[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 178 (Thursday, November 2, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8429-H8435]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  SENATE NEEDS TO TAKE UP HOUSE BILLS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to recognize 
several distinguished Members of the House for the next hour.
  When our constituents show up on the first Tuesday in November to 
exercise their right of self-governance, they carry with them the 
dreams of a better Republic.

[[Page H8430]]

  In 2016, the American people commissioned us with a task. They asked 
us to fight for jobs. They asked us to fight to fix healthcare. They 
asked us to roll back regulations. They asked us to secure the free 
world. They asked us to secure our own borders.
  The House of Representatives heard them. We have been busy developing 
and passing legislation that meaningfully improves the lives of 
Americans. I commend the Speaker and his leadership in moving these 
bills through the House.
  Unfortunately, much of the House's important work is stalled in the 
U.S. Senate. It is time the Senate pass important legislation and 
restore trust in our Republic, because before this week, the House had 
sent 308 bills to the Senate that are still stalled in that Chamber. 
This is more than any of the previous four Presidential administrations 
had stalled at this same time in their first year.
  For the record, the House of Representatives in the 115th Congress 
has also passed more total bills than Houses in any of the last four 
Presidential administrations at this point. We are at 394 total bills 
passed.
  The dreams of this great Republic cannot be realized by the House 
alone. The Senate must hear the people and come together around the 
often bipartisan measures we have been sending to them.
  As a way of reminding the Senate, I would like to spend the next hour 
recognizing Members to discuss some of the important bills passed by 
the House of Representatives that now sit motionless in the U.S. 
Senate.
  I am thankful for my colleagues who are joining me this evening to 
talk about the House's successful legislative efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) to talk 
about the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado 
for organizing this Special Order and recognizing me to address it.
  I would like to say at the start of this that the folks that had the 
Special Order ahead of us had not read the bill that they were 
expounding upon, and it would be impossible for them to have done so. 
So I want to remind the body of that, Mr. Speaker, and then address the 
No Sanctuary Cities Act.
  It is this: that we saw what happened in San Francisco when the 
murderer of Kate Steinle had been deported five times. He was a seven-
time felon, five-time deportee. He still came back, and he came to San 
Francisco because he knew that it is a sanctuary city, and if he got 
crossways with the law for whatever it might be, sleeping on the street 
or shoplifting or any of the additional felonies that were brought 
against him, they were not going to notify immigration officials. They 
were going to turn him back loose on the streets of San Francisco. If 
he was taken care of as an indigent, they would turn him loose on the 
streets of San Francisco.
  So Kate Steinle now lies in her grave, her family grieves for her 
loss, and America felt that pain.
  San Francisco is a sanctuary city, and now the entire State of 
California has declared themselves a sanctuary State.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, about the hole in the wall. Butch Cassidy and 
the Sundance Kid, they had a spot in the canyon there where you had to 
ride through a notch to get in there, and they posted a guard there. 
All the bad guys that wanted to get along with the other bad guys in 
the West went in that place, and if law enforcement came, then they 
would line up against them and block them from coming in to enforce the 
law.
  That is essentially what we have got going on in city after city all 
over America: sanctuary cities operating under the erroneous idea that 
because their cities are so full of illegals, that if they would ever 
allow Federal immigration enforcement officials to work and cooperate 
with local law enforcement, those folks might not be in America.

  Well, I met with some people today at the Remembrance Project. These 
are the families who had their family members killed by illegal aliens 
who are in America. Many of these illegal aliens who killed Americans 
and killed other illegal aliens and killed people who are here and 
lawfully present in America, many of them had criminal records. Many of 
them had been interdicted by law enforcement, but the local 
jurisdictions decided it wasn't politically correct to cooperate with 
Federal law.
  Well, the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the 
land, and it is an enumerated power that Congress establish an 
immigration policy. We do that, and we direct that those laws be 
enforced. The executive branch's job is to do that.
  All throughout law enforcement, it has been seamless throughout all 
of my growing up years. I grew up in a law enforcement family. There 
was no separation. There was no segregation between city police and 
county law enforcement officers, the sheriff's department, and highway 
patrol and DCI and FBI. When there was a crime that was committed, 
everybody worked together seamlessly.
  How is it that these cities and now the State of California have 
carved themselves out an exception to what has been a timeless, time-
honored, established cooperation between all levels of law enforcement?
  So the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which was my bill, is now 
sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk with the scores of other bills that 
the gentleman from Colorado has addressed, and it is one that says 
there will be no sanctuary cities any longer and that we will be 
cutting off funds going to these cities until they get the message.

