[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8794-H8796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  FOUNDATION OF THE FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION CHARTER AMENDMENTS ACT OF 
                                  2019

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1663) to amend title 36, United States Code, to revise the 
Federal charter for the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1663

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Foundation of the Federal 
     Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 2019''.

     SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION.

       Section 70501 of title 36, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking subsection (b) and redesignating subsection (c) 
     as subsection (b).

     SEC. 3. MEMBERSHIP.

       Section 70503 of title 36, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Eligibility.--Except as provided in this chapter, 
     eligibility for membership in the corporation and the rights 
     and privileges of members are as provided in the bylaws.''; 
     and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).

     SEC. 4. GOVERNING BODY.

       Section 70504 of title 36, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 70504. Governing body

       ``(a) Board of Directors.--The board of directors is the 
     governing body of the corporation. The board may exercise, or 
     provide for the exercise of, the powers of the corporation. 
     The board of directors and the responsibilities of the board 
     are as provided in the bylaws.
       ``(b) Officers.--The officers and the election of the 
     officers are as provided for in the bylaws.''.

     SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS.

       Section 70507 of title 36, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 70507. Restrictions

       ``(a) Stock and Dividends.--The corporation may not issue 
     stock or declare or pay a dividend.
       ``(b) Political Activities.--The corporation or a director 
     or officer in his or her corporate capacity may not 
     contribute to, support, or participate in any political 
     activity or in any manner attempt to influence legislation.
       ``(c) Distribution of Income or Assets.--The income or 
     assets of the corporation may not inure to the benefit of, or 
     be distributed to, a director, officer, or member during the 
     life of the charter granted by this chapter. This subsection 
     does not prevent the payment, in amounts approved by the 
     board of directors, of--
       ``(1) reasonable compensation; or
       ``(2) reimbursement for expenses incurred in undertaking 
     the corporation's business, to officers, directors, or 
     members.

     This subsection does not prevent the award of a grant to a 
     Federal Bar Association chapter of which an officer, 
     director, or member may be a member. This subsection also 
     does not prevent the payment of reasonable compensation to 
     the corporation's employees for services undertaken on behalf 
     of the corporation.
       ``(d) Loans.--The corporation may not make a loan to a 
     director, officer, member, or employee.
       ``(e) Immunity From Liability.--Members and private 
     individuals are not liable for the obligations of the 
     corporation.
       ``(f) Claim of Governmental Approval or Authority.--The 
     corporation may not claim congressional approval or the 
     authority of the United States Government for any of its 
     activities; it may, however, acknowledge this charter.''.

     SEC. 6. PRINCIPAL OFFICE.

       Section 70508 of title 36, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``the District of Columbia,'' and inserting ``a 
     United States location decided by the board of directors and 
     specified in the bylaws,''.

     SEC. 7. SERVICE OF PROCESS.

       Section 70510 of title 36, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 70510. Service of process

       ``The corporation shall comply with the law on service of 
     process of the State or District in which it is 
     incorporated.''.

     SEC. 8. DEPOSIT OF ASSETS ON DISSOLUTION OR FINAL 
                   LIQUIDATION.

       Section 70512 of title 36, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 70512. Deposit of assets on dissolution or final 
       liquidation

