F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I support it. The opioid epidemic has victimized countless Americans, including the most vulnerable among us--our children. We are all aware of the grim statistics surrounding prescription opioid abuse by teenagers. However, a young child who loses a parent to addiction is also a victim that needs our help. I support this effort, which will promote family unity while holding certain offenders accountable and ensuring community safety. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for offering this amendment. The amendment makes reasonable and appropriate changes to the Justice Department's Family-Based Substance Abuse Treatment Program, a program authorized under the Second Chance Act. The program supports State and local government agencies and federally recognized Indian tribes in establishing or enhancing residential substance abuse treatment programs in correctional facilities that include recovery of family supportive services. This amendment ensures that the program's definition of an incarcerated parent with minor children includes pregnant women. As a person who believes life begins at conception, I believe it is entirely appropriate for this program to provide services to pregnant women to meet their unique needs and those of their unborn children. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me say I appreciate the huge, bipartisan support that this legislation has attracted. I have been working on legislation to deal with Department of Justice grants in the opioid addiction area for over 2 years. It took a while, and, unfortunately, it took the expansion of a problem into an epidemic to show this Congress that we have to act, we have to act comprehensively, and we have to act in a manner that actually goes down to our communities to help out those communities and, more importantly, the people who are addicted and their families. The package of bills that the House has debated yesterday and is debating today does exactly that. For those who criticize Congress for not doing anything, this is something that is probably going to have a very, very meaningful impact on the lives and livelihoods of people who have gotten hooked on something, and it gives them a way out in a compassionate and effective manner. Let me say I am not sure that the American public is going to realize the importance of what we are doing today, because I see the wide-open spaces in the press gallery above the Speaker's rostrum. I think that is unfortunate because this is something, number one, that is important; number two, it will help people; number three, it is bipartisan, which shows very clearly that we don't spend all of our time here arguing and fighting amongst ourselves; and number four, it is bicameral. This is Congress the way it should work and the way it is working in a lot more cases than many in the American public think it is. So I guess my message to everybody today is, number one, we are doing our job, and we are doing our job with this legislation in a vitally important manner to help turn some lives around and to prevent tragedy; and number two, the fact that we can get together to deal with a national problem in a bipartisan manner shows that we take our job seriously, whether we sit on the Democratic side of the aisle or the Republican side of our aisle, and we are rising to the occasion. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to yield back after the gentleman from Michigan yields back. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5046, the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act. The misuse of and addiction to opioids, such as heroin, morphine, and other prescription pain medications, has had a devastating hold on this country. It affects every State and every district. Prescription painkillers and heroin are the primary driving forces behind this epidemic. According to the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2014, 45 percent of the people who used heroin reported that they were also addicted to prescription painkillers. Additionally, drug overdoses now surpass automobile accidents as the leading cause of injury-related death for Americans between the ages of 25 and 64. Nearly a half million Americans lost their lives to drug overdoses in 2015. More than 800 of those deaths occurred in my home State of Wisconsin, double the number of deaths from overdoses in 2004, just 11 years earlier. Yet, despite these staggering numbers, the crisis is getting worse. Drug overdose deaths have increased 137 percent since 2010, with opioid-related overdose deaths increasing by 200 percent. The moment to reverse our current course and make a genuine and lasting impact in the fight against addiction is here. All over the country, people are calling on Congress to find solutions. In townhall meetings, on the campaign trail, and through social media, lawmakers are hearing heartbreaking stories from families and friends of addicted individuals and leaders of impacted communities. There is no single solution to this epidemic. The most effective way to approach addiction is to pursue a comprehensive response, which must include a strict focus on prevention, law enforcement strategies to stop drug dealers and