                              {time}  1830

  I think it is about time that the Justice Department moved on all of 
the jurisdiction that they actually have, but we need to help them here 
in Congress. And it is about time that this bill, along with Sarah's 
Law and Kate's Law, be moved off of Mitch McConnell's desk to the floor 
of the United States Senate.
  That is just a small piece of the broad picture we are addressing 
here tonight, Mr. Speaker. We need some action over in the Senate. If 
they would get rid of that filibuster rule, we would see more action 
than we are seeing today.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I 
encourage him to continue this effort. I am going to stand with him on 
this. I thank him for all he is doing.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for his 
thoughts.
  Mr. Speaker, when we learned that Planned Parenthood was selling the 
tissue of unborn children, America was outraged. Since then, the House 
has redoubled its effort to pass legislation to protect the unborn.
  H.R. 7 and H.R. 36 are two important pro-life measures that have 
passed the House.
  H.R. 36, which would prevent the killing of unborn children who are 
developed enough to feel pain, passed the House by 237 votes. This 
legislation has been sitting in the Senate for 31 days.
  H.R. 7, which prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion, passed the 
House by 238 votes. This legislation has been sitting in the Senate for 
283 days.
  I would like to welcome my friend and colleague from Georgia, 
Representative Jody Hice, to talk about these two important bills and 
protecting unborn children. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the 
gentleman's great leadership in this, and I am grateful to be able to 
speak on this issue of life.
  There have been, as mentioned a few moments ago, some 300, plus or 
minus, bills sent to the Senate that we have labored here in the House 
and worked through, negotiated, duked it out, so to speak, gotten ideas 
on the table, worked it out, sent it over to the Senate, only to see 
them sit there and do nothing.
  Right in the midst of all of that, at the heart of it all, are a 
couple of very important bills dealing with the issue of life, which is 
important to all of us. I firmly believe, and I know my colleagues do 
as well, that all human life at every stage of development is worthy of 
protection. I am deeply honored and proud of the fact that this House 
has passed a couple of extremely important bills in that regard.
  As the gentleman from Colorado just mentioned, H.R. 7, No Taxpayer 
Funding for Abortion, by our friend from New Jersey, Chris Smith, and 
H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, by Trent Franks 
of Arizona,

[[Page H8431]]

