F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The ObamaCare bailout package has no chance of passing in the Senate. The majority leader just admitted that. This is a missed opportunity, and it is highly disappointing. The American people want us to work in a bipartisan manner. The American people want us to accomplish things, and this is a poison pill that will make sure that this bill never sees the light of day in the Senate and will never become law. When they take up this bill, I hope they strip out all the ObamaCare bailout--free of poison pills--and pass the bipartisan drug pricing bills so the House will be able to reconsider them in a more bipartisan fashion.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 987, the ObamaCare bailout act. One of the things that has frustrated me in the almost 5 months that the Democrats have controlled this Chamber is that anything that is good, bipartisan, and for the people they turn into a partisan screaming contest. That is exactly what they have done with the CREATES Act, which will bring down prescription drug prices and has strong bipartisan support in both Houses and, as a standalone bill, would have a very good chance of being signed into law. So we can talk today about all of these things about ObamaCare that the other side of the aisle wants to put more money into, but that is going nowhere. I think what we should do is look at what we can accomplish, and we can accomplish changing the way that drugs are priced through the CREATES Act. At a time when everything is a dramatic political battle, lowering prescription drug prices is one of the few opportunities where it seemed like Republicans and Democrats could get something meaningful done for the American people. Just a few weeks ago, the Judiciary and Energy and Commerce Committees worked across the aisle unanimously reporting out several bills to that end. My friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), and I are sponsors of one of those bills, the CREATES Act. Our commonsense legislation would allow consumers to access cheaper generic drugs sooner, driving down costs and saving taxpayers money. According to CBO estimates, our bill would save the American taxpayer $3.9 billion over 10 years. This bill has the kind of bipartisan support to become law. However, instead of letting this body vote on our commonsense bill in standalone form, the Democratic leadership has tacked it on to this ObamaCare bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, due to a scheduled medical procedure, I was physically absent from the House of Representatives from January 10, 2019 to February 5, 2019. During that time, I missed 44 recorded votes. Had I been present for those votes, I would have voted: on Roll Call No. 22 on the Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 267, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 23 on the Passage of H.R. 267, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 24 on the Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 265, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 25 on the Passage of H.R. 265, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 26 on the Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 266, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 27 on the Passage of H.R. 266, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 28 on the Passage of S. 24, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 29 on the Passage of H.R. 221, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 30 on the Passage of H.R. 116, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 31 on the Passage of H.J. Res. 27, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 32 on the Passage of H. Res. 41, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 33 on the Passage of H.R. 135, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 34 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 43, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 35 on the Adoption of H. Res. 43, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 36 on the Passage of H.R. 190, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 37 on the Passage of Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. McGovern (D- MA), I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 38 on Ordering the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 39 on the Passage of H.R. 268, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 40 on the Adoption of H. Res. 52, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 41 on the Passage of H.R. 150, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 42 on the Passage of H.J. Res. 30, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 43 on Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 44 on the Passage of H.R. 676, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 45 on the Passage of H.R. 328, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 46 on the Passage of H.J. Res 28, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 47 on the Passage of H. Res. 61, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 48 on the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 49 on the Passage of H.R. 648, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 50 on the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 51 on the Passage of H.J. Res. 31, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 52 on the Passage of H.R. 624, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 53 on the Passage of H.R. 502, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 54 on Approving of the Speaker's Journal, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 55 on the Motion to Adjourn, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 56 on the Passage of H.R. 428, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 57 on the Passage of H.R. 449, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 58 on the Passage of H.R. 769, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 59 on the Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider H. Res. 77, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 60 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 87, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 61 on the Passage of H. Res. 87, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 62 on the Passage of Amendment No. 3 offered by Mrs. Trahan (D-MA), I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 63 on the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 64 on the Passage of H.R. 790, I would have voted ``Nay;'' and on Roll Call No. 65 on the Passage of H. Res. 79, I would have voted ``Nay.''

