get one more call. robert in california, independent line. time is of the essence. good morning. caller: good morning. trump rose to power because middle-class was eviscerated by both parties for more than 40 years. it was the politics of revenge and retribution. when he came into power, he failed with the china tariffs, it was a complete failure. the kim jong-il relation was idiotic and he took putin's side against our own intelligence. when he -- when it came to covid he said that it was going down to five and talked about the injection of detergents. we had 4% of the world population and something like 20% of the deaths. he tried to cancel the aca and he lied and told the public that

he had a bill that was better and he had none. ok? he put through a $1.7 trillion tax cut the wealthiest and the largest corporations. he talked for four years about an infrastructure bill that he never did it. and biden put in a $1.2 trillion and got it passed infrastructure bill which is very important. host: ok. let us go to carolyn in north carolina. the democrats line. i apologize. call back if you can when you have the next chance to. now the houses coming into work on the package. we take you to the house of representatives. o tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. april 12, 2024. i hereby appoint the honorable dan newhouse to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, mike johnson, speaker of the house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, mr. robert suhr, christchurch, mequon, wisconsin. the chaplain: please pray with me. holy god, mighty lord, gracious father. you are the sovereign god who is the author of all time. you hold all history in your righteous and merciful hands. nations rise and fall by your will, for your purposes, and by your grace. so at this time and on this day we humbly call upon you to exercise your will, show your compassion and loose your spirit upon the members of this sacred body. those near to you and those far from you. that this would not be an ordinary day but an

extraordinary day. open hearts to hear your guidance, help their ears to hear the voices of your will speaking. let the members of this house today govern with compassion, understanding and a determination to accomplish that which is good and pleasing in your sight and that which is good for the people of this nation. holy spirit, we entrust ourselves to you that at the end of this day we may rest in peace and this great nation will remain a light that shatters the darkness, a city that brightly shines on a hill, and that all nations may see your handiwork and the work of this body today. all this we ask relying on your grace and we ask through the power of jesus' holy and precious name.

amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. as read. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from colorado, mr. neguse. mr. neguse: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of ameamerica and to the republc for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman, is recognized for one minute. mr. grothman: i'd like to thank the chaplain for the wonderful prayer this morning. he and his family have been friends of mine for a long time. his church is in mequon, wisconsin.

and while so many, sadly for our country, in so many parrishs or churches the attendance has been down, he has founded a much bigger church than he founded and it's truly booming and is a great success story for christianity in mequon. so in any event, i again, congratulations reverend suhr, and i was so honored to be here today for that prayer. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, seek recognition? mr. massie: by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1137 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 70. house resolution 1137. resolved, that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for

consideration of the bill, h.r. 7888, to reform the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees and the chair and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence or their respective designees. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 118—27 shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. no further amendment to the

bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such further amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. section 2. upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider

in the house the bill, h.r. 529, to extend the customs waters of the united states from 12 nautical miles to 24 nautical miles from the baselines of the united states, consistent with presidential proclamation 7219. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means or their respective designees, and, two, one motion to recommit. section 3. upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

order to consider in the house the resolution, h. res. 1112, denouncing the biden administration's immigration policies. the resolution shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. section 4. upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house the resolution, h res. 1117, opposing efforts to place one-sided pressure on israel with respect to gaza. the resolution shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on foreign affairs or their respective designees. the speaker pro tempore: jacht kentucky is recognized -- the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one hour. mr. massie: mr. speaker, for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. me goose. spend -- neguse. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous could be sent that all members -- consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. massie: the committee granted and by a recorded vote of 8-4 a rule providing for consideration of the following measures. h.r. 7888, reforming intelligence and securing america act, h.r. 5229, extending limits of u.s. customs waters act, h.res. 1112,

denouncing the biden administration's immigration policies, and h.res. 1117, opposing efforts to place one-sided pressure on israel with respect to gaza. the rule provides for consideration of h.r. 7888, the reforming tension and securing america act under a structured rule. the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. the rule provides one hour of generally debate equally divided among and controlled by the committee on the judiciary. and the chair and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence or their respective designees. let's talk about the rule for h.r. 7888. the highly anticipated and heavily debated reforming intelligence and securing america act. there will be six amendments allowed for this bill. and they break down into three different categories. there's three amendments from the judiciary committee that basically limit or constrain the government in its use of the

fisa 702 program. the first one is mr. biggs' amendment, probably the most discussed amendment, and it would prohibit warrantless searches of u.s. person communications in the fisa 702 database. the second is mr. roy's amendment which requires the f.b.i. to report to congress on a quarterly basis the number of u.s. person queries conducted. and mr. cline's amendment prohibits resumption of a collection under section 702. the intel amendments basically expand fisa, the fisa program, and mr. crenshaw's amendment expands the definition of foreign intelligence to allow targeting and collection of information about illicit drugs. instead of just being about terrorism, it will expand the program to include illicit drugs. mr. waltz's amendment expands the use of section 702 by

allowing it to be used to vet foreigners traveling into the united states. and mr. turner's amendment expands the definition of electronic communication service provider under section 702. we'll have a full and robust debate on those amendments after this rule passes and with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the speaker recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. neguse: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend and the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, for the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and yeald myself such time -- yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. neguse: mr. speaker, today's rule, as mr. massie articulated, again provides for the consideration of four bills. i suspect that you will be familiar with these four bills. because these four bills were under a rule two days ago. what happened to that rule? it failed. part in parcel of the chaos and

the dysfunction that house republicans have engulfed this august chamber in for the better part of the last 15 months. as of two days ago, seven rules, seven, have failed on the house floor, mr. speaker. you might be wondering, those watching from home might be wondering, how many rules failed when democrats had the majority? under speaker nancy pelosi? the answer is none. zero. in fact, from 1999 to 2023, only two rules failed on the house floor. neither of which happened when house democrats were in control of this chamber. ... the last bill, mr. speaker, to pass the rules committee and

make its way to the president's desk without suspension of our rules was almost one year ago. unprecedented. republicans have literally presided over the most ineffective session of congress in history. not hyperbole. despite, by the way, mr. speaker, the pressing challenges that our nation faces. they repeatedly show that they have no capacity or desire to govern. instead, prioritizing unwarranted censures, sham impeach. s, nonbinding resolution after nonbinding resolution after nonbinding resolution. instead of debating core issues like lowering costs, growing the middle class, building safer

communities, addressing our critical national security needs. we have spent yet another week here in washington wasting time. this is the third time, third time that we are considering a variation of one of these nonbinding resolutions today. stunts over solutions, mr. speaker. that has become, unfortunately, their motto. this is not how governing is supposed to work. i know, i served in this body for some time, i know there are serious members on the other side of the aisle. i wish they would pull back their caucus and institution from the brink and work with us in a bipartisan way to address core needs of the american people.

unfortunately, they have yet to show any desire to do so. but hope springs eternal. mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. i thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: aid like to congratulate dr. burgess from texas in his appoint as the new chairman of the rules committee. i would yield four minutes to the chairman of the rules committee, dr. burgess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. burgess: i thank my friend from kentucky. mr. speaker, i do rise today in support of the rule of the underlying legislation. it is a new day in the house of representatives. and i intend to make certain that this process works and works for all of us, that all members get to be heard. but at the end of the day as mr. massie points out after a fulsome debate we are able to move forward for the american people. i want to specifically talk today on h.r. 7888, the

reforming intelligence and securing america act. h.res. 1117, opposing efforts to place one-sided pressure on israel with respect to gaza. republicans remain concerned about the abuses that occurred under 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act in previous administrations. the rule before us provides consideration for reforms to fisa, including greater transparency and greater oversight for the american people. mr. speaker, in total 56 reforms were made in response to concerns raised by our constituents. these reforms include prohibiting searches from the -- by the f.b.i. unrelated to national security. and prohibits political appointees from being involved in the f.b.i.'s query process. the rules committee met last night to report this rule out of committee. yes, it was a bit of a process.

there are two significant changes to highlight from earlier in the week. the rules committee print changes the re-authorization from five years to two years. that's important. the reforms that are now incorporated in the new fisa re-authorization will be re-evaluated by the next congress as to whether or not they are actually working. rather than a five-year re-authorization we can look again in two years to make certain for our constituents, for the american people that these reforms are actually working. i certainly want to thank my friend from texas, mr. roy, for bringing that forward. there are also changes in the re-authorization that strikes section 19-c from the text all together. the latter action was taken amid some confusion about whether 19-c would have unintentionally

permanently re-authorized section 702. to help clear up any ambiguity, that section has now been removed. ultimately this legislation will ensure that the appropriate guardrails are in place to safeguard american constitutional rights and help keep americans safe. additionally, mr. speaker, i want to express my support for h.res. 1117 offered by ms. salazar of florida. israel has a right to defend itself. especially after the notorious attacks by hamas on october 7. on april 4, after a call between president biden and prime minister netanyahu the white house released a press release stating that an immediate cease-fire is necessary. i would remind the white house that a cease-fire was in existence prior to the attack by

hamas. it is not right for the united states to pressure an ally to end a conflict that that ally did not begin. mr. speaker, israel has a right to exist, and a right to self-defense. the united states does not get to decide that for israel. i would underscore that pathways for ensuring humanitarian aid being able to enter gaza and reach the palestinian people and not be high jacked by their hamas overlords, on april 5 israel opened up three new corridors for humanitarian aid. i appreciate the efforts to take responsibility for something hamas has proven you unwilling to do and hope -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. massie: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman. one-sided pressure by the white house is not the way to ensure

that end. mr. speaker, i urge passage of this rule from our committee. and i urge passage of the underlying legislation. thank you, mr. speaker. thanks, mr. massie. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. neguse: mr. speaker, while i offer my congratulations to the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the distinguished rules committee, i just must say i'm confounded by the audacity of any house republican to come to the floor and lecture any of us about national security when they have held hostage a bill that passed the united states senate on a bipartisan basis to address the national security needs of this country. for months they have held that bill hostage. they refuse to put the bill on the floor. and they have the audacity to

come to the floor and lecture us or the white house? the white house needs no reminder about the necessity of supporting our allies. they have implored this institution to do its job in supporting our allies abroad. it is the speaker and the house republican caucus that refuse to do the same. mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. lofgren: thank you, mr. speaker. i think for starters we need to examine why are we being hustled to do this today? when we extended fisa earlier, there was a provision in the bill that allowed the fisa court to extend. they have taken advantage of that. they have extended fisa until june of 2025. and so i think we are being hustled here today for a reason, to prevent the constitution from

being applied to fisa. under the amendment being offered, a warrant would be required for a search of the data of u.s. persons. this is important. it would exclude imminent threats, exigent circumstances as any warrant requirement does, or exclude cases where a person consents to a search, or where there is cybersecurity. it excludes metadata. it's important to note that the f.b.i. executed more than 200,000 warrantless searches of u.s. persons in 2022. including 141 black live matter protestors, two members of congress, journalists, political parties, donors to political campaigns. it's really outrageous. the base bill is insufficient to

protect us. there are two major points it makes. neither makes any sense or any difference. the big deal is a prohibition on u.s. person queries conducted solely for the evidence of a crime. that sounds good until you realize that the february almost never does that. in fact, in 2022, there were only two cases in which that provision would have been a prohibition. the second issue is codifying the regulations about searches by the f.b.i. today. obviously that doesn't do any good because the f.b.i. under the current regulations continues to violate our rights and to do warrantless searches. the only way to end the abuse is to approve the warrant requirement that is being offered in the amendment. the american public agrees with us. 76% of americans support requiring the government to get

a warrant before searching in these cases. somehow in literally -- to hear the administration talk about it, getting a warrant here would be like the end of the world. and literally any other context, law enforcement, or intelligence agencies who want to read americans' communications have to get a warrant. and actually for the last 46 years the government has had to get a fisa title 1 order to read americans' communications in foreign intelligence investigations. these are investigations in which americans are suspected of terrorism, espionage, cyber crimes. you name it. somehow a warrant for title 1 is consistent with national security, but will plunge us into a dystopian nightmare if we apply this basic constitutional requirement where americans aren't even suspected of wrongdoing.