are fantastic bills. One basically says that the American taxpayer 
should not be footing the bill to end the life of unborn children. It 
has been sitting for over 200 days in the Senate without even a debate.
  The other says that, after 20 weeks, when an unborn child is capable 
of feeling pain, we are not going abort that child in the midst of a 
period of time where pain is absolutely scientifically proven to be 
felt. Again, that bill is sitting across the way in the Senate Chamber, 
and they have not done anything about it whatsoever.
  These are important bills. These bills affect lives. Every day that 
the Senate does nothing, lives are being lost.
  The question is: Where is the Senate?
  We all sit here and we wait and we wait and we wait. The time has 
come that the Senate has to take ownership of what the American people 
elected not only us, but the American people elected them to do, and 
that is the job, the task, the platform that we all ran on, and at the 
heart of that is the fight, the battle for life.
  I am also proud of the fact that the House, in our appropriations 
package, defunded Planned Parenthood. This is a promise that we made 
the American people after the gruesome discovery of how Planned 
Parenthood was selling baby body parts. Again, we just recognize that 
life is a gift from God and it is precious and it is to be protected. 
It is an inalienable right that we as Members of Congress have the 
responsibility to defend those inalienable rights. Obviously, without 
the right to life, there, likewise, is no right to liberty, and 
certainly no right to the pursuit of happiness.
  Again, the question is: Where is the Senate on these issues?
  It is time that we join together. Again, I thank my friend for having 
this Special Order and calling on the Senate to deal with this 60-vote 
threshold that has become an enormous barrier, causing all of us to be 
dysfunctional in that which the American people sent us here to do.
  Our conservative principles, as well as our whole Nation, rests upon 
us advancing these things that the American people sent us here to do, 
and at the heart of that is to defend life. I just join in calling on 
the Senate to deal with this 60-vote rule and move forward on the 
agenda that we are here to do.
  Again, I just thank the gentleman for his kindness in allowing me to 
speak on this issue, which is important not only to me, but to all of 
us; and for his leadership on joining us in having a united voice, 
calling our colleagues down the hallway here to do the job that they 
were called on to do.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for his 
passionate defense of life.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans should be able to go about their daily lives 
without the fear of nuclear or radiological attack.
  Representative Dan Donovan's Securing the Cities Act helps equip our 
cities to deal with these dangerous weapons, providing training and 
detection resources.
  On January 31, the House agreed by voice vote to this commonsense 
legislation. For some reason, the Senate has failed in the last 276 
days to move this bill.
  I am proud to have the bill's sponsor, as well as m friend and 
colleague, Dan Donovan, here to share more about this important 
legislation.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Donovan.
  Mr. DONOVAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Colorado for yielding to me on such an important issue not only to my 
district, not only to my city, not only to my State, but to our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss a vital program within 
the Department of Homeland Security, the Securing the Cities program.
  The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office's Securing the Cities program 
enhances the ability of States and localities to detect and prevent 
terrorist attacks and other high-consequence events using nuclear and 
radiological materials in high-risk urban areas through the provisions 
of training, equipment, and other resources.
  Securing the Cities began as a pilot program in 2006 in the New York 
City region, including surrounding jurisdictions of New Jersey and 
Connecticut. Since that time, it has expanded to Los Angeles; Chicago; 
Washington, D.C.; and Houston. Once the program is fully implemented, 
it is estimated that it will protect nearly 100 million people 
nationwide, Americans.
  Hailing from New York City and representing Staten Island and 
Brooklyn, I have seen firsthand the positive impact of the Securing the 
Cities program. Since 2007, our region has purchased more than 13,000 
radiation detectors and trained nearly 20,000 personnel.
  I had the opportunity to observe an exercise in Brooklyn last year 
and witnessed New York City Police Department personnel using Securing 
the Cities-procured equipment to locate and identify hidden 
radiological sources in a baseball stadium. During the exercise, I 
spoke with the participating officers and received a demonstration of 
the different types of equipment they deployed.
  This program is making a difference in New York City, and I support 
its continued expansion. That is why I introduced H.R. 655, the 
Securing the Cities Act of 2017. This bill authorizes the Securing the 
Cities program, underscoring our commitment to protecting our major 
cities from catastrophic terrorist attacks.
  As we, unfortunately, saw earlier this week, our major cities, 
including my hometown of New York City, in particular, remain targets 
for terrorist groups. We have to do everything we can to ensure the 
Department of Homeland Security and our State and local partners have 
the tools they need to address the threats that we face. The Securing 
the Cities program is one of those tools.
  I am pleased that the House quickly passed my legislation earlier 
this year on January 31. It is now time for the Senate to act. Mr. 
Speaker, I urge the Senate to move swiftly to approve H.R. 655 to 
authorize the Securing the Cities program and ensure its continued 
expansion.
  In April 2010, President Obama stated: ``The single biggest threat to 
U.S. security, both short term, medium term, and long term, would be 
the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear 
weapon.''
  Since that time, the FBI has disrupted attempts by smugglers in 
Eastern Europe to sell nuclear materials to extremist groups and 
criminal organizations. The threat has not abated.
  I am thankful for the work of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 
to provide support and guidance to New York City and other urban areas 
to meet the threats we face.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Senate to quickly take action to pass the 
Securing the Cities Act of 2017. Again, I thank my colleague for 
organizing this Special Order.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, a fellow prosecutor and 
a passionate advocate for these issues, for his remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2015, 32-year-old Kate Steinle was 
gunned down by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times 
already.
  Kate's Law, introduced by Chairman Bob Goodlatte, would enhance the 
penalties on illegal immigrant felons who are deported and then 
returned unlawfully to the United States.
  This legislation passed the House with 257 votes, a bipartisan 
coalition of Members who simply want to keep violent felons out of the 
United States. This bill has been stuck in the Senate for 127 days.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend and colleague, Representative Andy 
Biggs, to talk about H.R. 3004, Kate's Law, and the importance of 
securing our Nation from violent illegal felons.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado, Mr. Buck, 
for yielding to me. I am grateful for his leadership as a conservative. 
It has been my honor to serve with him this past year. I appreciate him 
sharing some time with me tonight as I share several important stories.

  Mr. Speaker, these are stories of real people, not just some people 
who are distant to us. These are people that we know, people just like 
this.
  Mr. Speaker, one early January morning in 2015, a young man named 
Grant Ronnebeck began the graveyard shift at a QuikTrip convenience 
store in my district. After his parents divorce, Grant took the 
initiative to find a job working at this convenience store

[[Page H8432]]

in Mesa, Arizona, to help his family pay the bills. He was only 21 
years old. He had his entire life ahead of him.
  Just before 4 a.m., an angry customer walked in, demanded a pack of 
cigarettes, and dumped a handful of change on the store counter. Grant 
started to count the money, but he saw the customer pull a gun out and 
point it directly at his head.
  Grant tried to immediately hand over the cigarettes in a desperate 
attempt to save his life, but it was too late. The customer shot Grant 
in the face in cold blood, took the cigarettes, and casually walked out 
of the store.
  Grant's father describes him as being his buddy from the minute he 
was born and a person that brightened everybody. He did not leave the 
store alive that night.
  The customer's name was Apolinar Altamirano. He was an illegal alien 
with a long criminal record, including violent crimes. He was held in 
Federal custody, but then released while he awaited deportation 
proceedings. Our government let Grant down when they allowed Grant's 
killer to walk out of custody and onto our streets.
  Altamirano should have remained in custody until he was deported, but 
he was set free, and Grant was killed due to the government's failure 
to hold this violent criminal in custody until deported.
  Sadly, Grant's story is not unique. Many Americans are aware of 
another tragic incident, the case of Kate Steinle. Kate was 32 years 
old. She was walking along a San Francisco pier when an illegal alien 
shot and killed her. This illegal alien had just been released from 
prison again. He should have been held until deportation, but he, in 
fact, had been deported many times previously.