       ``On dissolution or final liquidation of the corporation, 
     any assets of the corporation remaining after the discharge 
     of all liabilities shall be distributed as provided by the 
     board of directors, but in compliance with the charter and 
     bylaws.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am proud to have served as the lead Democratic cosponsor of this 
bill introduced by my friend from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), H.R. 1663, the 
Foundation of the Federal Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 
2019.
  The Federal Bar Association serves as the primary voluntary bar 
association for attorneys, both in the private and public sectors, 
practicing in Federal courts. This bill will permit the FBA Foundation 
to better fulfill its role as the only institution in America chartered 
by Congress to promote the Federal administration of justice, the 
advancement of Federal jurisprudence, and the practice of law in the 
Federal courts by providing it with the organizational flexibility that 
it needs to fully meet its contemporary mission.
  The original 1954 charter created a framework that has served FBA for 
the last six decades. During these years, the foundation has indeed 
strengthened Federal jurisprudence, advanced legal education, and 
promoted effective legal practice. The organization's initiatives have 
also directly improved the lives of our people.
  For example, one community outreach program, the Wills for Veterans 
Initiative, is a pro bono project where FBA chapters provide the 
drafting of wills and signing services for veterans in their 
communities. I know a number of my constituents who participate have 
found great fulfillment working on this project, just as many veterans 
have benefited from it.
  Another initiative establishes a mentorship program for law students 
to work alongside experienced attorneys.
  The current charter must be amended to allow the organization greater 
flexibility of operation and growth.
  For example, the existing charter codifies strict membership and 
governance requirements that constrain member development and nimble 
governance of the organization. This rigidity presents serious 
challenges as the organization seeks to expand its critical charitable 
and educational initiatives.
  H.R. 1663 makes technical fixes to the charter that will give the FBA 
the needed flexibility in the new century. In the place of 
legislatively fixed membership criteria, it permits the FBA to 
proactively establish and update membership criteria through the bylaws 
process. Similar provisions authorize enhanced flexibility in the 
composition and duties of the members of the board.
  In general, this measure would enable the FBA to swiftly meet its 
needs and improve the administration of Federal justice.
  A similar version of the bill was introduced last year, which was 
passed by this body on a voice vote, but it did not pass in the Senate 
for various reasons. One was that the language in the bill's proposed 
nondiscrimination provision did not explicitly prohibit discrimination 
on the basis of gender identity, as most of the new antidiscrimination 
legislation does.
  To that end, I am very pleased that the Federal Bar Association took 
it upon itself to amend its own bylaws on April 18 of this year to 
include the following language: ``The terms of membership may not 
discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, 
age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.''
  As a cosponsor of the Equality Act, introduced by the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), my good friend, I fully support equal 
rights for all. The proactive amendment of the FBA bylaws, I believe, 
makes clear the

[[Page H8795]]