this is not a wild idea. we have had under the obama administration intelligence experts convene to examine this issue. they were former c.i.a. directors, national security people from both parties. they unanimously agreed that we should have a warrant requirement in these circumstances. some have said that no court is ever required -- has ever required a warrant in these circumstances. that's incorrect. the second circuit court of appeals did point out that lawful collection alone isn't enough to justify a search. in fact, when it comes to examining the need for this, the privacy and civil liberties oversight board, which congress created to take a look at this data that is classified, concluded that there was little justification on the relative value of the close to five

million searches conducted by the f.b.i. from 2019 to 2022. the chair of the board said this. in the strongest examples offered by the f.b.i., such as victim or defensive query examples, the government would likely be able to meet a probable cause standard or one of the exceptions contemplated, namely consent or exigent circumstances. with a 15-year track record to draw on, the government has failed time and again to show that it had derived unique and significant national security value from a u.s. person query that could not have been conducted -- may i have an additional 30 seconds. mr. neguse: an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the lady has 30 seconds. one minute. ms. lofgren: the privacy board did recommend by a majority vote that a warrant requirement be imposed. now, to ignore this advice is to

ignore our constitution. we take an oath every congress to support and defend the constitution of the united states. this is a significant opportunity for us to uphold that oath. the fourth amendment matters. if we do not take this opportunity to protect the privacy of americans when it comes to this matter, we will, in my belief, my view, have failed in our obligation and our duty to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i'd like to yield two minutes and 30 seconds to my colleague on the judiciary committee, mr. tiffany, from wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. tiffany: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i stand today in support of the

warrant amendment and would like to speak on the warrant amendment here. .. i hold in my hands here a document that states all the reasons why the warrant amendment should not be adopted by this congress and i'll cite one item specifically. number 5. it cites the current f.b.i. director and he goes on to say that russia has launched the most violent ground war in europe since the 1940's as a justification for not passing this amendment. will americans giving up their civil rights prevent that? china has rapidly proliferated its nuclear weapons capabilities. will americans giving up their civil rights prevent that proliferation? will it prevent china, in what clearly -- they are a threat to the free world with their seeking global -- but do americans have to give up their civil rights? it goes on to talk about a.f.c. falling to the taliban -- afghanistan falling to the taliban, isis revived, houthi terrorists putting our troops

under attack. will americans giving up their civil rights prevent those things from happening? it won't. these words ring very hollow by the current f.b.i. director. when he is targeting americans, when we've seen the leadership of our f.b.i. target americans. we have a powerful word in the english language and i think it's one of the most beautiful words out there. it's liberty. and liberty encapsulated in that is freedom. and the founders used liberty as often as they used the term freedom. liberty encapsulates freedom but it also says you have to be accountable for that freedom. there are those in our government that have chosen not to be accountable. but this great system we have allows us to provide that accountability and that's what we're here to do today. is to provide that accountability for those intelligence agencies. so the choice is simple.

today before us. we can protect the powerful with their guard here in washington, d.c. or do we protect the american people with the most powerful document created in the history of humankind? the constitution. today, mr. speaker, i will be choosing the people and the constitution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin yields. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. neguse: i thank the speaker. i have great respect for my colleague from wisconsin, we served together on the subcommittee on federal lands. and i certainly agree with him about the preservation of liberty and the importance of liberty, our founding documents, the core fabric, core thread in our country. but i must also just say that i don't think the american people share house republicans'

priorities. and let me explain why. on monday, the rules committee will be meeting to consider a number of bills. house republicans put out a notice yesterday of what those bills would include. let me just give you a sampling, mr. speaker. the refrigerator freedom act. the hands off our home appliances act. the close dryers reliability act. and, this may be my favorite, the liberty in laundry act. liberty in laundry act. so while i appreciate the gentleman from wisconsin's very passionate defense of liberty, i'm not so sure the american people had that in mind. i don't think they're thinking of the liberty in laundry act. i think they expect this house republican majority to actually address the consequential challenges that face our country. not waste time on petty games

and nonsense bills. mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: jacht colorado reserves -- the gentleman from colorado reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague on the judiciary committee, ms. hageman from wyoming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wyoming is recognized for three minutes. ms. hageman: thank you, mr. speaker. the security states' -- state's -- in 2021 the f.b.i. conducted over three million fisa searches of americans and in 2022 they were still conducting hundreds of such warrantless queries per day. in the 2020 and early 2021 time period, the f.b.i. conducted over 278,000 searches of the 702 fisa database that violated the justice department's own rules and often lacked national security connections. the f.b.i. is querying americans

of all political and religious affiliations. the f.b.i. is even using section 702 to target elected and appointed government officials. the f.b.i.'s abuses are well known. using the 702 database to search for information on those individuals that it perceived to be political enemies of liberal orthodoxy, seeking to infiltrate the catholic church, spying on parents of school board meetings and working with big tech to sensor americans it disagrees with. this is stassi-level abuse and it must be stopped. so my question for this body is, if catching the government violating the constitution and our civil liberties is not the time for significant reform, then when is? the proposed changes to fisa are a good first step but they don't go far enough. there are three additional amendments to assure accountability, one includes a warrant requirement to query the 702 database for americans. there is no national security

exception to the fourth amendment and we must ensure that these agencies adhere to the bill of rights. this warrant amendment would not prevent the government from using all of the available national security tools, it simply requires the government to get a warrant. now, there are some who would argue that requiring the intelligence agencies to obtain a warrant before spying on american citizens would be too burdensome and unreasonably delay their efforts to keep the homeland safe. my first response is to note that if these agencies sincerely cared about national security, they would be doing everything in their power to convince president biden and mayorkas to close the border, but that has not been their priority and their silence is deafening. my second response is to note that this re-authorization is for only two years, we can pass the warrant amendment and resays the situation in two short years -- reassess the situation in two short years, making the necessary tweaks in that time. the second amendment offered by mr. cline would end once and for all a botus -- bouts collection

and enhance reporting requirements and bring more transparency to the fisa court process. i urge my colleagues to support these three amendments. if these three amendments do not pass, section 702 should not be re-authorized. i also urge my colleagues to reject the three additional amendments that we will be taking up. amendments that are actually designed to expand fisa. it is simply unacceptable to reward an agency's abuse of power. i urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the three amendments. mr. massie: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. neguse: i thank the speaker. again, i appreciate the passion of the speakers on the other side of the aisle, including the gentlewoman from wyoming. but facts matter. mr. speaker. and this body must dispense with the notion that any of this, the

ills that they've spent all this time describing, are attributable to the biden administration. i will read you a quote. this is from january of 2018. mr. speaker. quote, i would have preferred a permanent re-authorization, permanent re-authorization of title 7 to protect the safety and security of the nation. by signing this act today, however, i am ensuring that this lawful and essential intelligence program will continue to protect americans for at least the next six years. we cannot let our guard down in the face of foreign threats to our safety, our freedom and our way of life. president donald trump. so spare us lectures about the

need for -- i understand we're going to have robust debates about the mechanics and the nuances with respect to this particular bill. but spare us lectures about the need for a shorter runway and a shorter re-authorization. when the former president whom apparently the house republican caucus continues to take orders from made clear and abundant his desire for a permanent re-authorization of this program. with none of these reforms by the way. none of them. mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i yield two minutes to my good friend from georgia, ms. greene. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from georgia is recognized for two minutes. ms. greene: thank you, mr. speaker. the question today is, do you trust the government? we often hear the claim that it's for your safety and any time the government tells us it's for your safety, the

american people really question what that means. the same intelligence community that spied on president trump's campaign has been deeply invested in re-authorizing those if favor will vote ayes. and the same intelligence community that wrote the letter lying saying that the hunter biden's laptop is not real deeply wants those if favor will vote ayes re-authorized -- fisa re-authorized. these are also the same people in the tense community that abused fisa and spied on hundreds of thousands of americans and i would argue, they will continue to do it. these are also the same people who oppose the f.b.i. having to get a warrant before they can search americans' data. yet we have a clause in this bill today that protects members of congress and requires congress to be notified before they can search members of congress' data. it's always the rules for thee but not for me.

the problem is that this process to re-authorize fisa has received more effort than congress has actually given securing the border. and if the government really cared about protecting americans, then they would shut the border down and mass deport terrorists out of our country. and criminal illegal aliens. but they're not doing that. no. they're telling us we've got to re-authorize fisa. so the government can continue to spy on americans. there's been a lot of games played here in the swamp this past week when it comes to authorizing this bill. we're even told -- we were even told on wednesday that fisa was completely stopped. yet here we are voting on virtually the same rule and virtually the same text. the only change has been from a five-year sunset to a two-year sunset. mr. massie: i yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady from georgia.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. greene: thank you. i would argue that changing that time frame does nothing. if congress wants to change fisa to protect americans or get rid of it altogether, we can do that. we make the laws. so the question today is, do you trust the department of justice to hold the f.b.i. accountable? because i don't. and the warrants aren't added to the bill text unless we pass the amendment after this vote and change the bill text. but a vote to change the bill text and add warrants will not get me to pass the final bill to pacifiesa. because i don't trust the government -- pass fisa. because i don't trust the government and neither should you. mr. massie: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. neguse: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to read from an article from a few days ago, this is from fox 5 in atlanta. the headline, marjorie taylor greene standing by eclipse, any earthquake comments?

she is standing by comments she made about last week's earthquake in the northeast and monday's eclipse. yes, sir? mr. massie: did the gentleman address his remarks to somebody on this side of the aisle? mr. neguse: no. i'm deterioration the speaker, mr. speaker. i'm reading an article. a newspaper article. has that become objectionable now in this body? i thank the speaker. i'll dispense with it quickly. but just simply say, again, this is quoting from the article here. that the republican representative then posted on twitter, social media site formerly known as x, that god is sending america strong signs telling us to repent. greene also pointed to monday's eclipse saying there are, quote, many more things to come, end quote. so to the extent that my friend from kentucky was looking for me to make a connection here to the debate that we're having, i

suspect it's self-evident. but i'm not so sure that the american people should necessarily be taking much stock into the arguments that are being made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including the former speaker that we just heard from. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from kentucky's recognized. mr. massie: i yield one minute to my friend from alabama, mr. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. moore: 3,394,053. that is the estimated number of u.s. person queries conduct under the f.b.i. during my first year here in congress. the number of improper searches by the f.b.i. is in the hundreds of thousands, according to a d.o.j. audit. we may be voting to re-authorize the foreign intelligence surveillance act, but the people of alabama clearly see it as being used to spy on americans like themselves and president trump. ....

that's why i'll tip to support the biggs amendment that requires a warrant or court order before the query of a person under section 70t we as members of congress owe it to our constituents to protect their civil liberties. we cannot allow the intelligence community who spent its resources weaponizing against pro-life grandmothers, concerned parents at school boards, catholics, and biden's political opponents to freely spy on america's citizens. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to adopt the rule and urge the adoption of the warren amendment. with that -- warrant amendment. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the virginia colorado reserves -- the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i recognize my friend and colleague, mr. davidson from ohio, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. davidson: israeli reclaimed. today we have an opportunity to

make progress. after 9/11 the patriot act passed, one senator voted no. 63 members of the house of representatives voted no. both parties failed with that vote. fisa's been re-authorized and it never gets a full clean vote. it's little tranches. in 2020 we ended the business records surveillance program, section 215. the government didn't stop collecting business records. they just stopped doing it in conformance with section 215 of fisa. section 702 is an important program. the foreign intelligence surveillance act is supposed to stop foreign threats to our country. but there is a reason there is not a domestic surveillance act. it's because there is a fourth amendment to the constitution. and that amendment does not say that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

it says as an american citizen you have a right to privacy. that your records cannot be searched without probable cause and a warrant or subpoena. due process. that should not be infringed. the fourth amendment is probably the most disregarded protection given us by the bill of rights. a right to privacy is supposed to be defended. and we have this chance today but not a complete chance. we have a bill that people will claim has 56 reforms. and it does. of those, 45 are from the intelligence committee. some of these were comparable to the judiciary bill but they are weaker and watered-down than the judiciary bills. three protect members of congress. so only two are clean from the judiciary committee's bill. one of the amendments we can't cover today, one of the reasons that the rule failed, was to say that even if the warrant passes, the government can't buy your

data to circumvent the need to get a warrant in the first place. that's what they are doing. they are buying datea. they are structuring markets to collect the data. and they are circumventing the fourth amendment. we need to turn that off. there is a lot of ground to make up on the right to privacy. but i hope we take this chance today. i remind my colleagues that we don't work in a think thank tank, we work in a legislature. the opportunity before us today is to make progress on reclaiming this freedom that we surrendered. i will support this bill in the final passage if we have a warrant requirement. and if the intel threats to the fourth amendment fail. but if those expansions of warrantless spying pass, even if the warrant's there, will i vote no on final passage. i encourage all my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. neguse: thank you, mr. speaker. again i'm going to go through this list of bills they noticed

for monday. the liberty for laundry act, the refrigerator freedom act. i can assure the gentleman from ohio i don't think any of the american people believe he works in a think tank given these bills that develop apparently noticed for this house to consider next week. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i'd like to recognize for two minutes, yield two minutes to the gentlelady from indiana, mrs. spartz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. spartz: thank you, mr. speaker. i guess under the current version of the bill americans should feel bert that congress will be authorizing to spy on them only for two years not for five. but i really want to really bring up some other issues that are the essence of this bill. the bill is not addressing. we have been talking about w warrant, this is important. this is a search, government is able to search without warrant. that is violation of fourth amendment, unconstitutional.

