Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on Friday, January 11 due to personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``yea'' for rollcall No. 26, ``nay'' for rollcall No. 27, ``yea'' for rollcall No. 28, and ``yea'' for rollcall No. 29.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall vote 446 due to Judiciary Committee staff not notifying leadership that members were engaged in a hearing when votes were called. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

``Yea'' for rollcall vote No. 446.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and thank a longtime staffer of mine, Matt Powell, who recently left my office to pursue a Master's Degree in Public Health. Matt is a constituent of the district I represent, Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District, growing up in Susquehanna County. He attended Forest City High School and earned his Bachelor's Degree from Keystone College in Lackawanna County. Matt is a born and bred Northeastern Pennsylvanian who decided to serve his neighbors and his area by becoming an intern in one of my district offices. Matt immediately excelled in his role, and once we had an opening in my Washington, D.C. office we brought him on board right away. Matt worked in my Washington, D.C. office for over 5 years where he eventually became my Senior Legislative Assistant handling an array of important policy issues. Matt's passion has always been in healthcare policy, and I am pleased to see he is pursuing higher education in this field. I thank Matt for his dedicated and hard work for the constituents of PA-10, and I wish him the best of luck in any of his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 2152) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for assistance for victims of child pornography, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Committee on Homeland Security be discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 1311) to provide assistance in abolishing human trafficking in the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs be discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 1312) to prioritize the fight against human trafficking in the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 68) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to reauthorize the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 6896) to provide for the continued performance of the functions of the United States Parole Commission, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 2, 2018.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Handel for bringing this forth, this very important piece of legislation that has been reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in Sessions v. Dimaya ruled that 18 U.S.C. Section 16 was unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

That is the way the process works. We, the legislators, write the law, not an unelected bureaucrat. We, as legislators, are supposed to write the law, then the court interprets that law if an issue is brought before the court, as in this particular case.

So there is a several-page slip opinion, we call it, that explains why the court ruled the way it did, saying we need more of an explanation as to what a violent crime is. The court ruled that the statute in question failed to properly provide a definition for a crime of violence.

H.R. 6691 eliminates that vagueness and addresses the Supreme Court's concerns and preserves the pre-Dimaya status quo.

It has the support of the Justice Department.

The legislation before us today is supported by the Department of Justice, I want to reemphasize that, and will properly define what a crime of violence is. It is clearly delineated here in eight pages, the crimes, what constitutes them, the meaning, the intent, crime by crime on these pages. It does not prevent anyone from due process.

As a former Federal prosecutor and State prosecutor, I have seen serious violent crimes that were committed. And we must make sure that those that are here illegally and commit these violent crimes be sent back to their countries from where they came.

Over 18 years as a prosecutor, I have seen my share of bodies on slabs in morgues because of violent crime, and many of those were young kids.

This legislation defines crime by crime by crime and sets forth the criteria that the legislature was responsible for doing in the first place.

I want to explain the process on how this works. The crime is committed, it is reported, law enforcement goes in and does an investigation. If they feel that a crime has been committed, they file a complaint or go to the DA or go to the United States Attorney and present probable cause, evidence that the crime probably was committed. And then, in whatever situation, whether it is the State or the Federal level, there can be an indictment, the evidence can go before a grand jury, and then the decision is made if it proceeds. Then that individual goes before a judge on a preliminary hearing to the point where the person's actual constitutional rights kick in. None of that, none of that is eliminated.

I support this legislation because of what I have seen over my career. And taking care of issues of violence that we see so much of and the violence that we see, particularly by individuals that are here illegally, this remedies that matter.

We have a lot of violence in this country committed by people that are citizens, and we take care of that through the judicial system as well.

But this is commonsense legislation. It addresses the issue immediately and it does what the American people want it to do.

There is due process, but if you are here illegally, you commit a violent crime, and once that is established, then you are sent back to your country of origin.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some clarifications. First of all, I am tired of hearing from the other side that bills are rushed through, bills are pushed through, there is no thought put into this, which is nothing more than a red herring.

