[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.
____________________