when we are talking about l lawfully collected information, in reality it could be very unlawful information. we do not in a moment it's never addressed. we know for a fact that government unlawfully collected information in 2016. we know the government acknowledge that they have a lot of data there. they don't know how much. it could be all incidental. but nothing in this bill add addressing -- if this is for lawfully collected information, there is no auditing, no checking. if we pass this warrant at least we'll have a warrant to potentially search unlawfully collected information. but if this bill passes as it is, congress will be authorizing for two years for government to unconstitutional searches, of unlawfully collected

information. it almost sounds ironical for us, an institution that should be protecting the constitutional rights of americans. i hope my colleagues are paying attention what we'll be voting for on both sides of the aisle. and i hope congress will wake up to start protecting the american people not play circuses here. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. neguse: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the the gentleman from kentucky. mr. massie: is the gentleman prepared to close? reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. i recognize the gentleman from colorado. mr. neguse: thank you. mr. speaker, today's rule put simply is a testament to the republican playbook since assuming the majority 15 months ago. chaos, gridlock, and infighting. over the past year honestly it has been difficult to understand

what my colleagues across the aisle truly want. at the beginning of this congress the other side of the aisle voted for a house rules package that they promised would entail an open rules process for amendments. yet this congress is on pace to have more closed rules than any congress in the last 100 years. over a century. a minority of house republicans now dictate what proposals will even have a chance to be considered in this chamber. to stand in the marketplace of ideas. that our colleagues claim to love so dearly. our colleagues across the other side of the aisle reject compromises at every turn, mr. speaker. my republican colleagues rejected a bipartisan immigration deal that came out of the senate before even

reading the bill text. the bill passed with 70 votes, mr. speaker. 70 votes in the united states senate. our allies around the world have literally been left stranded. and house republicans won't even bring the bill up for an up or down vote. instead their top priority, the refrigerator freedom act. refrigerator freedom act, mr. speaker. the american people deserve better. they expect better. enough of the political stunts. enough of the infighting. let's get back to work, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized to close.

mr. massie: we are here today to pass a rule that will bring up a program for a vote that's been abused hundreds of thousands of times. abused by the f.b.i.'s own standards hundreds of thousands of times. but every time they have used it, they have actually abused it. because they have not followed the constitutional requirement in the fourth amendment. today if we pass this rule we'll have votes on six different amendments. three of these amendments will expand the program. and three of these amendments will constrain the program. there are people who say, oh, this bill is fine as is. doesn't need any amendments. but here's the problem with that. if we believe that, why would we put exemptions for congress in this bill? there are exemptions for congress in the base bill of 702. what do they do?

they say that if a congressman is going to have their privacy violated with the 702 program by the f.b.i., the f.b.i. has to notify congress. it goes on to say in this bill, that if the f.b.i. is going to tell us that they are doing it for our own good, they have to get permission from the congressman whose privacy will be violated. why does that only apply to members of this body? the constitution provides that we should give these protections to everybody. the constitution requires a warrant, that's one of the amendments that will be offered here today. in fact, the chairman anti-ranking member -- and the ranking member of the judiciary committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction for this legislation, which is the committee that many years ago created the 702 program. the chairman and ranking member have said that if the warrant provision is not adopted, they will not vote to renew this program. and i applaud them for taking

that stand. because the fourth amendment to our constitution says the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched or the person or things to be seized. the fisa 702 program is clearly in violation of the fourth amendment. we can fix it. for the most part with one amendment. there will still be other defects in the fisa program. and will i just close by saying this. and i will just close by saying this. america is watching us today. they are going to watch the results of this vote. what will we do here today? are we going to carve out exemptions for congress? are we going to protect ourselves but not the american people? are we going to provide them with the protections that our

founding fathers enshrined in our constitution? we swore an oath to do that when we took these offices as legislators. and we need to follow that oath. and that's why i urge adoption of this rule. i urge people to vote for the warrant amendment. and i urge people not to vote for the final bill if the protections of the warrant amendment are not there. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. neguse: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. president biden -- clause 6, rule 9, the chair will reduce to five minutes on any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by th, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 208. the nays are 202. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. neguse: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 213, the nays are 208. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 7888. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution

1137 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 7888. the chair appoints the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meuser, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 7888, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to reform the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees and the chair and ranking minority

member of the permanent select committee on intelligence or their respective designees. the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, and the gentleman from colorado, mr. crow, each will control 15 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. mr. turner: mr. chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. turner: this bill is about the extension of section 702 of the foreign surveillance act. that's the act under which we're able to spy on our adversaries, those individuals who intend to do our nation harm. it's been great debate and great discussion among the members. in this body everyone is in tbreement that there have been -- in agreement that there have been unbelievable abuses by the f.b.i. of access to foreign intelligence. the underlying bill of which there's broad support punishes the f.b.i., it criminalizes the

f.b.i.'s abuses, it limits and restricts the f.b.i.'s access to foreign intelligence and it further puts guardrails to punish the f.b.i. what's also in agreement here on this house floor is the protection of americans' civil liberties. you have to have a warrant and there's absolute constitutional protection of americans' data. no one in this statute, there's no place in this statute where americans' data becomes at risk. the debate today though is not about fisa or spying or on our -- on oured a never says -- on our adversaries. it's a about a warrant -- it's about a warrant in the amendment. this amendment largely drafted by senatorwider and -- senator wyden and co-sponsored by elizabeth warren would for the first time in history provide constitutional rights to our adversaries. it would provide constitutional rights to our enemies, no court,

no law has ever come out of this body that would provide constitutional rights to our adversaries. we spy on hezbollah, we spy on hamas, we spy on the ayatollah, we spy on the communist party of china. this bill provides them constitutional protections to communicate with people in the united states to recruit them for the purposes of being terrorists, for being spies, and for doing espionage. the 9/11 perpetrators were in the united states and they were communicating with al qaeda. at that time we made a grave mistake in that we were not spying on al qaeda and we didn't see who they were communicating with in the united states. we changed that and we began to spy on al qaeda and we got to see the extent to which they were recruiting people in the united states to do us harm. if this amendment passes, al qaeda will have full constitutional protections to

recruit in the united states, the communist party will have full constitutional protections to recruit in the united states and there will be no increased protection of constitutional protections for americans and their data. the only data that would become protected is data that's located in al qaeda's in-box and the communist chinese in-box. how is it that they become protected? this amendment would require that you have to have a warrant to look into communist chinese party data for the recruitment efforts that they are doing within the united states. you would have to have evidence of a crime that is occurring in order to be able to get to that warrant. which means we'll be blind. the moment that this -- if this becomes law, we will be blind and we'll be unable to look at what hezbollah is doing in the united states, what hamas is doing in the united states, what the communist party is doing in the united states. there's no additional protections in this amendment for americans. americans still have full

constitutional protection of their own data. let me give you an example of how this works under their amendment. . we're spying on hamas. two people in the united states send emails to hamas. one says, happy birthday, and one says, thank you for making -- for the bomb making classes. now whether those two emails go to hamas, right now we see them. if you send a happy birthday to hamas and we see it, that doesn't matter. it's not a threat to the united states. you send an email that says, thank you for the bomb making classes, we intercept that email, we read it, we find out who it is and then when we come here to go find that person, to arrest them, to make certain that they don't harm americans, we have to go to court and get a warrant. there already is a warrant requirement for the protection of americans and people who are here in the united states. ... if you have to look at a warrant for the two people that sent the emails, you have no evidence of a crime. no ability to read these a

emails. we will go dark. we will go blind. the f.b.i. abuses have been extraordinary in their searching of foreign data. we need to punish them. this underlying bill punishes the f.b.i. we should not punish americans. we should not make our nation less safe by giving constitutional protections to hamas, giving constitutional protections to the communist chinese party? i have been talking to members on the floor they say, hey, this amendment is about protecting americans' data in the united states. it's not. americans' data of the united states is already protected by the constitution. there is nobody on this house floor who would argue that you don't need a warrant to look at americans' yacht in the united states. this amendment -- data in the united states. this amendment, i encourage everyone to read it, applies to the data we collect in spying on hamas, hezbollah, the chinese communist party. to give them a warrant, to give them constitutional protections

means that they are opened for business. the day after this passes, and we go blind, the communist chinese party has a complete pass to recruit in the united states students to spy on our industry and our universities. hamas and hezbollah have a complete pass. we will be blind as they try to recruit people for terrorist attacks within the united states. currently we keep america safe by spying on our adversaries. do not give our adversaries constitutional protection. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. himes: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. himes: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation. first, let me emphasize again that as the chairman said section 02 is our single most important intelligence authority. our single most important intelligence authority. we use it every day to protect the nation from threats range interesting china and russia to

terrorist plots to fentanyl traffickers, and much more. it cannot be allowed to expire. it is also true that the 702 program requires substantial reform. we have done this before. and we are doing it in this base bill. i would also make a critical point here which is that this is arguably our most heavily scrutinized and overseen intelligence authority. it is approved, i will say this twice, every single year and has been since 2009 by federal judges. federal judges who crawl all over this program looking for constitutional violations, looking for violations of law, and since 2009 they have recertified this program. it is also overseen by the congress, the chairman and i see problems with the program, it is overseen inside by the attorney general. it is the most scrutinized intelligence collection program that we have. the bill before the house today is the product of very serious

oversight, resulting in a base text that preserves the value of 702 while putting in place more than 50 significant reforms aimed at preventing its misuse. those misuses that were detailed anti-chairman referred to, which by the way are down to the tune of 90%, this bill would codify those reforms and require that the f.b.i. continue to follow those rules. this legislation contains the most significant reforms to 702 ever. among many other proposals, this bill will continue the progress already made that i referred to by the biden administration and others to ensure compliance. the bill would ban queries to conduct -- to find evidence of a crime and cut by 90%, 90% the number of f.b.i. personnel that can approve u.s. person queries. that's what we give up if we don't pass this bill. we will consider several amendments to the bill, most of which i will support. however, i am opposed to the

biggs amendment, an extreme and misguided proposal that ser seriously undermines our national security. i understand the instinct. there is no way to collect intelligence on foreign emails and text without having some americans on the other side of this. this bill puts in place protections to make sure that the abuses of the past don't continue into the future. i would add i understand the concern. federal judges crawl all over this program every single year and not one federal judge, not one has found constitutional issues with u.s. person queries. the president's civil liberties oversight board, proposed a warrant that is much less extreme than the one in the biggs amendment. the pclob, this proposal was split smith on that -- was split on that, proposed only in the event that a u.s. query produces

information, only in that event, which is about 2% of all queries, would a warrant be required. the biggs amendment would require a warrant for every single u.s. person query that the government makes inside information it already has. the narrow exceptions including in this amendment will also not work. you don't need to take that from me. talk to anybody in the government who use this is program. we don't know if a query is about something that is an exy againcy until we know what is in the information. that that query would turn up. enacting this amendment would make us far less safe. we'll lose the ability to disrupt terrorist plots. identify spies. interdict fentanyl. and much more. not because it was actually required. but because we simply chose not to look. as jake sullivan said this week, quote, the extensive harm of this proposal simply cannot be

mitigated. i would point my colleagues, particularly on my side of the aisle, to the president's extraordinarily strong statement of administrative policy in which he reiterates the damage done by this amendment should it pass. and my friends, a lot of what we do here, the consequences don't appear immediately. if we turn off the ability of the government to query u.s. person data, the consequences will be known soon. and we will audit why what happened happened, and the consequences will be known soon and accounted -- accountability been list vitted. i ask members to vote for the underlying bill and oppose the biggs amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: i yield to dr. wenstrup. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wenstrup: i'm in support of this underlying bill. certainly.

this is a bipartisan product. it came out of the intelligence committee. and it came out of the intelligence committee when we realized a few years ago all the abuse that is were taking place within our intelligence system. and we knew we had to act. and there had to be reforms. and there had to be criminal liability when people in our agencies are doing the wrong things. that wasn't in place. and for the last 2 1/2 years we have worked on this, we worked on it in a bipartisan way, not just with the intelligence committee, but with the whole body. we opened this up to the entire body. republican, democrat, regardless of what committee you are on. and we worked together to craft a very good bill. this isn't just an intelligence committee bill. this is a house of representatives bill. and that's what we have come forward. this bill ensures americans' civil liberties are secure. and that we have intelligence

collection tools that we need to safeguard our country from foreign threats. the constitution requests us to provide for our defense. that is what we are trying to do. and to work against all enemies, foreign and domestic. that is what we are trying to do. so i want to set the record straight. it's already in statute that a warrant is required every single time the united states government wants to investigate a u.s. person. under fisa, under section 702. but a warrant is not required to do a query. to find out what you might need for probable cause to get a warrant. now this amendment wants to put a warrant on getting a query when time is of the essence. mr. speaker, if ayatollah khomeini is talking about you, and we pick up that, i want to

know why he's talking about you, mr. speaker. and i want to do a query into the information we already have to see if anyone else is talking about you. and i want to find out if they are planning to cincinnati you, mr. speaker -- to assassinate you, mr. speaker. i shouldn't need a warrant to try to find out if a foreign actor is trying to assassinate a u.s. citizen. i shouldn't need to find fought a foreign actor or terrorist is working with someone in the united states to harm other americans. but if we want to investigate that person, yes, we do. so there is a lot of misinformation out there. american civil liberties are not being harmed. i'll give you a hypothetical example. american citizen bob smith, pops up in a fisa database. some are saying the government can obtain or search bob emails'

text and phone calls. that is not true. that is not true. but you can do a query to see if anyone else is talking about this person. and not just anyone else anywhere, but a foreign actor or a foreign terrorist whose information you already have. can you imagine if you are looking for -- the chair: the gentleman has 20 seconds remaining. mr. wenstrup: i want to just say what's true and what's not true. a query does not investigate a u.s. citizen. in many cases it's acting on behalf of the u.s. citizen to keep them safe. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. himes: mr. chairman, it is my privilege to yield two