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I proudly recognize the 46th annual March for Life taking place on January 18, 2019. Thousands of Americans from across our great country have made the pilgrimage to Washington to stand up for the protection of unborn children. Ever since the Supreme Court's reprehensible ruling in Roe vs. Wade, the barbaric practice of abortion on demand has been rampant in our nation. Too often people erroneously conflate abortion with women's health care, presenting a false choice of caring for women or protecting life. It is possible to do both. I stand firmly with the millions of Americans who believe that we must protect the lives of innocent children. I have long been a staunch advocate for pro-life issues. During my tenure as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I shepherded the ban on partial-birth abortion through Congress. It was one of my greatest honors to watch President George W. Bush sign it into law. I have fully supported every effort in Congress to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions--both in the United States and abroad--and will continue to fight efforts to reverse this practice. I am inspired by all who have traveled to Washington to participate in the March for Life, especially those from Wisconsin, and am grateful for all who believe that every life is precious and must be protected.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, due to unavoidable circumstances, I was physically absent from the House of Representatives on December 21, 2018. On that day, I missed 9 recorded votes. I submit for the Record how I would have voted had I been present for those votes. On Roll Call No. 474 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, H.R. 1063, had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.'' On Roll Call No. 475 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, H.R. 7318, had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.'' On Roll Call No. 476 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, H.R. 7319, had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.'' On Roll Call No. 477 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, H.R. 7329, had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.'' On Roll Call No. 478 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, S. 3367, had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.'' On Roll Call No. 479 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, H.R. 7293, had I been present, would have voted ``Aye.'' On Roll Call No. 480 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, S. 2276, had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye'' On Roll Call No. 481 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, S. 3031, had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.'' On Roll Call No. 482 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, S. 3191, had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.''

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, Congress has spent years talking about reducing crime, enacting fair sentencing laws, and restoring lives. Today, we are putting our words into action, and this is historic. I am proud to have been a leader in this effort for over a decade: First, introducing the original Second Chance Act with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), then serving as chairman of the Over Criminalization Task Force in 2013, and introducing a comprehensive criminal justice reform bill with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). This Congress, I sponsored the Second Chance Reauthorization Act, which helps prisoners rejoin their families and reenter society. I am happy to note that the First Step Act includes this reauthorization. The Second Chance Act was originally passed with bipartisan support and signed into law in 2008. This first-of-its-kind legislation authorized Federal grants for vital programs aimed at improving the reentry process and reducing recidivism. Grants have been used for a wide range of improved supervision practices and reentry programs, including employment assistance and job skills training, treatment for mental and substance abuse disorders, education, housing assistance, family services, and mentoring. Reauthorizing the Second Chance Act is an essential step to reducing our prison population and improving the overall criminal justice system. By providing the resources needed to coordinate reentry services and policies at the State and local levels, this legislation will ensure that the tax dollars spent on corrections do not simply fuel a revolving door in and out of prison. I urge my colleagues to support the First Step Act.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7164. The United States was built on the hard work and the determination of immigrants, many of them who hailed from Ireland. Through their perseverance, they have enabled this country to grow and prosper. I believe in the value and opportunity that comes with legal immigration. I am pleased to have authored this legislation to make the process more efficient for one of our oldest allies and add to the great legacy of cultural diversity celebrated in our country. This modest proposal would give Irish nationals the opportunity to work in the United States under the nonimmigrant visa category of the E-3 visa, previously reserved only for Australian nationals. Ireland, in the meantime, has proposed a reciprocal work visa specific to U.S. nationals so that those wanting to live and work in Ireland can move easily to do so. The E-3 visa is one of the most efficient U.S. visa options. The applicants outside the United States may apply directly at a U.S. consulate, thus avoiding the lengthy processing time with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The visas are granted for 2-year periods, renewable indefinitely, and the spouses of E-3 visa holders are permitted to apply for employment authorization documents. Currently, 10,500 E-3 visas are allocated each year, yet only half of these are used. This legislation would allow Irish nationals to apply for those visas unused by Australian nationals. This significant addition to the U.S. immigration system will not only benefit Irish nationals seeking employment in the United States but also ease restrictions on Americans wanting to live or retire in Ireland. In conclusion, I would say that this does not increase the number of visas that are authorized in total. It merely allows Irish nationals to apply for the visas that Australian nationals do not want to use on a year-to-year basis. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, due to unavoidable circumstances relating to my health, I was physically absent from the House of Representatives on November 16, 2018. On that day, I missed two recorded votes. On Roll Call No. 419, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 5787, had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.'' On Roll Call No. 420, on Passage of H.R. 6784, had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.''