traffickers, a plan to address overdosing, and a plan to strengthen opioid abuse treatment and recovery options for those struggling with their addiction. The Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act is an important piece of this puzzle. While State and local officials and community organizations must be at the forefront of confronting this challenge, the Federal Government should help support these efforts. My legislation authorizes the Attorney General to make grants available to States and localities for a number of services related to opioid and heroin abuse. The grant program contains eight allowable uses of the grant funds, which are broadly construed to give States flexibility in responding to the epidemic within their borders, meaning not a one-size-fits-all program. These include alternatives to the incarceration programs; collaboration between criminal justice agencies and substance abuse systems; training for first responders in carrying and administering opioid overdose reversal drugs, including naloxone; and prescription drug monitoring programs. It is imperative that we pursue aggressive measures to stint opioids' dangerous progression, for a stronger, more prosperous America. The Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act is a commonsense and bipartisan approach that addresses the issue head-on and will make a positive impact on our fight against addiction. H.R. 5046 is fully offset and contains strong accountability provisions to ensure funding is spent wisely. I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and my colleagues in the Senate for their tremendous work while addressing the opioid epidemic. I am optimistic that, with passage of this bill and the additional opioid measures the House of Representatives is considering this week, we can go quickly to conference and send meaningful legislation to the President for his signature. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5046.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, strong international relationships abroad are critical to the safety and advancement of the United States. That is why I was pleased to introduce the Judicial Redress Act of 2015 with Ranking Member John Conyers and to speak in favor of it today. For many years, the United States and the European Union have worked together to secure data protection for their citizens under agreements known as safe harbor. Earlier this month, however, the European Court of Justice issued a landmark ruling invalidating the agreement because of privacy concerns. The European court's ruling illustrates how fragile trust between nations can be. It is easily lost and hard to rebuild. Moreover, this lack of trust has had huge economic and security consequences for the United States. Our businesses have struggled against public backlash and protectionist policies, and our government has faced increasingly difficult negotiations to share law enforcement and intelligence data. The Judicial Redress Act of 2015 is central to our efforts to rebuild strained relationships with our allies and to ensure privacy and security for both American and European Union citizens. The sudden termination of the safe harbor framework strikes a blow to U.S. businesses by complicating commercial data flows. If we fail to pass the Judicial Redress Act, we risk similar disruption to the sharing of law enforcement information. In many ways, the Judicial Redress Act is a privacy bill. It is backed and supported by many of our country's top privacy advocates. But make no mistake. The bill is crucial to U.S. law enforcement. At the heart of the Judicial Redress Act is the pressing need for the continued sharing of law enforcement data across the Atlantic. In our complex digital world, privacy and security are not competing values. They are weaved together inseparably, and today's policymakers must craft legal frameworks that support both. This bill provides our allies with limited remedies relative to the data they share with the United States, similar to those American citizens enjoy under the Privacy Act. It is a way to support our foreign allies and to ensure the continued sharing of law enforcement data. Specifically, the bill will give citizens of covered countries the ability to correct flawed information in their record and access U.S. courts if the U.S. Government unlawfully discloses their personal information. As United States citizens, we already enjoy similar protections in Europe. Granting these rights to our closest allies and their citizens will be a positive step forward in restoring our international reputation and rebuilding trust. In fact, our European colleagues have noted that the passage of the Judicial Redress Act is critical to negotiating a new agreement, central to their willingness to continue sharing law enforcement data with the United States and necessary to improving relations between nations. If we fail to pass this bill, we will undermine several important international agreements, further harm our businesses operating in Europe, and severely limit sharing of law enforcement information. The Judicial Redress Act currently enjoys broad support and has been endorsed by the Department of Justice as well as the Chamber of Commerce and numerous