minutes to the single longest serving member of the house intelligence committee ever, a member who as my republican colleagues regularly remind me, whose progressive bona fides are unchallengeable and came to this institution to fight for civil liberties, i yield two minutes to speaker emerita, nancy pelosi. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his great leadership of the intelligence committee. and i thank our members of the intelligence committee for their important work to protect our national security on both sides of the aisle. having served there i know it's a place where we strive for bipartisanship. mr. speaker, as the gentleman indicated i came to this committee in early 1990's. my purpose was to protect the civil liberties as we protected the national security of our country. i had two purposes. one, to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. and secondly, was -- on par with

that to make sure that we protect the civil liberties. in the course of that time i have had -- i have voted for legislation that is less than what i would have liked, but advanced the cause. the gentleman, both the chair and ranking member, have put forth a very clear idea about why 702 is important. and i associate myself with their remarks. i just want to say this. i went in the early 1990's. i became the ranking member, the top democrat on the committee. for 20 years i was gang of four, or gang of eight in terms of receiving intelligence up until last year when i stopped being speaker of the house. and for that whole time it's been about what does this mean to the civil liberties of the american people? i have a bill we brought to the floor when president bush was president that addressed some of our fisa concerns. didn't go all the way. this bill does. and in this legislation there's

scores, scores of provisions that -- good, strengthen our case for civil liberties. some of them improvements on existing law. some of them new provisions in the law to protect the civil liberties of the american people. so this biggs amendment ser seriously undermines our ability to protect the national security. i urge our colleagues to vote against it. if this -- i don't have the time right now, but if members want to know i'll tell you how we could have been saved from 9/11 if we didn't have to have the additional warrants. with that i again urge a no vote on biggs. a yes on the bill. and yield back the balance of my time. .. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. >> to my folks at home, are you

concerned about counterterrorism threats? i am, too. fisa section 702 informed the planning of the 2002 military operation that led to the death of the leader of isis. i'm concerned about fentanyl. we delivered fisa section 702 to identify a supplier in mexico to help thwart the fentanyl threat. are you concerned about cyberattacks? i am. section 702 led to the prevention of a cyberattack. are you concerned about our troops? fisa section 702 has disrupted planned terrorist attacks on our troops in places like the middle east and a u.s. facility in the middle east and 702 is used to monitor communications as the terrorist traveled to go and

execute those plans. mr. crawford: we can't overstate the importance of 702. i know you're concerned about the rights of the american people. i am, too. i'm an american just like you are. that's why there already is a warrant requirement in place. we're protecting u.s. persons. we can't allow 702 to expire and expect we'll have good results the end of the day. i support section 702 and i urge a yes vote. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair and not to a perceived viewing audience. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. himes: it's a pleasure to yield one minute to mr. hank johnson of georgia. mr. johnson: i thank the member and rise in support of re-authorization of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act which first was passed by congress in 2008. it codified what had been a

secret and was a warrantless collection of phone, email and other communications of non-u.s. persons located outside of the united states in response to the deadly 9/11 attack that killed thousands of americans. as they plapped that deadly attack, al qaeda plotters used u.s. communication facilities and american foreign intelligence picked up the chatter but the stove pipe that kept this intel from domestic law enforcement created the situation where domestic law enforcement could not protect us from the threat because they did not know of the plot before it happened. if section 702 had been in place prior to 911, the f.b.i. could have been able to prevent the attack. and allowing section 702 to expire would expose americans to grave danger like the horrific massacre of israeli jews on october 7th, the military style

assaults like what happened in russia recently, and other mass cool events, the limits of which are only limited by the depravity of those who would plan them and why i rise in support of this legislation and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> may i inquire how much time we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has five minutes remaining. >> i yield two minutes to mr. lahood. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mr. lahood: i want to thank you for this bill. i rise in strong support of h.r. 7888, the former intelligence and securing america act. for the past year i let the intelligence committee on fisa re-authorization to work with my colleagues to find commonsense reforms under the processes of 702 to create a balance between protecting national security and preserving constitutional liberties afforded to all u.s. persons. it's important to state at the

outset section 702 is used only to target bad actors overseas and our adversaries who are not protected under the fourth amendment. it is not used to surveil or target americans. throughout our process we regularly engage with security leaders, former trump administration officials, and our colleagues both on the judiciary committee and throughout the conference. this bill makes changes to fisa and 702 without upending the statute that would lead to unintended consequences resulting in the united states being less safe. prior to do coming to congress i witnessed firsthand the valuable use of fisa. section 702 is a critical tool to help the i.c. defend the united states against the malign actors we worry about daily and the value of what 702 has done for our country the last 15-plus years is immense. i would mention four existential

things that happened the last nine years, the taking out of bin laden, the assassination of sole amani, the taking out of al baghdady, the leader of isis and last year taking out al zaharri. the use of 702 was definitive in taking out those terrorists. i would say with this bill it institutes the largest reform of the f.b.i. in a generation, makes the necessary changes to prevent bad actors from utilizing fisa from anything other than its intended use, protecting americans from foreign threats. particularly this day in age with china and the unenforcement at our southern border, it's "sportscenterright now" more important than ever we have a vibrant, robust 702 in place. i would submit for the record a letter from mike pompeo, devin radcliff, and former

administration officials that worked in national security. where they specifically support our bill and express grave concern about the warrant amendment that will be brought up today and i urge a no vote on the warrant amendment and a yes vote on our underlying bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. himes: it's my privilege to yield 90 seconds to a gentleman who prior to coming here defended this nation's security at risk to his own life in the uniform of the 75th rangeer regiment, the gentleman from colorado, jason crow. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crow: i rise in support of the informing intelligence and securing america act to re-authorize section 702 of fisa. as one of the nation's most essential intelligence gathering tools, the importance of re-authorizing fisa cannot be overstated. every day our nation's diplomats and intelligence officials and defense officials and soldiers and marines and air men derive

on section 702 to protect our country. it provides vital insights to the kinds of threats we need to protect americans from, including threats against our critical infrastructure, our computer networks and financial system and our citizens. this bill before you is the product of careful bipartisan negotiations. these negotiations have insured this bill will not only maintain the effectiveness of fisa but enhances protections for america's civil liberties and makes targeted reforms to address compliance issues. to require a warrant before accessing this information that has already been lawfully collected and reviewed by the courts and in possession of the u.s. government would serve as a de facto ban on ever accessing it. it creates a unaccept is level of risk with consequences that would be felt almost immediately for americans and our national security. so i urge my colleagues to reject the biggs amendment and

support the underlying bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. wenstrup: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. crenshaw. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crenshaw: thank you. we've seen a lot since i've been here. it's my third term. never before have i been frightened what could happen if fisa is not re-authorized or this warrant amendment is passed which effectively kills our ability to detect and connect the dots between foreign terrorists and what they might do here domestically. i've never been more concerned. i spent the last 20 years of my life fighting for this country, lost an eye doing it. i don't think we actually disagree very much on principle. there's always a balance between civil liberties, privacy, and security. i don't think me and my colleagues are very far apart on that. we're very far apart on the facts at hand. is so let's talk about some myths and some facts.

myth, fisa is used to spy on americans. the myth goes like this, if you querreyed an american's name, you could see their inbox. it's not true. it's used to spy on foreign intelligence targets, foreign terrorists, and you need a warrant to do so. if they speak to an american, you will get that part of the conversation. that is all you get. here's another myth. this bill doesn't go far enough, it doesn't do any reforms. that is not true. the reforms in here would stop in their traction what happened to president trump with crossfire hurricane. it's almost entirely intended to stop what happened to president trump. not only that, they would do the necessary reforms -- it would codify 56 more reforms and put in processes before queries were even made and put in criminal penalties by those who do the not abide by those processes. the f.b.i. hates these reforms, by the way. please support this bill. please do not support the amendment to require a warrant

for queries and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. himes: may i require to the remaining time? the chair: the gentleman has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. himes: it's a live to yield 90 seconds to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. houlahan. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. houlahan: thank you. i rise in support of the former intelligence and securing america act which would re-authorize fisa 702. we live in a dangerous world and section 702 is crucial to keeping americans safe. this is a tool our intelligence agencies rely upon all day to counter all kinds of threats to our homeland from u.s. nonpersons p. again, u.s. nonpersons. whether uncovering chinese spies or foiling terrorist plots or intercepting terrorist plots, this authority is essential to our national security. this tool can even allow our intelligence community to

counter drug cartels as they bring fentanyl to our shores and would be enhanced by what mr. crenshaw and i are enforcing, with the national drug processing act. i urge you to support the amendment. not all the amendments today would strengthen this bill. in fact, i'm strongly opposed to the amendment offered by mr. briggs and am obligated to point out the dangers of passing this extreme amendment. intelligence professionals who rely on 702 keep us safe and have been crystal clear. this amendment would make it nearly impossible to access information exceptional to protect our homeland security. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i urge a yes vote on the overall bill fisa and a no vote on the biggs amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: gentlelady yields. the gentlemanfrom ohio is recognized. mr. wenstrup: i yield one minute to the gentleman from florida who opposes giving constitutional rights to our foreign adversaries, mr. rutherford.

mr. rut rear ford: thank you. i rise today in strong -- mr. rutherford: thank you. i rise today in strong support to the bill but opposition to the amendment. this amendment ties the hands of our intelligence community making all of us less safe. this amendment requires the i.c. to get a probable cause warrant to search a set of data that is legally been collected. i.c.'s, our intelligence community, must have access to legally collected, pertinent information, and we should not be adding roadblocks. as a former law enforcement officer, i strongly believe in the civil liberties of all americans and spent my life protecting them but this amendment does not provide any more protection to americans. all this amendment does is gut 702, giving to terrorists, adversaries, and bad actors a major win. restricting access to already legally collected data makes us all less safe.

702 is a vital piece of our security and must be preserved. i urge a no vote on the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from connecticut selected. mr. himes: i yield 90 seconds to dan goldman of new york. mr. goldman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of this bill that includes an absolutely exceptional national security program. but i will support this bill only if the amendment that would impose a warrant requirement on queries regarding american citizens fails. first, a warrant is simply not needed because the query in question is not a new search. it simply identifies any contacts or communications with americans within the universe of information that was already lawfully obtained from the original search and that original search can only be of

foreign nationals on foreign soil. i spent 10 years as a federal prosecutor and obtained hundreds of search warrants. and based on that experience, i can say with confidence that requiring a warrant would render this program unusable and entirely worthless. based on the information available to law enforcement, it would be impossible to get probable cause to obtain a search warrant from a judge in a timely manner. and even if it were possible, the time required to obtain a search warrant from a judge would frequently fail to meet the urgency of a terrorist or other national security threat. a warrant requirement is unnecessary and unworkable, and i therefore urge my colleagues to oppose the biggs amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. ..

the gentleman from ohio's time has expired. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. hymes: thank you -- mr. himes: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank the gentleman from ohio for his terrific work in the face of very real challenges and his commitment to bipartisanship. this is a critical and bipartisan effort. it's one that he and i and many others have spent thousands of hours on. as we close out debate, two things are very, very clear. number one, this authority must be re-authorized. i've heard too many members saying that, i'll vote to re-authorize it so long as i get this amendment passed. if you are serious about keeping the american people safe, if you're serious about what you said which is that this must be re-authorized, vote for final passage. this is our single most important tool to keep americans safe. secondly, the biggs amendment is

an extreme amendment. and i understand the instinct as i mentioned before, the pclob, the president's civil liberties oversight board, proposed something that would require in very limited circumstances a judicial amendment. this amendment is far more extreme than that one and it is not driven by constitutional concerns. not a single federal court, after years and years scrutiny, has identified a fourth amendment issue. so this is a policy choice. and i would say to those friends of mine on my side of the ■aisl, maybe you've spent more time on this collection authority than i have. i've probably 2,000 or 3,000 hours. maybe you've spent more, i'm willing to concede that. maybe you know better than ido. but i would ask you to listen to the people who use this every single day at the department of justice, at our intelligence

community, i would ask you to read the last paragraph of the administration's statement of administration policy which concludes with the lierng our intelligence, defense, and public safety communities are united. the extensive harms of this proposal simply cannot be mitigated. we're article i. maybe you've done a lot of work. maybe you know bet own the biggs amendment. we'll find out. pass the biggs amendment. do what the sap says would badly damage our safety. we'll find out. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields.

the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, and the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, each will control 15 minutes. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: in 2021 and 2022,

the f.b.i. did three million u.s. person queries of this giant 702 database osm this giant haystack of information. three million queries of united states persons. and make no mistake. queries of -- queer vie a fancy name for search. three million americans' data was serged in this database of information. and guess what? the f.b.i. wasn't even following their own rules when they conducted those searches. that's why we need a warn. 278,000 times. not jim jordan talk about it. not ranking member nadler talking about it. "washington post" reported last may that 278,000 times the f.b.i. found, the justice department found they didn't even follow their own darn rules when they searched this giant haystack, this giant database of information on americans what we're saying is, let's do something that the constitution has had in place for a couple hundred years that's served our nation well and protected

american citizen's liberties. let's make the exec tiff branch go to a separate and equal branch of government, the judicial branch, and get a probable cause warrant to do the search. after all it's done pretty well nor great country, greatest country ever, for a long, long time. why wouldn't we have that here? oh, by the way, in a bipartisan fashion, come ought of our committee, 35-2 vote, we said we'll even put exceptions in there. if it's an emergency situation they are f.b.i. doesn't have to get a warn they can get a search if it's an emergency situation they can do it. we put exceptions in there. here's the fundamental question. i raised this the other day. here's the fundamental question. of that over three million searches in a two-year life span, how many aren't covered by the exceptions we have in our amendment? what's the number? guess what we can't get an answer. they won't tell us.