The Supreme Court said that the term ``crime of violence'' is not specific enough. So what we did was we put into this new statute this new law explaining what murder is, and voluntary manslaughter, sexual abuse, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual abuse, child abuse, kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, firearms use, burglary, arson, extortion, communication of threats, and fleeing.

These are already laws that have been on the books for two decades. The Court just simply said it wants the specifics in the legislation for removing someone who is here illegally and who has committed one of these crimes.

Now, let's go into this. They are making, again, a red herring, a big deal, out of this term ``fleeing.'' Now, all the crimes, plus there were many more in here that I didn't have time to go over, explain and define those.

One thing I want to talk about in ``fleeing'' is, it is not if a person is speeding and an officer wants to stop that person and the person drives a little longer to find a safe place to pull over. That is absurd.

Here is the term. ``Fleeing'' means knowingly operating a motor vehicle and, following a law enforcement officer's signal to bring the motor vehicle to a stop: A, failing or refusing to comply; or, B, fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer.

The term ``force'' means the level of force capable of physical pain or injury, or needed or intended to overcome resistance.

That means that that individual is fleeing in that automobile at a high rate of speed to get away from the officer because they don't want to be caught, and that person could cause much more havoc, much more danger and death, to somebody else if, when they are fleeing, they cause an accident.

My colleagues on the other side leave out these important details. It is all listed here. It is very specific. It is exactly what the Court asked for, and this is good law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Arrington for providing this opportunity to talk about term limits, and I thank my colleagues who were here to comment on it.

First of all, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute and thank our veterans, our law enforcement, our emergency service people, and their families for how they protect us. If it weren't for them, we would not be able to be in this Chamber doing what we are doing tonight.

Now, I am probably, in years, age, the oldest Member here who is talking about term limits. I am in my eighth year, so it is my fourth term. When I first ran for Congress in 2010, I advocated for term limits, and I have introduced legislation in the past three election cycles for term limits.

President Trump ran on draining the swamp, and I believe that term limits are the exact way to ensure that we drain the swamp and effectively serve the American people. I can remember when I was on the campaign trail many, many months with the President, and one of the things he asked me, he said: What would you do to change Congress?

I said: Term limits.

He said to me: You would be putting yourself out of a job.

I said: It wasn't designed to be a lifetime career.

When he went out and spoke to the people, he raised that issue of term limits.

Now, I am not criticizing my colleagues who have been here longer than 12 years, because my term limit legislation is 12 years. But times have changed, and we have to change with the times to improve the quality of life for people.

As I said, my legislation would limit any Senator or any House Member to 12 years in office. Now, let me explain something on this concept. First of all, we use the word ``Congress''; we use the word ``House Member''; we use the word ``Senator.'' Most of my colleagues know this, and most of the people know it, but Congress represents the House and the Senate.

The Members of the Senate are Members of Congress. The Members of the House are Members of Congress. For some reason, the Senate goes by ``Senate,'' and we go by ``Congress'' or ``House Members.''

But I don't mean 12 years serving in the House and then 12 years in the Senate or vice versa. I mean 12 years and you are out. That would be six terms for Congressmen and two terms for a Senator, or vice versa, however they wanted to do it.

I was once told by a reporter who asked a Member, and I won't mention that Member's name in Congress, and you don't know if it is in the House or in the Senate: What do you think of Marino's term limit legislation of 12 years?

The reporter told me that the elected official responded by saying: Well, we are only beginning to learn what is going on here and how it works in 12 years.

So my term limit legislation would hinder Congress' ability to get things done. How's that been going? I completely disagree.

Opponents say we will not have the experience. Wrong, and that is a lame excuse.

They say that staff members will be making the decisions. Well, if there is a Member in the House or the Senate who is letting their staff members make the decisions, that elected official shouldn't be here.

Part of my background is that I worked in a factory until I was 30, started sweeping floors and worked my way up. I started college 2 weeks after my 30th birthday and then went on to law school. Having a background in the private sector, I can tell you that if a person in the private sector or who worked for someone in business were to argue that I need 12 years to start being successful or doing my job correctly, they would be fired in the first week.

The President is limited to two terms, 8 years. Many governors are limited to two terms. State House and Senate elected officials in some States are limited in their terms.