                              {time}  1845

  Even then, he was set free, only to kill Kate Steinle.
  In 2014, Mesa, Arizona, Police Officer Brandon Mendoza was killed in 
a wrong-way crash by an illegal alien who was driving under the 
influence of drugs and alcohol.
  And in January 2016, Sarah Root was murdered by an illegal alien who 
was drunk and drag racing in Omaha, Nebraska.
  In each of these cases, Grant and Brandon, I am privileged to know 
their parents, Steve Ronnebeck and Mary Ann Mendoza. These are fierce 
advocates who tirelessly work to make sure these types of tragedies 
never happen to another family. I am grateful for their efforts, and I 
believe that we are making significant headway to stop these types of 
catch and release programs that allow criminals to remain on our 
streets.
  In June of this year, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3003, 
the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law, 
tandemly. These bills would end the policies that contributed to the 
tragic deaths of Grant, Kate, Brandon, and Sarah.
  I was pleased to coauthor the first bill, which included my 
legislation, Grant's Law. Grant's Law is named in memory of Grant 
Ronnebeck.
  All Americans can agree that someone who is criminally violent should 
not be released back on to the streets. Yet, for years, the Obama 
administration's policies failed to protect Americans by allowing 
criminally violent illegal aliens to roam our streets and 
neighborhoods.
  These types of tragedies are preventable when the Federal Government 
enacts and enforces the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kate's Law. 
Congress has begun to take meaningful action to bring these tragedies 
to an end, starting with the two bills we passed in June.
  Chairman Bob Goodlatte showed leadership and commitment to ensure 
these important bills received swift consideration. These two bills, if 
enacted and enforced, would protect innocent Americans to prevent 
future tragedies like those of Grant, Kate, Brandon, and Sarah.
  When the bills passed out of the House, I hoped these bills would 
receive a swift vote in the Senate. That has not happened. I am still 
hoping for this vote to take place. I call upon the leadership of the 
Senate to put these bills up for a floor vote.
  We owe it to our constituents to put arcane tradition aside and to 
pass policies that will protect them. Yet, even in a Republican-
controlled Senate, we cannot receive an up-or-down vote on these 
important immigration enforcement bills.
  Why is this?
  Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe the answer lies in the fatally flawed 
60-vote rule. It is more commonly known as the filibuster, but the 
Senate's tradition is preventing consideration of nearly all 
legislation passed from the House.
  For example, look at our current situation. Since January, the House 
has passed over 300 bills, including the two immigration and 
enforcement bills I have just discussed. These bills will most likely 
languish until the end of the term, in large part, due to the 
filibuster rule.
  So what can be done about this irresponsible inaction? Well, the 
Senate can change the rule. Indeed, the Senate must change the rule.
  Many people do not realize that the 60-vote requirement is not even 
in the United States Constitution. It dates back to 1917, when the 
Senate agreed that debate could be cut off with a two-thirds majority 
vote. Decades later, when deciding a two-thirds vote was found to be 
too difficult to achieve, the Senate reduced the number of required 
votes to three-fifths, or 60 of the current 100 Senators.
  The filibuster is a tradition, barely a century old, less than half 
the age of the U.S. Constitution.
  There is a place for rules and traditions, but not when they obstruct 
the will of American people. Is it honorable for the United States 
Senate to have a gentleman's agreement to keep bills from being voted 
on, or to dilute our representation in the United States Senate?
  Americans would rather that Congress pass just and reasonable laws 
than to preserve extraconstitutional, institutional traditions. 
Americans want our borders secure and our immigration laws to be 
enforced.
  Congress is running out of time to keep its promises to the American 
people. We promised to ensure that what happened to Kate, Grant, 
Brandon, and Sarah would not happen again. The House has done its duty. 
It is time for the Senate to do its duty.
  There are no excuses to allow these bills to die in the Senate. I 
encourage my friends in the Senate to eliminate the 60-vote rule and to 
consider the two immigration enforcement bills that the House passed in 
June. We must not allow inaction to be the enemy of our sworn 
responsibilities as representatives of the American people.
  Again, I thank my friend from Colorado. I appreciate the opportunity 
to say what has been on my mind for some time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona for his 
insight, and I appreciate his comments here tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2010, President Obama and Congress passed the Dodd-
Frank legislation that attempted to reform Wall Street and end the too-
big-to-fail problem. But instead of fixing the financial industry, 
Dodd-Frank was mainly served to excessively regulate local community 
banks, making it harder for individuals on Main Street to gain access 
to credit.
  The Financial CHOICE Act, sponsored by Chairman Jeb Hensarling from 
the Financial Services Committee, replaced Dodd-Frank with a system 
that holds Wall Street accountable, while also making credit more 
accessible for Main Street America. The bill passed the House with 233 
votes. It has been stuck in the Senate for 148 days.
  I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney), my friend 
and colleague, who sits on the Financial Services Committee, to talk 
about H.R. 10, the Financial CHOICE Act.