which should be a concern in and of itself. but if it's a big number we should be frightened. if they're not following exceptions, they're searching americans, your name, your phone number, your email address in this database. and if it's a small number what's the big deal? you don't -- if it's a small number, but we can't get an answer to that question. so the underlying bill has got some changes and reforms that are positive, that are good but short of having this warrant amendment added to the legislation, we shouldn't pass it. this amendment is critical. particularly when you think about the 278,000 times they abuse the system and didn't follow their own rules. they said now we've got new rule, i'll follow them now. the real check we have in our system is a separate and equal branch of government signing off on it. that's how we do things in america. and never forget this is the f.b.i. who has had some other abuses, different arias. this is why we think this

warrant requirement is so darn apartment. with that, i reserve the balance of our time, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. nadler: i rise in strong support of meaningful reform to fisa section 702 and in strong opposition to a mere fig leaf or worse, a mere expansion of 702. unfortunately we won't know which of these paths we're taking until the conclusion of the debate. what i know at the moment is the base text before us right now is completely inadequate. though it has some perfectly fine provisions it does not represent real reform. some of the proposed amendments that would be coming up today would take us in the wrong direction and changing the sunset from five years to years does absolutely nothing improve the bill. ultimately this legislation should only move forward if it contains an amendment to mandate that the intelligence community

obtain a probable cause warrant before they search the 702 database for ame communications. some of my colleagues appear confused by how 702 collection works. what we mean when supporters of a warrant requirement refer to backdoor searches for u.s. person information. let's be clear about what we're talking about. fisa section 702 permits the intelligence community to sweep up the communication of foreign targets located overseas. when these communications are obtained, they go into what is known as the 702 database where all the 702 data is housed. if the u.s. government wants to target a u.s. person for foreign surveillance, the u.s. person meaning an american legal or permanent resident, they already can they do this by getting a warrant under title i of fisa, a separate and distinct part of fisa from section 702. the government cannot target americans under 702 because 702 does not protect the

constitutional rights of the targets of the surveillance. foreigners not located on u.s. soil do not have constitutional rights so this is not a problem. what is a problem, however, is that massive amounts of americans' communications are still swept up in 702 searches. if a u.s. person communicates with a foreign target, that american's communications with the target end up in the 702 database too. while we do not know precise numbers we know a vast amount of americans' communications is swept up every year. the intelligence community is not supposed to search the 702 database for u.s. person identifiers like our name, phone numbers and addresses, without cause. searching for americans' private communications in the 702 database, communications the government otherwise would not have access to without a warrant is the constitutional egive lept of conducting a warrantless search. but we know that this -- that the government breaks this law all the time. 278,000 times in fact, at last

count, in 2021 alone. officials are supposed to find it reasonably likely that a query will turn up evidence of a crime or foreign intelligence information. but that did not stop phlegm searching for protesters, politicians and political donors to name a few, without proper predicate. because of these repeated violations, chairman jordan and i agree that the only way to preserve american's privacy and constitutional rights is to require they are intelligence community to obtain a probable cause warrant when they want to search the communications of americans housed in the 702 database. that is a basic tenet of the fourth amendment. chairman turner stated incorrectly that the proposed warrant requirement gives constitutional rights to suspected terrorists abroad. nonsense. the warrant requirement does not change any aspect of surveillance of valid targets under section 702, nor should it. the problem is that when we surveil the internet we sweep up massive amounts of u.s. person

information. and the warrant requirement we propose would apply the fourth amendment to that information. nothing more. and our constitution demands nothing less. we have repeatedly heard some of our colleagues tell us that the sky is falling. that a probable cause requirement would end u.s. person search of the 702 database. but there are no facts to back up these claims. we will be considering an amendment today to add a requirement for u.s. person search of the 702 database. the exception amendment makes a case for cyber security cases and emergencies. thus the vast majority of these searches can continue without a warrant. but for the small percentage of searchers of american communication that would be affected the government should have probable cause to search their communications. it is simply unfair to ask the intelligence community to both zealously protect our security while also protecting our the constitutional rights of those surveilled.

americans' system of checks and balances exists precisely for case such as this with two considerings must coexist at odds with one another. for too long, fisa section 70 has enabed the surveillance of americans without adequate safeguards to protect our civil liberties. americans need congress to enact these guard israels and with section 702 expiring soon we have a rare opportunity to protect americans' privacy while giving enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe i feel encourage my colleagues to vote no on this legislation, unless a probable cause warrant is adopted. i reserve the balance of my time. the spe the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: i yield to the gentleman from the judiciary committee, mr. mccline to be. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. mcclintock: i don't discount the dangers we face from enemies abroad but we cannot discount the dangers we face at home from

the powers the bill would continue. it's been pointed out the f.b.i. abused these powers 278,000 times in a single year. and turned them against american citizens. fishing for january 6 and black lives matter rioters, probing political donors, even piercing congressional offices. john adams believed that the indiscriminate searches by british officials became the first spark of the american revolution. having lived under such a tier think -- tyranny the funkers protected with us the fourth amendment. before authorities can search through our records they have to get a warrant from an independent judge by showing probable cause to suspect that we've committed a crime. now there are many excellent reforms in this bill and i applaud them. but they largely depend on these agencies policing themselves and, and experience warns us that's not enough. without a warn requirement i fear these powers will once

again be turned against our fundamental liberties and these days, that scares me as much as a terrorist attack. just imagine how much safer we'd all be if we stationed a soldier in every house. but we have a third amendment to protect us against that tyranny just as we have a fourth amendment to protect us against the tyranny of indiscriminate searches. benjamin franklin's warning echoes through his age to ours today. those who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. let that the no be history's judgment of us. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. nadler: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from washington, ms. jayapal. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jayapal: the gentlelady is recognized. - we have an

obligation to safeguard our national security. every single day the f.b.i. conducts and average of 500 warrantless searches of americans' private communications resulting in over 278,000 searches in one year alone. the f.b.i. has invaded the privacy of members of congress, a state court judge who reported state right misappropriations. we cannot pass this bill without my amendment and representative biggs and lofgren and davidson to close the backdoor search loophole. unfortunately, there are some members of the intelligence community, some members of this body that are circulating information that simply isn't correct and i need to correct the record right here. some members have implied the

privacy and civil liberties oversight board does not support the amendment. to counter that, let me share some quotes from sharon bradford franklin in her personal capacity as chair of the privacy and civil liberties board, the independent government agency tasked with securing the government branch secures national security work that protects our civil liberties and privacy. here are her quotes, it's critical in re-authorizing section 702 congress include a warrant requirement for u.s. person queries. another quote, requiring a warrant for u.s. person queries would neither end u.s. person queries nor undermine the overall value of section 702. another quote, outside of the category, quote, victim queries, the f.b.i. has not been able to identify any cases in which a section 702 u.s. person query provided unique value in

advancing a criminal investigation. in addition, the government has been unable to identify a single criminal prosecution that relied on evidence identified through a u.s. person query. another quote, the warrant requirement contained in the warrant amendment includes important exceptions that would address the government's concerns about slowing down the process for u.s. person queries. exceptions are provided for exigent circumstances, consent, cybersecurity, and meta data only queries. mr. speaker, let me be clear the privacy and civil liberties oversight board in its oversight capacity has the same access to all the classified intelligence that the agency site when they try to scare us into re-authorizing fisa with minimal changes. we have a bipartisan amendment that would fix this problem. we have a responsibility to

stand up for civil liberties of our constituents. we cannot pass this bill without requiring intelligence agencies to ensure that americans' privacy rights are upheld at every turn. i yield back. the chair: gentlelady yields. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you. before yielding to my good friend i want to underscore what the gentlelady from washington just described. the privacy and civil liberties oversight board created by the 9/11 commission act of 2007 says that our amendment is consistent with what should happen. our amendment is consistent with the majority recommendation of that board. this was a board specifically created to protect americans liberties looking at how the intelligence community operates by the 9/11 commission act of 2007 and the majority of that board said this amendment is what needs to happen. with that i yield to my good friend from new jersey, a member of our committee, two minutes.

>> thank you. and thank you, mr. speaker. mr. van drew: you just heard the words of benjamin franklin from my good friend mr. mcclintock. those who give up freedom to safety deserves neither. i hope we aren't marked in history as the generation of congress that was willing to give up american liberty and freedom. it is what we stood for. it is what we've worked for. it is what the men and women have died for. we owe it to them. it is our most important right as americans. it is what america is. the united states of america represents. and we were told ■all this before. we were told in the last renewal of 702 everything was going to be ok. no worries. all the security was there. nothing to be concerned about. don't look here. and then we saw what happened. we saw the political campaigns

and donors, they were gone after. we saw that members of congress were investigated. we saw that journalists were investigated. we saw that individuals who were libertarians or liberals or conservatives were investigated. we saw f.b.i. agents own co-workers were investigated and they investigated their ex-girlfriends and others. and just the average man in america, the average man and a woman was investigated. it was wrong. millions of times, not dozens or hundreds or thousands but over that time period, millions of times. millions of illegal queries. i cannot support, i will not support this legislation unless there is a major change in the form of an amendment that would require what we know needs to be done, a search warrant. it's a basic american right.

and don't let them scare you. it doesn't mean that we're not going to go after terrorists. it doesn't mean we won't protect the united states of america. and when i finally wrap up here, if this bill is so good the way it's written, why, why do we exempt members of congress? you know why? because they're scared they may still at the end of the day go after us. it's wrong. rules for them and not for me. we should not stand for it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield four minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the crime subcommittee, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the chairman of the judiciary committee. even in this time of 2024 we need this legislation to protect now one of the most revered civil rights leaders, dr. martin luther king.

yes, we need legislation that would in fact protect someone who simply wanted to provide justice to this nation. and he was the subject of co-intel pro, a hardly distorted investigation of his family, of his belongings, of his extended family members, of his wife, who i think at the time was expecting. this legislation is important to save lives. it is important legislation to ensure that our intelligence community, our law enforcement community can do their job. but it is not legislation that should be utilized to abuse the american people. so i rise today to speak of the concerns on h.r. 7888. it is a bipartisan bill to. section 702 of the foreign intelligence act, fisa, and other fisa provisions before they'd expire on april 19. but in doing so, we find

ourselves being subject to the eye of the night, if you will, in penetrating the personal matters of individuals that have no desire to do harm to this country. as we know all too well, 702, authorities would deprive our national government of the insight and suspects as identified and would encounter. if we lost 702 we lose vital protections to the united states and its allies from hostile foreign adversaryies including terries and spies and to inform cybersecurity efforts but we're also acutely aware 702 is an extremely controversial warrantless surveillance that must not be authorized without a reform to rein is warrantless surveillance of americans. indeed, warrantless surveillance intended for non-american targets located abroad has resulted in the collection and

capture of americans' communication and yes, the results of capturing information that safeguards the american people and provides us with a safety net that we can fight for justice, fight for civil rights, and yet be protected. it is no secret intelligence agencies have turned 702 into a domestic spy tool used to hundreds of millions backdoor searches of americans' prove phone calls and emails and text messages. by the way, mr. chair, we have a whole new world of technology where you can probe every aspect of our life and these have shown shocking abuses against civil rights leaders, protesters, members of congress, 19,000 donors through congressional campaigns and political parties. to protect the american people, we need to maintain the vital collection authority as intended to protect our nation and national security. we must do that while at the

same time strengthening its protective guardrails with the most robust set, if you will, of protection we possibly can. that's why i've joined with several members, including mr. cline, to offer the abouts amendment and we'll off they're as one of the judiciary three. this amendment does something congress should have done several years ago, prevent the government from resuming abouts collection, a form of section 702 that poses unique risks to americans. abouts collection is a collection of communications that are neither to nor from an approved target of surveillance. can you imagine under section 702 of fisa but merely contain information related to the target? it is unbelievable we would go after innocent americans, members of congress in the random searching, phishing.

the random search and phishing of information that may not be relevant, in the past abouts collection focused on collecting communications that included a target's email address or twitter handle or something like that but in theory abouts collection could collect emails who merely mentions a person who is a target of 702 surveillance. i rise to say we cannot pass this legislation without these vital amendments and we cannot pass this legislation without the american people believing when they pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america they're pledging allegiance to civil liberties, freedom, justice and equality for all. i rise to support these amendments and as well a free nation with democracy and liberty for all. with that i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the chair: gentlelady yields. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jordan: i yield two minutes to mr. self of texas.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. self: it appears the house of representatives is experiencing a constitution will a crisis of conscience. we are actually debating if a warrant should be required for government intelligence agencies to spy on americans. frankly, i'm stunned this is even called into question. especially among my republican colleagues. the constitution is absolutely clear. we as americans have the right under the fourth amendment against unreasonable search and seizures. a right that the f.b.i. has violated in over 278,000 improper searches of americans and 3.4 million warrantless confer eyes of american's' prov. we know this is not up for debate. they've been caught. if we do not pass this warrant requirement especially in light of these facts, the continued victimization of americans by the f.b.i. through fisa section