Why not Congress? It is not a lifetime career.

I am only advocating for term limits at the Federal level, not at the State level. It is completely ridiculous for a lawmaker to state that they are unable to serve their constituents unless they are here for longer than 12 years. Knowing that one is limited to 12 years, or a variation of that, then the elected official knows what they have to do to get the job done, what they promised.

We need to change the culture here in Congress, and term limits is the only way to accomplish this.

According to the most recent clear politics polling average, 18.4 percent of the American public approves of the job that Congress is doing. What does that tell us?

This certainly seems like a good argument for why we need turnover in Congress and new ideas consistently coming through the doors.

CEOs, chief executive officers, presidents of companies, chairmen and women of corporations leave or are asked to leave their position after 8 to 10 years, on average. And why is that? That is because the company wants fresh ideas. That is because that person who is in that position feels that they have accomplished all that they can and they move on to their next goal.

Serving in Congress was originally never viewed as a career or a lifetime appointment. We need new ideas from new Members, women and men, young and not so young.

There is a great deal of talent here in Congress and, with term limits, newer Members will have the ability to chair committees, instead of waiting for 15 or 20 years to be a chairman or a chairwoman.

We have, in the House, a person can serve 6 years on one committee as the chair, and then move to another committee for 6 years. That is 12 years. I understand that that is the Republican side. I understand, and someone correct me if I am wrong, on the other side of the aisle it is lifetime in situations.

That doesn't give the talent, the new talent, the ability to move up and have a say of how things are run. It gives the new talent ability to get into leadership without having to be here 20 years.

The framers of the Constitution were not full-time legislators. They were businessmen, they were entrepreneurs, they were farmers, they were inventors, et cetera. They spent very little time actually in Philadelphia and in New York. They went back home with their constituents, and back home to their jobs.

See, there was a difference there between representing the people, putting together a Constitution, and then going back to your job.

There was also never supposed to be a permanent class that would rule over the citizens and without term limits that is what we have.

In 2016, 97 percent of all House Members who were seeking reelection won their races. We also must change, in Congress, the rules. They are outdated; they are old; they are inefficient, in both Chambers, in the House and in the Senate. But to do this, we need term limits.

As I said, I have brought up term limits the last three elections. I can't even get a hearing on it.

It is not healthy for our republic or for our constituents who deserve better.

I ask my constituents every time I am out in my district, and when I am speaking around the State, and in other States: Do you support my term limit of 12 years? And overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly, it is a resounding yes. I have had people say to me, I never used to support term limits, but now I do.

I want to, again, thank Congressman Arrington and the other Members that were here for holding this Special Order Hour to discuss this very important issue. I would encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting term limits to help drain the swamp and maintain a healthy legislative branch, or at least get it to a debate. This is a game- changer, term limits, and will improve the quality of life for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn China and Chinese companies for their continued theft and violation of United States intellectual property (IP) law.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) conference report that was passed on Thursday by the House of Representatives missed a crucial opportunity to hold ZTE, a Chinese telecommunications company, accountable for their blatant violation of U.S. IP law.

ZTE, and other Chinese companies, either outright steal American IP and present it as their own, or blatantly refuse to pay licensing fees for the use of this IP. If ZTE broke into a warehouse in Pennsylvania and stole millions of dollars' worth of microprocessors we would certainly hold them accountable. However, we are refusing to defend IP and make clear that ZTE must abide by U.S. IP law as a requirement for doing business in the U.S.

For too long China, and Chinese companies, have blatantly stolen U.S. IP at the expense of American companies and consumers. I would ask my colleagues and the Administration to make it a priority in holding companies like ZTE accountable for the theft and violation of U.S. IP laws.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes on July 26, 2018, due to a prior district obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

YEA for rollcall vote 378 and

YEA for rollcall vote 379.

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 materials on H.R. 2851.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, all Members of the Chamber are acutely aware of the devastation caused by the opioid epidemic. The epidemic is destroying lives and families across the United States. It affects every area of our country, and grandparents, parents, and children alike.