  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Colorado, Mr. Buck, for leading this Special Order effort and for 
recognizing me to talk about this issue and the general problem in the 
Senate today of having legislation considered, debated, and passed in a 
way that we can go to conference committee.
  As the gentleman mentioned, the Senate has already failed to act, and 
is currently failing to act, as we stand here, on over 270 House-passed 
bills. One of those bills is a really important one, very important to 
the committee on which I serve.
  I am proud to be on the Financial Services Committee. The tradition 
of

[[Page H8433]]

that position was held by my predecessor, Shelley Moore Capito, who 
served on that committee for 14 years. Ably led by Chairman Jeb 
Hensarling from Texas, we work in a bipartisan fashion, as much as we 
possibly can, to bring relief to the American people, give consumers 
choices in banking products, and the ability to get a small loan or get 
a mortgage for their house. We are doing very important work there.
  So, as was mentioned, on June 8 of 2017, this year, here, the U.S. 
House of Representatives, where I now stand, passed H.R. 10, the 
Financial CHOICE Act, by a vote of 233-186. I was very proud to vote 
for that legislation, as I know were a lot of my colleagues.
  The Financial CHOICE Act, if you are not familiar with the bill, 
after the financial crisis in 2007, Democrats held all the Chambers in 
the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and they passed sweeping 
legislation that fundamentally changed the way our economy works for 
the worse; much more interference in your lives in banking, and the 
ability to make loans and consider requests for bank loans were done.
  Basically, Dodd-Frank is to the financial services industry what 
ObamaCare is to the healthcare industry. It is a government-knows-
better, one-size-fits-all, federally mandated set of laws that have 
hurt the very people they claim they want to help. It hurts the same 
people they want to help. So we are repealing most of that, and we are 
going to empower consumers, give you the choices back.
  So we have passed this bill. Let me just give you one example of 
something in the bill, to be specific. There was something that was 
designated in the Dodd-Frank bill called too big to fail. You may 
remember that term, ``too big to fail.''
  That is a situation where Washington bureaucrats had decided that 
certain banks--the theory is that they are so essential to the global 
economy that failure would be catastrophic. So it takes the ability to 
fail out of the banks' system, which then makes them act more risky. 
Big does not necessarily refer to the size of the company, just what 
the government decides is essential, too big to fail.
  So the first bank that was too big to fail was Bear Stearns. In March 
of 2008, the Federal Reserve lent $30 billion to JPMorgan Chase to buy 
the failing investment bank. Bear was a small bank, but very well-
known, and there was a worry that it would destroy confidence in other 
banks. So your tax dollars were used to, essentially, bail out banks.
  So this bill repeals the authority of the Financial Stability 
Oversight Council to designate firms as systematically important 
institutions. It prohibits the use of Exchange Stabilization Funds to 
bail out banks. Most Americans I talk to don't think their taxpayer 
dollars should be used to bail out banks, so this bill would stop that.
  So we passed that bill. We sent it to the Senate. We didn't think the 
Senate would pass the exact same bill, word for word, that the House 
passed. We thought they would consider our bill, take the parts they 
like, maybe change some parts, maybe add some parts, or move some 
parts, pass a bill in the Senate, and then we would go to a conference 
committee to reconcile the differences.
  One of the biggest travesties I have seen around here of the 
political process, Mr. Speaker, is the failure to have conference 
committees in the Congress any longer. The House passes all these 
bills, over 300 over there; 270 are waiting for the Senate to do 
anything on. Anything. And we wait for the Senate to act so we can have 
a conference committee and reconcile the differences.
  It is important to understand that no one in the House is demanding 
they get their way on every bill, every provision, all the time. We 
simply want to have a product sent to the Senate, have the Senate do 
their job, do their due diligence, pass legislation in whatever form 
they can get out of the Senate, and have a chance to go to conference 
committee, reconcile the differences.
  There is some give-and-take there. They won't get everything they 
want. We may not get everything we want. You can reconcile those 
differences, and it has to go back and pass again.
  Over the past 3 years, my third year in Congress now, I have taken to 
reminding folks things they learned in fifth grade, in fifth grade 
grade school, about how I am just a bill sitting on Capitol Hill, and 
how it is supposed to go to one Chamber; then it is supposed to go to 
the other, and they appoint a conference committee to reconcile the 
differences.
  Instead, as the previous speaker, Congressman Biggs from Arizona, 
mentioned, the filibuster is abused. You have 48 Democrats in the 
Senate who filibuster everything. Everything. And for some reason, my 
colleagues on the majority side of the aisle, the Republicans, don't 
put the bills on the floor to make the American people see them 
filibuster, and obstruct, and shut down, avoid conference committees, 
avoid passing anything in the Senate that would require action, and, 
therefore, just stop anything from happening. It is a travesty of the 
political process.
  Neither Republican nor Democrats should stand for such an abusive 
system in the Senate. So I think we should put the bills over there and 
make them act. We have actually started passing pieces of the CHOICE 
Act, one small bill at a time, in order to get other stuff over to the 
Senate, in the hope that they will just do something, act on something.