702 will be legitimatized. as an army officer, as a county judge, now as a member of congress for 40 years, i have been under oath to defend the constitution against all enemies. i will do so today on behalf of over 800,000 of my constituents in texas district 3. get a warrant. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. jordan: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. jordan: i yield two minutes to judiciary committee member and friend from the great state of wisconsin, mr. fitzgerald. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fitzgerald: thank you, mr. speaker. the debate today is really focused on whether or not the f.b.i. should be required to obtain a warrant to access u.s.

person data. as the quote we're all familiar with, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. i want to remind my colleagues of the debate on the previous fisa re-authorization bill in the 115th congress. many of my current and former colleagues stood behind this very podium and swore up and down the fisa amendments act of 2017 would provide necessary protections for u.s. person information while keeping our country safe. yet since the bill became law, there were nearly three million u.s. person queries just in 2021. and hundreds of incomplete fisa applications and the use of section 702 to query data on members of congress, protesters, and even f.b.i. janitors. it

it appears to me that the factor that continues to fall by the wayside in all the debates that are happening is that human nature plays a part. mr. speaker, that's the dilemma we find ourselvesin. we didn't pick this. this is where we ended up. do we allow human nature to take its course and permit the f.b.i. to continue to abuse u.s. person data which the department of justice, i.g., special counsel durham, the fisa court and numerous independent review bodies have found to be negligent, inappropriate and a threat to american privacy? or do we rein in the f.b.i. and fight for our fourth amendment rights? i choose to side with the latter and support the amendments that limit rather than expand the f.b.i.'s ability to query u.s. person data thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york.

mr. nadler: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is is . mr. nadler: the suggestion has been made that the warrant requirement is extreme. there's nothing extreme about this idea. over a decade ago, a group of intelligence expert unanimously suggested requiring a warrant. that group including michael morel, former acting director of the c.i.a. and richard clark, former chief counterterrorism adviser to president george w. bush. these top national security officials understood that we can protect national security by respecting the fourth amendment rights of americans. the house of representatives has twice passed amendments with a warrant requirement for back door searches by large, bipartisan majorities. some of my colleagues who spoke against this amendment today including former speaker pelosi have voted more than once for this reform. over 75% of americans support this reform.

calling something extreme doesn't make it extreme. this is an idea that's been in the mainstream for over a decade. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: i'm prepared to close -- mr. nadler: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized mr. nadler: mr. chairman, chairman jordan and i agree on very little but we are united in our belief that adding a warrant requirement to section 702 is absolutely necessary before we consider supporting re-authorization of these authorities. i will reserve judgment on final passage of the bill until we see what amendments pass but i urge members to join us in supporting real reform and real reform means at the minimum the warrant requirement to give effect to americans' constitutional rights. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you, mr. speaker.

i think the ranking member is right, the vote was 35-2 on a major piece of legislation. that doesn't happen a whole lot, i should say, in our committee. so i want to thank, i want to thank our committee, i want to thank the members on the republican side who worked so hard over the last year putting this legislation together. we had three individuals in particular, ms. lee, mr. biggs, mr. mcclintock, who served on the task force, focused on trying to get this right. i think they've got a good product if, as the ranking member just said, the warrant amendment is actually adopted into the base text. i also want to thank the democrats who worked so hard and their staff working with our good staff on putting this together. ranking member nadler, ms. jayapal and several others. working together to defend a fundamental principle, the judiciary committee is supposed to be that -- we're all supposed to do this but where it's really focused is the judiciary committee is supposed to be that committee that's determined to

make sure americans' liberties are protected. and i think the staff and the members who have worked hard to put together a product that will do that if in fact this amendment gets added here in a few minutes. when the phones who started this country came together they had y created separate but equal branches of government. the check and balances in our system are good. they protect our rights, our liberties, our key principles. this amendment follows that fundamental principle. i hope we adopt it if we adopt it, i hope we adopt the legislation. with that, i yield back our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 118-27 shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as the original bill for the pup of further amendment under the

five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended is in order except those printed in house report 118-46. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debate fcial time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and opponent, shall in the be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 118-456. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. biggs: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 offered by mr. biggs of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1137, the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from arizona. mr. biggs: thank you, mr. chairman. to hear the administration tell it, having to get a warrant is the end of the world. guess what? in literally any other context in which law enforcement or intelligence agencies want to read american's communications they have to get a warrant. that's been the rule for over 200 years. for 46 years the government has had to get a fisa title i order to read american's communications in a foreign intelligence investigation. these are investigations in which americans are suspected of terrorism, espionage, cyber crime you name it. somehow, a warrant or title i requirement is completely consistent with national security in those high stake cases yet the administration and those opposed to this amendment allege it will plunge us into a dystopian nightmare if we apply this same basic longstanding protection to section 702 queries, where the american often isn't even suspected of wrongdoing at the time of the query. i don't buy it, neither should

you. over a decade ago, as my friend mr. nadler said a moment ago, a group of intelligence experts unanimously recommended requiring a warrant for u.s. person queries of section 702 data that group included michael morel, former acting director of the c.i.a., and richard a. clark, former chief counterterrorism adviser to president george w. bush. bipartisan. recommended the same thing that we have in our warrant today with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. turner: i want to thank mr. biggs, he participated in the working group between the jew dish committee and other committees to put together this bill working directly with the

speaker's office and the second working group that drafted the specific bill we disagree about his amendment though which is why we're here on the debate. this amendment is not about americans inboxes and outboxes. this is not about americans' data this amendment is about hezbollah's tai tay, hamas' data and the communist chinese party data you don't have to take my word for it. just pick up this amendment. read the front of the amendment. this amendment says you need to get a warrant to go into data collected by 702. 702 data which we all agree, everybody agrees that 702 data is the collection of foreigners abroad. that's hamas, hezbollah. communist china's party. al qaeda. what they want is a warrant to search the inbox an outbox of says boll la, al qaeda and the communist chinese party when they're communicating with people in the united states. this is dangerous. it will make us go blind and it

will absolutely increase their recruitment of people inside the united states, not even american citizen to do terrorist attacks and harp americans. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time is recognized. mr. biggs: i yield to the co-sponsor of this amendment, mr. nadler, for one min. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: in 2021, the intelligence community conducted over 278,000 inappropriate searches through american's private comeub keyings. it broke the law more than 278,000 time. mr. biggs and i do not agree on much but we agree that the status quo is unacceptable. without a probable cause warrant requirement, it is clear that the intelligence community will go on breaking the law and violating american's rights in the process. as i have said again and again, if the government wants to peruse the private communications of americans they can go to title i of guy savage

section 702 has fewer privacy protections because it's meant for foreigners located overseas. people who do not have constitutional rights. any american's data we collect under 0 is collected at a standard far below the fourth amendment and that should not be. i strongly support this amendment, i encourage my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona vie nerve -- reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, ranking member of the intelligence committee, mr. himes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. himes: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chair and i thank the judiciary committees and intelligence committees for this important debate. i sat here and listened to the judiciary committee support for the warrant amendment. and the entire argument is constructed on the foundation of the notion that u.s. person queries violate the constitution.

the fourth amendment. that's the argument. i'm not a lawyer. so i am tempted to defer to my good friends oh the judiciary committee. but i'm likely to defer more immediately to the people who are charged to defend our constitutional rights in the federal courts. and i'm going to quote from the pclob report here. a statement made by the court in april, 2022. quote, all three united states circuit court of appeals to consider the issue, that's the second, ninth and 10th circuits, have held that the incidental collection of a u.s. person's communication under section 702 does not require a warrant and is reasonable under the fourth amendment. i'm in the a lawyer. but i am inclined to defer to three separate circuits. so my friends on j judiciary pot to the pclob. the gentlelady quoted the chair

of the pclob in her personal capacity, the pclob had profound misgivings with their own warrant requirement which was far narrower than the biggs amendment warrant requirement. the two republican members of the pclob wrote a rebut oofl the pclob's proposal. i'll quote. this the republican members, i would suggest that i'm always amazed by the chairman of judiciary's alignment with his party. the republics said fisk preapproval would most negatively impact the most important and urgent query, the ones that show a connection between foreign targets and u.s. persons, the ones that the f.b.i. must review as quickly as possible. please vote against the biggs amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has ex-poor the gentleman from ohio reserves. though gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: thank you. so let's just get -- consider that the second circuit has said

that a fourth -- that a fourth amendment arnt is appropriate. and they have -- they haven't finished concluded it. i don't know where mr. himes is going to keep riding off on that. but the second circuit is still considering that. let's take a look at something else. the u.s. person queries designed to search for communications between americans and foreigners who happen to be u.s. persons targeted. that's what we're hearing so mr. turner says the law already requires a warrant to surveil an american. when he says surveil he's talking about collecting all of an american's communications. in that case, under title i, a warrant is required. a u.s. person query is an attempt to access some of an american's communications, incidentally those collected under section 702 and to to so without a warrant. they can do so wowpt a warrant. that's distinction we're getting at with that, i'm going to reserve.

chip the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: what mr. biggs just said is a great description. if this amendment passes, communist china, the communist party in china, hezbollah and hamas get to fully recruit in the united states, free, because we would have to get a warrant to monitor them. not to monitor americans. already the constitution requires that you have to have a warrant, you have to go to court for a warrant because their constitutional rights are protected since the birth of this nation. american's inboxes and outboxes are protected by a constitutional right for a warrant. the inbox an outbox of h hezbollah, hamas and the communist chinese party, are not. if they are communicating into the united states and people are communicating back with them that's not protected speech if you send a thanks for the bomb making classes email to the head of hamas that shouldn't take a warn for us to see because we need to protect americans. now inside the united states, everybody's communications are protect

the constitution is sound. since the birth of this nation we have fought to ensure that. f the swamp to give the american people the protection they already have, protection of communications. they don't have protection to talk to hamas or china and that they'll be recruited to be a spy. there shouldn't be a warrant for those communications. we shouldn't be able to see them. our nation would be unsafe. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: i yield a minute to the chairman of the committee, mr. jordan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jordan: my good friend from ohio says we're searching foreigners in this database. if we're just searching foreigners, why do we have this

distinction called u.s. person queries? if you're just searching the bad guys, that's one thing. we're not or you wouldn't have violated u.s. person queries 278,000 times. you can search all the bad guys you want. that's what we want. do surveillance. they're in the database and you want to do more, go do it. but if you want to search an american, their phone number or email address, you have to get a warrant. that's all this does. don't make it too complicated. mr. himes used the term, u.s. person queries. that's not a foreigner. that's someone here in the united states who is a person. and they're being searched. and all we're saying is, if you're going to do that, go get a warrant from a separate and equal branch of government. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona is recognized for 30 seconds.

mr. biggs: i want to dovetail on that because my friend from the intelligence committee keeps talking about we aren't going to be able to look at that maas or any of niece nefarious actors. that's simply inaccurate. the administration cites examples of using 702 and monitoring foreign subjects. but when it comes to warrantless searches for americans, they can't provide any examples where they've provided any useful information and yet they want to continue to look at u.s. persons' information without a warrant. i o'. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio -- >> he's too late. the speaker pro tempore: pursuan t to clause 6 of rule 18,

further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment 2 printed in house report 118-456. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. roy: mr. speaker, i have an amendment put the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. roy of texas. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution 1137, the gentleman from texas, mr. roy, and member opposed each will control five minutes. the the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. roy: the amendment i put together requires the f.b.i. to report to congress on a quarterly basis rather than annual basis for the queries

conducted. we simply want more information and want the ability to look at this and understand whether the f.b.i. is actually conducting these the proper way. we think quarterly is nor efficient and effective. we said it doesn't kick in for a year. the f.b.i. was complaining it was too burdensome and couldn't get it done. they have a $200 million new headquarters but couldn't figure out how to get this done. we gave them a year, quarterly reporting. it also grants the chairs and ranking member on the chairs of judiciary and intel on the house and senate the ability to go to the fisk. the chairman will say they oppose this. i know this because they put out their propaganda last night saying to quote this amendment would result in a unprecedented expansion to access of the details of the most sensitive and highly classified operations being undertaken to the government to numerous congressional staff which raises significant counterintelligence concerns. we can't have congressional staff in the fisk, no, no, no.