Especially during the course of this week, we have been reminded that over 64,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2016. More than 20 percent of these deaths resulted from an overdose of synthetic opioids like fentanyl, which can be as much as 100 times more powerful than painkillers like morphine.

Additionally, synthetic analogues with street names like K2, spice, bath salts, or molly, are designed to mimic other drugs like marijuana, LSD, and ecstasy, and can be more potent and deadly than the real thing.

Criminal drug manufacturers, largely from China and Mexico, work continuously to stay ahead of our laws by altering the molecular structure of their drugs as soon as the government bans them.

The Controlled Substance Act, which was signed into law more than 40 years ago, was designed to protect the public from the dangers associated with drugs and drug use. However, this law was not designed to handle the magnitude and speed with which these new psychoactive substances have emerged in our communities.

It currently takes 3 years to schedule a new drug, but criminals can skirt the law by quickly changing a drug molecule and get it to the U.S. streets, often through the mail.

The bill we are considering today, the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, or SITSA, updates Federal law to provide swifter action to stop the unlawful importation and distribution of synthetic drugs and gives law enforcement effective tools to help keep our communities safe.

While Congress has taken action to combat the opioid epidemic through the historic Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, it is clear that we need more tools to combat the ever-growing problem of synthetic drug abuse.

Instead of taking 3 years to bring a drug under control, SITSA gives the Attorney General the power to act quickly and to classify a new dangerous drug in a matter of months when it is virtually identical to a current scheduled and powerful drug. The bill also requires the Attorney General to work with the Department of Health and Human Services so that these synthetic drugs can still be studied by qualified researchers.

Supporters of H.R. 2851 include the National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, and the American College of Emergency Physicians.

I fully support this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on my side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled by those who oppose this legislation.

Among the obligations we owe our constituents, one is to keep deadly substances like synthetic opioids out of our country and out of the hands of drug traffickers. Drug traffickers have no regard for the devastation they inflict on our citizens, as their sole motive is greed and profit. Sadly, their greed resulted in over 64,000 drug overdose deaths in 2016, destroying countless families.

If a terrorist organization killed 175 Americans each and every day, we would all be certain that our response would be swift, laser- focused, and decisive.

There is no question and no greater responsibility Congress has than to protect the health and safety of all Americans. Voting against this crucial legislation is a clear signal to all drug traffickers that Congress is giving them a green light to continue spreading their carnage.

While we may differ as to the priorities to solve the opioid epidemic, make no mistake: a responsible and truly effective solution must include treatment, prevention, and enforcement. Over the course of this week, this Chamber has approved legislation in all three of those areas.

This bill before us now gives law enforcement and the protecters of our borders the tools to keep these deadly poisons out of our communities. It also assures that these potent chemicals can remain in the hands of qualified researchers. Altogether, this bill strikes the perfect balance to respond to this ongoing epidemic.

Mr. Chair, I want to state that I take a backseat to no one when it comes to

treatment. There is no question that drug addiction is addiction. It is not only a biological addiction; it is a mental addiction as well.

As a prosecutor for 18 years, an assistant district attorney, district attorney, and a U.S. attorney, I have seen my share of the devastation of drugs, put a lot of dealers away, helped a lot of people get into treatment; and, unfortunately, I have seen my share of people, particularly young people, on slabs in morgues.

Anyone dealing today with opioids--regardless if they read the newspaper, regardless if they watch TV, regardless if they are aware of this legislation--knows, because of publicity, because of the deaths that are caused by opioids and fentanyl, of the probability of fentanyl or something like it being in the drug that they are selling. So I do not accept the argument that they don't know that it is there. Everyone knows that it is there.

Mandatory sentencing, I used when I was a prosecutor in my community, and it worked. It put the worst of the worst away. We also, as prosecutors, had discretion.

My constituents demand that we aggressively--aggressively--act now on this problem. Not only am I hearing that from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania but across the country.

I want to explain one thing on the chemical makeup. I had enough chemistry in college to make me dangerous. Picture, if you will, a chain of molecules and picture a single molecule. The scientists in China have devised a way to take an atom from that molecule or add to it to slightly change the composition, which technically removes it from being an illegal drug or an illegal opioid. This is why this legislation is needed.