U.S. businesses. I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives John Conyers, Randy Forbes, and Glenn Thompson, for cosponsoring this legislation, as well as Senators Orrin Hatch and Christopher Murphy for their work on companion legislation in the Senate. The Judicial Redress Act amounts to a small courtesy that will pay huge diplomatic and economic dividends. I urge my colleagues to pass this important bill and my colleagues in the Senate to take it up without delay. Let's put the President's infamous pen to good use by signing this legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2015, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the thirty-six preceding years I have served in the Congress. Assets real property Single family residence at 609 Ft. Williams Parkway, City of Alexandria, Virginia, at assessed valuation. (Assessed at $1,372,549). Ratio of assessed to market value: 100% (Unencumbered): $1,372,549.00. Condominium at N76 W14726 North Point Drive, Village of Menomonee Falls, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at assessor's estimated market value. (Unencumbered): $136,600.00. Undivided 25/44ths interest in single family Residence at N52 W32654 Maple Lane, Village of Chenequa, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at 25/44ths of assessor's estimated market value of $1,552,500: $882,102.27. Total real property: $2,391,251.27. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Common & preferred stock # of shares $ per share Value ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Abbott Laboratories, Inc..... 12200 46.33 $565,226.00 AbbVie Inc................... 10980 58.54 642,769.20 Alcatel-Lucent............... 135 3.73 503.55 Allstate Corporation......... 370 71.17 26,332.90 AT & T....................... 7275 32.65 237,528.75 JP Morgan Chase.............. 4539 60.58 274,972.62 Benton County Mining Company. 333 0.00 0.00 BP PLC....................... 3604 39.11 140,952.44 Centerpoint Energy........... 300 20.21 6,063.00 Chenequa Country Club Realty 1 0.00 0.00 Co.......................... Comcast...................... 634 56.47 35,801.98 Darden Restaurants, Inc...... 2160 69.34 149,774.40 Discover Financial Services.. 156 56.35 8,790.60 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc........ 1250 128.36 160,450.00 E.I. DuPont de Nemours Corp.. 1200 71.47 85,764.00 Eastman Chemical Co.......... 540 69.26 37,400.40 Exxon Mobil Corp............. 9728 85.00 826,880.00 Frontier Comm................ 591 7.05 4,166.55 Gartner Inc.................. 651 83.85 54,586.35 General Electric Co.......... 15600 24.81 387,036.00 General Mills, Inc........... 5760 56.60 326,016.00 NRG Energy................... 28 25.19 705.32 Hospira...................... 1220 87.84 107,164.80 Imation Corp................. 99 4.03 398.97 Kellogg Corp................. 3200 65.95 211,040.00 3M Company................... 2000 164.95 329,900.00 Express Scripts.............. 6656 86.77 577,541.12 Monsanto Company............. 2852.315 112.54 320,999.53 Moody's...................... 5000 103.80 519,000.00 Morgan Stanley............... 312 35.69 11,135.28 NCR Corp..................... 68 29.51 2,006.68 Newell Rubbermaid............ 1676 39.07 65,481.32 PG & E Corp.................. 175 53.07 9,287.25 Pfizer....................... 30415 34.79 1,058,137.85 Century Link................. 95 34.55 3,282.25 Tenneco Inc.................. 182 57.42 10,450.44 Unisys Corp.................. 16 23.21 371.36 US Bancorp................... 3081 43.67 134,547.27 Verizon...................... 1918 48.63 93,272.34 Vodafone Group PLC........... 323 32.68 10,555.64 WEC Energy (Wisconsin Energy) 2044 49.50 101,178.00

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, you know you have drafted a strong bill when you unite both national security hawks and civil libertarians. The USA FREEDOM Act has done that. It also has the support of privacy groups, tech companies, and the intelligence community. This bill is an extremely well-drafted compromise, the product of nearly 2 years of work. It effectively protects America's civil liberties and our national security. I am very proud of the USA FREEDOM Act and am confident it is the most responsible path forward. I do not fault my colleagues who wish that this bill went further to protect our civil liberties. For years, the government has violated the privacy of innocent Americans, and I share your anger, but letting section 215 and other surveillance authorities expire would not only threaten our national security, it would also mean less privacy protections. I emphasize it would also mean less privacy protections. The USA FREEDOM Act also ends bulk collections across all domestic surveillance authorities, not just section 215. It also expands transparency with increased reporting from both government and private companies. If the administration finds a new way to circumvent the law, Congress and the public will know. The bill also requires the FISC to declassify significant legal decisions, bringing an end to secret laws. If the PATRIOT Act authorities expire and the FISC approves bulk collection under a different authority, how will the public know? Without the USA FREEDOM Act, they will not. Allowing the PATRIOT Act authorities to expire sounds like a