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bipartisan legislation. The Endangered Species Act helps species recover, and let me tell you, it works. In 1980, there were 25 wolves in Wisconsin. Recently, that number grew to 232 wolf packs--roughly 900 wolves. Now that the wolf population is recovered, states must be allowed to take over management. The rising wolf population means livestock and hunting dogs fall prey to attacks, and as long as federal protections remain in place, Wisconsinites cannot protect their property. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6784 because, outside of dire circumstances, states are the most effective managers of wildlife and the policies affecting state residents. This legislation restores power to states, and I hope all my colleagues join me in voting for it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering H.R. 6847, the Preventing Child Exploitation Act, which includes a reauthorization of key provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. As the original sponsor of the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, I have made a point to seek remedies to prevent the sexual exploitation of our nation's children. This law strengthened sex offender registry requirements and enforcement across the country, extended registry requirements to Indian tribes, increased penalties for child predators, and authorized funding for a number of programs to strengthen our defenses against child exploitation. A primary component of the law is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (``SORNA''), which set minimum guidelines for state sex offender registries. SORNA also established the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website, a comprehensive national system for the registration and notification to the public of sex offenders. Currently, this registry contains information on more than 600,000 convicted sex offenders in the United States. But, as several widely-publicized scandals have shown, the fight against child exploitation is not over. The Justice Department reports that only 16 states, three territories, and 36 tribes have substantially implemented SORNA, despite a July 27, 2011 deadline for reaching substantial compliance. There are also an estimated 100,000 fugitive sex offenders across the United States who are unregistered or otherwise noncompliant with their registry requirements. H.R. 6847 includes a five year reauthorization of the two primary programs of the Adam Walsh Act. These include the Sex Offender Management Assistance Program, which provides funding to the states, tribes and other jurisdictions to offset the costs of implementing and enhancing SORNA, and funding for the U.S. Marshals Service and other law enforcement agencies to assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex offenders who violate registration requirements. The bill also reauthorizes grants for the treatment of juvenile sex offenders, as well as funding for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (``NCMEC''), a Congressionally-authorized not-for- profit corporation that provides resources for families and law enforcement officials to assist in the recovery of missing children and prevent the victimization of children. By incorporating feedback from the states, the bill makes targeted changes to the SORNA requirements in order to facilitate the states' compliance with the Act. These changes include giving the States more flexibility in classifying sex offenders on their registry, lowering the period that certain juveniles must register to 25 years, and limiting public access to juvenile sex offender information.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 5, 2018, I missed votes due to an illness. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: On Roll Call no. 382, on ordering the previous question, I would have voted Yes. On Roll Call no. 383, the adoption of the Combined Rule Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1635 and H.R. 4606, I would have voted Yes. On Roll Call no. 384, the Democrat Motion to Recommit, I would have voted No. On Roll Call no. 385, passage of H.R. 1635, the Empowering Students through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act, I would have voted Yes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there are two flaws in the gentleman's argument. The first flaw, we ought to go back to why the Kelo case got to the Supreme Court. Mrs. Kelo owned a house. She didn't want to sell it. What the city decided is that the public purpose that was served was by condemning the house and allowing an office building to be built so that the community could collect higher property taxes because the office building would end up being assessed at a greater value than Mrs. Kelo's house. Now, that was the so-called public purpose. The thing is, without this legislation, any property that could be taxed higher if it were condemned and there were a replacement property that was put up could end up being condemned under the Kelo decision, and the homeowner would be out of luck and out of their house and have to find some more housing. The second complaint the gentleman from New York makes is that the penalties for violations are too severe. Well, you don't change the activity of anybody if there are no penalties at all or the penalty is just a tap on the wrist. Just think of what would happen if we still had a law that said that everybody had to stop at a red light, but there was never a fine or any points or any impact on one's insurance policy because there was no moving vehicle violation. Good luck everybody in this country getting home from work tonight if that were the attitude toward traffic violations. There has to be some kind of a severe violation. If the city is concerned that they might be violating the terms of this bill, they can always go to court and ask that their condemnation action be withdrawn. Hopefully, the judge will grant it to be withdrawn with prejudice, but at least it can be withdrawn. The city can stop this procedure any time they want to before there is an actual condemnation judgment that is entered by the court. This is designed to slow down and stop legislation when the sole public purpose is to collect more property taxes because there is a more expensive structure that is being built there. Both of these arguments, I think, do not have any merit whatsoever and that is why this bill ought to pass. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering H.R. 1689, the Private Property Rights Protection Act. My bill aims to restore the property rights of all Americans that the Supreme Court took away in 2005. The Founders of our country recognized the importance of an individual's right to personal property when they drafted the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states: ``nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court decided that economic development could be a public use under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the government could take private property from an owner--in this case, Susette Kelo-- to help a corporation or private developer--in this case, Pfizer. The now infamous Kelo decision generated a massive backlash. As former Justice O'Connor stated: ``The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.'' Even in the 13 years since Kelo, polls show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose property being taken and transferred to another private owner, even if it is for the public economic good. The Private Property Rights Protection Act is needed to restore to all Americans the property rights the Supreme Court invalidated. Although several States have since passed legislation to limit their power to eminent domain, and a number of supreme courts have barred the practice under their State constitutions, these laws exist on a varying degree. H.R. 1689 would prohibit State and local governments that receive Federal economic development funds from using economic development as a justification for taking property from one person and giving to another private entity. Any State or local government that violates this prohibition will be ineligible to receive Federal economic development funds for 2 years. The protection of property rights is one of the most important tenets of our government. I am mindful of the long history of eminent domain abuses, particularly in low-income and often predominantly minority neighborhoods, and the need to stop it. I am also mindful of the reasons we should allow the government to take the land when the way in which land is being used constitutes an immediate threat to public health and safety. I believe this bill accomplishes both goals. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting private property rights for all Americans and limiting the dangerous effects of the Kelo decision on the most vulnerable in our society. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1689, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1689) to protect private property rights.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2018, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the thirty-nine preceding years I have served in the Congress. Assets

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the selfless men and women who serve at Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These brave individuals risk their lives every day to protect our Nation and enforce our laws. They deserve our admiration and support, not a ``present'' vote. It is disgusting and unconscionable that Members of the political left, Members in this very Chamber, continue to denigrate these patriots. One prominent gubernatorial candidate declared ICE a terrorist organization. A House Member called ICE fascist. Another Member of this body said that ICE agents, who were just doing their job, were cowardly. I wish that I was making this up. Talk about shameful statements, talk about inflammatory statements to a law enforcement agency that is responsible for the internal enforcement of both our immigration and customs laws. Mr. Speaker, these attacks are utterly despicable. While #AbolishICE might make for a catchy bumper sticker for radical leftists, it is harmful to our law enforcement. Today, I join with my colleagues in supporting this resolution and commending ICE agents for their hard work.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the inauguration of the new office complex for the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), and to highlight the importance of U.S.-Taiwan relations. This relationship has a vital impact on the peace, security and stability of the Western Pacific. The inauguration ceremony for this new facility will be attended by a number of dignitaries, including Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen. This event represents much more than the opening of just another new office complex in metropolitan Taipei. It stands as a concrete example of the firm commitment and unbreakable bonds that exist between the peoples of the United States and Taiwan. Next year will mark the 40th anniversary of the passage and signing into law of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which has served as a cornerstone for our vigorous security, economic and people-to-people bilateral relationship. It was a proud moment in the history of this Congress when we took the lead in assuring that the Carter Administration's decision to grant diplomatic recognition to Beijing would not come at the expense of Taiwan. The people of Taiwan have earned our friendship and support as they share our own dedication to democracy, human rights, and a free market economy. I am one of the few remaining members who personally witnessed the historic passage of the TRA. Let us stand with Taiwan here again today by recognizing the continued American support of Taiwan through the inauguration of this new AIT facility.