The Chinese are there every day trying to figure out a way--and they are figuring out ways--to alter, how to get around the law. We have to be a step ahead of them. This legislation is what is needed. It is good, bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. Katko and Miss Rice, both of New York, for this very important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time does the gentleman from Virginia have left?

Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes three impactful changes to SITSA. First, it changes and sets strict definitions of what constitutes a controlled substance analogue suitable for inclusion in schedule A. A substance proposed for inclusion in schedule A must have a close chemical and scientific relationship to a substance already controlled in one of the other five schedules.

Second, it checks the power of the Attorney General in the permanent scheduling process. Under this bill, the Attorney General will be able to act swiftly to bring certain synthetic drugs under temporary import and distribution controls. However, this part of the amendment ensures that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or HHS, possesses a veto power in the permanent scheduling process.

If, after more extensive analysis, HHS concludes the drug lacks psychological properties, then the Attorney General must remove the drug from the schedule A list and decontrol it.

Third, it ensures that researchers with current Federal licenses in any of the five existing schedules of controlled substances can continue their research. Government and private sector chemists and scientists are researching and developing new drugs and substances every day. These researchers already possess a Federal license, called a registration, to conduct their research.

This part of the amendment safeguards the ability of qualified researchers to continue their research while unsafe and untested synthetic drugs are controlled in schedule A. This amendment makes a great piece of legislation even better. I applaud Mr. Griffith's and Mr. Raskin's efforts in doing do. I support this amendment and encourage all Members to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, section 9 of the bill would provide guidance in sentencing during the current problematic time for courts, prosecutors, and defendants. Courts are having difficulties similar to those of law enforcement because of the constantly evolving nature of synthetic drugs and their chemical makeup.

Recently, the U.S. Sentencing Commission unanimously approved a slate of new amendments to the sentencing guidelines. Among them are guidelines for the three most potent classes of synthetic analogues being imported from China and distributed in the United States. I view this as a tremendous step forward in providing guidance to courts, which are performing very labor-intensive examinations during sentencing proceedings

This amendment would strike section 9 of the bill. Chairman Goodlatte has spoken to and received correspondence from Judge William Pryor, acting chairman of the Sentencing Commission. Both he and his staff have assured Chairman Goodlatte that synthetic drug guidelines will remain a priority for the commission.

I am agreeable to striking section 9 of this bill, and I encourage the Sentencing Commission to continue its important work and to provide guidance to the courts in these often complex cases.

I support the Jackson Lee amendment and encourage all Members to do likewise.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Drug Enforcement Administration to compile a report on both the lawful and illicit sale of synthetic drug analogues over the internet. Unfortunately, the internet and the dark web have become sizable marketplaces for many illegal drugs, especially synthetic analogues.

As Chairman Goodlatte stated earlier, Garrett Holman lost his life from synthetic drugs he ordered over the internet and received in the mail from China. The report requested by this amendment will help Congress and law enforcement have a better picture of the magnitude of the synthetic drug problem.

Mr. Chairman, I support the Maloney amendment, I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would improve the Federal Analogue Act, a provision in the Controlled Substance Act, which, during a prosecution, allows a chemical that is determined to be substantially similar to a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II to be treated as if it were also listed in those schedules, but only if the substance is intended for human consumption.

Drug traffickers, particularly those who traffic synthetic drugs, repeatedly attempt to evade Federal law by labeling their synthetic drugs with a phrase, ``not made for human consumption.'' They do this routinely in a preemptive attempt to rebut an assertion during their prosecution that they never meant the drug be intended for human consumption.

The Thornberry amendment sets forth six factors which a court may consider when determining whether a controlled substance analogue was intended for human consumption. It also states a label on the product is not sufficient proof, standing alone, that the defendant did not intend it for human consumption. This amendment is quite similar to S. 207, the SALTS Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee reported favorably 3 weeks ago.

Mr. Chair, I think this is a useful amendment to the legislation before us, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of it.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes on May 15, 2018 due to Pennsylvania primary elections. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: YEA for rollcall vote 181; YEA for rollcall vote 182; and YEA for rollcall vote 183.