  But we shouldn't have to do that, frankly, Mr. Speaker, because the 
Senate can simply pass any bill they want, or any Senate bills they 
want, and then we can consider it in the House as well. We have led by 
passing the CHOICE Act bill, which is the right thing to do.
  You know, as disappointing as it was to see the U.S. Senate fail to 
pass anything on healthcare, maybe the one silver lining was the 
American people could finally see what happens if three Republicans 
join with 48 Democrats to vote against the bill. We did not have the 
votes to pass anything on healthcare, and the whole healthcare reform 
plan died at that moment.
  We are sitting here today with a failing healthcare system that is 
going to continue to fail. ObamaCare is going to continue to fail. It 
is not getting any better. It is getting worse.
  Look, our bill wasn't perfect, Mr. Speaker, but at least we did 
something in the House to address the problem. I am not saying this 
bill is perfect, the CHOICE Act for financial services, but we are 
doing something to address the problem that consumers are demanding, 
where they can have more choice and more access to funds to buy a home 
or start a small business. We are doing something about it, and the 
Senate is doing nothing. They don't pass anything.
  In fact, we have passed all 12 appropriations bills in this Chamber. 
All 12 are sitting over there in the Senate, waiting for someone to 
act.
  I think the first thing they should do is bring up the military 
funding bill. We are in November already. In December, next month, 
funding runs out. We have passed our appropriations bills. The Senate 
is doing nothing on appropriations bills.
  They should bring that military bill to the floor of the Senate, 
right now, and have a vote. It passed this Chamber with a strong, 
bipartisan majority. Funding the military is not a partisan issue. 
There are votes, I believe, in the Senate and the House to fund the 
military.
  But if the 48 Democrat Senators want to filibuster, abuse their 
power, abuse this filibuster tradition, which was mentioned is not in 
the Constitution, it is simply a courtesy extended to the minority 
party; if they want to continue to abuse that power, the American 
people should see them, ruthlessly, politically, try to shut down the 
military, and then try to blame the President or blame the House when 
they won't pass anything.
  They should pass a military appropriations bill that helps fund our 
troops. We will reconcile the differences and send it to the 
President's desk. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how the process is 
supposed to work. That is what kept our democratic republican form of 
government, constitutional form of government, with democratic 
elections, the rule of law, a republican constitution; that is what has 
kept our country, to this point, functional and working well, having 
that bipartisan, bicameral process.
  What is currently happening is really a travesty to this process, 
where it is being abused by the Senate. They have all these bills over 
there. It is high time for them to take action, pass

[[Page H8434]]