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the Music Modernization Act, which the House is considering is a major step forward in providing fairness for those in the music industry. This legislation updates several key provisions of U.S. copyright law regarding music licensing, including the creation of a single licensing entity to administer mechanical reproduction rights for digital music compositions, and the establishment of royalty payments for pre-1972 artists. I am proud to support it. While this legislation is a major achievement, there are additional issues around the public performance of musical works which have been a priority for me that must be addressed. Specifically, we need to address the fact that venues such as restaurants, bars, hotels, wineries, breweries and other retail establishments cannot rely on the repertories published by the Performing Rights Organizations to make decisions about what music to play. I've heard from many business owners in my district throughout the years that have had to decrease their use of live music as a result of a complicated and convoluted music licensing process. Currently, they face a ``take it or leave it'' situation: Either buy licenses from all the Performing Rights Organizations or don't play music. This not only hurts small businesses, it hurts the artists when their music isn't played. This problem certainly isn't localized to Wisconsin. It's happening throughout the entire country, and it's up to Congress to take the necessary steps to fix it. For this reason, I introduced H.R. 3350, the Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act, last year. This bill would establish a fully searchable, up-to-date, comprehensive digital database of historical and current copyright ownership and licensing information. By increasing transparency we can help ensure that when a business pays a music licensing fee, it knows exactly what it is buying. It is my hope that this and other issues can be addressed in subsequent legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the reason we have a big deficit is not due to a lack of tax revenue; it is due to the fact that Congress spends too much money. Now, let me repeat that. The deficit and the debt are not caused by a lack of tax revenue. It is because there is too much money that is authorized and spent right here in the Congress of the United States. This proposed constitutional amendment will give us the discipline that we have not had, as we have sat and watched the deficit go up and up and up and up and away. It is the responsibility of Presidents of both political parties that this has happened, and maybe it is time for us to tell colleagues now and in the future and Presidents now and in the future that the time to put things on the cuff is at an end. I would say that doing what we have done, which means spending money on ourselves and sending the bill plus interest to the next generations, is bad economics. But it is also immoral. Now, I have a grandson who is a little bit more than a year old, and unless Congress stops doing this, he is going to end up having a debt that will boggle the mind that he and his contemporaries are going to have difficulty meeting. So what do we need to do? Number one, we need to stop passing bloated omnibus bills. I voted ``no'' proudly on the omnibus bill, which busted the budget and added to the debt. We need to start getting honest about the fact that entitlement programs are spiraling out of control. And that doesn't mean cutting entitlement programs for existing people; it means slowing down their growth rate. But that is something that nice people aren't supposed to talk about, particularly here in Congress. But it is something that is necessary if those entitlement programs are going to be worth anything for future generations when they may need them rather than dealing with the present generation. Now, I know we can all count up votes, and people vote now and we are not going to be running in the future. But the time has come to think about the future, and that is why this constitutional amendment ought to be passed. Congress can't discipline itself. The only thing that can discipline us is saying what Congress can't do in the United States Constitution, just like the First and Second Amendments.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise to recognize the March for Life on Friday, January 19, 2018, here in Washington, D.C. This is a gathering of thousands of Americans from across our great country, all who are standing up for the protection of unborn children. Ever since the reprehensible ruling by the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, the barbaric practice of abortion on demand has been rampant in our country. All too often we fall into the trap of conflating women's health with abortion, assuming that if one supports protecting life, then we're failing to care for women's health. Nothing could be further from the truth. I stand here today with the millions of Americans across our country who believe that the lives of innocent children must be protected. I have long been a staunch advocate for pro-life issues despite vocal opposition. As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I shepherded the partial-birth abortion ban through Congress. It was one of my greatest honors to watch President George W. Bush sign it into law, and I was relieved that the Supreme Court upheld it. I have fully supported every effort in Congress to stop federally funded abortions, both in the United States and abroad, and will continue to fight efforts to federally fund these horrific practices.