that would be terrible. we don't want to have article 1 be able to go over and get in front of the fisk and see what's happening to protect the american citizens. we would rather the intel community in all of its infinite wisdom be able to make all the determinations about the security and safety of the american people. and by the way, we have all the provisions in the language to say it's up to the intel world and the f.b.i. and all the security people to set the circumstances and all the requirements under what the congressional staff would have to have in terms of clearances. but to say we can't have congressional staff be able to observe the fisk, to be able to understand what is happening there, and be able to come back here so congress could know what is happening to protect the american people is basically absurd. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. turner: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. turner: the gentleman is correct, the intelligence committee does oppose this amendment. but we oppose this because there was a working group that was put together by the speaker and had two representatives of the judiciary and two representatives from the intelligence committee and two representatives appointed by the leadership and the chair, mario diaz-balart. every person in that working group opposed this amendment. now, the underlying bill already includes a provision of a requirement the fisa court create transcripts and those transcripts be transmitted to the congressional committees of jurisdiction which include judiciary and intelligence. we'll already know what it happening. the difference is whether you pull up a seat and eat popcorn while watching the court. i want to go back to the biggs amendment, the jayapal amendment is really what's dominating this whole debate. this amendment, if you just read the front page of it clearly says that it is about the

intelligence that's gathered from foreigners abroad. this is the not about americans' data. americans' data are safe, constitutionally protected, their inbox and out box. no amendment on this floor can change the constitution, no statute on this floor can change the constitution. the statute we're talking about is 702 which is spying on foreigners abroad. everybody in this house is pissed at the f.b.i. and pissed about the abuses that have occurred. punish the f.b.i. pass this underlying bill. do not pass the biggs amendment and cause us to go blind and make america less safe. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. roy: the entirety of the debate that's been had down here has been focused on the warrant requirement, right? the reason we have this particular amendment before us right now is simply to be able to have more reporting and more understanding of what's happening in the fisk. but there is always constant resistance by the intelligence

community to looking under the hood. because it is always the case that they want to use the fear. perhaps it's a universal truth the loss of liberty and home is to be charged against danger, real or pretended from abroad. james madison and thomas jefferson, may 13, 1798. the fact is the founders knew precisely what would occur. the government in the quest to have power in the name of stopping foreign adversaries and in the name of fear would use that power against our own citizens. that's what's occurring. that's what's happening. and we have before us real and obvious abuses, 278,000 of those abuses. going after the american people. and our response is a bunch of technical stuff that chases the actual core problem. our friends don't want to get

into peeling back the hood of what's happening in the intel community because our friend are the intel community. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: in conclusion, as we look at this debate and this bill which is about spying on foreigners abroad, hezbollah, hamas, the chinese communist party, giving them constitutional protections is unprecedented. there's no court that has ever done it. there's been no bill that has passed this house that gives constitutional protections to foreigners abroad. americans' constitutional rights are preserved in the constitution. this amendment undermines our security by giving americans constitutional rights here in the united states to foreign adversaries. vote no on the biggs amendment. vote no on this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized.

mr. roy: this amendment is about reporting requirements. on the point of the warrant, after the rampant abuses by the federal government, it's clear we should have a warrant requirement under 702 to protect americans from the we'ring of incidental communication collected en masse under a broad grain of power to target foreign entities. that's the truth. this is the f.b.i. that targeted catholics and put pro-life progressive activists in jailened a targeted president trump. the opponents gave up the game and said openly the need to target u.s. persons right here on the floor. the only thing that makes this warrantless collection of millions of americans international communications lawful, quote, unquote, is the government certification that it is targeting foreigners, and only foreigners. if the government changes its mind and wants to go after an american, it should have to go back and get the warrant that it skipped on the front end. this is not that hard. by the way, the argument we would need 2,000 judges to

filter through warrant requirements begs the question, which is it? the proponents own data indicate they'll only get a hit 1% to 2% of meta data and some of those would have exceptions under the warrant amendment we offer and probably would be less than 1%. so the 2,000 judges argument is straightup false. it's just not that hard. if you want to go after an american and you want to look at their information, get a warrant. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. turner: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number three printed in house report 118-456. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 3 printed in house report 118-456 offered by mr. cline of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1137, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cline, and a member opposed each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. cline: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the reforms especially section 702. while h.r. 7888 in its current form includes many provisions the intel agreement agrees on it falls short of what is protected. america must act to preserve the american's rights. what authorizes 702 must include

a warrant for communications collected and an end to the law enforcement and intelligence agency with the purchase of data. the reporting requirements offered by congressman roy and my amendment which would current end the practice of abouts collection which long has been a controversial subject. on top of collecting communications to or from a collector of a intelligence target and upstream collection from companies that offer cables that interconnect with networks include information about the selector. fisa court opinions of 2011 since declassified noted it resulted in collections of, quote, tens of thousands of wholly domestic communications each year by the n.s.a. due to what was described as the technical implementation of abouts collection. this practice has been halted by the f.b.i. but acknowledged they maintain the right to initiate this upon notification back to congress. this must be codified in order to stop this type of abuse from

occurring, and so my amendment would do that. with that i'd like to offer 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentleman from texas vehicles for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. i ask unanimous consent to address the house. i'm delighted to be able to work with the gentleman from virginia on what i think is crucial to codify, because as you said, the f.b.i. had stopped doing it but here we are again. so it is my pleasure to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from connecticut, the ranking member on the intelligence committee. mr. himes: i thank you, gentlelady, and the gentleman from virginia. i support this amendment and will be recommending a yes vote to the amendment from the minority caucus. i'm surprisedded gentleman from virginia and ask for a minute and believe it's important we believe this is not an argument between civil rights and

denigrating civil rights. the chair: does the chair: does the gentleman yield? mr. cline: for one minute. the chair: the gentlelady from texas may not yield time. the chair: the gentleman controls the time. mr. cline: if you'll yield back, i'll yield to the gentleman. ms. jackson lee: i yield back. mr. cline: i yield to the gentleman from connecticut. mr. himes: i think i surprised the gentleman by saying i will recommend a yes vote on the amendment i think it's important that this not become a debate between civil rights and perhaps those who are less concerned about civil rights. i will yield to no one on my defense of the civil rights incorporated in our bill of rights. i'm the ranking member of this

intelligence. i spend my days marinating in the depredation the chinese government would visit on us, but i voted against the tiktok ban because it has first amendment equities at stake. this amendment is a good one. collection is not undertaken today by the i.c. and it is too technically difficult and too risky, there's too much of a risk that communication that are not about a target to an american get swept up in this about collection. i'll be adamant and stand with the second, ninth and 10th circuit in saying the biggs amendment is not addressing constitutional issues but this is an important amendment i'll support. i thank the gentleman and the gentlelady from texas. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. cline: i'm happy to yield additional time to the gentlelady from texas. however much time she may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from virginia. the home of my alma mater the

university of virginia, school of law. and the gentleman from connecticut also, the home of my alma mater. to be able to find collegiality in a very posh question for the american people is very much a statement that should be made. this amendment does something congress should have done seven years ago, as i've indicated, prohibiting the government from resuming abouts collection a form of surveillance that poses a unique risk to americans. it's also very disturbing, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, because most americans would scratch their heads why is this real van to the immediate investigation? abouts collections is a collection of communications that are neither to nor from an approved target of surveillance under 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, fisa, but merely contain information relating to that target. and that means that you become a

target because it happened to be sitting around you. it happened to be going to you or from you. in the past, abouts collections focused on collecting communications that include a target's email or phone address or twitter handle or something lick that. but in theory, abouts collection should -- could be used to collect emails that merely mention a person who is a target of a surveillance, 702 surveillance. i think it's extremely important to recognize merely menges, merely menges that individual, and you could have your materials, your private information wrapped up in a roundup -- roundup if you will, a lassoing of the extended material scattered and you and you could be subject to some kind of haul if you will, hauling in data about you so nothing in the text or legislative history of 702 indicates that this type of surveillance is authorized. that's why i think this

amendment with mr. cline is extremely important. is extremely important because it shows that we're working together. the chair: the time has expired. the gentleman from virginia's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek reckings in? mr. turner: to seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes mr. turner: the national security agency stopped abouts collection in 2017 because it was fraught with peril. this amendment isn't necessary because they're not ding this, haven't been doing this since 2017. i want to ■gobackand say cyst in the debate with some of the terms occurring in the biggs-jayapal amendment. the bigs-jayapal amendment would make us go blind. it would make it so we can't read the inboxes and outboxes of foreigners abroad who are al qaeda, hamas, his bo lal and the chinese communist party. the reason i say that, 702, the

underlying bill here that's being re-authorized is tailored only to the adversaries and those who want to do us harm. it's national security threats. it is our adversaries. their inbox and their outbox is not protect. if you are a terrorist or if you are a committing espionage, you're a spy, you're communicating with the chinese communist party or hezbollah or hamas or al qaeda, right now because we're spying on them we can read those communications. americans wan us to read those communications. that's how we keep americans safe. in 9/11 we had terrorists inside the united states. those were for all intents and purposes, they were americans. they weren't american citizens but under this law they were americans, they had protection under the constitution. but their communications to al qaeda were not protected. at that time we western looking. we were not looking. we were blind. we were not listening. now we're looking.

and if somebody is in this country and they're a terrorist or they're a spy for the communist chinese party we are looking at the communist chinese party and al qaeda and in reading those we can take those to a court and get a warrant and then keep america safe for people who are here who intend to do us harm. this would shut that off. it would make us blind with respect to communications. vote no on the biggs-jayapal amendment. vote no on this amendment. i yield become. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 118-456. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in port report -- offered in house report 114-456, offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. crenshaw. the chair: the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. crenshaw: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to let my fellow americans know something that might shock them. we all know fentanyl is a scourge on our country we all know fentanyl is produced by mexican drug cartels.

we all know the precursor chemicals for fentanyl come from chinese companies. what you might not know is we can't even get a fisa warrant to stop that. to collect intelligence on those production companies. on those attorneys. on those bankers. on those facilitators that help the cartels murder and poison tens of thousands of americans every single year. that's a pretty shocking statement. i bet you didn't know that. you should know that. fisa, despite all the misinformation put out about it is very narrowly tailored. it only allows you to get a warrant on a foreign for the a foreign land if it's realed to intelligence, to weapons of mass destruction or counterterrorism no where in there is countermarkets. the thing that's actually killing americans today and every single day. my amendment would simply swrup grade that categorization to

ensure that we can collect intelligence on the chinese precursor being shipped into mexico and into our own country so we can actually stop the death of americans. it's a very narrowly tailored amendment. it's not about all drug traffickers. it does not -- it does not swoop in a bunch of americans. it is about international drug draskers -- drug traffickers, trafficking illicit synthetics that are killing people. it's a simple amendment. it's a bipartisan amendment. it is one of the biggest things i have learned as my role as chairman of the -- on the cartel task force that we actually are blind to the supply chains of fentanyl. to be against this amendment is to say, we should give the cartels and china more fourth amendment rights, more first amendment rights than we have. that's what it would mean. in practice. and i hope that anyone who votes

against this amendment, i -- i hope you stop talking about the cartels being a problem. because if we're not even allowed to collect intelligence on the cartels, then what are we doing? what are we doing? at this point i would like to yield two minutes to my friend, representative houlahan. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. houlahan: thank you, representative crenshaw. thank you, mr. speaker. today i also rise in support of this important amendment that will help our intelligence community strengthen our southern border, and will save american lives. this amendment will fully enlist our country's intelligence agencies in the fight against foreign drug traffickers. foreign made fentanyl is killing tens of thousands of americans every year and so it is of course critical that we start treating this danger as the very serious national threat that it is. so my legislation which is called the enhands intelligence

collectionen foreign drug traffickers act is now the bipartisan amendment that is led by myself and mr. crenshaw and this would allow our intelligence community to counter drug cartels as they attempt to bring deadly fentanyl to our shores. today, the intelligence community can only leverage section 702 against counternarcs targets urn one of the existing certifications, none of which are focused currently on drug trafficking. this amendment would close that gap without expanding domestic law enforcement's abilities to police drug dealers in order to keep fentanyl from ever reaching the united states. so i urge my colleagues to pass this legislation. to pass the countermarkets amendment led by myself and mr. crenshaw. and to reject any amendment that would put our national security at risk. thank you and i yield. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. crenshaw: i want to say, to those opposed to the underlying

bill, we have to agree to disagree. i can't imagine being opposed to this amendment even if you vote against the overall bill. i thought we all agreed the cartels are one of our number one overall threats. they're kills thousands of americans every year by poisoning them with fentanyl we need to know how they're getting it, who their suppliers are, who is lawnering their money we have can't do that under our turn law. this is one of the most important things i think our constituents actually care about if we're going to act like we have sympathy for sons and daughters killed from an overdose of fentanyl we have to take action on it. i've got to say too, the warrant amendment would kill our ability to do this. remember the whole point of drug trafficking is to get it into the united states. the whole point of terrorism is to conduct a terrorist attack here in the united states. when you're collecting intelligence on foreigners, the only way they do those things is to communicate withentcy -- entities inside the united states to demand a secondary warrant just to search that

communication kill ours ability to connect those dots. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the jell is recognized for five minutes. >> the crenshaw amendment would encompass drug crimes. guy save is a counterterrorism tool. its limitation to that purpose and clear distinction between foreign intelligence and crime are essential to preserving fundamental liberties of americans urn our constitutional system. mr. bishop: it is the essential design of the law. spying abroad, criminal justice at home. simply redefining foreign intelligence to include ordinary crime eviscerates the entire distinction on which the design of the fisa law rests. and the intelligence committee

proponents of this amendment fail even to explain to us why this blurred definition is needed. they assert it but they don't explain it. after all, the d.n.i.'s fisa section 702 fact sheet lists the government's use of section 702 to learn about our adversaries' plans to smuggle fentanyl into the united states as the number one successful use of existing section 702. if section 702 already allows us to go after fentanyl, why do we need to change and blur the critical definition of foreign intelligence? what is the purpose of doing so? what comes next? i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining.