something, pass the best product they can on this issue, and let's go 
to conference committee and reconcile the differences.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Senate to act as quickly as possible on the 
CHOICE Act, on whatever provisions they want to. We are trying to 
repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Another part of that, 
the fiduciary rule, has really hurt consumers. These are other parts of 
the CHOICE Act that need action. The American people need and expect 
relief.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for 
his services on the Financial Services Committee, a demanding committee 
and a committee that he has certainly shown his brilliance on. So we 
appreciate his work very much.
  Mr. Speaker, with rising premiums and sky-high deductibles, Americans 
are hurting under ObamaCare. Republicans talk a lot about increasing 
competition in the healthcare market, and this next bill actually makes 
that talk a reality.
  H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act restores 
Federal antitrust laws to the health insurance industry, ensuring that 
the market for health insurance remains competitive and affordable for 
Americans.
  On March 22, the House passed this legislation in an overwhelmingly 
bipartisan fashion, and 416 Members voted for it. It is 226 days later, 
and the Senate can still not move that legislation through its Chamber.
  I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Gosar), to say a few words about this bill that he sponsored.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado (Mr. Buck) 
for taking the opportunity to highlight some of the good work the House 
has accomplished this year. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to build 
on these accomplishments so that Congress as a whole can keep their 
promises to the American people.
  As Congress continues to face the preeminent task of repairing our 
Nation's healthcare system, first and foremost, we must establish the 
proper foundation for a competitive and consumer-driven health 
insurance marketplace. The Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 
2017 will restore the application of Federal antitrust and competition 
laws to the health insurance industry.
  Ending the special interest exemption is the first step to broader 
healthcare reform. Popular cost-reducing reform priorities, such as 
selling insurance across State lines and developing diverse consumer-
driven plans, are predicated on the robust competitive markets this 
bill will ensure.
  The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 exempted the insurance industry 
from the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, acts that have the purpose of 
ensuring fair competition. This broad exemption was intended to assist 
the newly developing business of insurance so that those companies 
could set sustainable premiums by permitting data sharing between 
insurance companies.
  However, after 70 years, it is apparent that the broad-stroked 
exemption created by Congress in the 1940s was not wise. Over the 
decades, and expeditiously since the passage of ObamaCare in 2009, the 
health insurance market has devolved into one of the least transparent 
and most anticompetitive industries in the United States.
  It is clear that the continued exemption of the health insurance 
industry from the full application of the Federal antitrust laws has 
had an unfair impact on consumers. It shows up as artificially higher 
premiums, unfair insurance restrictions, harmful policy exclusions, and 
simply no diversity of choice.
  These antiquated exemptions are no longer necessary. There is no 
reason in law, policy, or logic for the health insurance industry to 
have special exemptions that are different from all other businesses in 
the United States.
  Repeal of the specific section of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which 
applies only to health insurance, has strong bipartisan support. A form 
of this legislation passed the Democratic-controlled House during the 
111th Congress by a vote of 406-19 and passed the Republican-led House 
in the 112th Congress by a voice vote.
  Similar legislation has been introduced by multiple Democratic 
Members of the House, and the text of my bill has been included in the 
Republican Study Committee's healthcare reform bill for the last four 
Congresses in a row.
  In March of this year, this pro-market reform received its biggest 
show of support yet, passing by an overwhelming majority of 416-7. Now, 
when 416 Members of the House agree, it sends a strong call to action 
in the Senate.
  As a dentist, I know how important robust competition is to dynamic 
and effective health insurance. It should protect the patient as well 
as the healthcare provider. It should uniformly apply associated checks 
and balances that incentivize competition and prevent monopolies. 
Today, in the healthcare market, those equally applied antitrust 
protections just simply don't exist.
  I don't have a crystal ball that will tell you what the future holds 
for healthcare or what it will look like. I don't think anybody knows. 
But I can tell you that history is an important guide. The 70-year 
antitrust exemption for health insurance has strangled competition and 
resulted in a consolidated, anticompetitive, and nontransparent scheme 
controlled by seven megacorporations. That is not what we want for our 
future.
  Instead, let's liberate the market by removing this antitrust 
exemption. Imagine what could exist when we put the patient first and 
demand that health insurance companies compete for their business. This 
market should be patient-centric, patient-focused, and provide a 
variety of affordable, quality options that empower patient involvement 
and accountability.
  The passage of the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act into law 
is an important first step toward increasing competition in the health 
insurance market and will assist in setting the foundation for real 
competitive and patient-centered healthcare reform.
  I thank my friends in the House for their strong support, and at the 
same time, promises were made in the Senate to get a vote on the Senate 
floor. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to build upon the good work 
of this Chamber and do their part to restore competition in the health 
insurance industry.
  There is an old saying: Trust is a series of promises kept.
  Keep the promise. We are watching.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona, especially 
with his healthcare background. I know he has said on many occasions 
that he is a dentist impersonating a Congressman. Right now I feel the 
same way as a prosecutor impersonating a Congressman, and I appreciate 
his friendship and great insight.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to now invite my friend and colleague, 
Representative Ted Poe, to speak about the Email Privacy Act. This 
legislation clears up a loophole in the Electronic Communications 
Privacy Act, or ECPA, that allows the government, after a certain 
amount of time, to search someone's email if it is held on a third-
party server.
  The ECPA was passed in 1986. For the past 30 years, our technology 
has drastically advanced, but our electronic communications policy has 
been stuck in the 1980s. The Email Privacy Act allows the law to catch 
up with the tech. This bill simply requires the government to have a 
warrant if they are going to search your email.
  This legislation passed on voice vote. After 269 days, the bill still 
sits in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Poe), to speak about this important legislation.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Buck) for yielding and for doing this Special Order.
  Most Members of Congress agree, I believe, that the Constitution 
should be followed. There are certain rights in the Constitution that 
are very, very important to all of us. One of those is the right of 
privacy, enumerated specifically in the Fourth Amendment.
  The Fourth Amendment is unique to America. Other countries don't have 
the Fourth Amendment. We have it in the United States to protect the 
privacy of Americans.