intent of the Federal Bar Association that everyone must be protected 
against invidious discrimination.
  In light of this development, I believe that H.R. 1663 will help the 
FBA to flourish for many decades to come. I strongly support the bill, 
and I look forward to the FBA's continued positive involvement in our 
Nation's Federal legal system, and I urge all of my colleagues to 
support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 1663, the Foundation of the Federal 
Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 2019. I appreciate the 
gentleman and his fine laying out of what the bill actually does. I 
thank him and Congressman   Steve Chabot for their work on this 
legislation and for their support of the Federal Bar Association.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
him for bringing this bill to the floor.
  I support the mission and work of the Foundation of the Federal Bar 
Association. I support passage of H.R. 1663, which would give the 
foundation more operational flexibility, as I did when the House passed 
a similar version last Congress.
  However, I would be remiss if I did not note my concern with section 
6 of this bill. Federal law requires the foundation's principal office 
to be in the District of Columbia. Section 6 would amend that 
requirement and allow the foundation to have its principal office at 
any location in the United States decided by its board of directors and 
specified by its bylaws. Currently, the foundation's principal office 
is in Arlington, Virginia, in violation of Federal law.
  I am speaking on this bill not to oppose it but to make a larger 
point about the location of Federal agencies. While the foundation is a 
federally chartered corporation and operates independently of the 
Federal Government, H.R. 1663 comes to the floor at a time when the 
Trump administration and many Members of Congress, among them my 
Republican colleagues, are working to relocate Federal agencies outside 
the national capital region.
  Recently, Senators Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn introduced a bill 
that would relocate most agencies outside of the Nation's Capital and 
the national capital region. We can have a discussion on ways to make 
government work better for the American people, but such bills should 
not be part of that discussion.
  These types of bills or administration proposals are often used for 
cheap talking points against the national capital region and Federal 
employees or are intended to undermine the work of the Federal agencies 
the bills or proposals are ostensibly designed to help.
  Eighty-five percent of Federal employees work outside of the national 
capital region already. Hundreds of Federal employees and their 
families have already been harmed by the recent relocation of two U.S. 
Department of Agriculture agencies, as has the work of those agencies.
  Congress cannot do its job without the unvarnished facts and 
briefings that nonpartisan agencies give the House and Senate almost 
daily. I have already gotten language in appropriations bills that 
would block politically motivated moves outside of the national capital 
region, and I will continue to fight agency relocations with every tool 
at my disposal.
  Fortunately, H.R. 1663 is not about relocation.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman, who is a great champion for the people of 
Washington, D.C., and I could not agree more with her sentiments about 
efforts being made in the Senate to relocate agencies central to the 
operation of the national government away from the national capital 
region. I stand firmly with her in opposition to that disturbing trend.
  As the gentlewoman noted, the Foundation of the Federal Bar 
Association operates independently of the Federal Government and is 
currently headquartered in Arlington. I have received assurances from 
the FBA that they have no plans to relocate their principal offices as 
a result of the passage of this bill.
  FBA's mission and institutional interests, advancing the quality of 
justice in the Federal judiciary, necessitate location close to 
Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Ohio is prepared to close, I am as 
well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The gentleman from Georgia is not prepared to close because, frankly, 
the gentleman from Ohio is on his way. I will do the best I can here.
  Mr. Speaker, interesting discussion today. I could go on. I think it 
is interesting. Again, sometimes we get lost in the formalities and 
everything else of what is going on here. But this discussion about 
moving offices outside the District and moving them around is an issue 
and discussion that should be had.
  I think there are some that are very vital to being here in the 
District or, as in the case of this organization, in Arlington, just 
outside the District. But then there are also some very real concerns 
on how we can discuss that.
  I think one of the things that we have lost, and I will discuss here 
since we are in this mode, is this discussion of having a real, honest, 
back-and-forth discussion on legislation and pieces of legislation or, 
honestly, where things need to be.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is something that is vitally missing, 
probably from both sides of the aisle, especially this year, as we look 
at the context of bills and stuff that have gone on without the benefit 
of true bipartisan discussion. I can think of the arbitration bill that 
was just recently on the floor, in which there were very real concerns 
that Republicans had, very real concerns the Democrats had.
  Unfortunately, when I actually mentioned to the chairman that I think 
we could have gotten a bill that would have had 375, 400 votes on the 
floor for ``yes,'' my chairman was amazed. Do you think we really could 
have? And I said, yes, if we had engaged in dialogue to fix what was 
wrong and not try to do a whole rewrite on something that could get 
made into law.
  I think these are the kind of discussions that are very good. I think 
these are the kind of discussions that make it.
  I appreciate so much the gentlewoman taking up for the District of 
Columbia. I think that is exactly why we come here. I come here from 
the perspective of northeast Georgia. The gentleman comes from 
Maryland. The gentlewoman comes from the District right here.
  Members from all over the body bring their ideas and their thoughts 
of their constituents to the floor, especially in markups and 
especially in bills, in which not everything, at the end of the day, is 
from a Republican or Democratic standpoint.
  At the end of day, as someone who has authored many pieces of 
legislation, just as the gentleman has as well, the big things get done 
when we work together. The big things--I mean, criminal justice reform 
was when Hakeem Jeffries and I bridged a large gap in a divide, even an 
unruly Senate, to actually pass something that really worked.
  We had the Music Modernization Act, which, again, took 6 years to 
discuss and 6 years to be a part of. When you had Members of the bodies 
that ended up being a part of this not even willing to sit down and 
talk to each other at the beginning of this process and, at the end of 
the day, having a major accomplishment and a major bill that was passed 
because of bipartisanship, I think that it gave on both sides.

                              {time}  1230

  I appreciate the gentlewoman bringing those things up. I think it is 
an interesting correlation between the Federal Bar Association and the 
excellent work that they do. I have no problem with the work that they 
do.
  I will reserve, if the gentleman would like to share and respond on 
what we just talked about.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H8796]]

  