mr. bishop: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. . mr. roy: i appreciate the intent of the gentleman from texas. obviously we want to go after cartels and prevent the flow of fentanyl in the country. the problem is it's unnecessary. they can go certify a whole other class. you don't need this law to do that. that's the important part. you don't need this amendment. you don't need to risk expanding it. here's my real problem. just today we have information where we had a terrorist on the afghan watch list who was released into san antonio, texas. i.c.e. just walked away from it and now we have someone on the terrorist watch list sitting in san antonio, texas. i'm supposed to say i want to grant more power to the intelligence community, more power to the government that is releasing terrorists on to the

streets of texas. it defies any kind of logic. they have the tools to do what they need to go after fentanyl without expanding fisa which is being abused against americans. and by the way, you need the warrant requirement in order to protect against expansion of fisa. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized is. mr. bishop: everyone agrees the fentanyl crisis is a terrible and serious public health and crime issue. but a mass warrantless surveillance tool created by word games is not the answer, it's dangerous. indeed, the willingness and desire of some to create exactly that points back to the reasons that congress must impose a warrant requirement to deter the abuse of the section 702 foreign intelligence database collected to surveil foreigners abroad to

prevent backdoor searches against americans. that is the issue. oppose the crenshaw amendment. and support the biggs amendment to make them get a warrant. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas vise? mr. bishop: rise to request the yeas and nays. the chair: a recorded vote? does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. bishop: yes. the chair: pursuant to rule 18, we will postpone proceedings.

on the amendment offered by mr. bishop. it is now in order to consider amendment 5 printed in house report 118-456. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the the amendment. the clerk: amendment 5, 118-456 offered by mr. welsh of florida. the chair: current to amendment 37, mr. welch is recognized. and a member opposed. the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: all right. mr. speaker, i rise support of my amendment to

submit the thorough vetting of all foreigners being processed for travel in the united states. mr. waltz: whether that is a foreign national applying for a visa or crossing illegally our southern border. this is what i think a lot of americans probably don't realize. currently section 702 has only been authorized to collect information to support some department of homeland security efforts to screen and vet foreign persons applying for travel or immigration to the united states. this amendment will enhance the vetting of all foreigners who come here. if national security concerns are found through this vetting these results will be provided to the department of homeland security, the state department and the department of defense to ensure the federal government is making the most informed decision before we allow foreign

nationals admission. mr. speaker, we are three years into the worst crisis at the southern border in the history of the united states. and last year, customs and border protection recorded 2.5 million encounters with people attempting to cross the united states from mexico. alarmingly, over the last two years, c.b.p. has apprehended more than 70,000 special interest aliens. people from countries identified as having conditions that promote or protect terrorism. mr. speaker, the f.b.i. director has rang the alarm bell with the over 300 people on the terrorist watch list that are now somewhere in america compared to just 12 under the last administration. this population includes 538 aliens from syria, 659 aliens from iran, two state sponsors of terrorism, i might add, in addition to 139 from yemen,

which right now houses the houthi. and over 1,600 from pakistan. we just saw isis-k attack moscow. we've just seen six plots stopped in europe. and i fear we're about to suffer another attack like san bernardino, like pulse nightclub, or god forbid another 9/11. and equally concerning, the fastest growing group entering through our southern border is now through china, our number one adversary, over 24,000 chinese nationals have been apprehended at the southern border just in the last year. of the 1.3 million illegal immigrants with deportation orders are over 100,000 of chinese nationals. the american people expect us to use every tool we legally can. every intelligence piece of equipment and every database we

can to protect us against foreigners who would mean us harm. mr. speaker, we have these tools. we have reformed the abuses of these tools. and we have to allow our national security professionals to have the best information possible to keep americans safe. we can't wait until there's another attack and then throw up our hands in this body and say why didn't we stop it? i am astounded, frankly, that anyone, any republican would oppose this amendment after we have been here time and time again saying we have to protect our border, we have to protect americans. and if you want to come to the united states, fine, you need to do so legally. but you know what, we're going to look into your background and make sure you're not a terrorist. we're going to make sure you're not a chinese national spy that means to do us harm. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this and use every tool we can to keep americans safe. with that, mr. speaker, i

reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. jordan: i claim opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. jordan: now they want to expand fisa. this is the second amendment in a row. you can't have a warrant for an existing program. no, this giant haystack, you can't have a warrant when you seek a warrant. holy cow, pretty soon everybody will be searched for any darn reason they want. that's not how it works in america, at least not how it's supposed to work. the third amendment is going to expand it, too. we spent all morning talking about the warrant requirement, which should be so obvious, and they want to expand it. look, i understand we've got a border problem. holy cow do we understand that. i may not agree with my democrat colleagues on how to fix it. in fact i know i don't. but expanding fisa, you've got

to be kidding me? this amendment authorizes surveillance of a whole new category of individuals and we should absolutely vet foreigners who seek to enter the united states legally or illegally but congress should not expand fisa yont its current scope of authorities. this whole year we've been focusing our committee on limiting fisa so we can still look at bad guys but not infringe on americans' liberties and this just expands it. that's not what the purpose of the bill is. we should address the border problem. holy cow. our committee spent a boatload on it. and we didn't get a vote on h.r. 2 which is a good piece of legislation. this will sweep up more americans where the f.b.i., 278,000 times didn't follow their own rules when they confer eyes the data base but now have even more. holy cow, this is the wrong way to go. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from washington.

the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jaypal: yes, i agree with mr. jordan on an immigration amendment. this is an expansion of the government's ability to surveil and we have this opportunity right here in congress today to add critical safeguards, not expand the government's use of this surveillance authority. this inexcusable expansion of fisa will further increase warrantless surveillance and it is at the expense of a whole slew of innocent immigrants. people seeking to come to this country are not monolithic communities cut off from americans. many of them are close family members of u.s. citizens seeking reunification of family sponsorship or just a simple visit. many others are sponsored by u.s. employers. there's already ample vetting of immigrants. look at refugees who are the most vetted group of people who come to this country. it takes years of vetting through multiple agencies,

including the f.b.i. the national counterterrorism and this will only make visa processing worse and further delay american businesses from getting the workers we need to maintain our competitiveness and our ability to attract the best and brightest and could harm local economies that rely on tourism as delays in processing travel visas deter people from traveling to america. we should not be expanding fisa. we should be creating safeguards to protect civil liberties rights. earlier my colleagues claimed not a single federal court identified a fourth amendment issue with u.s. person queries. mr. chairman, that's false. in 2019 the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit found fourth amendment concerns with u.s. person cories and that issue is still being debated. we're talking about an average of 500 warrantless searches of

americans' private communications every single day. don't take it from me. a quote from travis leblanc, a private and civil liberties board member, here's a quote, although section 702 is touted as a foreign intelligence tool -- the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. ms. jaypal: although it is touted as a intelligence tool, the key feature domestic intelligence and criminal law enforcement. for example, d.o.j. reported the f.b.i. has queried over 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign. the f.b.i. has also run numerous improper queries of social advocates, religious community leaders and even individuals who provide tips or who are victims of crime. five million warrantless searches by the f.b.i. of americans' private communications is five million too many. vote no on this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio?

mr. jordan: i would close my time by saying every time you expand fisa, you underscore the need for a warrant. the bigger and bigger this database gets, the more u.s. persons are going to be searched, you underscore the need for a warrant which we spent the whole morning debating. with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. walz: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: one minute. mr. waltz: i find it astounding the leader of the progressive caucus, mr. jaypal and mr. jordan agree on these issues but i yields my time to mr. turner of ohio. mr. turner: thank you, mr. chair. we've had members stand and say they're for vetting foreigners who want to come into the united states. i assume we should vet them whether or not they have ties to

terrorist groups and organizations. i'm sure we should just ask them because i'm sure they'll tell us the truth, which they won't which is why we have 702. 702 collects foreigners abroad, terrorist groups and organizations. what this amendment does is allows us to search hamas on these individuals who want to come in to the united states to find out if they're affiliated with hamas because they're not just going to tell us. if you're for vetting, you're for vetting, looking at terrorist groups and organizations to see if they have ties to people trying to come into the united states. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington seek

recognition? ms. jayapal: yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentlelady ask for a recorded vote? ms. jayapal: ido. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 118-456. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. turner: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 prinked in house report 118-456, offered by mr. turner of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1137, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio mr. turner: thank you. mr. is a scif off of the house floor to provide additional information to members that i'm

not able to present here. this amendment is to correct a technical issue found by the fisa court with respect to critical intelligence and a technological issue in which there was a gap. again, 702 is about collecting data information on foreigners abroad. you have to be both. you have to be a foreigner and you have to be abroad. you can't be a foreigner in the united states, beyond awe can't be an american abroad. foreigners abroad. for the people who have been saying on this amendment that this is about collecting at your local starbalks or your local mcdonald's tricks not. it is about foreigners abroad. i just want to end this with. with respect to the biggs-jayapal amendment, this important surveillance tall of foreigners abroad is limited to just foreigners abroad and individuals war in the united states who are being recruited by terrorist groups and

organizations and the chinese communist parties communicate with them. their communications end up in the inboxes of the chinese communist party and hezbollah and hamas an al qaeda. if we're reading the inbox of hezbollah and hamas and the chinese communist party and there's an email there from somebody in the yates because they're being recruited to do espionage or being recruited for terrorism you want your government to read that. now our constitutional protections which we dearly uphold here and everybody is committed to, is that no american shall have their inbox, their outbox, their electronic communication, their data spy and by their government. our constitutional protections require that there be a warrant and no one should stand in this well and pretend that they do not. constitutional protections for american communications within their data but if you're a person located

in the united states and you are communicating with al qaeda, hamas and the chinese communist party in this limited group of people that we collect under 702, that can pose a threat to this country and this amendment, if it passes, the biggs-jayapal amendment pass, we will go dark. we'll no longer see solicitations from the chinese communist party to students in the united states to go and spy for them. we will no longer see al qaeda recruiting people in the united states to undertake terrorist attacks. we'll no longer see people who are sympathetic with hamas who contact hamas and say, how can i perpetrate a terrorist attack in the united states? it is imperative that this -- the biggs-jayapal amendment fail. and that underlying bill which punishing the f.b.i. but protects the american people pass. i urge passage of this bill and a no vote on the biggs-jayapal amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek

recognition? >> rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. biggs: this amendment drastically expands the scope of fisa. this will change the definition of electronic communication service provider to require a whole new class of businesses an other entities to assist in fisa section 702 surveillance so when the amendment first came out, a month and a half ago, it caused a massive commotion as you can imagine. one of the fisa -- he went public with a warning he confirmed the amendment originally was as broad as it looked. it could force hoe toles -- hotel, library, coffee shops to serve as surrogate spies. because customers in those establishes could well be engaging in international locations. that was the original the amendment's sponsors, they threw

in an exemption for hotels, libraries and coffee shops and a handful of other establishments. but that hardly solves the problem because the vast majority of u.s. businesses are not exempted so the amendment would still apply to grocery stores, department stores, harr ware stores, barbershop, lund rough mats, fitness centers, nail salon. it would apply to business landlords who rent out office space and provide wi-fi for their building. that would include the office miss of us in this room go to when we're back in our districts as well as the offices of tens of millions of americans across the country. office -- offices for lawyer, journalists, nonprofits an others. that's how expansive this amendment is. that's why we should defeat this amendment. now, i have enjoyed it, all the attention they are biggs-

biggs-jayapal-jordan-nadler inform davidson-lofgren amendment has received. it's been flattering that on every other amendment and thed up lying bill we dent talk about the other stuff. that gets to the reality of the situation. the intelligence community wants control. they want to continue to have control without any checks. the biggs amendment does not require warrant for the government to surveil foreigners in foreign countries or to incidentally collect the communication of americans urn section 702. let me repeat that to you. the amendment does not require a warrant for the government to surveil foreigners in foreign countries, nor does it require a warrant for incidentally collecting the communications of americans under section 702 it just doesn't. but that's what you've heard. instead, it requires that the federal government and the

spying surveillance apparatus get a warrant if they want to read an american's communications or query them in the 702 database. that's what the essence of this is. they don't want to have to get a warrant. they're ok with getting a warrant under title i of fisa but not under 702 for some reason. odd. very osmed and i'll tell you what else. not only do they not want to get a warrant, they want to expand the database and the scope of the americans that they can scoop up in that data pace to include in this particular amendment virtually every retail outlet in the country. virtually every commercial enterprise in the country. virtually every commercial property in this country. but by golly we don't want to have a warrant if we're going to

look into u.s. terns -- u.s. persons' information. don't want to do that. after all, that might cause them to actually develop and investigate further. let me tell you something. this underlying bill loses its quality if you done pass the biggs amendment on the warrant amendment. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18

proceedings will now resume on those amendments prinked if house report 118-456 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. biggs of arizona. amendment number 2 by mr. roy of texas. amendment number 4 by mr. crenshaw of texas. amendment number 5 by mr. waltz of florida and amendment number 6 by mr. turner of ohio. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 118-456 by the gentleman from arizona mr. biggs on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 118-456 offered by mr. biggs of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request

for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]