[[Page H8435]]

  Let me give you a little history.
  As Congressman Buck pointed out, back in 1986, which was an eternity 
ago when you start talking about the digital age, Congress passed 
legislation to protect the emails that people had on their server for 6 
months. The idea was that people wouldn't keep their emails. They would 
delete them, and 6 months was a good enough time to protect those 
emails from the spies in our government--I will use that phrase, that 
is my phrase--and that is the current law. But here is what has 
happened over that 30 years.
  Many Americans stored their emails after that 6-month period. They 
store them in the cloud, for example. Americans store their schedules 
in the cloud. They store photographs in the cloud.
  When Americans store those items that are over 6 months old in the 
cloud, they are not protected against the search by our government of 
that email, of those photographs, of that schedule. In fact, searches 
can take place without the knowledge of the person whose email is being 
searched, without the approval of that individual, and the government 
never notifies that individual that that email stored in the cloud was 
searched because, under current law, the American citizen is only 
protected for emails stored on their server up to 6 months.
  So after about 4 years of working on this legislation with my friend 
Zoe Lofgren from California, bipartisan, we presented to Congress H.R. 
387, the Email Privacy Act. As Congressman Buck said, on February 7, to 
be exact, of this year, that passed by voice vote on this floor, and we 
sent it down the hallway to the siesta Senate to take a vote over 
there, and they have yet to vote on it.
  So what does that legislation do? It protects the right of privacy of 
Americans. It requires government to follow the Constitution.
  I was a former criminal court judge in Texas for 22 years. Like Mr. 
Buck, I was also a prosecutor in the DA's office in Houston.
  The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution--remembering that this is 
unique to America--protects Americans, their persons, their houses, 
their papers, and their personal effects from the intrusion of 
government unless government has probable cause and government gets a 
search warrant. That is the law. That is the Fourth Amendment.
  If government has a probable cause, go get a warrant from a judge. I 
signed hundreds of warrants from law enforcement as a judge.
  A simple example: the government can't search our mail, snail mail as 
it is now called. When you put a letter in the mailbox and the 
postmaster picks it up and sends it across the fruited plain and it 
lands in somebody else's mailbox, government cannot generally go into 
that letter and seize it for any purpose unless they have a warrant to 
do so.

  There are some exceptions, but government can seize your emails after 
6 months if they are stored in the cloud, as I already mentioned, 
without a warrant. So this legislation basically requires government to 
follow the Constitution.
  We have heard about the widespread abuse--that is my opinion--of the 
NSA over the last several years, the government agencies that felt like 
they had a blank check to search and seize Americans' information 
without their knowledge, without their approval, and without a warrant. 
This legislation goes to prevent that and simply requires that 
information stored in the cloud--emails, photographs, schedules, or 
whatever--the government can go get it, but the government has got to 
get a search warrant to seize that information.
  That is what this legislation does. It protects the Fourth Amendment. 
It protects Americans. It is simple legislation. It passed the House on 
voice vote, yet the Senate refuses to protect Americans from unlawful 
searches without the knowledge of Americans. We need to pass the 
legislation that Zoe Lofgren and I have sponsored that has passed the 
House to protect that basic right.
  Mr. Speaker, I think our Senators would all vote ``yes'' for the 
legislation. They believe in the Constitution like the rest of us. They 
believe in the Fourth Amendment like the rest of us.
  So let's get a vote. Another piece of legislation the House has 
passed. We have done our job. We want the Senate to follow up and pass 
this good legislation to make it the law of the land so Americans are 
more secure in their papers and their effects and their homes.
  And that is just the way it is.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his hard work and 
persistence on this very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this year, the House completed all 12 appropriations 
bills. It is the first time in decades that that has happened. I am 
proud that our Chamber worked hard to return to a regular 
appropriations process, and I can tell you that there were many late 
nights spent looking through amendment after amendment both in the 
Rules Committee hearing room and on the House floor. We thoughtfully 
considered these bills and offered them for votes on the House floor.
  But the Senate hasn't approved any of these 12 bills. Not one. 
Republicans, month by month, crisis to crisis, were appropriating of 
the Obama administration era. But now Republicans are in charge, and 
without Senate action, we are staring down the barrel of another 
omnibus or continuing resolution. This isn't fair to the American 
public.
  The Founders gave to Congress the power of the purse so that 435 men 
and women in this Chamber and 100 men and women in the Senate Chamber 
can spend weeks at a time thoughtfully discerning how to spend taxpayer 
dollars. That is our job. The House has finished its work for this 
year, and now we beg the Senate to finish theirs.
  The House has done good work. We have listened to our constituents, 
worked with our stakeholders, and met each other in the middle on many 
bills. Now we are left just talking about these great bills because 
they are all stuck in the Senate.
  I want to take a minute in closing to remind the Senate why we are 
here and why the voters offered the Republican Party control of both 
Chambers and the House.
  We are here because Americans want fewer regulations. We are here 
because Americans want lower healthcare premiums and costs. We are here 
because Americans want a stronger stance against the world's bullies. 
We are here because Americans want a respect for the rule of law. We 
are here because Americans want our veterans to have the best care. We 
are here because Americans want better access to credit. They want to 
protect unborn life. We are here because Americans expect us to improve 
their lives, to work on meaningful legislation that limits government, 
that stewards taxpayer dollars effectively, and that guards family 
values.
  Americans should know that the House of Representatives has heard 
them. We have passed bills to address these concerns. Now we turn to 
the Senate and ask them to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lewis of Minnesota). All Members are 
reminded to avoid engaging in personalities toward Members of the 
Senate.

                          ____________________