.R. 5645 would not apply to already consummated transactions, the bill would still eliminate the FTC's ability to use administrative litigation in proposed mergers, striking at the core of the Commission's independence and congressionally mandated design, without any evidence that such a change is warranted or desirable.

As Mr. Jacobson has also noted in his testimony in opposition to a similar

version of this legislation considered by the Senate, eliminating the ``FTC's ability to conduct administrative proceedings in pre- consummation merger challenges is harmful to the sound administration of the antitrust laws.''

At a time when there is an increasing desire across the ideological spectrum to strengthen antitrust enforcement in the face of extreme concentrations of corporate power in industry after industry, the SMARTER Act proposes to go in the opposite direction. Congress was wise to establish an independent agency in 1914 to ensure strong antitrust enforcement, and we would be wise today not to undermine that choice.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment essentially puts lipstick on a pig. It does not change my basic opposition to a bill that is fundamentally flawed in its conception. Therefore, I must oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, as a practical matter, the FTC only challenges a handful of proposed mergers, on average, per year. These transactions present some of the largest, most complex, and potentially most concerning issues. But in most of these cases, the parties either abandon the transaction or negotiate a settlement.

Nonetheless, in those few instances where the FTC does challenge a transaction, it is in a position to answer novel questions of law and, thereby, develop expertise and guidance for future applications. Indeed, that is the whole point of having an FTC, and that is the whole point of administrative adjudication authority.

As the Antitrust Institute has noted in its opposition to the SMARTER Act to this bill, ``the FTC's use of administrative powers should be carefully safeguarded, because it has contributed critically to the effective shaping of U.S. merger policy without detracting from the speed or effectiveness of merger review.''

In addition, Republican FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen's 2016 study on administrative litigation debunks the claim of procedural bias against merging parties. Her study found that the FTC's appellate success and case work ``do not support a narrative that the Commission blindly supports ill-conceived cases because of systemic bias. To the contrary, they show a recent history of solid, well-supported enforcement actions.''

Even where the FTC does not use administrative adjudication, the potential use of this tool is invaluable in the agency's ability to successfully get emerging parties to agree to structural remedies, such as divestitures, to address concerns with a proposed merger.

It is unthinkable to remove the FTC's administrative litigation authority, as this amendment would continue to do, when such authority is only used to protect against the most anticompetitive mergers that are certain to substantially lessen competition, harm consumers, raise prices, and hurt workers.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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.

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