civil libertarian victory, but it will actually mean less privacy and more risk--less privacy and more risk. Now, to my colleagues who oppose the USA FREEDOM Act because they don't believe it does enough for national security, this bill is a significant improvement over the status quo. Americans will be safer post USA FREEDOM than they would be if Congress passes a clean reauthorization of the expiring provisions. I am not ignorant to the threats we face, but a clean reauthorization would be irresponsible. Congress never intended section 215 to allow bulk collection. That program is illegal and based on a blatant misinterpretation of the law. That said, the FREEDOM Act gives the intelligence community new tools to combat terrorism in more targeted and effective ways. Specifically, the bill replaces the administration's bulk metadata collection with a targeted program to collect only the records the government needs without compromising the privacy of innocent Americans. It includes new authorities to allow the administration to expedite emergency requests under section 215 and fills holes in our surveillance law that require intelligence agencies to go dark on known terrorists or spies when they transit from outside to inside the U.S. or vice versa. Under current law, the administration has to temporarily stop monitoring persons of interest as it shifts between domestic and international surveillance authorities. What is more likely to stop the next terrorist attack: the bulk collection of innocent Americans or the ability to track down a known terrorist as soon as he or she enters the United States? If you answer that question the same way I do, then don't let the bluster and fear-mongering of the bill's opponents convince you we are safer with a clean reauthorization than we are with this bill. Attorney General Lynch and Director of National Intelligence Clapper recognize this. In a recent letter of support, they wrote: The significant reforms contained in this legislation will provide the public greater confidence in how our intelligence activities are carried out and in the oversight of those activities, while ensuring vital national security authorities remain in place. Let's not kill these important reforms because we wish this bill did more. There is no perfect. Every bill we vote on could do more. I play the lottery. When I win, I don't throw away the winning ticket because I wish the jackpot were higher. It is time to pass the USA FREEDOM Act. I am asking all my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans, security hawks, and civil libertarians--to vote for it. Let's speak with one voice in the House of Representatives and together urge the United States Senate to work quickly and adopt these important reforms.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 21.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 5, 2015.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, we have spent about an hour and a half today talking about how bad this problem is. The two previous bills were passed unanimously by voice vote. There seem to be two arguments against the current bill. One is that the net might be too broad. That has been responded emphatically by putting a ``knowingly'' standard in so that somebody who is innocent will not be caught up if an advertisement for sex trafficking appears without their knowledge. The second is the philosophical debate on mandatory minimum sentences. I think there are some crimes where there ought to be a mandatory minimum sentence. I know many of my colleagues sincerely disagree with that, but believe me, advertising kids--minor kids--for sex should be something that puts you in jail for some time. I am glad this bill allows for life sentences in case of egregious offenses, but I think that even in ones that might be less than egregious, spending some time in jail will show this country and maybe others who may be tempted to get involved in this horrific business that if you are caught, you are going to spend some time. Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I have two additional requests for time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the author of this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 285) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty for knowingly selling advertising that offers certain commercial sex acts.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, this is another example of bipartisan cooperation in the House of Representatives. I do wish to commend the principal author of the bill, Mr. Paulsen from Minnesota, an original cosponsor; Ms. Moore from Wisconsin; and my colleague, the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. We have all worked together. Hopefully, we can send this bill over to the other body, and they will promptly pass it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), the principal author of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I think this is an example that this House can do important things on a bipartisan basis. I commend the gentlewoman from South Dakota for introducing the legislation, and I commend the gentlewoman from Texas for supporting the legislation, and I urge an ``aye'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.