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the distinguished and always eloquent gentleman from 
Georgia for his comments on a number of interesting things. One is the 
question of bipartisanship and us working together, and I think the 
gentleman correctly invites us to study the record of legislative 
success and achievements in our body.
  It is true that the best legislation, like the Voting Rights Act, for 
example, is legislation that came through a bipartisan process where we 
had both parties working together.
  All of our great Presidents have been people who themselves were 
involved in partisan politics, and often in a bare-knuckled way, but 
also, once they were in office, called the country to try to speak 
across party lines.
  Jefferson said, ``We are all republicans. We are all federalists'' in 
his inaugural address in 1800.
  And Lincoln, of course, said: We are friends; we must not be enemies. 
We must be friends, and we must not be enemies.
  And President Obama said: We are not the red States of America; we 
are not the blue States of America. We are the United States of 
America.
  And so we have to try to aspire to that even though we work in a 
party system. And the reason we have a party system is because we are 
not a one-party dictatorship.
  One way to get rid of partisanship is you get rid of political 
parties and you have a one-party state. But we don't believe in that. 
We have got political freedom in America.
  But, at the same time, once we get in, the same way that we render 
constituent service to all of our constituents without regard to 
whether they are Democrats or Republicans or Independents, we should 
try to render legislative service to the whole country at the same 
time.
  Let me just make one other point to my friend about the Seat of 
Government Clause.
  Now, as the gentleman knows, the distinguished gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia represents 700,000 people who have no voting 
representation in Congress, and the basis for that, what I think is a 
historical accident, has been the existence of the District Clause that 
Congress exercises exclusive legislation over the land that is ceded to 
Congress for the purposes of a seat of government.
  Well, I suppose to the extent that there is an attempt to justify us 
being the only country on Earth where the people of the Capital City 
are not represented, it has to do with the fact that this is where the 
Federal Government is located.
  Now, the District of Columbia is involved in a statehood struggle, 
which I support. Like every other American, they want to be part of a 
State. But as long as they are in the so-called seat of government, it 
seems to me that the gentlewoman makes a good point, which is that 
truly Federal functions should not be stripped away from Washington, 
D.C., and relocated around the country.
  Now, most Federal employees don't live in the National Capital area; 
80 to 85 percent of them live across America at Army bases or post 
offices, Departments of Justice around the country. They work in all of 
those Federal functions around the country.
  But there are certain things that do belong here. The Federal 
departments clearly belong within the seat of government, and I think 
that the gentlewoman was just identifying that there has been an effort 
to strip away essential Federal functions and to relocate them to other 
parts of the country, leaving her constituents with the worst of both 
worlds, which is no representation the way that our constituents are 
represented, but, at the same time, a gradual stripping away of the 
Federal offices and departments.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker and I 
will yield him the balance of my time, so when he yields back, I will 
close.
  I appreciate that now that the airplane has circled enough and we 
have run out of enough fuel, we are now on to the next topic, and I 
appreciate the gentleman discussing that.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for his 
leadership on this particular piece of legislation that I am going to 
discuss now.
  I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 1663. Put simply, this bill helps 
to support those Federal attorneys who prosecute major drug 
traffickers, white-collar criminals, and others who commit Federal 
crimes and those Federal judges who preside over cases heard in their 
courtrooms.
  In a few short months, the Federal Bar Association will celebrate the 
centennial anniversary of its founding. It was founded with a mission 
to promote and support legal research and education, to advance the 
science of jurisprudence, to facilitate the administration of justice, 
and to foster improvements in the practice of Federal law.
  Back in 1954, Congress chartered the Federal Bar Association, but in 
the decades since receiving its charter, it has neither been updated 
nor amended.
  As a former educator and attorney and current senior member of the 
Judiciary Committee myself, I recognize, as many of my colleagues do, 
the important work that the Federal Bar Association does to bring 
civics education to classrooms in my State of Ohio and throughout the 
country.
  Without legislation like this, H.R. 1663, it would take, literally, 
an act of Congress to allow the Federal Bar Association to make simple 
changes to its bylaws.
  More specifically, this legislation gives the association the ability 
to choose the location of its principal office, restricts its officers 
from engaging in political activity, and makes other technical changes 
to conform to commonly used language used by other congressionally 
chartered groups.
  This legislation being considered today serves to provide the Federal 
Bar Association with the ability to continue its important work and 
scholarship in communities throughout the country.
  Finally, I want to again thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin) for his support of H.R. 1663, and I want to thank both Chairman 
Nadler and Ranking Member Collins for bringing it to the floor today 
for consideration. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support it.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Chabot for his excellent 
work on this legislation, and I want to thank Mr. Collins for his 
thoughtful intervention.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill was advanced to allow the Foundation of the 
Federal Bar Association the flexibility it needs to successfully manage 
its own affairs, as Mr. Chabot pointed out. I urge its passage, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 1663.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________