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, when James Madison wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, one of his overriding concerns was to prevent any branch of the three in government from becoming too powerful. That is why he put the checks and balances in the Constitution, so that the other branches could oversee and make sure that a branch that was trying to push the edge of the envelope would not be able to succeed in that. The warrant amendment that has been talked about quite a bit today during the debate really is not effective. It is nothing at all. It ends up putting James Madison's legacy into the trash bin of history, and it does not deserve to go there. Yesterday, The Washington Post reported that FBI officials told aides of Mr. Nadler that, under the proposed bill--meaning the underlying bill--they anticipate rarely, if ever, needing permission from the FISC to review query results. So this warrant requirement of the supporters of the bill and the opponents of the amendment basically doesn't mean anything at all because the FBI told Mr. Nadler's aides that that was the case. Now, we have a debate here today on whether to put the F back into the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The F means ``foreign.'' That is why the amendment should be adopted, or, if it fails, then the underlying bill should be defeated. This is a time to stand up for the oath of office that every one of us took a year ago to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The only way we can do that today is by supporting the Amash amendment and defeating the underlying bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I will speak later on some of the other parts. I want to talk about the ``abouts'' stuff that is reauthorized in this bill after the NSA itself stopped doing it earlier last year. What ``abouts'' collection means is that, for example, if you have two jihadists that are in Pakistan and are communicating with each other that they didn't like something that Mr. Nadler said against jihadists, the FBI can pick up the name ``Nadler'' and go into all of his emails, all of his texts, all of the information that they have on him and be able to see what Mr. Nadler had said about jihadists and much, much more. That is why this bill opens the door to something that the NSA has closed itself. We will hear from people who support ``abouts'' collection that Congress has got a chance to review it. They give us 30 days to do it. We can't get anything done in 30 days. Vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 139, which is the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act. I have stood on this floor debating the PATRIOT Act after 9/11. I fought for reforms in 2015 with the USA Freedom Act. And now here we are debating the latest need to balance privacy and security. Since Congress last reauthorized section 702, we have learned a great deal about the operation of this program. These revelations have highlighted the risks that it poses to privacy and civil liberties. This program needs to be reformed, but, Mr. Speaker, this is not the bill to do it. Rather than provide meaningful reforms, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act would reauthorize section 702. However, as we are all well aware, the program routinely sweeps up millions of innocent Americans' emails. The warrant requirement in this bill applies to only fully predicated, official investigations and not to the hundreds of thousands of searches the FBI runs every day just to run down a lead or check out a tip. The loopholes are too great to ensure proper protections. In this morning's Washington Post, on page A4, an article says, in part, FBI officials told aides of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), last week ``that under the proposed bill, they anticipate rarely, if ever, needing permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review query results, according to one of the aides.'' And this was not denied by the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). We are going to hear an awful lot about warrants on the floor and how this fixes the problem, but here the FBI has said in no uncertain terms to one of our congressional aides that they are never going to have to use this warrant requirement, which was drafted by the Justice Department that has opposed warrants all along. If ever we have seen the fox not only watching the henhouse but inside the henhouse, this is it. It isn't even a fig leaf being small or otherwise. It is simply a way to divert the attention of this Congress away from what is really going on. Furthermore, the bill would provide a path for the NSA to restart the practice of ``abouts'' collection, which has been described by the ranking member. The proposal grants some committees 30 days to review any effort to turn ``abouts'' collection back on, giving Congress little or no say on this matter. We all know that we can't do anything in 30 days around here, and yet the bill restricts us from doing that. Finding a bipartisan and balanced solution is very possible. I know because I have done it twice with the PATRIOT Act and the Freedom Act.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The House Judiciary Committee passed the USA Liberty Act with bipartisan votes. This bill fails to do these necessary reforms. The program should be reauthorized if done in the right way. This bill is the wrong way. It is time for Congress to put the F for ``foreign'' back into FISA. There is no F for ``foreign'' in this bill.